Thursday, 28 June 2018

THURSDAY, 28 JUNE 2018

THURSDAY, 28 JUNE 2018

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Speaker’s Rulings

Written Questions—Content of Answers

SPEAKER: Replies to some written questions to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development have been drawn to my attention. In particular, I have considered the answers to written questions Nos 12234, 12225, 11652, 11710, and 11715. The answers are an abuse of the written question process. In my view, they show a contempt for the accountability which a Minister has to this House. The Minister knows that they would be completely unacceptable as answers to oral questions, and the same rules apply.

Ministers are required to endeavour to give informative replies to questions—Speaker’s ruling 177/5. While the Speaker is not responsible for the quality of answers, I do expect Ministers to make a serious attempt to provide an informative answer. These questions do not come close to meeting that standard.

As a result of these answers that I have seen, I rule that: (1), the Minister will provide substantive amended answers to the questions concerned by midday on Tuesday, 3 July; and (2), since the Opposition has been denied an opportunity to use written questions to scrutinise the Government in a timely manner, they will receive an additional 20 supplementary oral questions, to be used by the end of next week.

I have also written to the Minister indicating a form of reply he is using to avoid giving substantive answers is unacceptable and that he has until next Thursday to provide corrected answers.

Business Statement

Business Statement

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Consideration of legislation next week will include the first readings of the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2018-19, Modernising Tax Administration, and Remedial Matters) Bill and the Maritime Powers Extension Bill; the second readings of the Courts Matters Bill and the Tribunals Powers and Procedures Legislation Bill, which are cognated; the committee stage of the Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill; and the remaining stages of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Amendment Bill and the Ngāti Tamaoho Claims Settlement Bill.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): Noting that ambitious programme from the Government next week, can I ask the Leader of the House once again what his intentions are for No. 27 on the Order Paper, the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary Bill?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): The Government has no current plans to progress with that legislation in its current form. If that changes, I’ll keep the member posted.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Overseas Ownership of New Zealand Property—Exemption for Treaty Settlement Land

1. Hon PAULA BENNETT (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister for Crown/Māori Relations: Does he stand by all of his statements and actions?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister for Crown/Māori Relations): Yes, in the context they were made.

Hon Paula Bennett: Did he consult with David Parker or any other Minister in relation to the Te Ārai exemption in the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill; and if so, when?

SPEAKER: Order! That is not an area of responsibility for this Minister.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Repeatedly, over the last two days, the Hon David Parker has advanced the case that his proposing this exemption was to protect a Treaty right granted to iwi. Now, clearly there must have been some advocacy somewhere, and it’s not unreasonable to expect and to ask the Minister who has responsibility for Crown/Māori relationships whether or not he was part of that advocacy group.

SPEAKER: And if the member wanted to consider it in that way she would have asked the Minister responsible for that area, and that’s the Hon Andrew Little.

Hon Paula Bennett: Does the Minister expect the Minister for Crown/Māori Relations to be consulting with other Ministers on multimillion-dollar legislative exemptions for iwi?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Regardless of the topic, my role as the Minister for Crown/Māori Relations is to ask about the impact on all Māori in all the work we do.

Hon Paula Bennett: Would he expect the Minister for Crown/Māori Relations to be consulting with other Ministers on multimillion-dollar legislative exemptions for iwi?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: As the member well knows, Cabinet colleagues have discussions with our colleagues on a range of issues. What she’s trying to imply is that there’s some sort of conspiracy in any discussions that I as a Māori Minister might have with my colleagues.

Hon Paula Bennett: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I made no allegations of a conspiracy. I simply asked a question.

SPEAKER: And the Minister’s answered it.

Hon Paula Bennett: If Te Ārai development exemption is all about not reducing the value of a Treaty settlement asset, did he consult with the Minister over the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill?

SPEAKER: That’s ruled out for exactly the same reason that the first supplementary was.

Hon David Parker: Did I, as the Minister responsible for the bill, consult with him in his capacity as Minister for Crown/Māori Relations on the issue as to whether there should be a general exemption for Treaty settlement land?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Yes. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: It’s a question of who did what, just to make it clear—who did the consulting, whose responsibility it is.

Hon Paula Bennett: Does he think that the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill as currently drafted will give rise to post-settlement Treaty claims?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Mr Speaker, Cabinet made a decision on this bill, and I support that you have subsequently ruled it out, and we accept that.

Hon Paula Bennett: Does he believe there should be exemptions in the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill to give rise to post-settlement Treaty claims from the likes of Ngāi Tahu or Tainui?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: I stand by the Cabinet decision we’ve made in regard to this bill, the OIA Bill. We’ve accepted your ruling that there shouldn’t be exceptions for specific groups and we accept that.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: What would be the value of a Treaty claim if a Treaty grant was given and then taken away by the same party, namely the Kermadecs issue?

SPEAKER: Order! No responsibility.

Overseas Ownership of New Zealand Property—Exemption for Te Ārai Development

2. Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) to the Associate Minister of Finance: Has he received any advice about the exact nature of iwi ownership in each Lot of the Te Ārai property development land as described in the exemption in the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill reported back from the select committee; if so, what was that advice?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Associate Minister of Finance): No.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: When he told the House in answer to question No. 3 on Tuesday that, as far as he knew, stakeholders of Te Ārai were a New Zealand citizen, a New Zealand resident, and then yesterday that it was a Politik article of 21 June that alerted him to the extent of iwi involvement, was he saying that the iwi involvement was not part of his original decision to advance the exemption?

Hon DAVID PARKER: No.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Then, given his answer today that he did not seek information about the ownership of the various lots noted in the exemption and that iwi was primarily, effectively, the reason for his advancing the exemption, then what was his reasoning for not taking some other legislative step to advance the iwi?

Hon DAVID PARKER: What we do in the future is yet to be determined. The exemption was ruled out of order. In terms of the breadth of the exemption, the previously proposed transitional exemption would have only applied to a small proportion of the land nominated in the bill. That is residential lifestyle land, which is neither coastal-sensitive land and which is less than five hectares in area. Golf courses, forestry land, and the like were never proposed to be covered by the now defunct transitional exemption.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: In his consideration leading to the Cabinet paper seeking the exemption, did he ever ask the question: who will benefit most from this exemption; and, if so, what was the answer?

Hon DAVID PARKER: No, I didn’t ask it in those terms, but I did inquire who would be the beneficiaries of the exemption and I was advised by Treasury that the iwi would be. I was aware that by the end of the process, the other developers would get a benefit, who were developers with the iwi. And, of course, the other beneficiaries would have been the people who got the benefit of the exemption as overseas people who would have been able to acquire that land as overseas people, when they would not have been able to but for the exemption.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Why, then, did he decide to seek the exemption when Treasury advice that he received on 19 March advised against it, he had not sought clarification on who would benefit most from the exemption, and he knew that Te Ārai Ltd did not record iwi as shareholders?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Because, after discussions with my Cabinet colleagues, the Government thought that it was appropriate that although there’d be no general exemption for all Treaty settlement land, a transitional exemption was justified in this case.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Did any of his colleagues or officials tell him during his consideration of the exemption that Ngāti Manuhiri’s 2016 annual report states: “Four hundred and seventy-two hectares of the land in question was sold in the 2015-16 year to Te Ārai South Holdings.”, which the iwi have no shareholding in and only retained 200 hectares of lower-value sand dune land intended for sand mining?

Hon DAVID PARKER: No, they didn’t. I think it’s fair enough for the Opposition to question whether the select committee or I perhaps should have looked into further, in respect of some of those details. We, of course, would have had the opportunity to do that and, if there were changes necessary, could have made them at the committee stage of the House. But, of course, that is now not open to us. I made the decisions that I recommended to Cabinet based on the information I had at the time.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Did the Hon Shane Jones ask him to advance the exemption, and, if so, did he explain that the iwi had very little to gain from this exemption?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I had discussions, as I’ve already said, with the Hon Kelvin Davis and with Shane Jones and my other Cabinet colleagues.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Did the Hon Shane Jones ask for the Minister to have regard to some exemptions, and the driving force behind that request was the former National Party leader, Sir John Key?

Hon DAVID PARKER: No, he actually didn’t raise the name of John Key with me. In fact, I wasn’t aware of that until Tuesday evening.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: During his consideration of the exemption, did he hear—and I quote—“Why do Kiwis, going about their lives as best they can, have to fight every step of the way to preserve what is their right against a billionaire developer from another country and a complicit Government?”, and if he did, how did he respond to the Rt Hon Winston Peters, who I’ve just quoted?

Hon DAVID PARKER: No, I wasn’t aware of that quote. I am aware of the discomfort that the Rt Hon Winston Peters has with the sale of land to foreign buyers. The reasons why we thought a transitional exemption was necessary in this case have previously been explained.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Minister whether, when Shane Jones approached him, he also apprised him of the fact that not only was Sir John Key, the former National Party leader, in favour of these exemptions but so was Steven Joyce, the former National Minister of Finance?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Well, again, actually, at the time, I wasn’t aware of that. I’ve subsequently become aware of that because someone showed me a Hansard transcript. What I was aware of was that the National Party have advocated for broad exemptions for the wealthiest foreigners to buy land, exemplified by Hamish Walker’s proposition that Queenstown should have an exemption for sales to foreign buyers of $5 million or more.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Does the Minister now accept that the iwi in this case have very little, or never had much, to gain from the exemption and that he was, by and large, hoodwinked by his Cabinet colleagues from New Zealand First into making what is, ultimately, a—a—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: A—a—a—a what?

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I’m sorry, I was impersonating the Acting Prime Minister—my apologies. Mr Speaker, can I start that question again because I was interrupted?

SPEAKER: I think it’d be a good idea. We’ll sort of take off the penalties from both sides for the interjections on that, and we’ll start from zero, and the Hon Gerry Brownlee will start the supplementary again.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Thank you. If in fact he, as he now says, understands that the iwi had very little to gain from this, does he believe he was hoodwinked by his New Zealand First colleagues into promoting this exemption?

Hon DAVID PARKER: No, and I said nothing of the sort. In fact, on a number of occasions, I’ve said that I was advised, and have still been advised, that this is the largest asset of those particular iwi.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Minister as to whether or not it’s also a fact that not only Sir John Key, the former National Party leader, and Steven Joyce, the former Minister of Finance, but also the National Party’s number one apologist, Michelle Boag, is involved as well?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Look, in terms of the National Party advocates on behalf of exemptions, I can’t keep up.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: How soon does the Minister intend releasing all of the Official Information Act requests around this matter, as he said he would do on Tuesday?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I’m endeavouring to do that as quickly as possible. I was advised that there is a large volume of papers that have to go through the normal redaction process—not to redact any details relating to the Te Ārai development but in respect of other proper redactions. When I was advised that that would take some time, I requested the ministry to concentrate on the Te Ārai - relevant Cabinet papers and advice so that they could get it out early, and I’m expecting that that will be early next week.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: That long to redact it?

Hon DAVID PARKER: What was that? I didn’t hear that interjection.

SPEAKER: No, I think it was a facetious interjection on the part of the Hon Gerry Brownlee. Has the member finished?

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Yes.

SPEAKER: Thank you.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Oh, no, well, not entirely—I mean, next week’s another week.

SPEAKER: Yes. No, I think I’ll leave the obvious rejoinder to that one.

Families Package—Impact and Eligibility

3. ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI (Labour) to the Minister for Social Development: What will be the impact of the Government’s Families Package?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): The extra support provided by the Families Package will increase the income of 384,000 families by an average of $75 per week, and will lift 64,000 children out of poverty by 2021; 26,000 additional families will be eligible for Working for Families and 65,000 families will benefit from Best Start in the first year of the Families Package alone. On top of that, 1 million households will receive support for heating costs over winter through the winter energy payment. The Government is proud to be taking immediate action to provide more support for low and middle income families in New Zealand.

Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki: How will people know what they are eligible for?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: One easy way to check what families are eligible for is through the new eligibility guide which I launched on Tuesday. This will make it easier for all New Zealanders to see what support they may be able to get. This website is check.msd.govt.nz. People can also check their eligibility for Working for Families through the IRD website. The Ministry of Social Development is also notifying clients of positive changes which will occur automatically such as the winter energy payment for those on a main benefit or superannuation.

Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki: Will the impact of the Families Package have an effect on the economy?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Yes, it will. In the Budget Economic and Fiscal Update released last month, Treasury says that the coalition Government’s fiscal policy, including the Families Package, is forecast to have a stimulatory impact on the economy. The Treasury says that, “This reflects strong growth in capital and operating expenditure including infrastructure investment, the Families Package and other expenditure on public services.” This Government’s plan supports hard-working families, and supports growth while putting in place the foundations for a more productive, sustainable, and inclusive economy.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Could the Minister tell the House if she considers the opt-out provisions on the winter heating payment to be either simple or confusing?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Absolutely simple. A letter has gone out to all those that are eligible to inform them of the winter energy payment and how it will be applied. In that letter they are given information on the fact that they can opt out and how they opt out. They are also asked to inform the Government if they will be travelling during that period as that may impact on their eligibility for the payment. We are very much looking forward to this winter energy payment that will benefit over 1 million New Zealanders.

Business Confidence—Actions and Reports

4. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Finance: Does he still hold the view that recent falls in business confidence surveys reflect “an issue around perception”?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Associate Minister of Finance) on behalf of the Minister of Finance: Businesses will always have issues that affect their confidence. For example, in the latest ANZ survey the number one issue for businesses was access to skilled staff, which this Government is committed to addressing. My reference to perception was in regard to periods of high economic growth that occurred at the same time as low levels of business confidence. Analysis by the economist Ganesh Nana shows that business confidence was pessimistic in 82 of 99 months between 2000 and 2008 but that the economy grew by an average of 3.2 percent a year over that period. In contrast, business confidence was optimistic 87 of 95 months between 2009 and 2017, but GDP grew at just an average of 1.98 percent per year.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he believe that the ANZ’s own activity index, which measures firms’ expectations of their own activity, provides a useful gauge of future GDP growth?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Yes, in referencing that positive measure, I point the member to this comment from the ANZ economists that “Going forward, we expect tailwinds in the form of fiscal stimulus and strong terms of trade will see the economy continue to grow at about par.” So here we have economists saying the economy will grow at par, which, if reports I’ve heard are correct, has obviously upset the National Party so much that they’ve doubled down on their efforts to talk down the economy.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: What message does he take from the latest Own Activity Index figure being at the same level as 2009, when the New Zealand economy was in the middle of the global financial crisis?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I think history will say that the economy did grow after that period, so the confidence that people had in 2009 was well placed. But, going forward, as the economists have said, we expect tailwinds, in the form of fiscal stimulus and strong terms of trade, will see the economy continue to grow about par. I can do no better than to repeat the experts on this matter.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Is he concerned at all that in yesterday’s ANZ business confidence survey, business confidence fell by a further 12 percent, bringing the net figure to negative 39 percent, and the Own Activity Index fell by a further 4 percent?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I’ll note that the Own Activity measure is still positive, and also that all of the conditions that contribute to economic growth are strong. Business investment: in the GDP figures released last week, business investment grew by 5.5 percent in the year to March 2018, compared to an annual growth rate of just 3.9 percent in the year to March 2017. Unemployment is forecast to keep falling, wages are forecast to rise faster than before the election, and business investment is forecast to continue to grow at nearly 5 percent per year.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he think his Government bears any responsibility for these falls in business confidence?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The Government will accept all praise for the growing confidence in the economy and the forecasts, which show that unemployment will keep falling, that wages are forecast to rise, and that business investment is forecast to continue to grow at nearly 5 percent.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Other than simply stating that he wants to “transition” to a more “sustainable, productive, and inclusive economy”, what actual policies does he have that will resuscitate dying business confidence?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I reject the member’s characterisation at the end, but I’m happy to talk about the Government’s plans and actions, because I would note, as I have at the outset, that the respondents said their biggest concern in that survey was finding skilled staff in the ANZ survey. That didn’t happen overnight; it took years of inaction for New Zealand’s skills deficits to appear. We are dedicated to closing the deficits we inherited, and I want to congratulate my colleague the Minister of Immigration, Iain Lees-Galloway, who yesterday announced the creation of a KiwiBuild skills shortage list. The Government is also prioritising trades training and apprenticeships with our fees-free policy. And today we’re announcing a record 10-year investment strategy for our nationwide transport infrastructure, which is fully funded and will give the construction sector certainty about our long-term commitment to using transport policy as a key component of our economic plan. We delivered a fiscally responsible Budget and a healthy surplus, which sets aside money for a rainy day—

SPEAKER: OK. That’s enough, thank you.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he not consider that the uncertainty that this Government is generating is a driver of falling confidence—and he mentioned the access to skills? That uncertainty flows from a clear promise from this Government to substantially reduce immigration, which has now been overturned, leading to uncertainty as to whether there is any relationship between what the Government promised and what it actually does.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Of course, I reject the member’s characterisation of all of that and point to the indicators ahead of good, sound growth. This is a Government that manages the economy well. It’s got a track record of doing that, and it will continue to do so.

Hon James Shaw: Would he agree that if the Opposition is correct that there is a causal relationship between business confidence and economic growth, and if the Minister’s figures are also correct that in times of higher growth, under Labour-led Governments, when business confidence is low, but in times of lower growth, under National-led Governments, confidence is high, then currently low business confidence is surely a sign of continued high economic growth in the future?

SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. [Interruption] Sorry, I’m just dealing with the ruling. I think it was a good attempt, but I don’t think the member asking the question quite got to an area of clear ministerial responsibility.

Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: Is immigration the only source of skills for the New Zealand labour market, or is it important that Governments invest in providing people who are underutilised, such as the 12 percent of New Zealanders who are currently underutilised—

SPEAKER: Question not a speech, please.

Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: —with the skills they need to engage in the labour market?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I agree with the member that we need to build skills, and that’s why this Government is prioritising trades training and apprenticeships with the fees-free policy, and I congratulate the member on his own initiatives in that regard.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Was the Minister saying in his primary answer that it was both a matter of perception and bias, to the extent that the previous administration was borrowing at six times the level of their inherited debt, the economy was going to hell in a handbasket, and still confidence was going up?

SPEAKER: Order! He might be responsible for what he was saying, but, again, I think it’s inviting the Minister to stray into areas outside his responsibility.

Hon James Shaw: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is just a point of clarification in relation to your ruling, Mr Speaker, which is that the primary question to the Minister was about the Minister’s understanding of issues of perception around the causal relationship between business confidence and economic growth, or the lack thereof. My supplementary question was directly about the Minister’s views on the causal relationship between business confidence and economic growth, or the lack thereof.

SPEAKER: And what I am saying is that I’m not convinced that the member was actually asking a question as opposed to making a political statement.

Health Services—Counties Manukau District Health Board Review

5. JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany) to the Minister of Health: Has he read all correspondence and briefings provided to him relating to the Counties Manukau District Health Board?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): I have read all the briefings provided to me. My office has received a large volume of correspondence relating to Counties Manukau District Health Board (DHB). I have not personally read every letter and email, but my staff do read all incoming correspondence.

Jami-Lee Ross: What action did he take when the Office of the Auditor-General raised a significant audit matter with him on 29 January this year about specific issues relating to past financial practices discovered by the Counties Manukau health board chairman, and the chairman of its audit, finance, and risk committee?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I have received that letter from the Auditor-General alongside the other 19 DHB audit letters, and I note that one paragraph—on page three, I think, of a six page letter—does cover this issue. It is one of 21 specific significant points raised by the Auditor-General, and I took comfort from the indication that an independent external review into these issues was taking place.

Jami-Lee Ross: When the Office of the Auditor-General told him that the Ministry of Health was leading an independent external review into the financial practices at the DHB, what action did he take to ensure that the former chief executive of the DHB, Stephen McKernan, who was subsequently appointed as the Director-General of Health, took no part in decision making about reviewing an audit that Mr McKernan was mentioned in?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I have no knowledge that Mr McKernan was mentioned in that audit, but I trusted Mr McKernan to manage any conflicts appropriately. That’s my experience of him.

Jami-Lee Ross: Why did he take no action to apprise himself further of the audit undertaken by the district health board, which would have shown, if he read those documents, that in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006 Mr McKernan was mentioned seven times in the report?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Officials understand the seriousness of these matters. The Ministry of Health is working through a proper process and I’m not about to interfere with that.

Jami-Lee Ross: Did he ever discuss with, receive a briefing from, or seek advice from Stephen McKernan when he was considering the removal of the former Counties Manukau chairman Rabin Rabindran and the board’s audit, finance, and risk committee chairman, Mark Darrow?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Mr McKernan, I think, has mentioned the Beattie Varley report to me at some stage over the last period. It would be no surprise to the House, I don’t think, that I’ve had plenty of conversations around Counties Manukau during my time as health Minister, but the removal of those board members, or my decision to refresh the leadership at Counties Manukau, had absolutely no connection to that audit investigation that was going on.

Jami-Lee Ross: Will he, in light of the State Services Commissioner’s decision to urgently investigate the matters I raised yesterday in this House, also ask the Auditor-General to review his decision-making process in removing Rabin Rabindran and Mark Darrow from the DHB?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Mr Speaker, could the member please repeat that question?

Jami-Lee Ross: Will he, in light of the State Services Commissioner’s decision to urgently investigate the matters I raised yesterday in this House, also ask the Auditor-General to review his decision-making process in removing Rabin Rabindran and Mark Darrow from the DHB?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: No. The two matters are not at all connected.

KiwiBuild—Sustainability, Unitec Development

6. GARETH HUGHES (Green) to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: What steps will he take to promote sustainable urban design and energy-efficient buildings within the Unitec KiwiBuild redevelopment?

Hon JENNY SALESA (Minister for Building and Construction) on behalf of the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: Planning for Unitec development is in its early stages. As part of KiwiBuild, the Government’s wider housing programme, we are looking at ways to improve design standards, and that work is ongoing. The Government wants to use the scale of KiwiBuild to drive a step-change in both affordability and in the quality of our homes.

Gareth Hughes: Will the Minister commit to ensuring KiwiBuild homes within the Unitec development are built to a higher energy efficiency standard than are required under the building code?

Hon JENNY SALESA: We would like quality built environments that deliver urban forms that are more energy efficient, that mitigate negative impacts on the environment, that support a variety of low-emissions transport modes in environments that are accessible to all, and, in addition, to provide communities with access to jobs, services, and amenities. The planning for Unitec development and KiwiBuild will realise that vision of sustainable urban design.

Gareth Hughes: Will the Minister commit to using the independent Homestar rating system and ensure all homes within this redevelopment are rated at six or above?

Hon JENNY SALESA: On behalf of the Minister for Housing and Urban Development can I say that that particular question is out of order because that is under the Minister for Building and Construction.

SPEAKER: No. The Minister will answer the question. The Minister is responsible for building or for the requirements around the Unitec building. He has shown publicly that he has taken responsibility for that development and, therefore, it is a valid question.

Hon JENNY SALESA: Part of the work that is currently being done by this Government is to look at all things, including building designs, and Homestar is not something that this Government has actually committed to building buildings to right now, but we are considering all options.

Hon Judith Collins: When will the very first of the KiwiBuild homes at the Unitec development be available for people to move into?

Hon JENNY SALESA: That particular question—if the Minister would like to put it in writing I will make sure that we come back with a detailed answer to that.

Gareth Hughes: Will the Minister commit to improving cycling connections between Mount Albert and Waterview, as part of the Unitec development?

SPEAKER: No. That, I’m going to rule, is outside. That might actually be the Minister’s responsibility, but not the housing Minister’s responsibility; the transport Minister’s. It’s outside the area.

Gareth Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I’m not trying to challenge your ruling, but I would point out it’s the Minister for urban development, so transport is included within that.

SPEAKER: I think that would be a dangerous conflating of portfolios.

Health Services—Industrial Action, Cancellation of Elective Surgeries

7. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister of Health: From what date will DHBs be cancelling elective surgeries in anticipation of the nurses’ strikes, and what specialist surgeries will be cancelled first?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): I’m advised that each district health board (DHB) will be managing this through their individual contingency plans, and they will be prioritising based on the clinical needs of patients. I understand the process of sending notices of postponement has already started, as too has rebooking. The specific dates and types of surgery that will be postponed in the event of a strike will vary from DHB to DHB. I would note that the DHBs and the New Zealand Nurses Organisation (NZNO) are still involved in facilitation, and I encourage both sides to do all they can to find a settlement and avoid strike action.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister’s answer talked about a range of dates, and that is certainly true. But the question was “From what date” will those surgeries be cancelled, and that wasn’t addressed.

SPEAKER: I think it was addressed. It was answered, maybe not to the member’s satisfaction. It’s sort of like yes/no—you can’t insist on a particular form of answer. Is there a further supplementary?

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Has the Minister received any reports that DHBs have cancelled surgeries that were scheduled from as early as tomorrow?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: What I have had advice on is that the process of sending notices of postponement has already started, as too has rebooking. The Ministry of Health cannot provide detailed information on that at this time.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Can he therefore confirm that as the NZNO has issued notice of a second strike on 12 July, unless the nurses’ pay dispute is settled no elective heart surgery, bowel cancer surgery, and other elective complex surgeries will take place at all in New Zealand for two weeks or more?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I cannot confirm that at this stage. I’m advised that each DHB will be managing this through their own individual contingency plans, and they’ll be prioritising based on the clinical needs of patients. The specific dates and types of surgery that will be postponed in the event of a strike will vary from DHB to DHB.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Will those patients who have their surgery cancelled, postponed, or deferred be given priority over other patients whose surgery dates have already been confirmed, thus disrupting more patients and their families, or will they have to wait even longer for their surgery to be rescheduled?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I can’t speak to individual cases. What I can say is that the DHBs each have individual contingency plans in place. They’ve been signed with an agreement between the NZNO and the DHBs. They’ve signed life-preserving service agreements. The process of prioritisation will be based on need, just as happens in the hospital sector normally.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Can he give an assurance that preventable deaths won’t occur as a result of these complex surgeries being delayed?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I am advised that each of the 20 DHBs have signed life-preserving services agreements with the NZNO to ensure that the emergency services and safe staffing levels are in place. I’m also advised that DHBs have set up clinics over the weekend, on non-strike days, to provide additional services such as dialysis. No one wants to see patients put at risk, and everything is being done and will be done to keep them safe.

Renewable Energy—Security of Supply

8. JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: What proportion of electricity generation was non-renewable in the March 2018 quarter?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources): According to the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment’s latest New Zealand Energy Quarterly publication, 18.9 percent of electricity generation came from non-renewables in the March 2018 quarter; 81.1 percent of generation in that quarter came from renewables.

Jonathan Young: Does the Minister agree with Meridian Energy, who have said power prices may need to rise substantially if the policy intent is to have all on-call generation coming from renewable supplies?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: No, I don’t, because what we do know is that some of the most expensive electricity that we generate in this country comes from non-renewable sources. Actually, it is the cost of renewable electricity generation sources that are lowering and it is non-renewables that are rising. If we want to have affordable electricity in this country, we need a Government that is prepared to put the plan in place to get those renewable sources in.

Jonathan Young: Will the Minister look to battery technology to keep the lights on for New Zealand households during low lake levels, low wind levels, and low sunshine hours, and when fossil fuels are no longer part of our future, even though Genesis Energy have said trying to use them for managing seasonal storage could cost more than $2 trillion?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Clearly, at the moment the technology state for batteries is not the kind of solution that we would be looking at. But, given this Government has the courage to put in place a plan that will see us through the next 30, 40, 50 years, batteries are one option, as is hydrogen ammonia storage, as is increasing our thermal baseload through geothermal and using our hydro lakes as storage. There are a range of solutions, and I encourage that member to enter the 21st century and start looking at them.

Jonathan Young: With Transpower forecasting electricity demand more than doubling by 2050 and the Minister saying extra generation will probably not come from hydro and that fossil fuels aren’t our future, is the Minister open that nuclear energy should be considered, as suggested by Transpower’s grid development manager?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: No.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Who is the person that is the head of Genesis Energy, and what political party did she come from?

SPEAKER: The member may answer the first part of the question.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Ha, Ha! Mr Speaker, really? You’re going to rule that in order? I think it is immaterial which party the head of Genesis Energy comes from. But what I think is important is that we put in place adequate planning.

Jonathan Young: So what is the Minister doing to ensure New Zealand households can turn on the lights when lake levels are low, when the wind isn’t blowing, when the sun isn’t shining, and when fossil fuels are no longer part of our future?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: What this Government is doing to ensure that New Zealanders can keep their lights on is putting in place a plan for the 21st century that will see what happens when the world stops using fossil fuels. What I want to know from that member and his party with its new-found action on climate change is when do they propose to stop burning fossil fuels?

Families Package—Paid Parental Leave

9. JO LUXTON (Labour) to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: What additional support will be available to new families from 1 July?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): As part of our transformational Families Package, the Government is making good on its plan to extend paid parental leave, with the duration rising from 18 to 22 weeks. There will also be a rise in the actual payments of 4.7 percent. Better outcomes for families are one of the Government’s top priorities, and we’ll see more of that this Sunday when the Families Package takes effect.

Jo Luxton: Why increase paid parental leave?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Paid parental leave plays an important role in making sure that families have valuable support at this critical stage in their children’s lives. The World Health Organization guidelines stress the importance of the first six months for babies to breastfeed and bond with their parents. The evidence is clear that these six months are crucial for infant development.

Jo Luxton: What are his future plans for paid parental leave?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: The duration of paid parental leave will rise again to 26 weeks from 1 July 2020. I’m also taking advice on the merits of a wider rewrite of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act to ensure that it is fit for purpose in delivering for Kiwi families.

Prisons—Public-private Partnerships, Waikeria

10. Hon DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) to the Minister of Corrections: Does he stand by all his statements, actions, and policies regarding his corrections portfolio?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister of Corrections): Yes, in the context they were made.

Hon David Bennett: Does he stand by his answer to oral question No. 9 on 12 December 2017 that, in relation to Waikeria Prison, “we don’t generally do private-public partnerships.”

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Let’s be clear: the public-private partnership (PPP) is to build the prison, but there’s no way on earth that a public-private partnership is going to run Waikeria.

Hon David Bennett: Has a contract for the public-private partnership for the Waikeria Prison rebuild been signed between the Department of Corrections and a private sector consortium, and, if so, on what date?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: No, not yet.

Hon David Bennett: Did he advise both Ministers David Clark and Grant Robertson that there had been a PPP signed by the former Government when they both repeated in the House that a PPP contract for Waikeria had been signed by the previous Government, and that breaking it would cost significant sums of money to the Government?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: No.

Hon David Bennett: What advice has he received from corrections regarding the answers provided by Ministers David Clark and Grant Robertson in the House regarding their answers to oral questions around the Waikeria Prison PPP?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: It was just really verbal advice—exactly what I said to the first question—that a public-private partnership is going to build the prison, but there’s no way on earth that we’re going to have a public-private partnership running the prison. That is the job of corrections.

Hon David Bennett: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It was a very straight question about advice in regard to those two Ministers. Could the Minister please explain what advice he had in regard to those two Ministers and their comments?

Hon Dr David Clark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Well, hang on, I’ve got one coming here. Is it related to that?

Hon Dr David Clark: Yes.

SPEAKER: Right. Well, the member always has to let someone finish their point of order before I’ll move on.

Hon Dr David Clark: Just before you rule on that, sir, I fear that the member is mischaracterising the way that I spoke about that—

SPEAKER: No, no.

Hon Dr David Clark: —and the other—

SPEAKER: No, the member will resume his seat. The Minister addressed the question. Is there a further supplementary?

Hon David Bennett: No.

Families Package—Effect on Māori

11. RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga) to the Associate Minister for Social Development: Will the changes made by the Families Package from 1 July help Māori; if so, how?

Hon PEENI HENARE (Associate Minister for Social Development): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. He pātai pai taua pātai.

[That indeed is a good question.]

We know that like many New Zealand families, Māori families will be amongst the 384,000 families who will be better off by 2021. For instance, from 1 July, approximately 135,000 Māori will benefit from the winter energy payment. This will automatically be granted for people residing in New Zealand who are in receipt of a working-age main benefit, or those on superannuation or the veterans pension. Best Start tax credits are expected to also benefit 65,000 children born each year, of which 18,000 are expected to be born to Māori families.

Rino Tirikatene: Why is it important that the Government support Māori through its Families Package?

Hon PEENI HENARE: He pātai pai taua pātai.

[That indeed is a good question.]

We know that Māori and Pacific people in New Zealand are much younger and better looking. The median age for Māori is 23.9 years, compared to 38 for New Zealanders overall. We also know that Māori have higher birth rates compared to the general population, particularly in urban centres. Māori will make up a huge part of our future workforce. Therefore, ensuring that they have the best start in life is important to this Government.

Rino Tirikatene: How will support for Māori families support the Government’s goal of reducing child poverty?

Hon PEENI HENARE: Anō, he pātai pai tēnā.

[That, again, is indeed a good question.]

Māori disproportionately experience lower incomes than non-Māori. Under the Families Package, low and medium income households will benefit significantly. We know that around half of all children in low-income households are Māori or Pacific. Putting more money into these households will support the Government’s goal of reducing child poverty.

Official Information Act—Compliance, Public Media Ministerial Advisory Group

12. MELISSA LEE (National) to the Associate Minister of State Services (Open Government): Has she provided any guidance to State agencies and Government bodies about best practice to achieve open and transparent Government?

Hon CLARE CURRAN (Associate Minister of State Services (Open Government)): No, and that’s because the State Services Commissioner provides leadership to the State services on these matters.

Melissa Lee: How concerned would she be if she were to learn that a Government-appointed body had decided not to minute their meetings because those minutes could be subject to the Official Information Act?

Hon CLARE CURRAN: Well, the State Services Commissioner provides, as I said, leadership to the State services. Some examples of that: guidance is provided on the Official Information Act (OIA) to increase public access to information, there is guidance on providing free and frank advice—

Melissa Lee: Point of order.

SPEAKER: No, the member will resume her seat. There can’t be a point of order yet.

Hon CLARE CURRAN: —and codes of conduct for staff in ministerial offices, as well as “speaking up” guidance—so a range of advice on a range of matters. So that’s good advice to the State services, and if there are instances of concern, then I suggest that she raise them with the State services.

Melissa Lee: Is she concerned that the ministerial advisory group appointed by the Minister of Broadcasting, Communications and Digital Media to decide the future of public media funding in New Zealand has decided not to keep minutes of their meetings because they would be subject to the Official Information Act?

Hon CLARE CURRAN: I’m not aware of that, but what I would say is that [Interruption]—

SPEAKER: Order!

Hon CLARE CURRAN: —the ministerial advisory group has provided reports to the Minister, which will be provided in due course publicly.

Melissa Lee: Is it open and transparent for the public media ministerial advisory group responsible for millions of taxpayers’ dollars for public broadcasting to no longer take minutes of their meetings in order to avoid being subject to the Official Information Act?

Hon CLARE CURRAN: I think I’ve already answered that, but I’ll repeat that ministerial advisory groups provide advice to Ministers—that’s what they’re set up to do. That advice is made public to the media in due course as the process goes through.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order.

SPEAKER: No, I’m sorry—well, OK.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. A number of allegations have been made by that member without one shred of evidence, and surely a person coming to this House in a genuine inquiry making an allegation of that level should be required to produce the evidence. She would be if it was a primary question. Why after two or three subsequent questions is she persisting with that line?

SPEAKER: Yes, I do have some concerns in the area, but it is clear to me that if the member is incorrect in the allegations that she has made, there will be a requirement on her to correct in the House. In fact, with repeated allegations it would come very close to being a breach of privilege, if the member, in fact, knew that they were not correct. I will say, however, to Clare Curran, that she was asked a—within the question there was a very specific question which she did not address, and I’m going to ask Melissa Lee to ask the question again, preferably in a slightly shortened form, with the guts of it clear so we can get it addressed.

Melissa Lee: Is it open and transparent for the public media ministerial advisory group responsible for millions of taxpayer dollars for public broadcasting to no longer take minutes of their meetings—

SPEAKER: That’s enough.

Hon CLARE CURRAN: I’m unaware of any allegation of that sort. My understanding is that my ministerial advisory group is providing reports to me which will be made public in due course. I’m unaware of that matter that that member is raising.

Melissa Lee: I seek leave to table a letter dated 19 June 2018 from Te Manatū Taonga, which is the Ministry for Culture and Heritage, and the 27 February 2018 minutes of the public media advisory group, released from the Minister’s office under the OIA.

SPEAKER: Is there any objection to those documents being tabled? There appears to be none.

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

Melissa Lee: Will the Minister be asking the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage to encourage her department, who are providing secretarial services to the advisory group for public broadcasting, to specifically advise the group that deciding not to keep meeting minutes fails to meet expected standards of openness and transparency?

Hon CLARE CURRAN: I’ll certainly be looking into the matter.

Points of Order

Speakers’ Rulings—Written Questions, Content of Answers

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. At the beginning of question time today, you made a ruling regarding written question answers that my colleague the Hon Phil Twyford had put forward. I have had a chance now to look at those questions. I know that you have written to me about this matter as well.

I can certainly understand the concern that you have raised about some of the answers that my colleague has given, and I agree with you that some of the flippant comments that he has made in those do not reflect well on the House. However, the question that I would like to raise with you is around some of the ironic expressions that are made in some of the questions themselves and whether, in fact, one or two of those answers were appropriate given the context of the question. For example, in question No. 11652, the operable part of the question was, “how many more sleeps are required before a decision is made regarding KiwiBuild eligibility rules and income testing?”, to which the Minister replied, “it depends how frequently the member sleeps”. The point that I would make there is that the question itself did set itself up for that kind of answer. So—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: No, you will sit down.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I fully understand a more rigorous approach to the answers and I wouldn’t contest that at all. The question that I would ask of you, Mr Speaker, is that a rigorous approach is also taken to the accepting of the written questions themselves, because some of these questions do invite answers that would perhaps not reflect well on the House, because the questions themselves don’t reflect well on the House.

SPEAKER: I can deal with that point of order very easily. If the Minister of Housing and Urban Development had not used the expression “not many more sleeps” in this House to the member when she asked the oral question, then I would not have allowed it in the written question. The original offence, the original irony, was quoted from the Hon Phil Twyford, and from my perspective, that is an acceptable use within a written question. If the Minister had not used the expression, he wouldn’t have been subject to what looks like an ironic question but, actually, is just a straight response to what was almost certainly an inappropriate comment that he made in the Chamber.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Are you, therefore, ruling that the phrase “so many sleeps” is out of order—because that is an answer that has been given for many, many, many questions in the House.

SPEAKER: No, no, I’m not doing that. But what I am indicating is that when that is quoted or used in a written question which relates to the answer given in the House, I’m not going to rule it out, whereas if it didn’t have a context, then at that stage it could well be considered ironic.

Bills

Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (CPTPP) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Trade and Export Growth): I move, That the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (CPTPP) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee to consider the bill.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (CPTPP) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 112

New Zealand National 56; New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; ACT New Zealand 1.

Noes 8

Green Party 8.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee.

Bills

Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki Claims Settlement Bill

In Committee

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I suggest that the bill could be taken as one part. There’s nothing overly contentious here.

The CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears not.

Parts 1 to 3, Schedules 1 to 3, and clauses 1 and 2

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): For the benefit of the members of Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki who are in the gallery, we just have a small technical issue to get through, which is some technical amendments to the bill, which we’re about to get into the third reading of. So we’re in a process called the committee of the whole House, which allows amendment to the bill before we get to the final stage. In this regard, as mentioned at the second reading of the Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki Claims Settlement Bill, the Māori Affairs Committee reported the bill back to this House on 29 March and recommended it be passed without amendments.

The Supplementary Order Paper that is before the committee right now will make some minor technical changes to nine clauses and one schedule of the bill. Most of the amendments relate to a timing adjustment for one shared redress property with the Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki Claims Settlement Bill, progressing ahead of settlements with other iwi of Hauraki.

One other amendment is required to reflect changes to the ministerial portfolios covering the responsibilities of the Ministry for Primary Industries. That relates to the protocol regarding that ministry.

I’d like to thank the Parliamentary Counsel Office for its thoroughness in ensuring the accuracy of the legislation passed by this committee, and I commend this Supplementary Order Paper with the 10 changes proposed in the matter before the committee now.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National): Yes, the Opposition supports these changes. In the immortal words of the Acting Prime Minister, using the only Latin he knows, res ipsa loquitur.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 44 in the name of the Hon Andrew Little be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Parts 1 to 3, Schedules 1 to 3, and clauses 1 and 2 as amended agreed to.

House resumed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Report adopted.

Third Reading

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

This bill represents the culmination of the Crown’s efforts to fulfil its obligation to redress the wrongs of its past actions with respect to the iwi of Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki. It’s my great pleasure to welcome the members of Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki to Wellington for this momentous occasion. It was a great pleasure to meet many of you while you were down here during the lunch break—or our lunch break—and it’s good to see so many of you here in what is, I know, the end of a long and difficult journey. Nau mai haere mai, e ngā iwi, e ngā reo, e ngā mana, tēnā rā koutou.

[Welcome to the tribes, to the spokespeople, to the representative entities; greetings to one and all.]

I acknowledge that many of you—when I talk about a long journey, it’s not just the journey of the settlement, but many of you have travelled from far away to attend today, and this is the last step in that much longer journey that your iwi has undertaken to reach a settlement with the Crown. You’ve had to wait far too long, but that wait is now finally over, and it is indeed my great honour to be walking with you in these last few steps. At this time, we remember those who have passed on before seeing this settlement come to fruition.

For those members of this House or any here in the gallery that may not know, Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki are an iwi centred at Maraetai, with interests throughout Tāmaki-makau-rau. Seafaring is core to Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki’s identity, and their interests also extend throughout the islands and waters of Tīkapa Moana. They are a part of both the Tāmaki and Hauraki Collectives and are included in the settlement of Waikato raupatu and river claims.

Despite these negotiations, the raupatu claims of Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki to the confiscation block in east Wairoa and other historical claims remained unsettled. Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki have sought to negotiate a full and final settlement with the Crown since 1989. In 2010, the Crown recognised the mandate of Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki Tribal Trust to negotiate the settlement of the remaining historical claims on behalf of the iwi. Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki and the Crown signed the terms of negotiation in June 2010, entered into an agreement in principle in November 2011, and, finally, signed a deed of settlement on 7 November 2015.

The history of the Crown’s wrongs against Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki have been touched on throughout the passage of this bill. However, it is incumbent upon me today that we do not forget why we are here. The Crown repeatedly failed the people of Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki and breached its obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles. The historical grievances of Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki primarily relate to alienation of land through the failure to implement the terms of pre-Treaty land transactions and raupatu. The Waitangi Tribunal reported on the claims of Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki in its Hauraki report.

In the 1830s, Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki were involved in several land transactions in Tāmaki, in the Hauraki Gulf islands. Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki believe their tūpuna intended the transactions would help foster ongoing mutually beneficial relationships with Europeans rather than permanently alienate their ancestral lands. On 4 March 1840, Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki tradition records that two Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki rangatira signed Te Tiriti o Waitangi at Karaka Bay. In 1842, a land claims commissioner investigating the pre-Treaty Tāmaki transactions recommended the Crown leave one-third of the land involved for the undisturbed possession of Māori. The Crown subsequently made an award of land to settlers, but retained much of that land as surplus. The Crown made no assessment of the adequacy of lands remaining in the possession of Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki. In 1854, the Crown paid Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki £500 to relinquish their claims to land within the Tāmaki Block and granted the iwi the Umupuia Reserve. The reserve was a fraction of the size of the original Tāmaki Block and substantially less than the one-third recommended be set aside for Māori.

Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki also had interests in a confiscated 51,000-acre block of land in east Wairoa. Unfortunately, the revered rangatira of Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, Ānaru Makiwhara, was not able to register a claim for this land, and despite repeated petitions to Parliament over 44 years—half his lifetime—he did not see the return of Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki’s ancestral lands here before he passed away in 1927, aged 85.

This bill cannot change the past, nor will it be enough to fully compensate the loss incurred by Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki. However, the redress included in this bill will recognise and acknowledge the loss suffered by Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki and provide a new future for the iwi and its relationship with the Crown. With the passing of this bill, the Crown’s apology to Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki is enshrined in legislation, and the full redress contained in the deed of settlement will be released.

The redress items provide a starting point for the restoration of the Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki economic base and cultural redress in recognition of sites of paramount significance to the iwi. Sixteen cultural sites will be vested in Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, which will provide the iwi with a more visible presence in their land and a more active role in how that land is cared for.

I now turn to acknowledge the hard work and cooperation of the many parties involved in achieving this settlement. I acknowledge the contribution of the former Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations the Hon Christopher Finlayson, who has walked in the journey of many of the recent settlements that have come to the House and whose herculean workload is bearing fruits for many iwi today.

I acknowledge my officials at the Office of Treaty Settlements, those of other Crown agencies, and the Parliamentary Counsel Office for their service and commitment to the Treaty settlement process. I acknowledge the Māori Affairs Committee and the members of this House for their consideration of this bill. Most importantly, I’d like to acknowledge the leaders and people of Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki for their willingness to work with the Crown. You have endured many, many delays to reach the outcome that we now have before us. In particular, to the negotiators from Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, you took on—as negotiators for settlements with the Crown always do—a demanding and difficult role carrying the weight of your tūpuna. You have my absolute respect for the strength, integrity, and dignity with which you have represented your iwi and conducted yourself in negotiations with the Crown.

What has been achieved is a significant investment into the present and future generations of Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, a provision for the mokopuna to have a connection to their iwi and customary lands, and what I hope can be the start of a new relationship with the Crown. For the Crown, one of the important values of these Treaty settlements is that while it brings to conclusion a long and difficult and sometimes tortuous path for those who have sought redress for the Crown’s breaches of the Treaty, it is also a new beginning, a chance to build on the relationship now established as a result of the negotiations and the exchanges, and it is now an opportunity to start to build a real partnership—a shared relationship built on a shared vision of the future that will come from your rangatira, your kaumātua, your kuia, and working with the Crown as an equal partner. I am honoured to be in the privileged position of presenting this bill for its third reading, and I commend this bill to the House.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National): National strongly supports the third reading of the Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki Claims Settlement Bill. I was at Maraetai on 7 November 2015 to sign the deed of settlement. The Ngāi Tai marae is an absolutely beautiful place by the shore. I don’t know whether it’s the most beautiful marae in the country; it probably is. I always think of Ngāti Mākino’s marae. I don’t know about Ngāti Apa, but certainly Ngāti Manuhiri has a beautiful marae. But the marae at Maraetai is a very special place. It was a wonderful November day, and I was really pleased to be there.

There are three points I want to make. First of all, I acknowledge the very gracious speech of the Minister Andrew Little. I’m not going to repeat the historical matters that he canvassed, because I think he did it very well and I don’t want to repeat it myself. The second point I want to make is that there’s a little bit of ill feeling here about the lapse of time between the signing of the deed of settlement and getting the legislation to the House. In that regard, I want to acknowledge the great efforts of the Parliamentary Counsel Office (PCO), who had to extract from the Hauraki legislation the relevant parts of the Ngāi Tai settlement so that we could get the legislation into the House and into the Māori Affairs Committee last year. It was a very complex exercise, but PCO needed to do that.

We had hoped it would be possible to have an omnibus bill to deal with all the settlements for Hauraki and Ngāi Tai. It didn’t come to pass, but there was no delay on the part of the Crown, even if there was a lapse of time. That is why it was important to get some of the settlement pūtea to Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki. The bill, since it’s been introduced, has gone to the select committee and is now back in the House, and I am sure it’s going to be signed into law by the Governor-General in the very, very near future.

The second point I want to make—and it picks up on what the Minister has said—deals with the issue of cultural redress. Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki are already involved in a very important aspect of cultural redress and Treaty settlements, and that deals with the maunga in Tāmaki. The Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau Collective Redress Act was passed in 2014, and that established the Maunga Authority. Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki are very important players in administering those maunga, together with Auckland Council. They will be aware that this is very much new territory and there’s a bit of tension out there, and it’s very important to work with other people in the community so that the Maunga Authority doesn’t get offside with the general public. There’s a lot of goodwill out there towards that particular aspect of cultural relief, but that goodwill will evaporate and there will be strife if the Maunga Authority doesn’t go out of its way to communicate its decisions to people and the rationale for those decisions. I’m sure that the good people of Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki understand that and are going to be working very closely and hard within the Maunga Authority to ensure that the general community understand why certain things are being done or why certain things are not being done.

Part 2 of this legislation deals with cultural redress. I want to acknowledge the support of the Department of Conservation (DOC) in getting to this stage. I think the Department of Conservation has come a long way in the last decade. In the closing stages of the Clark administration, the approach to cultural redress tended to be that small and discrete parcels of land would be made available for Treaty settlements, and DOC had a very proprietorial approach to all its property and didn’t want to part with any of it. It used to be a very difficult and protracted exercise to persuade them that land should be made available for iwi as cultural redress.

I remember very, very well, for example, in the early stages of my stewardship of this portfolio, that Fran Wilde was my chief Crown negotiator with Ngāti Pāhauwera, in the northern Hawke’s Bay. She rang me and said, “The Department of Conservation is determined that certain lands are not to be made available as cultural redress.”, and she said, “They’re supposed to be pristine lands.” The only problem with these pristine lands that the iwi wanted was that they were covered in gorse and had goats on them. It was a former Lands and Survey farm that had come to the Department of Conservation in 1987. I said I’d pay a visit. By the time I paid the visit, the goats had all been killed and the gorse had been removed, but the land, eventually, was made available to be handed over.

I tell that story because the Department of Conservation tended, I think, to adopt a somewhat selfish approach to dealing with the issue of cultural redress. Under their current director-general, they have come a long way, and they recognise that the principle of “small and discrete” doesn’t work and that iwi—who I think are the best managers of so much land for conservation purposes—should be entitled to the return of cultural lands that reflect their needs, their history, and their aspirations.

So it is here that there are a number of parcels of land that have been returned. Some of that land has been Department of Conservation land, and the fact that the fee simple estate now vests in the trustees and it ceases to be a conservation area under the Conservation Act 1987 shouldn’t upset anyone at all, because—and I come back to my original point—iwi understand the importance of conservation; iwi can be relied on to look after these lands and, where there is a guarantee of continued public access, ensure that that continues; and these lands need not always be held by the Crown. I hope, and I’m sure, under the leadership of this Minister, we won’t go back to that very short-sighted and self-defeating approach of “small and discrete”. We should be able to transfer to iwi cultural redress which befits the particular settlement based on the history, and that’s why Part 2 deals with important issues of cultural redress.

In my experience, there are several parts of a settlement that some people sometimes overlook. People always get fixated on the commercial relief, but that’s only part of it. The history and the apology are extremely important in a Treaty settlement and—as this Minister will see as he signs deeds of settlement over the next little period—people want to know what the history was, they want the general public to know what the history was, and they want an adequate apology. But the second part that’s incredibly important as well is the return of cultural land, and that’s where the Department of Conservation has such a huge role to play. And that is why Part 2 of this legislation is so very important.

They’re the only points I want to make. I want to congratulate Ngāi Tai and wish them all the very best for the future. I very much enjoyed working with them. They have an important role to play in Tāmaki with the Maunga Authority, to ensure that the Maunga Authority continues to work with the general public for the benefit of the maunga. They’ve got important work to do in and around the Maraetai area, and I’m sure, in the years to come, they’re going to discharge their responsibilities very effectively. My thanks to Laurie Beamish and other members of the team for all that they’ve done. On behalf of the National Party, I wish them all the very best for the future and commend the bill to the House.

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister of Forestry): Kia tia e ngā rangatira, e ngā karangatanga maha, e ngā whānau katoa mai i a Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki kua tatū mai ki Te Ūpoko o te Ika, tēnā koutou katoa. Tēnā anō tātou i te āhuatanga o ō tātou mate, ō koutou rawa mātua kua poupou rā. Pūhakehake ana te aroha i roto i te ngākau i te korenga o rātou i toe mai kia kai ā-kanohi mai ai rātou i ngā mahi e oti ana i a mātou, i a koutou, tutuki ana te kaupapa i tēnei rā. Nā reira ko rātou ki a rātou, ko tātou ki a tātou, tēnā anō koutou katoa.

Nōku i te tamariki i mōhio ahau ki tō koutou tupuna a Te Ngehungiu. Ahau he mea whakatupu e taku Karani Māmā, tēnā kuia i whānau mai i te tau 1892, he hoa haere nā Whina, he hoa tūtakitaki nā Te Puea, koia mātou i mōhio ai ki tēnā kuia. Koni atu i tērā he mea kura ahau i te Kura i Tīpene, kitekite mātou i tēnā kuia, ā, kua Pākehā pēnei i ahau, kiritea te titiro, tūturu Māori tana ngākau. Nā reira tēnā anō koutou i te, i a rau mahara mō tēnā reanga kua riro. Nā reira e te Whare, tēnā anō tātou katoa.

[Greetings to the leaders, to the many strands of connection, to all the families from Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki who have descended on Wellington, greetings to you all. Greetings to one and all with the acknowledgment of our deceased, your elders who are now aloft. The love in my heart overflows in the absence of them remaining with us to see with their own eyes what we have completed, what you have completed, achieving this matter today. Therefore, the deceased remain with the deceased, and the living return to the realms of the living, greetings again to you all.

When I was a child, I knew your ancestor Te Ngehungiu. I was brought up by my grandmother, that elderly lady who was born in the year 1892, a compatriot of Whina, a contact of Te Puea; that is how we knew that elderly lady. Furthermore, I was educated at St Stephen’s College, where we regularly saw that elderly lady, and she looked as Pākehā as do I, of pale skin to the eye but she had a genuinely Māori heart. Therefore, greetings again to you all, in remembrance of that generation who have passed. And so, to the House, greetings.]

I have acknowledged the manuhiri in the House today belonging to the Ngāi Tai tribe ki Tāmaki, but, of course, they are part of a broader Ngāi Tai community with a fantastic story that takes us right back to the arrival of the waka of our tūpuna, as the Ngāpuhi say, from Warowaroātea, Tahiti Nui, Tahiti Roa, Tahiti …. They’re descendants of the Tainui waka, descendants also of Mātaatua waka, also occupying a place called Mātaitai, which is of particular significance to me, given it’s the Ngāpuhi word for shellfish. I can only presume that as a consequence of the cultural redress elements of this settlement that we assemble here today to acknowledge and affirm with the sovereign powers of Parliament, these settlements and this particular initiative ensures that the rangatiratanga and also the pride in identity is fulfilled today.

New Zealand’s face is changing. For those of us who grew up in rural New Zealand in a Māori environment, there were only two elements to the countenance of New Zealand: the Queen, and the Māori warrior holding the taiaha—whether it was on the old shilling or, as it still subsists today, in reflecting the Crown relationship. But in Auckland those days are gone. In Auckland, it truly is a mega-city. It truly is a multi-ethnic, multiracial, multicultural city, and it’s absolutely essential that settlements such as this enable the mokopuna, the uri, the descendants of the original tribes to continue to project their identity, protect their rights, and, most importantly, occupy a place of pride when, numerically, their percentage is getting small but, historically, their rights are traceable back to the foundation document of our country, the Treaty of Waitangi.

Our party supports the passage of this bill. We note that there was an ongoing wrangle in so far as the shared competing claims of Ngāti Wai—the tribe of my boss, Winston Peters—and Ngāi Tai, but I support the sentiments of the former Minister Chris Finlayson: the show has to go on. And the important reality that we can never escape from, as the former chairman of the Māori Fisheries Commission, is that there are always overlapping interests; there are always areas where there cannot be a firm line of demarcation. Indeed, I see in the bill that in the northern part of the rohe, the Ngāi Tai connection goes right up to Mangawhai and Te Ārai—I only hope you don’t have a golf course development that you want me to look after, as well.

The point about this particular settlement is that I find that—and I know my leader agrees—it takes a great deal of time to invest, to support, and to encourage leadership. Whilst what we put on the face of the law may have certain legal significance and lead to enforceable rights, after a settlement, the ability to project identity, to project pride, to keep culture alive, and to develop bilingualism comes down to leadership. We believe, rightly or wrongly, that by endowing iwi settlement groups—never with enough; that’s just the nature of this game—with a suitable level of recognition and some pūtea, it can act as something akin to a seedbed, because, without leadership, no tribe in Aotearoa is going to fulfil its potential as our population changes as we speak in this very House. The percentage of Pākehā will slowly drop, the percentage of Māori will slowly rise, and then—unless the younger generation emulates the efforts of matua Shane Jones and his several beautiful kids—that, too, will plateau. Then other immigrant groups will continue to arrive in Aotearoa, but these settlements cement a part of our history, and it must be protected at all times into our future because this is what makes New Zealand distinctive.

New Zealand is located in the South Pacific. Whilst our original immigrants and pioneers were largely of Anglo-Saxon stock—some from Croatia and married the Māori princesses, as is my background—we must cling tenaciously and promote through these settlements not only the rights but the obligations to ensure that we leave a better legacy for the generation that comes after us as Māori. So we move on from the period where people were not only aggrieved—they cannot and must not pass on that grievance from generation to generation, or we will be overwhelmed and eclipsed by new migrants, who do not come to talk about historical grievances but come to make a future for themselves.

So these settlements remind us that the future belongs as much to Māori as everyone else, but us Māori, we’ve got to do it for ourselves as well. Hopefully, this base and this enhanced recognition of Ngāi Tai, eclipsed for a long period of time—as I said in Te Reo, when I was a lad a St Stephen’s College, my schoolteacher was from Ngāi Tai, a Mr Lewis Maxwell. He taught us how to box. His nephew was a good friend of mine—sadly, a better boxer than my good self.

But their kuia—a very Pākehā-looking kuia—was called Ngengeu. She often acted as the representative for Te Pūea, and was a fellow traveller with my grandmother and Whina Cooper, through the Māori Women’s Welfare League. I would say she was probably the most visible or notable member that ordinary Māori ever knew from this particular tribe. So her legacy, hopefully, will live on. This settlement will enable us to cement the presence of Ngāi Tai into the legal landscape, but it’s the spirit, the heart, and the perseverance of Ngāi Tai that will keep them alive. Kia ora tātou katoa.

NUK KORAKO (National): Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā. Ā ka hokihoki ngā maumahara o te Hōnore e Koro Wetere, he Minita o te Whiriwhiri Take Māori, he rakatira o Ngāti Maniapoto, rakatira o te hapū o Kinohakū, āpotoro o te Hāhi Rātana. Nō reira, e Koro, e haere atu rā, e haere atu rā ki te pā te whakawairua, e takoto mai, takoto mai. Takoto i rangimārie i runga i tō waka; hoea atu tō waka ko tua o te ārai. Haere, haere, e haere atu rā. Nō reira āpiti hono tātai hono, rātou ki te hunga mate, ki te hunga mate ki a rātou. Āpiti hono tātai hono tātou ki te hunga ora, ki te hunga ora ki a tātou.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker. My memories return to the honourable Koro Wetere, a Minister of Māori Affairs, a leader of Ngāti Maniapoto, leader of the subtribe of Kinohakū, and apostle of the Rātana Church. Therefore, Koro, farewell, go to connect with the spirit, rest in peace, rest in peace. Rest in peace on your canoe; paddle your canoe to beyond the veil. Go, go, go well. Let the connections be drawn; the deceased should be left to rest in peace, and we turn back to ourselves, the living.]

It is indeed my pleasure to stand and speak in the third reading about the bill—the Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki Claims Settlement Bill, third reading. Nō reira tuku mihi ki ngā uri o Hui Kai waka, o Tara Te Irirangi, o ngā tīpuna katoa o Ngāi Tai. E noho ana koutou ki tō whenua tapu, tōu whenua ātaahua hoki, Maraetai. Tū mai te whare nunui mā runga te marae Umupuia, nō reira ngā tapuae o nuku, ngā tapuae ariki, ngā tapuae o tai, ngā uri o rātou kia takatakahia te whenua o Maraetai me ngā wāhi katoa o Tāmaki Makaurau. Nō reira, e Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, nau mai, haere mai, whakatau mai o te Whare Mīere. He mihi atu ki a koutou katoa.

[Therefore I greet the descendants of Hui Kai waka, of Tara Te Irirangi, of all the ancestors of Ngāi Tai. You remain on your sacred land, on your beautiful land, Maraetai. The large house stands on Umupuia Marae, therefore the footsteps of the past, the aristocratic footsteps, the footsteps of the tide, the descendants of those who walked the lands of Maraetai and all the places around Auckland. Therefore, Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, welcome, welcome, welcome to the Beehive. A greeting to you all.]

As we’ve just heard in the last couple of speeches, it has been indeed a long journey for Ngāi Tai, and that third reading has finally arrived. The recognition of the deed of mandate occurred in 2010, and it’s been eight long years of negotiations to get Ngāi Tai today to this historic moment, and we honour that and we acknowledge that.

But, firstly, I want to acknowledge Ngāi Tai as a people. How often have we have driven through the suburbs of South Auckland, seen names such as Ōtara, driven down Te Irirangi Drive and given no thought to the meaning of them, and too often that is to my lament. Let me try to give you the noble whakapapa that, hopefully, leads to a better understanding of what is important to acknowledge: this tattooed land and those of Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki tīpuna who originally traversed and named specific areas, particularly like Tara Te Irirangi.

I look forward to the day, and I’m sure Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki do also, when your tapuwae—your sacred footsteps—are recognised properly in the naming conventions of the area of Tāmaki that you hold mana whenua over, and in doing that, without the brunt of political expediency.

To the descendants of Tara Te Irirangi, of Te Haoa, Te Waru, and Nuku, I greet them; the descendants of Te Ngeungeu, and I acknowledge some of those descendants in the gallery today; trustees and negotiators like James Brown, Billy Brown, Laurie Beamish, and Lucy Steel. And for whom your beautiful whare at Te Umupuia is named, it is indeed our humble pleasure to be able to speak in this third reading and to acknowledge that whakapapa and those who have worked tirelessly to bring this bill to this House for the final reading.

I want to make special mention of your tipuna Ngeungeu, who married Thomas Maxwell, also known as Tame Kohe or Tame Makiwhara. In many ways, these two ancestors stand as a testament to what should have happened when Māori and Pākehā actually came together. Your tupuna Tame, through careful dealings with his father-in-law, Tara Te Irirangi, was able to work with Ngāi Tai to develop business opportunities that likely benefited all. Your tupuna came to be known as Pākehā Māori, and such was his knowledge of his whānau by marriage.

Pākehā at the time integrated with Māori. They adopted many of our ways but also introduced many of their ways to an emerging country where Māori were still the majority. Tame is said to have spoken Māori, and his father-in-law, Tara Te Irirangi, was quick to learn English. The relationship not just between the family members but also between the recent arrivals to Auckland benefited both Māori and Pākehā alike, and this should have been the state of affairs of Ngāi Tai and the many other iwi of Tāmaki-makau-rau going forward into the future.

Well, the history books tell us a different story, don’t they—a story of shady land dealings, dishonest land purchases by the Crown, and of recommendations that were made by the commissioners to actually protect the land and to actually set aside land for undisturbed possession. This, of course, never happened, and this is, basically, in a lot of ways the essence of why we are all here today.

Further, the Crown at the time took all too familiar pathways of buying Māori land at the lowest-possible price, and selling it at the highest-possible price. And of course, there was the all too common promise that a tenth of the purchase—for example, the Hunua Block—would be used for Māori schools, medical facilities, and the construction of commercial buildings—a promise that, as we know, did not materialise. Then the second to last nail in the coffin for Ngāī Tai was the theft of their lands by confiscation—this despite the fact that Ngāi Tai declared loyalty to the Crown in a last ditch attempt to stave off an unlawful invasion of their lands by greedy officials on behalf of the Crown. So despite the best efforts of Tame and his whānau and Tara Te Irirangi, Ngāi Tai found themselves soon destitute and almost landless, an all too common occurrence that we saw post-1840.

So I say “the second nail in the coffin” because the last nail never succeeded—it never succeeded—and I acknowledge the likes of Ānaru Makiwhara and his older brother Pātariki, who, even in their old age in 1926, never stopped petitioning Parliament. They never stopped in an effort to get back the land for Ngāi Tai.

So I look up in the gallery and I see those descendants of those battling tīpuna, and I now understand that the final nail was never going to be allowed to be hammered in. You are a fighting people, and you have honoured your ancestors with your tireless work. So today it’s about trying to rebalance the history just a little, so that Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki can actually have a future.

The settlement itself is only a small proportion of what Ngāi Tai really lost—it’s cents in the dollar—but at least it’s a start. So the quantum is not large, but the opportunities available to Ngāi Tai are indeed very, very large. So we have a saying, as you know, “He iti, he pounamu”. We’ve got a lot of “iti” here, but at the end of the day I think that this will be indeed kōhatu pounamu as to your future—as to what you will get from this settlement—and congratulations to you.

So that was a small rendition of a noble history around a whakapapa that indeed needs to be acknowledged and recognised across your tribal rohe. Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, we wish you well in your endeavours now to take this settlement, this legislation, because with that you will then be able to ensure the future of yourselves, your children, and their children after that.

Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, e mihi atu ki a koutou katoa, kia ora.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou e Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, mihi tonu atu ki a koutou. Nau mai, whakatau mai ki roto Te Whare Pāremata e takatū nei. Āe, nō koutou tēnei rā, he rā nui whakahirahira i te whakataunga i ngā kerēme o koutou, ā he hōnore nui tēnei e whakatū ana au ki te mihi atu ki a koutou i tēnei rīti whakamutunga o tō koutou pire.

[Greetings to you, Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, I greet you directly. Welcome, welcome here to Parliament House. Yes, this is your day, a very important day that settles your claims, and it is a big honour for me to stand and greet you at this, the final reading of your bill.]

I’m delighted to add my words of support in this third reading of the claims settlement bill for Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki. I want to acknowledge all of the contributions that have been made thus far—some very eloquent contributions from fellow members around this House. We are all here to tautoko and to support the passage of this bill and to congratulate and mihi Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, who have travelled all this way here for this very special and historic occasion.

I am always very humbled to be able to participate not only in the House but also in the legislative process for these Treaty settlement bills, particularly so as the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee. We learn a lot about the history of our country and of our respective iwi, and it is very sad in some ways, in terms of the repetition of the grievances that have been created and which are being dealt with through these settlements. But it also is, I believe, one of the most rewarding aspects of being a member in this House, to be able to put these special bills through and to acknowledge and learn more about the people that it concerns.

So I do welcome Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki to our House. Yes, this bill deals principally with land loss and, with that land loss, the loss of identity, of traditions, of authority, and of te reo me ōna tikanga that flows from that sense of place on ancestral land. So this bill goes some way to acknowledging that, as the Crown has recorded in their deeds with Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki. Obviously, it never replaces what was lost, but I do marvel at how vast the tribal estate of Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki was. When folks think of Auckland and the Auckland isthmus, it’s incredible that over 80,000 acres, I believe, were ultimately lost to Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, and even more through the failure to honour undertakings of promises that were made in pre-Treaty purchases, but also the failure of successive land commissions and commissioners to properly recognise the lands and the mana whenua of Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki. That succeeded even further to confiscations that occurred during the wars that broke in the 1860s.

So there is that history there, and it must always be recorded and remembered. I’m sure there will be many waiata and haka that will be created and composed by Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki to reinforce their identity and,—as Mr Jones said—projecting that identity, because as at the last census, in 2013, I think there were 500 recorded members in the census. Now, I’m sure there’s probably many more than that, but that’s the impact that these generations and decades and a couple of centuries of loss have inflicted on Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki. What we’re doing is ushering in a new future post this Treaty bill—post the passage of it—so it can not only address the redress aspects within the bill but also help to enliven the cultural identity of this wonderful iwi who have travelled here today.

Now I wanted to just change a little bit of tack in terms of my contribution, because, as my colleague Tutehounuku Korako mentioned, there were some illustrious tūpuna—ancestors—of the Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki people, and in particular, as we’ve heard, Ānaru Makiwhara. In addition to the petitions that that gentleman and, I understand, his older brother made to this House about recognition of the grievances and the claims of his people, he also recounted the wonderful stories of the tūpuna of Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki. As we know, Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki is Auckland, but Ngāi Tai, in terms of the kōrero—one in particular which I was really spellbound by was “Te Heke-o-Ngā-Tokotoru” [“The Migration of the Three”], which was started in Tōrere. It involved skirmishes and troubles that were going on, and the rangatira, Tamatea-toki-nui, said to his people and to his daughters, “Go to the cuzzies in Hauraki, in Ngāti Maru. Seek some refuge there, because it’s getting a bit troublesome where we are here.”

We need to acknowledge Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, because from that great ariki, there was the famous saying: “Ka mate kāinga tahi, ka ora kāinga rua.” That’s a saying which I’ve uttered in this House a few times in debates as well—“When one house dies, another one emerges”. So we should acknowledge that from the kōrero that was laid down. This was recorded, I believe, around a hundred years ago from the kōrero of Ānaru Makiwhara. Following on from that kōroro, out of Tōrere, when they went into the Ngāti Maru, we should acknowledge Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki for the famous—sorry, I’ll backtrack. There was a chief called Te Whatatau, and Te Whatatau came with his wife by waka to Ngāti Maru and was welcomed there by the sisters that had brought the people from Ngāi Tai. To cut a long story short, they were welcomed by being pulled up to the papa—to the landing—and that’s where we get the famous “Tōia mai, te waka, ki te urunga, te waka” [“Drag it, the canoe, to its resting place, the canoe”].

All of that flows from these wonderful stories of these people. And it doesn’t stop there, because these people, the illustrious tūpuna—they really enjoyed huamanu, which our people from the South can very much identify with, because they’re the chief Te Whatatau and the beautiful chieftainesses of Raukohekohe and Motuitawhiti. They were spellbound by the large gifts of preserved manu that that chief had brought to that occasion.

So these are all the rich kōrero and rich histories of this amazing people of Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki. I know they’re going to be leaving their imprint all over Tāmaki-makau-rau with what will unfold from the passage of this legislation. It is an exciting future that lies ahead for them all. It’s all been laid down by their tūpuna. They can draw inspiration from those stories and stamp their big footprints right across Tāmaki-makau-rau and into the future, and I wish them all the very best. Kia ora tātou.

JO HAYES (National): Tēnā koe. Ngā mihi ki ngā whānau o te iwi o Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki i tēnei rā. He rā motuhake ēnei mō koutou katoa. Ā, kei konei mātou hei whakanui ki a koutou i te mutunga o tā koutou haere roa, i roto i tēnei tukunga whakataunga Tiriti.

[Greetings to the families of the tribe of Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki on this day. These are special days for you all. And we are here to celebrate you at the end of your long journey, in this Treaty settlement.]

I stand to take a call on the third and final reading of the Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki Claims Settlement Bill. I’ve stood in the House on many occasions to do this to a number of iwi in their third reading, and every time I stand here I feel humbled that I have been part and parcel of helping to settle a grievance that happened so long ago for all of you. I stand here humbled that your mokopuna will benefit from the mahi that their mātua, that their kaumātua, did years ago to this day and to the future. So I am very, very happy that we’ve come to this conclusion but also sad that some of the kaumātua that started this journey for Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki are not able to be here physically, but are here in wairua.

I just want to carry on a little bit more about our select committee, because it did work very hard with the Minister then, the Hon Chris Finlayson, to actually bring forward your bill. But, as you heard in the House previously, there were a few issues there that needed to be ironed out, and I’m pleased that that has happened today. So of the 13 submissions that came to the Māori Affairs Committee, we heard six, and then, from there, we were able to move forward.

I want to acknowledge the iwi negotiators. I think that you’ve done an amazing job, especially with our Crown negotiators. That is not an easy thing to do, to sit there and go through all the bits and pieces that are most dearest to your hearts. However, we have got here, and working through the advisers, and the parliamentary counsel—as the Hon Andrew Little spoke about in his contribution—we have been able to get to a settlement where whilst we might not all be happy about it, at least we’re here and we can move forward.

I want to add thanks to the whānau of Ngāi Tai for your patience—I did say that in my opening—and it has been a patience that I’m sure you would have got quite frustrated about, just as frustrated as we get sometimes. However, I think that today is a celebration for you all, and I know that we’re all very happy that we’ve got to this place.

Along with the cultural redress that was discussed here just before my contribution, and the commercial redress and financial redress, I was pleased to see that half a million dollars had already been received by the iwi to actually support you in wherever it is that you wanted to invest that fund. So I’m really pleased that we were able to do that.

My contribution isn’t going to be long because I want to—and I looked on your website. I looked into your history—my own research—and I wanted to add to my contribution and commit to the Hansard what I found to do with what my colleague Nuk Korako started on about Tapuwae. I want to commit this particular part to Hansard, if you will bear with me as I read it out: “Tapuwae-Onuku. We of the sacred footprint in the earth. Ngāi Tai have a long, unbroken genealogy and occupation of their lands, waters, and seas extending from the aboriginal Polynesian settlers, pre-dating the Hawaiki immigrants. The symbol best describing this is the taonga currently residing in the Auckland Museum, being a fossil human footprint dating from the founding eruption of Rangitoto 600 years ago and discovered on Motutapu island. A place long held sacred to Ngāi Tai for their many waahi tapu and association with the Tupua at that place.

“Tapuwae-Ariki. The footprints of the high-born. Smaller footprints remind us of the many descendants & mokopuna (riki), who have crossed this region over that long period of time. Larger footprints remind us of our high-born chiefly lines (ariki) and ancestors. These remind us how important those leaders were and their value as navigators through our history.

“Tapuwae-Otai. The footprints on our foreshores. Even our tribal name Ngā Tai, resounds as the story of a maritime people unencumbered by any normal sense of boundaries. Where our vision was only limited by our imagination. It was the same vision, honed by thousands of years of exploration, facing the challenge of crossing the world’s greatest ocean for survival. These descendants of Maui today carry his DNA and values into the new world of Ngāi Tai, true inheritors and worthy recipients of a boundless legacy left by the ancients and their numerous descendants.”

I have recited that to go into Hansard for your mokopuna, for when they come to this House, into the future, to research your history and to research this settlement. I wanted this to be something that they would find that they would connect with.

I wish Ngāi Tai the very best for their future. I am proud and I commend the Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki Claims Settlement Bill to the House. Kia ora.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. I want to acknowledge, straight off the back of all of these incredible speeches by my colleagues in this House, the immense anxiety that I am feeling in addressing the House at the third reading of this bill today. The reason that I want to speak to this anxiety and to sit in this discomfort is because it cannot be anywhere near the magnitude of the experience that Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki have gone through in getting to this point, here, in this settlement. As tangata Tiriti, as a Pākehā member of Parliament, and as somebody who has not known the extent of the history of this land—as I spoke about at the second reading of this bill—up until the point that I was in a privileged position, in law school, to first start to unpack Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and to first start to understand how I am so fortunate to be somebody who lives in this country, in Aotearoa New Zealand, on the back of a partnership, until I came to understand those things and really sat in that discomfort and attempted to deal with it and unpack it, I couldn’t quite begin to comprehend the reality of what settlements like this actually meant. So I just want to acknowledge that straight off the bat.

I also want to speak to reading, this morning, about our new Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, Andrew Little—the fact that he is taking the plunge and learning Te Reo Māori, which I think is absolutely fantastic and something which all of us, particularly those of us who are tangata Tiriti, should be undertaking as te Tiriti partners. I want to give a shout-out to my Te Reo Māori tutor, Piripi, who’s been taking me on that journey and educating me to the fact that you cannot learn Te Reo Māori without, indeed, learning about Te Ao Māori, without learning about tikanga, or without learning about the history, again, of our land and how we are so fortunate to stand here—particularly, how I am so fortunate to stand here—as a te Tiriti partner.

How I came to speak on this bill today was by virtue of subbing in for our fabulous co-leader Marama Davidson on the Māori Affairs Committee when we realised that the Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki Claims Settlement Bill was coming before the Māori Affairs Committee. As somebody who was born and raised in Tāmaki-makau-rau and who was not aware of the history of the city that I call home, I found that it was incredibly critical if we were to really walk the talk and live what we say when we say that we are committed to Te Tiriti o Waitangi as the founding document of this land.

What we found, as was alluded to by my colleague Jo Hayes—who I was also fortunate to sit on the committee with on 19 February, earlier this year—was that there were 13 submissions. Six of them were heard, and it was an incredibly emotional process, actually. I know that we banter a lot in this place about the politics that we endure, but you guys have a whole other thing on your hands when it comes to iwi politics. I want to recognise the reality of that situation for you.

Going through the Treaty settlement process and, indeed, actually having the opportunity to have a briefing on the settlement process last night, with MPs from all parties being invited, I believe has been one of the most meaningful learning experiences, possibly, that I’ve ever actually had—going through how we are so fortunate to have developed this process, but still how far we have to go to get it anywhere near right; to get it anywhere near being that genuine partnership.

Where the chronology of events starts is with two Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki rangatira signing Te Tiriti o Waitangi at Karaka Bay on 4 March 1840, and tonight, we recognise that their trust was abused and that their lands were stolen by way of shady Crown dealings. I want to acknowledge the incredible mahi of the Hon Chris Finlayson, who started this work under the previous Government and, indeed, signed the deed of settlement with the Crown at the Maraetai Marae in Clevedon on 7 November 2015. I want to acknowledge the pain and hardship that was spoken to throughout the submissions process to get to this point three years later. We recognise that Te Tiriti o Waitangi is a living document and the relationship between mana whenua and the Crown outlives any oscillation of Government, as, indeed, it outlives and exists outside of the four walls of this place. It is an intergenerational commitment. It is, indeed, a living document.

I want to acknowledge how big this step right here is. Many speakers before me have touched on the history which is spoken to, which is acknowledged—the pain, which is acknowledged—in this piece of legislation, putting it on the record, finally, as an account of what has happened. I also just want to state, if I can leave with any one thing in summary—because there is no summary here; this is ongoing and this settlement represents something quite meaningful for Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki to take and move forward in partnership with the Crown—is that this is just a starting point. This is the new starting point. This is the refresh button. So I want it put on record that this is where you, again, continue to hold us accountable, and, as part of that process, please call us out. Call us to account when we get it wrong, because we have definitely got it wrong in the past.

So I speak to this on behalf of the Green Party tonight, to say that we wholeheartedly support it but that we would like to see a continual ongoing commitment to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, the Te Reo Māori version of the text, ongoing in this place. Kia ora.

HARETE HIPANGO (National—Whanganui): E Te Māngai o tēnei Whare Paremata, kia hiwa rā. E mihi ana ki ngā uri, te iwi o Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki. Nau mai, haere mai, whakatau mai, ki te wā o te ao hou.

[Mr Speaker, pay attention. I greet the descendants and the tribe of Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki. Welcome, welcome at the time of the new year.]

It is indeed humbling and a privilege to stand here to address the House and those of you, ngā uri o Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, to take a final but a brief call in the final passage and reading of this bill. I stand not only as a National Party MP and an elected MP for Whanganui but also as uri of Whanganui, and I can relate to you up there in the gallery, seated here for the final passage of this bill. This bill is indicative of your kōrero, your whakaaro, your history, your herstories. I traversed through your domain and your territories for many years as a younger woman when I studied up at Auckland University, and I have to hand what has now become your bill and will become your law: Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki Claims Settlement Bill.

So I will address significant parts of this, but before I do it’s appropriate to acknowledge those who have had hands-on: the current Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, the Hon Andrew Little, and my colleague the former Minister the Hon Chris Finlayson. I also acknowledge the members across the House and on this side on the Māori Affairs Committee and all those members of the Office of Treaty Settlements who I’m sure that ngā uri, a ngā tangata o Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki [the descendants, the people of Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki] have had dealings with.

So with the limited time that I have to address you all, I made reference to te ao hōu. This is a new chapter for you all; it is a new beginning. As I embark on part of that in addressing that new beginning, quite appropriately under clause 9 of your bill is the acknowledgment from the Crown for its failures, for its breaches, for its oversights in relation to the long-standing grievances that you, quite appropriately, have had and the recognition of those. I’ll read a specific clause there, clause 9: “The Crown acknowledges that, by participating in land transactions, Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki sought to establish mutually beneficial relationships with Europeans and, from 1840, with the Crown. The Crown further acknowledges that lands transacted by rangatira of Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki contributed to the development of Auckland and of New Zealand [Aotearoa] as a whole.”

Clause 10 of the bill outlines the apology that has been extended to you and it is sealed in writing in this bill, the text of the apology set out in your deed of settlement. The Crown did not honour the mutually beneficial relationship that Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki sought with the European settlers. “Instead, its acts and omissions undermined relationships that should have been based on good will and mutual benefit. The Crown broke its promise to protect your interests, confiscated your whenua, and promoted policies which had devastating economic, social, and cultural consequences for Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki.”

It’s heartening to see you all here today, a blend of the old and the young. We acknowledge those who have gone before and all the efforts that have been part of arriving at where you are today, but, as I look up, seeing your tamariki, this is about focusing into the future and this bill is about enabling, in some part—although not fully acknowledging the total—redress.

My colleague the Hon Christopher Finlayson spoke about Parts 2 and 3: cultural redress, the significance and importance of that; the commercial redress, in terms of the fiscal amounts that have been identified. However, it is up to how you embrace the future going into it, knowing what your past is and what the grievance has been but embracing a way forward. This bill, it is hoped, will enable that to occur.

So, in conclusion, I commend this bill to the House, and say that no amount of redress will ever be enough to compensate for the wrongs of the past. However, it is a first step towards acknowledgment, recognition, and reconciliation. Ka nui te mihi ki a koutou ngā uri o te iwi Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki. Tēnā koe.

Hon PEENI HENARE (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector): E Te Māngai, ka noho tonu ahau ki roto i te reo Māori mō te roanga ake o taku kōrero.

Tuku mauri ora ki te whei ao

ki te ao marama,

tihewa mauri ora.

E ōku rangatira, mauria mai ko ngā tini aituā kei runga i a koutou; i wahaina mai te mema o tērā taha o te Whare, i te kaumātua a Koro Wetere kua riro atu ki te pō. Ka whakatutukihia i te whakataukī o rātou mā, ko Matariki kai tangata. Nō reira rātou kua ngaro atu ki te pō, haere, haere, haere, ka whakahokia mai ngā rārangi kōrero ki a tātou te hunga ora, ko te whakatinanatanga o te whakataukī, ko Matariki puanga hou.

E ōku rangatira, e Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, tēnei ka mihi. Kua kite atu koutou poto rawa te wā kua riro māku hei mihi atu ki a koutou, nō reira me huku tōtika atu ki roto i te kiko o tēnei pire kei mua i te aroaro o te Whare i te rā nei. Engari ka mihi atu ahau ki a koutou i tēnei wā, e ōku rangatira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātou katoa.

Ā, ka huri tua atu ngā mihi ki a koe e te tuakana e Dan Bidois, kua uru hou mai, he ihu hūpē ki roto i tēnei Whare, i whakamanahia e te rā pōti inanahi rā ki roto i te Whare nei, tēnei ka mihi. Kāti ki a tātou e te Whare, tēnā tātou katoa.

Ka huri tōtika atu ki te pire, āe, e tika ana ko te wāhanga tuatahi ko te whakapāha a Te Karauna, mō ngā mahi tūkino ki a koutou e Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki. Ka kōrerohia nei te pire mō ngā mahi tāhae whenua, ka kōrerohia nei te pire mō te mahi tūkino i te mana motuhake o Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki. Āe, e tika ana me whakapāha. Me whakapāha Te Karauna mō aua tūkinotanga katoa i pā ki mua i a koutou.

Engari, i a au e whakaaro atu ana mō tērā tū āhuatanga, ka pēhea nei tātou kite atu i te kino o ngā mahi a te Karauna ka pā ki ngā tūpuna, ka pā ki ngā uri o tēnei rā, ka pā ki ngā uri whakatupu ā taihoa ake nei? He pātai tēnā ka tukuna atu ki mua i te aroaro o tēnei Whare: ka pēhea nei tātou e kite atu he aha nei nā te rahi o te tūkino a Te Karauna ki a Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki? Āe, ka kōrero mai te pire nei mō ngā mahi tūkino ki roto i ngā tau kua pahure ake nei. Ā, ka kōrerohia nei te pire mō ētahi o ngā āhua tūkino ki a Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki o ēnei rangi. Engari ka pēhea nei te tūkino ki ngā rangatahi me ngā mokopuna ki roto i ngā tau kei mua i a tātou? Heoi anō atu tērā pātai kei mua i te aroaro o tēnei Whare.

Āe, ka huri tua atu ki te wāhanga o te pire e pā ana ki te whakahokinga o ngā whenua ki a koutou o Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki. E mihi atu ana ahau ki tērā tū āhuatanga. Ka kite atu ahau 13 o ngā wā whenua ka whakahoki atu ki a koutou, engari i rongo atu ahau i te kōrero a te Minita Whirireihana, me tana kōrero mō ngā mahi a Te Papa Atawhai. Horekau he take mehemea ka whakahokia te whenua ki a Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, me ngā herehere o te ture, me ngā herehere o Te Karauna. Horekau he take mō tēnā mahi. Nō reira, e harikoa ana kua kite atu ahau ki roto i tēnei pire, āe, ka whakahokia i ētahi wāhi whenua ki a koutou. Ko te manako ka riro ki a koutou te mana motuhake te whakahaere i aua wāhi whenua, mō koutou te take, mō ngā mokopuna ki roto i ngā tau kei mua i a tātou.

E ōku rangatira ka huri tua atu ki te rahi o te pūtea. Āe mārika. Ko te koretake o taua rahi, me te kite atu ko tētahi wāhi pīnati nei ka whakahokia ki a koutou hei whakatupu ake, hei poipoi ake i te reo me ōna tikanga e pā ana ki a Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki. Āe, mihi atu ana ahau ki tērā tū āhuatanga, nā runga i te mōhio hei roto i ngā kōrero a ō koutou, ō tātou mātua tūpuna te oranga o ngā iwi, o Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki ki roto i ngā tau kei mua i a tātou.

Kua kite atu koutou, kotahi miniti ka toe mai ki a Peeni i tēnei wā. Nō reira, hei whakakapi ake ka pānui atu ahau i te kōrero a tōku tupuna a Tā Hēmi Hēnare, ki te iwi Māori i te wā o te Māori i roto i ngā tau waru tekau. Nō reira, “E kore e mōnenehu te pū mahara ki ngā momo rangatira o neherā. Nā rātou i tono i te nuku roa o te Moana Nui a Kiwa me Papatūānuku, ko ō rātou tapuae ki runga i te mata o te whenua, he taonga he tapu, he taonga he tapu.”

E ōku rangatira o Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, āna kua oti tēnei wahanga ki roto i te Whare nei. Engari, ko te mahi nunui kei mua tonu i te aroaro o Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki ki roto i ngā rā e tū nei. Ka nui tēnei māku. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, e Te Māngai o Te Whare.

[Mr Speaker, I will remain in the Māori language for the duration of my speech.

Give the breath of life

to the world of light,

the sneeze of life.

My esteemed leaders, bring the many deceased who are with you; the member of the other side of the House was brought here, the elder Koro Wetere, who has passed away. The proverb Matariki eater of people has come to pass. Therefore, to all those who have departed to the night, farewell, the threads of speech are now returned to the living people, those who embody the proverb Matariki of fresh blossom.

My esteemed leaders, Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, I greet you. As you have seen, I have been allocated only a short time to greet you. Therefore, I will turn directly to the subject matter of this bill which is before the House today. However, I acknowledge you at this time, my esteemed leaders, greetings, greetings, greetings to one and all.

I also acknowledge you my brother, Dan Bidois, newly arrived, a novice in this House, legitimised in this House by the vote yesterday, greetings. Well, then, to all of the House, greetings to one and all.

To turn immediately to the bill, yes, it is appropriate that the first part is an apology from the Crown for the unjust treatment of you, Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki. The bill speaks of land thefts; the bill speaks of unjust acts to the independence of Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki. Yes, it is right that we should apologise. The Crown should apologise for all the mistreatment that has befallen you.

However, while I was thinking about that feature, how could we possibly realise the harm of the deeds by the Crown that impacted the ancestors, that impacts the descendants of these times, and will impact descendants in the near future? I lay this question in front of this House: how can we imagine the magnitude of the damage done by the Crown to Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki? Yes, this bill speaks of the harmful acts throughout previous years. And this bill speaks of some of the injustices for Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki in current times. But what about the harm to the youth and the grandchildren in the years that are still before us? I leave that question in front of this House.

Yes, I will proceed to the part of the bill that pertains to the return of lands to you, to Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki. I commend that feature. I see that there are 13 pieces of land being returned to you, but I did hear the speech of Minister Finlayson, and what he said about the work of the Department of Conservation. There is no point if the land is returned to Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki with legal restrictions and the restraints imposed by the Crown. There is no point in that. Therefore, I am pleased to see that in this bill, yes, some pieces of land are returned. I hope that you will also acquire independent control of those bits of land for your own ends, for the grandchildren in the years before us.

My esteemed leaders, I now turn to the size of the sum of money. Yes, indeed. What a useless amount, and I see that a handful of peanuts is being returned to you to grow and nurture the language and traditional practices of Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki. I acknowledge that feature, knowing that the well-being of the tribes, of Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, in the coming years will be found in the discourses of your ancestors, of our ancestors.

As you can see, Peeni currently has one minute left. Therefore, to conclude, I will read a speech by my ancestor Sir Hēmi Hēnare to the Māori people in the time of the Māori, in the 80s. Thus, “The remembrances of the type of leader of days gone by will not diminish. They claimed the breadth of the Pacific Ocean and of Mother Earth, their footsteps on the face of the earth, a sacred treasure, a sacred treasure.”

My esteemed leaders of Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, indeed this part in the House is now complete. However, the main work is still in front of Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki in the coming days. Enough from me. Greetings, greetings to all, and to the Speaker.]

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): It is a real pleasure to stand and rise to speak on this Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki Claims Settlement Bill at the third reading. I notice that—my colleague and friend Peeni Henare, who sat down, the MP for Tāmaki Makaurau; myself the MP for Tāmaki—royalties on that name have not been given as part of the cultural redress. But as one of the Auckland MPs in which your area, your rohe, extends, it’s a pleasure to stand and speak to welcome you, in some ways, to my home as a parliamentarian here, but acknowledging that my home in Tāmaki sits within your rohe, and a great, proud, strong people. And it’s marvellous to see some—ha! [Points to visitors in the gallery] We’ll talk later. We can add in a clause.

I want to, I suppose, address the House, but, in doing so—to those in the gallery—to say thank you for the hard work that you have put in along with the Crown negotiators, to be part of today. These journeys are hard and long, but to reach this place comes, I imagine, with a high degree of pain but also a great sense of the future, as well. And talking to some of you who I know and some who are not here today, the journey has been hard. But we’ve heard from many speakers here of the great pride of this iwi and the great pride that I think has been put forward here today in this settlement.

When I think of that part of your area, your rohe—of course, going right through to Maraetai, but I think of the areas in Glen Innes, obviously Maungarei—there is already some great work developing there as you clear some of those old manky trees and put up some good new native ones. These are great opportunities and, I think, a great sign of the future.

When I look at the history, the most egregious, to me, is when, standing with the Crown, the Crown, ultimately, stabbed you in the back. When we stand and fight together, you expect that those you fight with stand with you, and, for me, reflecting on elements of your history, that is egregious and the saddest part. But if there’s been one word—as I’ve reflected on what I was meant to say here today, or wanted to say here today, the word that came to mind for me was “atonement”, and the best way that I’d translate it in Māori is “rangimārie”.

“Atonement”, by and large, means to make amends, and, I mean, that would make sense to us here today, that this Treaty bill seeks to make amends, to fix things, as far as possible. But another way to look at the word “atonement”—and it comes from the original wording, actually—is to be at one. To atone: at one; to be as one. Of course, in Māori, it is more kotahitanga—to be at one.

I suppose that’s both the opportunity and challenge today in this bill, this moment of atonement; first and foremost to say sorry, to apologise, to try and make amends. But, perhaps more importantly, what these bills seek to do is create an atonement, an “at one”—to be as one. I don’t want to speak, as of course I couldn’t, for your iwi, but these processes are difficult, and I know there have been tensions as these were negotiated—that your iwi, strong and proud, will be, once again, at one and atoned together; that we, those who are not of your iwi, come together as one to atone, to be at one, and to understand the history that we’ve shared with you and to grow a deeper appreciation of that, but that then, together, we can be at one. Not to be the same—that’s not what “at one”, or atonement, means—but to actually stand together as one and move forward.

For me, the atonement, then, is summed up in what my colleague Jo Hayes talked about. Footprints are a big part of your story, and I know you talk about the larger footprints and the smaller footprints. I know now you’re a smaller iwi, but, actually, sometimes the smaller footprints get the furthest. They walk gently, but it’s the gentle, smaller footsteps that often get further than the big, heavy ones, and I look forward to following the journey of Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki.

Can I finish by evoking Matariki. It’s an amazing time of year. It’s about new hope, it’s about planting new seeds, but we know in life too that, sometimes, to get to that point—that journey’s been hard, the soil has not been productive, and you’ve been through difficult times. So I wish and pray, in this time of Matariki, this time, as we atone, as we make amends, as we stand as one, that this settlement may bring new hope to your iwi. I look forward to engaging with you all in my little part of the electorate, in Tāmaki, and we’ll talk about using our electorate name as a royalty in the future. Thank you.

TAMATI COFFEY (Labour—Waiariki): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m very pleased to be standing here taking a call on this bill, which is actually the first Treaty claims settlement bill that I’ve had the honour of being—

Hon Meka Whaitiri: Hear, hear!

TAMATI COFFEY: —I know—able to speak on, and I look forward to many of these occasions, because they are happy occasions.

Just this time last week, we were privy to having Heretaunga Tamatea in the House, and at that point in time, they too had finished a very long journey for reparation for past wrongs, and they walked away from here very happy. I look forward to you, Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, also following in those footsteps, too.

Tuatahi me mihi atu ki a rātou, ngā mate kua whetūrangihia ki runga i te korowai o Ranginui; haere, haere, haere atu rā ngā mate. Ā, rātou ki a rātou, tātou ki a tātou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, tēnā koutou katoa.

Ko tēnei te māngai mō te rohe o Te Waiariki e mihi atu nei ki a koutou, mai i ngā iwi, ngā hapū, ngā whānau o Te Waiariki, kei te mihi, kei te mihi, kei te mihi anō.

[Firstly, I should acknowledge them, the deceased, who have become stars on the cloak of Ranginui; farewell, farewell to the deceased. The deceased should remain with the deceased, while the living return to life. Greetings to you all, Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, greetings to one and all.

This is the spokesperson for the electorate of Te Waiariki greeting you all, from the tribes, the subtribes, and the families of Te Waiariki: greetings, greetings to all.]

This is a big day. We in the Waiariki have a lot of Treaty settlements left to go. There are many iwi within our rohe that are yet to fulfil their journey on this path, and as you sit there today, as we stand here celebrating the third reading and the end of your journey on this particular take, I know that many of our iwi back home will be looking to you as examples for what’s possible.

This is a day where we, the Government, get to put right what we, the Government, once upon a time, put wrong. It puts us in a slightly awkward position, that we as the MPs that are standing here in the House are tasked with the job of fixing up some of the problems from the Governments from days gone past. It’s a very awkward situation, actually, but you, Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, should actually feel consoled that there is widespread support in this House for the journey that you’ve been on. There is acknowledgment of the hurt that the iwi have suffered in previous years, and there’s also hope for your journey going forward. That’s what we hope to do here today: to actually acknowledge the wrongs and put things right for you, for those from your iwi who haven’t been able to be here as part of this day, for those that have passed on and not been able to be with us here today, and also for your grandchildren and your great-grandchildren and your uri yet to come.

This is a momentous day, and I’m very happy to be here marking the occasion alongside you. I want to take a moment to acknowledge the Minita o Ngā Take Tiriti o mua [the former Minister of Treaty negotiations] Chris Finlayson, who started this journey quite a while ago—of course, you started it well before him. And I also want to acknowledge our Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, Andrew Little, who has also been able to stand here and make sure that this goes through the House today.

I understand it’s been a very thorough process. I was looking through the notes and I noted that, although the deed of settlement was signed in November 2015, in 2016 there was a deed to amend, and then again in 2017 there was another deed to amend. So I’m happy that, at this third reading, we’re able to stand here and proudly put this piece of legislation before the House.

I won’t go into detail about the road that you’ve been on, but it’s been well documented. Know that the research and the stories—your kōrero from your iwi—are now down; they’re now documented in this House. And that is a treasure; it’s a taonga that will be looked upon for many years to come. Use that as a foundation as you move forward into the future.

I look forward to being able to stand here and speak on behalf of other iwi, especially some of our iwi back home in the Waiariki, and to be able to celebrate the moment as well, because we still have many iwi that have got a very long road ahead of them. Last week, Heretaunga Tamatea; this week belongs to you, Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki. Next week, ko wai ka hua, ko wai ka tohu [who knows, who can tell]?

But, on your journey, I wish you the best for your whānau, not just back home but all around the country, and also to those ones that are always in Australia. We’ve always got to acknowledge those ones. I wish you the best of luck on your journey. I wish you all the best from our iwi back home, in the Waiariki. E mihi atu nei ki a koutou katoa. Kia kaha, kia māia, kia manawanui.

[Greetings to you all. Be strong, be brave, be patient.]

I commend this bill to the House.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to stand as the last National Party speaker in this debate as it draws to a close. Folks sitting in the galley this afternoon have travelled not only a long way in terms of distance and geography but also in terms of time and history. Unlike the member that has just resumed his seat, Tamati Coffey, I have spoken in previous debates of this sort. I agree with him; it’s a very powerful and significant part of the democratic process of today’s modern Aotearoa New Zealand.

That we have to do it is a blight upon our history, and it’s a blight upon those who have sat in this historic Chamber in the past. It falls to us who have the privilege to serve today to try and put right things that, actually, we can never put right. But to make some kind of attempt, in good faith, in sincerity, in a way that is meant to convey a beginning to a start of things that were not right and were bad. For me, as a parliamentarian who has spent several years in this place now, I’ve come to understand and learn more about the parliamentary process and the power of what is written into legislation—what is written into the material that sits on the Table of the Parliament, and what sits in the words of the bill, soon to become an Act of the Parliament once it’s signed by the Crown’s representative in New Zealand, the Governor-General, very soon.

What it means is that in a document such as this, what this debate is all about is the historic and formal acknowledgment of all that has been agreed in terms of the past, but also what is hoped for the future. For me, when I read through the legislation—and I commend it to each and every one of you to actually sit down, take the time, read the bill. Read it. It is so important, because it sets everything out. It’s a historic document. It’s a future document. It’s of its time and it’s of its place.

But for me, as I go through and read the chronology of things that were bad and were not done properly, that were disingenuous, that were not as we would now have wanted them to be, the most important part of this legislation actually is not the cultural redress. It’s not the financial redress. For me, it is clause 10 of the legislation. A colleague of mine referred to it earlier on. It’s actually the apology—it’s the apology from the Crown. It sets out the words that say: “Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki sought to establish mutually beneficial relationships with European settlers and the Crown by welcoming them into your rohe and offering land, but the Crown did not honour this gesture. Instead, its acts and omissions undermined relationships that should have been based on good will and mutual benefit. The Crown broke its promise to protect your interests, confiscated your whenua, and promoted policies which had devastating economic, social, and cultural consequences for Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki.” Then it goes on to say: “For its breaches of … the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles and for the prejudice its acts and omissions have caused Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, the Crown unreservedly apologises.”

I’ve had occasion to be with the former Minister the Hon Chris Finlayson when he has spoken on marae around the countryside and issued, on behalf of the Crown, the formal apology. Now that role falls to the new Minister, the Hon Andrew Little, and he picks up that baton of the work that has been commenced under a different administration, but work that this Parliament endorses and accepts and will vote unanimously in favour of this afternoon.

So I want to acknowledge those who are here today, acknowledge the work that they have done, and acknowledge those who are not here today, who have been working and fighting for what is right for so long and did not get here today. The future is all of ours, and it’s what we make it. So my invitation as a humble member of this House is to accept the offer of a future that represents all of us in Aotearoa New Zealand. In closing and on behalf of the National Party as the last speaker, I absolutely, thoroughly, commend this historic piece of legislation to the Parliament of New Zealand.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister of Employment): Koutou Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki kua tae mai nei i tēnei wā, i whakarangatira mātou, i a mātou i tēnei wā, tēnei te tino mihi ki a koutou. Hōnore nui mō mātou ki te tū i mua i a koutou i tēnei wā. Tēnei te tino mihi ki a koutou mō ō koutou kaha ki te kōkiri tēnei kaupapa mai i te tīmata tae noa ki nāianei. Tino rawe, tino rawe, ki te kite i a koutou i tēnei wā, ā, e tika me mihi ki a koutou i runga i tēnei rā, rā nunui mō tātou te iwi Māori.

Heoi anō, ahakoa kua wehea kētia a Koro, kei te tika tonu ka mihia tonutia ngā mihi ki a ia i tēnei wā, nē? Nō te mea nō Tainui ia, koirā tana ingoa, wai tana ingoa, ā muri a Koro, Koro Tainui nē? Koirā tana ingoa, tika me, ki te maumahara tō tātou rangatira i tēnei wā.

Ko tērā pea he ruarua noa iho ngā tāngata e mōhio i te wā he Minita o te Whare Māori, nā Koro i whakatuwhera i taku marae a Ngā Whare Waatea. I tuwhera a ia i taku marae i runga i tōna mōhio ehara i te mea he marae mō mana whenua, he marae kē mō tātou ko te hunga e noho tāone ana. Ko wai ka mōhio ka huri te ao mai i taua wā, ka tae ka puāwaitia te kaupapa o Ngā Whare Waatea i tēnei wā, ki ngā tōpito o Tāmaki Makaurau. Nō reira e te Pāpā, e te whanaunga, Koro, moe mai, moe mai, moe mai rā.

Ka nui tēnā. Ki a koutou Te Rōpū Nāhinara i tēnei wā, mō tō mahi i ngā wā o mua ngā mihi ki a koe e hoa, e te hoa, ki a koe Andrew me Te Minita i ngā wā o mua, Chris Finlayson, e tika ki te mihi ki a tātou katoa, tēnā koutou.

[You of Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki who have come here at this time, your presence ennobles us; greetings to you all. It is an honour for us to stand before you at this time. I acknowledge you for your strength in leading this cause right from the beginning through until now. It is great, great to see you at this time, and it is only right to acknowledge you on this day, this big day for us, the Māori people.

However, although Koro has already departed, it is still right to address acknowledgments to him at this time, isn’t it? Because he is from Tainui, that is his name—what’s his name, after Koro? Koro Tainui isn’t it? That’s his name; it’s right to remember our leader at this time.

Perhaps not many people realise that at the time he was the Minister of the Māori office, Koro opened my marae, Ngā Whare Waatea. He opened my marae in the knowledge that it wasn’t a marae for those with territorial rights, but instead it was a marae for those of us who were urban dwellers. Who would have known that things would evolve from there to the point at which Ngā Whare Waatea initiative now flourishes right to the extremities of Auckland? Therefore, Uncle, kinsman, Koro, rest in peace.

That is enough. To you, the National Party, at this time, for your work in the past, I acknowledge you, my friend; you, Andrew, and the former Minister, Chris Finlayson. It is right to acknowledge one and all; salutations.]

In this week, a big week for all of us in Te Ao Māori in this Parliament, it was pleasing to see the attendance at the former Minister of Māori Affairs Koro Wētere’s tangi. One that you attended, Mr Speaker—rightfully so; he was an old friend and colleague of yours. And it was good to see members of the National Party there, obviously, and a great turnout from our own people.

I think that our whanaunga there, Koro, would have been very proud about what he saw, about what’s happening today. He wasn’t the out-front, sort of X Factor show-off type of MP, like Shane Jones. He was more like Nuk over there on the other side. He had his own style, eh, Nuk? Very like my mate Nuk over there. And I was looking at you too, Ronnie, but, no, I can’t put you in that category! Ha, ha!

He was a relation to my mother, June Jackson—June Batley. The whānau both married each other, the Batley and Wētere whānau. But this is the type of kaupapa he dreamed about—this is the type of kaupapa he dreamed about. In his own way, he had his own style. A relation of mine, but can’t say we saw things the same way in terms of economics. He was quite a Rogernomics supporter in his day, the old whanaunga. Yes, the Speaker’s aware of that. But, within that, first and foremost, he believed in Māori development. So he was different from other Māori politicians from the left, going down the Douglas side but believing in Treaty settlements, believing that groups should have their own way, their own tino rangatiratanga—and so what a mover, in terms of his own language and his own culture.

And at the tangi the other day, which we all enjoyed, it was pointed out by Rāhui Papa from the other side that whilst we owe Koro Wētere a lot of gratitude in terms of the Māori language, it was ironic that the man who led us on to the marae the other day, Winston Peters, could take some credit too, because when Koro decided one day to speak in Māori in the House, who did the point of order? Winston Peters. He asked him to explain what on earth he was talking about, and Koro, of course, refused at the time. We didn’t have our flash communicators here, who translate straight away, and because of a lot of that work done by our matua, we are where we are today, and so we thank Koro. Of course, we have to thank him—I have to say this to the National Party—our Acting Prime Minister, Winston Peters, because if he hadn’t have said “Translate.”, we wouldn’t have what we have today. So, well done, Winston—without doubt.

SPEAKER: Order!

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Thank you, Mr Speaker. But I bring our matua in because this legacy is an important legacy, and one thing our matua Koro talked about, and I do recall this at different hui, was alienation. We all know about alienation, don’t we? Because if you don’t know about alienation, then you don’t know about Treaty settlements. And if any tribe has been done over in terms of alienation, it’s this tribe—it’s this tribe.

How do you explain to Pākehā people today what alienation means? Because, you see, if you can’t access your language, if you can’t access your history, if you can’t access your whakapapa, then you have no identity. You have no identity. And what chance, what opportunity do your children have, do your mokopunas have? What chance does that tribe have? It’s one of the saddest parts, I believe, of Treaty settlements, Māori alienation, and it’s a part that all New Zealanders should try to understand. The loss of communal ancestral lands had a huge impact on this tribe. They were left landless, and that’s been said today, with uneconomic blocks and insufficient means to support themselves.

So what happens to the tribe? The tribe is almost no more, and the tribe disperses and goes in all and every direction—into the different areas of Auckland, into the different parts of the country, into South Auckland, into West Auckland—and only a few people are left to carry the identity and the life of that tribe. I mihi to you today, those people who carried the kaupapa—carried the kaupapa through all those traumas.

When people talk about the impacts of colonisation, look what happened to our people—look what happened to our people. I know, having had different kōrero with different Ministers, particularly this Minister sitting by me, Minister Little, when we talk about impacts and we talk about our people, sadly, in a dysfunctional way—because we fill all the worst statistics, sadly, in terms of domestic violence and abuse and all that, and we’re trying to change that. The previous Government tried to change that; we’re trying to change that.

I know one thing: you get your people to know their culture, their language, their identity, and you will have a change and you will have a future. This is what this tribe now has, because they know who they are, they know who their tribe is, they know what they’re going to say to their children, and they know what they’re going to say to their mokopuna. They’re all going to speak—well, they’re not all going to speak Māori, but our kids are speaking Māori, our mokopuna are speaking Māori. That’s how important the culture is—that’s how important the culture is. And I know from my work within my organisation that when we have had families who know their reo, who know their whakapapa, who know their history, those are families that do well.

So my hope from this settlement is that the progress that is going on within this tribe continues, and that they benefit from the hard work and the history and the trauma that the tribe has gone through, and you carry on as you have for the last few years. The money is nothing. What you have done in terms of working through this settlement and in terms of what we overcome as Māori should shine through to your children and your mokopuna.

So I mihi to you all today, and to the House. It’s always an honour to speak on these settlements. And I mihi to our Minister here, one of the—I was going to say one of the best Pākehās around, but there’s plenty of good Pākehā, eh, Mr Little? But he’s one of our best Ministers that you could have, along with Minister Finlayson—what a job he’s done. I thank you all for your attendance today.

Tēnei te mihi ki a koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, ā tēnā anō tātou.

Bill read a third time.

Waiata

Bills

Insolvency Practitioners Bill

Discharge and Referral to Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee

Hon CLARE CURRAN (Minister of Broadcasting, Communications and Digital Media) on behalf of the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: I move, That the order of the day for the committee of the whole House stage of the Insolvency Practitioners Bill be discharged, and that the bill be referred to the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee for the consideration of SOP No 45, in the name of the Hon Kris Faafoi.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Local Government Regulatory Systems Amendment Bill

First Reading

Debate resumed from 26 June.

Dr JIAN YANG (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s good to come back to my speech.

Poorly designed and implemented regulatory arrangements could result in significant costs in terms of business productivity and profitability and the wealth of individuals and families. In the end, the country as a whole will suffer, because the country’s economic performance and well-being will be negatively affected.

New Zealand has a very large and complex regulatory sector, made up of 200 or so regulatory regimes. More than 10,000 people work in regulatory roles, so it is a very complex regime. The local government legislative framework that we are dealing with now is also a very complex arrangement of multiple Acts and these Acts are amended from time to time, and sometimes we do not get everything right. Sometimes those changes in various Acts can be inconsistent. It is therefore necessary for us to come back and rectify these errors.

This bill is also a direct response to the New Zealand Productivity Commission’s 2014 report on regulatory institutions and practices. This report has noted some major issues that we need to pay attention to. For example, two-thirds of regulator chief executives reported they had to work with legislation that is outdated or not fit for purpose. Only 10 percent of the businesses surveyed believed that regulatory requirements in New Zealand were rarely or never contradictory or incompatible with each other. The report also notes that it can be difficult to find time on the parliamentary calendar for repairs and maintenance of existing legislation. As a result, regulatory agencies often have to work with legislation that is out of date or not fit for purpose.

Now, the changes in this bill are minor. Nevertheless, they help to improve and maintain the effectiveness and efficiency of our legislative regime or regulatory system. For instance, this bill will reduce local governments’ filing compliance costs. According to law, local governments are required to file some documents with some Government agencies. While this is a very good public service, it can incur costs. This bill will require local governments to file certain documents online—to make these documents online—instead of filing these documents in hard copy with Government agencies, because these documents have low value as notifications. They are mainly for public record and for public accessibility. So by requiring these local governments to make these documents available on the website instead of them filing them with Government agencies, this will reduce the cost and also will make accessibility even better.

So this is a good bill. I commend it to the House. Thank you.

GARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou, kia ora. I rise to take a very brief call in support of this legislation. It’s an omnibus bill. I understand the genesis was the 2014 Productivity Commission report into local government, essentially modernising, streamlining, reducing costs and inefficiencies in the local government space.

One area in particular I’m going to be following up in detail in the select committee is the changes to the Dog Control Act 1996. Here, they’re going to replace the definition of a “disability assist dog” and align the notification requirements of local authorities. It’s something I’ve heard from animal welfare groups and advocates—that we do need to improve the status and the public visibility of disability assist dogs. Most commonly, people are aware of guide dogs and vision-impaired dogs, but as we’ve seen, particularly in the US, a number of other assistant functions of dogs have been recognised in US law—most notably, I think, in California, where dogs are allowed on public transport, they’re used to assist in reducing anxiety, mental health issues.

It’s becoming more and more common in New Zealand, but without a common identifier, we have seen conflicts overseas where people have tried to bring a dog into a business, and have been removed, and we’ve seen legal challenges as a result. I think we’re going to see more of these cases in New Zealand. So the idea of a common regulatory function and a common visibility function for disability assist dogs, potentially in a wider context, will be a very interesting issue to raise in the select committee.

The Government recently held an animal welfare hui where a number of dog, cat, and companion animal groups sent a very clear message to the Government. There are a number of issues in terms of the Dog Control Act which also need modernising in terms of potentially looking at the regulation of breeding: how dogs are bred, and the conditions in which they’re bred. We’re seeing the rise of dog sales on TradeMe and other online platforms where, perhaps, the animal welfare standards aren’t as high as many Kiwis would expect.

So there are still a number of issues with dogs and companion animals in New Zealand that the local government legislation deals with. We very much support modernising it to make sure those animals get a fair go. Where they’re used as companion animals for disability assistance, we want to make sure that there’s a good, modern, robust regime. So look, we support this very common-sense, reasonable omnibus bill. We’ll be looking at this area in particular, amongst the various issues raised.

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I apologise for not waking up early enough this morning. Ha! The Speaker will know what I’m talking about.

SPEAKER: I do. And I don’t want any inference taken from it.

IAN McKELVIE: Ha, ha! Exactly. Thank you. I’ll just make a brief contribution to the Local Government Regulatory Systems Amendment Bill. It’s a pleasure for me to do that, and of course, I was a former participant in local government for a number of years before I came to this great place, and I can understand the frustrations of many in the sector as they go through a process of, I guess, local government and governance and then find that there’s regulations that are either outdated or are difficult to interpret that cause trouble.

Of course, in this House in the last few years, we’ve had a number of occasions where we’ve had to go back and amend legislation to enable rates and things like that to be set because the regulation that governs those things has not been adhered to by local government, and often—well, I wouldn’t say in those cases, but often—it’s not the fault of local government, because some of the regulations that we expect local government to deal with are quite difficult. They’re outdated and there are some quite interesting examples of them, actually.

I just want to talk about—going back to the Local Government Act of 1974, there’s an alteration to that that deals with the requirements around designating a road as a pedestrian mall. So if you go back to 1974, it’s unlikely there were many pedestrian malls. Manners Mall might have been there, but there wouldn’t have been many pedestrian malls in New Zealand at that time. So at that time, those sorts of regulations weren’t thought of. So it’s really quite interesting that things get put in legislation and then, a number of years later, they’re clearly outdated.

Also, in the clauses of this bill there’ll be some changes to the Rates Rebate Act. That relates directly to provisions around the eligibility of residential villages and things like that, which again, in those days, weren’t thought of, basically. So a lot of these things get outdated quite quickly and we’ve got to readjust them and bring them up to date.

The other thing that really interests me was that Gareth Hughes talked about something that I was actually going to talk about—he’s almost taken the very words out of my mouth—because I think the dog issue is really interesting because there’s a much greater use of all sorts of animals for companionship. As our population ages, there’s going to be a much greater desire for older people—and I’m one of them—to take our dog round the park, and, of course, a lot of councils have regulations that prohibit dogs from going into public places, and—when you think about our history—with good reason. I fully support the issue that Gareth Hughes raised because I think it’s going to be very important in our future, and I think you could stretch that as far as looking at residential homes and council-owned housing and things like that, where companion animals of one kind or another will be necessary. So I think we’re going to see some changes in that sort of regulation too, and this is just the start of that.

I want to make a couple of other comments about local government in my brief contribution, because these changes won’t really make any difference to our rates or the cost of local government. One of the real challenges I think we’re facing as a country is how we manage costs of local government—costs of all sorts of government—and the impact that those sorts of standing charges have on people with fixed incomes. Again, as our population ages, that cost is going to increase significantly. So we’re going to have to look at alternative forms of funding for all sorts of things, and local government’s one of them.

I think if you look at the fact the Minister of Local Government’s got an inquiry into local government funding at the moment—I’ve seen two of them in my time in public life. Both of them produced quite comprehensive reports and were taken no notice of at all by this place. I hope this latest one is taken some notice of, and I hope it comes up with something that will serve the purposes of local government in a good manner.

The last thing I just want to say in the short contribution—I might just say a couple more things, but the last thing I want to say in this short contribution I was going to make is that every three years we elect people to local government throughout New Zealand, probably almost thousands of them. These people go into local government to make their communities a better place to live, and we’ve got to give them the tools that enable them to do that. In some cases—I think if you look at district councils and city councils—that’s relatively a people-related issue. But if you look at our regional councils, our health boards, and things like that, they’re much more complicated issues than we face in the course of local government dealing with people, and so some different skills are required. But I do think we need to give our councils the tools to enable them to get on with life and, once elected, to get a little bit of pleasure out of the little bit of work they do to assist their communities.

I think that that’s pretty much all I want to say, but I do think that the review of these regulations is really important and adds a great deal of value to what we do as a country, and, hopefully, it will make life simpler for the participants in local government throughout New Zealand. I’ve got a great deal of pleasure in commending this bill to the House, and, like Gareth Hughes, I look forward to the discussions we might have on dogs in the select committee. Thank you.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I understand this is a split call. You have five minutes—Jamie Strange.

JAMIE STRANGE (Labour): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. It’s a delight to stand and talk on the Local Government Regulatory Systems Amendment Bill. I’d like to acknowledge the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, who’s brought this bill to the House. She’s doing an excellent job in her portfolio, engaging with local government.

I’d like to begin by talking about the importance of collaboration between central and local government. As someone who used to work at the Gisborne District Council for four years, I understand some of the systems that take place in terms of local government. When we have local government and central government working together, it really is—I was going to say it’s a beautiful thing, but it’s certainly a very practical thing, and it may be beautiful as well.

This is fairly standard sort of legislation here, simply updating some of the key aspects around the Local Government Act. This is simply an example of a strong, stable Government getting on with the job of governing. Some parties enjoy a bit more of a shock jock style—you know, whatever they do with their time—but this Government here, we’re not into any sort of shock jock stuff. We just get on with governing, and that is, basically, simply what we’re doing.

It’s really making this legislation fit for purpose—fit for purpose—and there are a few key areas that it focuses on. The first one I’d like to talk about—and the previous two speakers, Gareth Hughes and Ian McKelvie, mentioned it as well—is the aspect around dog control. Now, as I said, as someone who’s worked in local government, I’ve always had a high level of respect for those staff members who work in the area of dog control. It’s been said that all politics is local, and certainly local government, you know, out-works a lot of this stuff.

Actually, the Baha Men once sang “Who Let the Dogs Out?”. Some might say that relates to politicians, but I’m sure it doesn’t. I’m sure they were thinking of something different there. But look, dog control officers are just an example of some wonderful people who are working to make our community function well, and they need support in terms of updating legislation. This specific aspect is around the disability assist dogs. I’m delighted that the Minister has taken this into account in terms of the Productivity Commission’s July 2014 report and, hence, made these changes.

Another aspect I’d like to touch on is the Local Electoral Act 2001. The purpose of the changes here are “to empower councils to improve representative and substantial participation in local elections, and to clarify when a successful candidate in a by-election may come into office.” We’ve certainly heard quite a few times in this House that we need more participation in local body elections, and I acknowledge members on both sides of the House who have been councillors before. The fact is that we’re generally around the 30 percent mark for most local body elections. In a by-election recently, we got down below 10 percent—for a by-election. This is something that certainly is a problem, because we’ve got people who aren’t engaged in our electoral system.

I’m very pleased that the wording of the explanatory note of this legislation says, “to empower councils to improve representative and substantial participation”. So councils may look at electronic means, and I know the Hamilton City Council have had discussions around this. This is just one example of what they might do, but this bill broadens it so that the councils are empowered to do it the way they want.

So, just to summarise, this is just an example of a Government getting on with the business of governing, and updating legislation accordingly. Thank you.

DENISE LEE (National—Maungakiekie): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I’m happy to take this particular call on the first reading of the Local Government Regulatory Systems Amendment Bill. Other speakers before me have covered several topics that this bill covers, but I’ll just highlight two very brief aspects of the bill. It clarifies when a successful candidate—as Jamie Strange just pointed out—in a council by-election may come into office. I hear the words “successful by-election candidate” and can’t resist giving a mention to our colleague Dan Bidois and his successful by-election result. It’s not council, but it’s certainly a successful by-election result. Good one, Dan. The bill also makes a number of changes to the Local Government Act and to the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act, the primary of which is inserting a definition for “Internet site”—just a couple of the changes there that we’re looking at in the late afternoon here in the House.

Now, in general, these changes seem to be focusing on trying to lift participation in local elections—that’s a good thing—and improving public access to council information—another good thing—and, of course, the internet is the key tool that the omnibus bill is focusing on. So they’re small and they’re uncontroversial changes, and the intention of the bill is one that we can support and, in fact, it is one that we are supporting.

I do want to draw attention, however, to the regulatory impact statement prepared for the bill by the Department of Internal Affairs. It states, “The frequency of occurrence for all issues is believed to be low and the impact for most is low.” In the next paragraph, it goes on: “Data does not exist on frequency or scale of actual incidents or lost opportunities arising from the identified issues. Collecting this data would require a disproportionate amount of time and resources, relative to the minor nature of the issues.” So what they’re essentially saying there in the impact statement is that the issues that this bill is addressing are not worth the time to report on, but also that they’re actually not really issues.

Now, I don’t want to be negative, and as I said, these are simple and smart changes that we are supporting, and every so often is it not right that we need to do just a bit of housekeeping on bills here in the House? This is not a bill that’s trying to solve all the problems in local government. The purpose is to clarify vague parts of existing legislation and to make sure that local government uses an important tool when making public announcements. These are good things. I just hope, though, that this is not the highlight of the Government’s programme of reform for local government. There are some significant issues that need resolving: three waters, funding tools, and, of course, there’s just that little aspect of fixing up something in the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act, which I have a member’s bill on—it just so happens. To do that; it’s around getting transparency and accountability and not withholding any information. So those are just some very, very fundamentally important aspects in local government that do need to be addressed.

We’re supporting this bill, but I hope that the Minister recognises the importance of some other massive streams of work that need to take place. Thank you. We support this first reading.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. Let’s not pretend that this is the most exciting bill that’s come before this House, and it might even win a competition for being the most boring. But, you know, I love it for that—

Simeon Brown: This is Parliament. Don’t play down the seriousness of this place.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB: —because these bills are really, really important. As Mr Simeon Brown, who’s yapping away over there, which is quite apposite for this bill, would well know from the Regulations Review Committee—he blinks and blinks there as he looks at the page in front of him—detail is important. The people who have to work with this legislation absolutely need to have workable legislation. This isn’t—

Simeon Brown: Name one thing the bill does. Tell us your favourite clause.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB: This bill does five great things. Not only does it improve electoral systems in the Local Government Act—

Simeon Brown: How?

Dr DUNCAN WEBB: —by enabling—Mr Simeon Brown, you’re going to bite off a bit more than you can chew very soon, yap, yapping off there in the corner. It does it, Mr Brown, by allowing electoral officers to expand the way in which they recruit electors so that marginalised communities can be better approached to engage in the electoral process. But you know what? It’s really important—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! Order! The use of “you”—

Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Sorry, Madam Assistant Speaker. It is important that one has these important reviews of detailed legislation.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! Members, can we just have a little bit of order. I’d like to hear the speech, thank you.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Sorry, those newer members are a bit excitable on the backbench of the other side. I can entirely understand as it’s late on a Thursday.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Not helpful, Dr Webb.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB: I’ll try to be helpful from here on in. My real point was this: that these kinds of technical reviews are an important part of the legislative process. I commend the Minister for taking the time, essentially, to do a clean-up, to make sure that there’s a whole lot of what appear to be minor things out there—officials who have to work with this kind of legislation desperately need to know things like what “a working day” means for when a notice of appeal comes into a local government. We may think it’s trivial, but for the person who’s wanting advice on when to put that notice of appeal in, it can be a very, very important thing indeed. And, indeed, the definition of what an assisting animal or dog is—that’s very important for exactly these kinds of things.

So I’m not going to spend a lot of time in this House talking about it, but I do absolutely commend the work that the Minister has done here to make sure that the job of officials in local government is made easier, more effective, more productive, and more efficient. Thank you very much.

MAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. Well, that’s a very hard act to follow—not. So we have before us today a very simple omnibus bill. It does create some minor changes to the Acts that local government works with. It’s simply just keeping up to date and ensuring that the Acts that local government work under are easy to work under and are, of course, fit for purpose. We’ve heard some great examples today of where the Local Government Act and the various Acts that they work under probably do let us down in this modern day and age.

Over time, there are various tweaks made to all sorts of Acts, and that creates an inconsistency, sometimes, between the Acts—that they’re all working together. But, actually, working on the coalface of this legislation, it does create a bit of complexity, and this bill simply aims to tidy up some of that complexity. It is actually in response to the Productivity Commission’s report of 2014. They did mention the challenges of time and the political constraints in getting legislation through the parliamentary process. So this omnibus bill is just a collection of some of those recommendations that came out of that Productivity Commission report, and we’re tidying it up, starting from today.

There may have been some delays in getting the legislation into the Parliament, but it seems that this hasn’t been the case in the last year. In fact, in the nine years before that, it was difficult because there was so much legislation before the House. But there seems to be a gaping hole in the workload now, and so I just say thank goodness that the National-led Government left so much work piled up that it’s filling the gap in the workload of this House.

The omnibus bill makes changes to the Local Electoral Act 2001, the Local Government Act 1974, the Local Government Act 2002, the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, the Rates Rebate Act 1973, and the Dog Control Act 1996. It also makes changes to the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, which we all know as LGOIMA. But I do note in the drafting of the bill that even though we are attempting to become more modern and use electronic means, there’s no mention in this amendment to LGOIMA of using electronic means for holding meetings, and I do hope that the select committee turns its mind to that.

I have a particular interest in this from my time in local government, when if you needed to call a council meeting together and you needed a quorum, some of the people available actually lived four hours’ drive away. For them to come to the council meeting to rubber-stamp, say, the adoption of an annual plan or an annual report, a four-hour drive or a 4½-hour drive each way seemed a nonsense when we could have perhaps Skyped and used electronics.

In my experience in local government, there were always two areas that you didn’t ever want to mess with without raising the hackles of the ratepayers, and they were libraries and dogs. I always remember the largest turnout of submitters to an annual plan would be if we ever threatened to make any changes to the fees for library books. In the end, we decided that, actually, we’d make it free, and that did away with that problem.

It is good to see some changes being made to the Dog Control Act, and we’ve heard from Gareth Hughes earlier today about some of those changes. But I do recall another issue that came up in local government, which was raised around search and rescue dogs, and whether they should have some special mention in the Dog Control Act. So perhaps the select committee may turn its mind to that in its deliberations. The changes to the Dog Control Act include a schedule. That schedule is amended by Order in Council by the Governor-General so that that list can be adapted as is seen fit.

Also mentioned by my colleague across the House before was around the—

Simeon Brown: The only sensible point he made.

MAUREEN PUGH: Well, it was a sensible point—thank you, Mr Brown. It was around the Local Government Act 2002. It does mention—and I know this from working with the team at council—whether something was submitted on a day and it had “a month” ahead. So was that a calendar month? Was it four weeks? In different Acts, they refer to the different terms, so in some Acts—under the Resource Management Act it will be “1 month”. Is that a calendar month? Is it four weeks? I think we still have room to build some more consistency around the language that is used.

It’s good to see them putting these definitions around some of the working days, as well, and actually spelling out the exclusions of working days, and they are mostly our public holidays and also the Christmas break period. I still believe that there are some tweaks that could be made, and I do hope that the select committee will turn its mind to those. We do need our regulatory systems to be flexible and we do need them to keep pace, which is very common-sense, but we also need them to keep up with the technology—hence my point about LGOIMA—and with the expectations of our communities, and our communities do expect now to be able to access council information and council notices via electronic means, as well.

So these changes are minor, as we have said. They do bring about the modifications that are needed to tidy up the Acts within this bill. I look forward to the bill making its way through this Parliament, and I commend it to the House. Thank you.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Kia ora, Madam Assistant Speaker. I’m pleased to round off the debate on the first reading of this Local Government Regulatory Systems Amendment Bill, and I agree with my good colleague Dr Duncan Webb that this is an exciting piece of legislation! At times, there are different types of legislation that we have to put through this House, but, as the Minister Nanaia Mahuta said in her first reading speech, this is more about repairs and maintenance so that we can get the odd jobs done as parliamentarians. This is about the closest we’ll get to it, but no doubt there will be some substantive heavy lifting that we will be doing later on as well, as we put through our agenda as a coalition Government.

As has been covered quite fully in this debate, we are tweaking and making minor technical amendments to a range of Acts which control or regulate local government in New Zealand. As we know, local government is very important. I for one know that in my vast electorate, I’ve got pretty much just about every type of local government that there is, except for a super-city. But there is—

Dr Duncan Webb: Christchurch.

RINO TIRIKATENE: Oh well, Christchurch comes close—it is super.

It’s important that we do make these technical amendments which come around periodically, and I do commend the Productivity Commission for laying the groundwork for us to put through these amendments in this bill.

I just want to quickly touch on a couple of matters. I think this type of legislation is very important, because we know what happens when local authorities get things wrong. We’ve had numerous occasions in my time in this House when we’ve had to do fix-up legislation—retrospective legislation—when councils have not adhered to procedural matters properly, or whatever obligations or requirements that they have which haven’t been adhered to. It is left up to us as a Parliament to correct those errors. So it is important that the legislation which governs our local authorities is very clear, is up to date, is modern, and is able to assist in the work of local authorities.

Secondly, I also want to touch on what stuck out for me in this bill, which was local authority elections. Make no mistake, local authority elections are very, very complex, whether it’s just the enrolment side of things, whether it’s the voting system, or whether it’s just the eligibility. So there is a whole host of complexity, and when you apply that, overlay that across rural, provincial, city, unitary type—the whole range of different entities that we have in the local government sector—it is very important that that emphasis is given to electoral officers to have the mandate to ensure that there is wider participation and engagement in electoral processes, because, as we have heard from earlier speeches, the turnout in local body elections is actually woeful.

So we do want to adopt more modern technology and processes, and I’m sure this is an evolving space, but we’re making good progress with the changes that we are making in this bill, and I’m sure others may emerge at the committee stage. But, for now, I commend this bill to the House.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Governance and Administration Committee.

Bills

Military Justice Legislation Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Hon RON MARK (Minister of Defence): I move, That the Military Justice Legislation Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

Tuatahi e tika ana ki te mihi ki tōku hoa Mark David Whittaker: moe mai, moe mai rā.

[Firstly, it is right to acknowledge my friend Mark David Whittaker: rest in peace.]

In commencing the second reading of this bill, I wish to acknowledge and pay my respects to a veteran, former soldier, senior firefighter, urban search and rescue firefighter, and decorated hero of the Christchurch earthquake, Mark David Whittaker, whose funeral was held this morning in Rangiora. Mark was a veteran. He was aged 45 and leaves behind his wife, Carol, and three children: Charlotte, Mason, and Lauren.

In moving this second reading of the Military Justice Legislation Amendment Bill, it doesn’t go unnoticed by me that when young men and women enter the New Zealand Defence Force, they swear allegiance and they accept that from that point on they are subject to military law, which puts them in a rather unique position where they become New Zealand citizens who are subject to two forms of law: the standard law that every New Zealander is subjected to, and they take upon themselves a code of honour, ethics, and values, and knowingly accept that should they transgress or breach any of the military laws that, from that moment on, apply to them, they will be judged and, in some cases, judged far more severely than would be the case with a civilian accused and convicted of a similar crime.

And I just make the point that service personnel like Mark David Whittaker accept these rules without question and everything that comes with them, which, in the early part of their career, which is their recruit training phase, can quite often see them appearing in an orderly room on charges for transgressions—some as huge and horrific as having twisted boot laces, dust in the welts of their shoes, or a dirty rifle! Of course, that is at the lower end of the military justice system, where young men and women going through their initial training are subjected to the rigours of military training and have the discipline required to make them effective military personnel instilled in them. It’s with that in mind that I move this second reading.

As I said in the first reading, the purpose of this bill is to enhance the efficiency, transparency, and consistency of the military justice system with the law governing the criminal justice system and to correct minor flaws in the relevant legislation. This bill has been considered by the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, which reported back to the House on 4 May. The select committee process and the committee’s report demonstrate the strength of this bill and the broad support that it enjoys both in this House and within the wider community.

The committee received only four submissions: one from the New Zealand Law Society, one from the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, one from the National Council of Women of New Zealand, and one anonymous submission. The National Council of Women and the New Zealand Law Society explicitly acknowledged and supported the purpose of the bill. The National Council of Women attended the committee to make an oral submission, and given the focus of this bill in enhancing victims’ rights in the military justice system, they were particularly interested in how it might affect the situation of women in the armed forces. This resulted in a commitment by the Defence Force to provide the National Council of Women with more information about Operation RESPECT.

Operation RESPECT is an organisation-wide military operation, launched by the Chief of Defence Force in 2016, to eliminate harmful and inappropriate behaviour in the Defence Force. The Defence Force is to be commended for this initiative, and I think the House will agree that the interest of the National Council of Women and the defence forces engaged with them has been appropriate and timely.

The New Zealand Law Society made a very good point that the purpose of the bill, to align military justice processes with those in the ordinary criminal courts wherever possible, would be frustrated if the bill was not amended to take into account some changes to ordinary criminal law which were proposed in the Courts Matters Bill. The Courts Matters Bill is currently being considered by the Justice Committee and is not due to be reported back until 24 May. If passed in its current form, that bill would change the way in which the issue of fitness to stand trial is approached in ordinary criminal courts. At present, the court must first satisfy itself, on the balance of probabilities, that the defendant did the alleged act. This is called “the involvement inquiry”. Then, if the court is satisfied of that, it hears medical evidence to determine whether the defendant is fit to stand trial. That is called “the fitness inquiry”.

The Courts Matters Bill will reverse the sequence of the involvement and fitness inquiries. There are equivalent provisions relating to fitness to stand trial in the Armed Forces Discipline Act, but, unfortunately, the Courts Matters Bill does not consequentially amend those. That is the problem identified by the Law Society in its submission and covered by the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee in their report. The Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee did not want to prejudice where the Justice Committee would recommend that this change and sequence be enacted. So it has recommended that the Military Justice Legislation Amendment Bill be passed without amendment. However, the select committee recommended that I consider moving an amendment to the bill during the committee of the whole House stage. The intent of that is to wait and see whether the change in sequence proposed in the Courts Matters Bill is recommended to the House by the Justice Committee. If it is, I intend to lodge a Supplementary Order Paper and, in the committee of the whole House, move that this bill be amended to reflect that change.

I wish to thank the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee for their diligence in the way in which they’ve considered this bill and the recommendations they have made in their report. I thank the chairman, Simon O’Connor. I commend this bill to the House.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Can I acknowledge the Minister of Defence, who has just resumed his seat, for taking this bill through the House and here tonight as we discuss the Military Justice Legislation Amendment Bill. I acknowledge his support and work and will actually acknowledge a bit further the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) which has been, I understand, tabled a couple of days ago, around the involvement clause. I’ll talk a little about that because it was probably—well, not necessarily the most critical—the element within the select committee which took up most of our time with how we rightly align this justice legislation with wider justice activities. So thanks to that Minister and to Mark Mitchell as well, his predecessor, who had begun work on this. I think this sort of legislation shows the cooperation that moves across the House, and I think that’s a positive thing not only for the House but certainly for the men and women of our armed forces who deserve our support.

The Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee worked hard on this. It was quite a small piece of legislation per se, but one that did occupy quite a bit of time of the committee. As the Minister of Defence noted, there were four submissions, but they were quite involved submissions themselves. So I just want to acknowledge those who took the opportunity to present to us, the advisers from the Defence Force who worked with us, and, of course, everyone else involved—the likes of the Parliamentary Counsel Office. I’m always very conscious, as the chair of the committee, that I stand alongside excellent members of Parliament and, if I might, even more excellent advisers who give us that assistance, so thanks to them.

It’s no surprise that National supports this bill. Ultimately, what it does is align military justice with what we’re familiar with in the civilian justice context, obviously allowing for some points of difference, but, fundamentally, trying to bring them into line. One of the most critical elements is around victims’ rights, to make sure that those who are victims of a crime within the military justice setting enjoy—if that’s the right word—the same opportunities as one would in a civilian jurisdiction. So something as simple—simple as a concept, not in the nature of what’s happened to someone—as if something’s happened within the military justice system, that someone who’s about to go on to bail or the like will be informed of that. In other words, the victim will get to know about it, and I think that’s quite important. The victim will have the right to be consulted, and so forth.

So, again, these are things which, in the civilian context, we’ve taken for granted, arguably, and now, through this bill, we’re modernising the Armed Forces Discipline Act and the Court Martial Act to make this possible—also the Court Martial Appeals Act. Importantly, this is an omnibus bill, so the changes in this particular legislation flow through to at least three of those.

Small other elements have gone through. One of them is around the notice of judicial appointments. At the moment, the notices have to be advertised by the Chief of Defence Force, but he or she doesn’t actually have any say in that—they’re not the one doing the appointments. It’s a bit of an anomaly, so we’re updating the law there so that whoever makes the appointment actually does the gazetting. It’s a small thing but a relative one.

The area where probably most of the discussion has occurred is around the fitness to stand trial, and, as the Minister noted, it’s usually around some sort of impairment—primarily mental, but it could be physical, but if someone’s not able to stand trial. The select committee took quite a bit of time around this, not because of the essence of what had to occur, but what was to be the right and proper procedure for ourselves as a committee to update and amend this piece of legislation correctly—to do what was our responsible job. But we were also very conscious that, simultaneously, the Justice Committee was looking at changes in this exact same area, which had effects in the civilian side of things. To put it really simply, the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee did not want to make changes around the fitness to stand trial that may end up contradicting what the Justice Committee came back with. To put it in a different way, the changes that the Justice Committee was going to do in its domain flow into this military space. That’s the whole point of this amendment bill.

So the committee decided not to propose a change in the legislation when we reported back. Instead, we wrote in our report a fairly fulsome explanation of the dynamics and where we had landed, and encouraged the Minister to—I suppose, in good faith, but also, I think, we know his character enough that he would listen to what we had to say—put, at the committee of the whole House stage, a Supplementary Order Paper, which I’m pleased to see has happened.

The long and the short around this fitness to stand trial is just to get the process ordering correct. The Minister elaborated on this, but the first element is if someone is accused of a crime within the military space, decisions have to be made whether or not—not whether they are able to stand trial, but whether there’s enough evidence to go to trial. I think that was noted as the “involvement inquiry”. So, basically, we’re asking, if all of this passes through the House, that a person accused of a crime is judged, first and foremost—or initial judgments, the prima facie elements. Did they commit the crime? Is there enough evidence for this to proceed? If that is the case, then the question of a person’s impairment—physical, mental, or otherwise—can be judged, not the other way around.

In other words, if someone’s accused of something, simply claiming a mental impairment, and someone saying, “Oh yes, you do. We’re not going to have you stand trial”, has not been seen as fair, and particularly not fair to the victims who are saying, “Well, hold on a moment. Could there at least be some acknowledgment that there was at least a case here?” So we’re following in line with what the Justice Committee’s come in with, or rather the SOP that the Minister’s tabled that a person will, in effect, be accused; those making the decision, the judges or the tribunal, will decide whether there’s sufficient evidence to continue; and if there is, then the competency or the fitness of the person will be decided.

Look, a couple of other very small things that have been introduced. Someone now can object to a military member. In other words, if there’s someone who’s going to be doing the trial, that, actually, there’s an opportunity to say, “Hold on, they shouldn’t for X, Y, and Z reasons.” Obviously it’s up to the Courts Martial to decide, but there’s now a provision for an objection. The onus of proof as well has changed a little bit. So it’s ultimately now for the prosecution to prove that a person’s guilty, not so much that the person being accused has to prove that they are innocent.

So these are good changes. As I say, they are relatively simple only in so far as they reflect what we’ve become used to in the civilian space. So I think it’s a positive step forward.

So can I end by returning to where I started, which is thanking all of those involved, particularly our officials and advisers, those who took the opportunity to engage the committee, and to then thank the Minister for honouring the spirit of what the committee asked—that a Supplementary Order Paper be tabled and make this well in line with other legislation. With that, I commend this bill to the House.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister of Employment): Kia ora, Madam Assistant Speaker, kia ora koutou.

Hon Stuart Nash: This’ll be better—this’ll be better.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Sorry? I just want to say the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee’s gone along very well and the chair’s done exceedingly well—exceeded himself. But I will say, on this—and it is non-controversial, but you have go—if we’re just thinking about Minister Mark—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! Order! Let’s start as we mean to go on. I know we’ve had problems in the past, but if I could encourage the member to refrain from the use of the word “you” because it brings the Speaker into the debate.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: OK, thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. In terms of what we’re talking about today, I was listening, though, to Minister Mark, and in terms of this alignment with what’s happening day to day, the armed forces had to align probably more than anyone else. What I was wanting to say is that we should mihi to the fifth Labour Government here for the changes that they decided on back between 2002 and 2006.

Things were so bad, I think, in the armed forces—and, as I said, Minister Mark talked a little bit about it, but I remember it so well, because I’ve had so many friends and family go through the armed forces and go through a legal process that was just unbelievable at times. If anything needed changing, that system needed changing, so badly that I had a friend—and I recall vividly—going through problems, I suppose having a breakdown at the time, in the mid-1980s. An officer in the army, and thrown—no legal help sought, no experts sought, just a judgment made that that this young man who was a good friend of mine must have been just mad and thrown into a mental hospital with murderers and rapists. It was shocking, absolutely shocking, and it affected him for the rest of his life and today.

That was the system that Minister Mark talks about—a system that had no aroha to their own. A system in which there was just one way—and it was their way—and that treated women very badly in the earlier years. So I mihi to what the earlier Labour Government did between 2005 and 2006. Also, in terms of the forces and how they addressed a lot of the problems with the sexual harassment that went on, the bullying that went on, Operation RESPECT was set up, and they gave some respect to some of the problems that a lot of the women had gone through in the forces. And you can only congratulate them on that work. I know some of the people who carried out the work during that time. It was the armed forces finally accepting that there was an unnecessary level of sexual harassment going on through the forces, and Operation RESPECT knocked a lot of that out and is working with that today, where we see women being promoted in the right areas, not being bullied, and the forces owning up to a level of harassment that would never be accepted in everyday life.

The previous speakers talked about a couple of areas that are very, very important in the area of victims’ rights. Those same rights need to be given to military victims of serious offences, and, of course, particularly those involved in a sexual nature. These rights need to be afforded to victims, because, in previous times, that was never the case. So I’m proud that the bill was able to address those areas, and the other one, of course, is the onus of proof aside. In terms of the onus of proof, it was particularly important that we recognise that someone does not have to prove that he or she is innocent; they have to be given the same opportunity that they are given day to day, and the onus of proof surely has to be on the prosecution.

So it was really pleasing to see that we were able to align that side of things, because a basic tenet of justice is that you’re innocent until proven guilty, rather than guilty because you’ve got an allegation raised against you. So that onus of proof, for myself, was very pleasing to see, and as a committee we worked closely together on this. There was never any real debate about things. It was good to see that both parties, both sides, were on the right track in these areas, in terms of victims’ rights and onus of proof, and I think we’re on track now to setting this up so that it can finally give some justice to people who serve our country but, for some unknown reason, in past years, have been unable to receive the same rights as everyday citizens. So I’m very pleased to support this, and I look forward to this going through the House. Kia ora, Madam Assistant Speaker.

Hon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Kia orana, Madam Assistant Speaker. This is the first call I have taken in a debate this week, so I’m wondering if you’d indulge me—just, literally, for a moment—to do two quick things.

Hon Stuart Nash: Have you forgotten how to speak, Tim? Have you forgotten how to speak?

Hon TIM MACINDOE: The first is, Mr Nash, that I would like to congratulate the Prime Minister and Clarke Gayford on the birth of Neve Te Aroha Ardern Gayford last week, because I think this is something that the whole country rejoiced in. I am, myself, the father of two wonderful daughters, who are my pride and joy, and I wish for the Prime Minister and Mr Gayford the same happiness. I am sure that that little girl will be deeply loved, and I look forward to meeting her at some stage when she’s brought to Wellington.

The other thing, and on a sadder note, but as the MP for Hamilton West, could I place on record my aroha and sympathy to the whānau and iwi of the late Hon Koro Wētere. I was often conscious of the fact that my electorate fits into just a tiny little piece of what he used to represent, when it was known as Western Maori. I had the privilege of meeting Koro on a few occasions, particularly at Tūrangawaewae, and always found him to be an absolute gentleman and a person of great decency and integrity.

Hon Stuart Nash: He was a Labour MP!

Hon TIM MACINDOE: Ha, ha! He was a Labour MP. Mr Nash, I am pleased to say that there are many Labour MPs, past and present, for whom I have great admiration, and he was one—a person who, I think, served his people with great, great integrity and decency, as I said.

Now, Madam Assistant Speaker, thank you for that. If I may now turn my attention to the Military Justice Legislation Amendment Bill, could I, as other speakers have done, acknowledge both the first Minister, the Hon Mark Mitchell, who introduced this bill, brought it to the House just before last year’s general election, when it was widely supported, and the Hon Ron Mark, who has picked it up in his current role as Minister of Defence and who is carrying it through.

I’m often surprised by how many people say to us “You politicians are always fighting and bickering and behaving like children.”, and, unfortunately, they never seem to focus on debates such as this, when, in fact, common sense, decency, and integrity prevail. Here we have a measure that is serious—

Hon Andrew Little: You have to admit, it is rare!

Hon TIM MACINDOE: Ha, ha! Mr Little may think it’s rare; I don’t think it’s all that rare, but I guess it depends on your perspective. The important thing, though, is that this is a serious matter and it’s being taken seriously by MPs on all sides of the House, and I commend those who have done the work. I say that because although I now have the privilege of being the deputy chair of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, I only came on to the committee in March of this year, so, unfortunately, I didn’t hear the submitters who came—the four submitters, as was mentioned by the Minister earlier—to put their views forward to the committee. I did hear the summary of their evidence and the advice of officials at the end of it, and became aware of the fact that those submitters, while few in number, had made a significant impact and their views have very much been taken into account.

As I’ve said, it’s clearly a bill that is widely supported in this House, as it makes a number of significant improvements to the military justice system. The Minister and previous speakers have already drawn attention to some of its key features, such as the incorporation into the military justice system of victims’ rights under Part 3 of the Victims’ Rights Act. So I wondered if I might just mention one particular case—I’m certainly not going to mention the name of the victim, but it sometimes helps just to understand why these measures are important—and this is a case that has been in the public domain, it’s been reported by the media, so I hope I’m not being insensitive in drawing attention to it. What I’m hoping to do is to help people listening to the debate to understand why this measure is important.

This concerns the case of a woman who served as a marine engineer in the navy and, while doing so, encountered years of sexual abuse. As I say, it’s a very distressing case and that’s a very, very serious matter to have occurred, and so it is, naturally, important that we ensure that we have adequate ways for both our criminal justice and military criminal system to be able to deal with this. Sadly, it got worse: she alleges that in 2009, while she was deployed on a training exercise in Britain, she was raped by a male colleague. Her evidence to the committee, that she felt that this Military Justice Legislation Amendment Bill introduced very positive measures and was something that she widely welcomed, is, naturally, a matter that the committee has taken great note of, and is pleased to hear, as I know are those who have advised the committee, particularly as representatives from the military.

In January of this year, Stuff revealed how people convicted of crimes in a Court Martial didn’t have their convictions shown on their civilian records. I think that if you reflect on the seriousness of the crimes that we’ve been talking about and the abuses that have occurred, to find that they were protected from having that sort of offending on their record seems to be grossly unjust. After all, you would expect that anybody who was convicted of such a thing in a civilian court would have that on their record for a substantial period of time. So I mention that simply as an example of why this bill matters, why the changes that it’s making are important, why they are widely supported across both sides of the House, and I look forward to seeing this bill continue its passage through the House.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I must say, it was with some interest that I sat on the select committee which considered this bill, the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee. I was, of course, somewhat familiar with military justice but only in a very cursory manner. Whilst the Minister of Defence refers to those instances where soldiers have perhaps been pulled up for not having their shoes shined and the like, that, of course, is very much at the summary end, where the commanding officer will no doubt take the steps that he or she feels is appropriate and mete out some disciplinary measure. What we’re really concerned with here, though, is much more serious offending.

It is absolutely appropriate that soldiers and other military personnel have exactly the same rights as any other citizen when they are accused of what are, essentially, crimes. Having said that, it’s also important to recognise that we do need courts martial; we need separate courts to deal with these matters, for a number of reasons. Some of the crimes themselves will be military crimes—crimes like desertion—and in other situations, the crimes will occur in circumstances where the ordinary courts don’t really have jurisdiction, such as where the matter occurs overseas. Similarly, the context of these crimes makes it appropriate that in most instances they should be dealt with by military court. Having said that, there is provision within the framework for these matters to be dealt with within the ordinary courts.

One of the things that came out of this examination was the importance of the commanding officer in this overall framework, in respect of the accused having a prosecutorial role—essentially, acting as a police officer would in recognising the potential offending and making sure that due process was accorded, that prosecution was taken only proportionately and appropriately. But, also, what came out was the fact that commanding officers have an important part to play in respect of victims of crime, and, as we’ve just heard, the victims of crime in the armed forces are often armed force personnel themselves. So the commanding officer clearly has a very important function to play in protecting the welfare of those victims.

One of the really good things about this legislation, this bill, is that it brings the rights of victims into the military justice arena. So we have a framework where the commanding officer is usually the person appointed as the representative of the victim and is also able to receive information on behalf of the victim of this crime. Now, the Privacy Commissioner did raise some issues there—they were carefully considered by the committee—in terms of the victim being notified of that information before the commanding officer was, but, on balance, it was considered that the framework as set out in the legislation was appropriate. But it’s important to recognise that what this does is it makes sure that if the offender is imprisoned, then the victim has the right to be notified of things like the release on bail or release after sentence, or, indeed, escape or even the death of the convicted offender. So that runs parallel, as it should, with the civilian framework.

We’ve also heard about the onus question. The onus question is an important one, because in the civilian system it’s become very clear through case law that when a defence is raised, the defendant does not have to prove the defence. They have to raise it, they have to point to facts which may give rise to it, but the onus does not fall on them to prove, on balance of probabilities or otherwise, the elements of that defence. Rather, the onus falls on the prosecution to prove all aspects of the offending, including that there is no defence on the facts as presented.

Now, simply by dint, I guess, of history, that had diverged from military law. Military law had not kept pace with it, and it wasn’t really appropriate for that kind of uncertainty to exist in this framework. So what we have here is a tidying up of that, a making clear that the civilian law in respect of onus and defences applies as well, and hand in hand goes, as Mr Simon O’Connor was pointing out, the question of fitness to stand trial. It’s interesting to see these two pieces of legislation going through the House and the coordination that’s been necessary to make sure. But I think the outcome is a sensible one, that once Supplementary Order Paper 37 is taken note of, both pieces of legislation would have an inquiry into fitness to stand trial—first, whether or not that person is mentally capable or not, and only after that occurs would you get into the question of the facts themselves.

The other thing that this legislation does is tidy up a whole lot of other bits and pieces. It is another piece of maintenance in that regard. Notice of appointments of judges: the Chief of Defence Force doesn’t have to notify those. They’re not even appointed by the Chief of Defence, so that’s a useful tidy-up. Also, military members of tribunals—the ability to object to military members is also here in this legislation, and the ability to substitute military members to those tribunals, a little bit like a jury but, I was informed at committee, not quite—much smaller—so a few more stringent rules, perhaps, around these military tribunals. So that also is a very useful tidy-up. But it’s good to see that we do have here the two pieces of legislation coming into alignment, the two systems in alignment. I commend this bill to the House.

CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise, perhaps only briefly, on the Military Justice Legislation Amendment Bill. It seems to me that it’s appropriate to first acknowledge those involved in the legislative process to date: the current Minister, the former Minister of Justice—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I apologise to the member. Sorry to interrupt. This debate is interrupted and is set down for resumption next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 3 July 2018. Pō mārie.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.