Thursday, 5 July 2018
Volume 730
Sitting date: 5 July 2018
THURSDAY, 5 JULY 2018
THURSDAY, 5 JULY 2018
The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.
Prayers.
Business Statement
Business Statement
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): The House will next sit on Tuesday, 24 July. The 11-hour Estimates debate will be the main business of the week. On the morning of Wednesday, 25 July, there will be an extended sitting for the committee stages of the Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill and the Military Justice Legislation Amendment Bill, and the second readings of the Courts Matters Bill and the Tribunals Powers and Procedures Legislation Bill and the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2). On Thursday, 26 July, the second reading of the Ngāti Tūwharetoa Claims Settlement Bill will take place.
Oral Questions
Questions to Ministers
Prime Minister—Government Tree-planting Programme and KiwiBuild
1. Hon PAULA BENNETT (Deputy Leader—National) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his Government’s policies and actions?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Acting Prime Minister): Yes.
Hon Paula Bennett: Does he consider it fair that a family earning the median household income of $82,000 per year is less likely to get into one of the 1,000 KiwiBuild houses because two doctors earning $180,000 a year are eligible to enter the ballot?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The reality is that both the examples given by the member will be in the ballot. We’re not going to advance the course of defeating homelessness in this country by setting people against each other for political purposes.
Hon Paula Bennett: So what does he say to a hard-working family who earn $82,000 per year who are likely to miss out on a KiwiSaver home to a family earning more than double that?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The reality is that anyone who knows a thing about housing development knows that KiwiBuild is a dynamic start to which there will be additions in the future, and for the first time in a very long time people like that are going to have a chance to enter the home market as an owner rather than a renter.
Hon Paula Bennett: Isn’t it correct that the only reason that you’ve increased the eligibility criteria to such high levels is because you know that you can’t deliver houses that are actually affordable?
SPEAKER: Order! No. The Prime Minister will not answer that question. [Interruption] No. The Prime Minister might—in fact, he can’t, because it was mainly addressed to me. Paula Bennett, do you have a further supplementary?
Hon Paula Bennett: Does he stand by his Government’s statement that it is “committed to its tree planting ambitions, which will help create sustainable jobs in our regions and help meet our carbon emissions targets”?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Yes.
Hon Paula Bennett: Why does his Government’s policy of planting 1 billion trees include plants recognised as pest weeds such as silver wattle, hawthorn, and the Taiwan cherry, which the Tasman District Council has been working to eradicate?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The experience from history, of course, is as you are preparing for a war, in this case on neglect toward the provinces, one might make the odd mistake, but over 400 trees were listed. One or two were a mistake and they have been weeded out.
SPEAKER: Order! Order! Before the Hon Paula Bennett asks her next supplementary, which member interjected while Ms Bennett was asking her previous supplementary?
Hon Dr David Clark: I believe I interjected after Ms Bennett had finished her question, but—
SPEAKER: No. Someone clearly interjected during the supplementary question. OK, I’ll go back to the tapes and have a look.
Hon Paula Bennett: So is it a billion trees, or a billion weeds?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The research department of the Opposition are going to have to put more work in than that. If that was an attempt at being a comedian, don’t give up the day job, but, then again, maybe it’s not the member’s fault and it’s the research department’s fault, because that sort of mistake has been repeated in this House by countless members of the Opposition.
Hon Paula Bennett: If, as the Prime Minister states, the list has been updated and the errors have been corrected, then why, at 1 o’clock when I printed the list, was it exactly the same and still talking about the silver wattle, the hawthorn, and the Taiwan cherry?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, I can say that given there’s such little public interest in this mistake, and that only one person apparently has applied to see that it is there as evidence, namely the member—despite that, this Government is so aware of public concern on a matter like that, if it ever it arises, that even one application for information sees us act within a matter of minutes.
Hon Paula Bennett: I seek leave, then, to table the list of native and exotic species that have been included in the programme that was available at 1 o’clock, as it may be changed over time. I’d like it tabled in the House, thank you.
SPEAKER: OK, the member seeks leave to table a document which everyone hopes will be changed. Is there any objection to that? There appears to be none.
Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
Hon Paula Bennett: Is he reassessing his Government’s foreign ownership policy now that he is happily welcoming in the Chinese Wonder Tree, the Oriental plane, and the Manchurian birch?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Can I just say that there’s two things about that question which should be clarified. First of all: these are productive investments. And the second thing is that because of the ideological mantra that we have to live with, of the 10 biggest forestry companies in this country, eight are foreign-owned. We’re setting out to build a New Zealand that we will own in the future.
Overseas Ownership of New Zealand Property—Exemption for Te Ārai Development
2. Hon AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) to the Associate Minister of Finance: In the timeline of events put to him in the first supplementary question to Oral Question No. 11 on Wednesday 4 July, which specific events were incorrect, and what is the alternative, correct version of those events?
Hon DAVID PARKER (Associate Minister of Finance): I became aware of the issues relating to the local iwi, Te Uri o Hau and Ngāti Manuhiri, after they made a joint submission with Darby Partners to the Finance and Expenditure Committee on 15 March. I became aware there were non-iwi developers in the weeks that followed—i.e., shortly after the member did. Other errors in her version of events include a claim that I took the paper to a Cabinet committee on 22 March, when the Cabinet committee met on 28 March. The member claims Treasury advised me of the level of non-iwi interest in the land—they did not. The correct version of events is that the Government called for public submissions on the bill, and in response to those submissions and after discussions between Ministers, and with Cabinet approval, proposed changes to the bill on the face of the bill, not through a regulation-making power, including a transitional exemption for the Te Ārai development.
Hon Amy Adams: How does he reconcile the statement in his paper to the chair of Cabinet’s economic development committee, “In particular, it should be clear that a decision to exempt this development is not due to the fact that the land is provided as Treaty redress.”, with his statements in Parliament that the exemption was driven by “a desire not to cause unfairness by diminution of value of a Treaty settlement asset”?
Hon DAVID PARKER: Easily. That’s a reference to the Treaty—the Article 1 Treaty sovereign right of the Government to make those laws. I believe, and the Government believes, that changing the law in a way that substantially diminishes the value of the Treaty settlement asset is a legal Article 1 act of sovereignty. But it also risks creating a Treaty grievance, and that’s what I’ve said time and again. The Treasury advice focused on the Article 1 rights; that means it’s legal to do so, not that it’s fair to do so, and not that it will not create a new grievance. I’ve also said that when that line is crossed is a moot point, and I’ve explained why, in these circumstances, which are unusual, we propose the time limit exemption.
Hon Amy Adams: When he said, in this House on 3 July, that his decision to advance the exemption was informed by conversations he had had with ministerial colleagues and advice from Treasury, which was itself informed by legal advice, was he actually saying he just did what his colleagues asked given that Treasury’s actual advice to him was that “There is no legal obligation to exempt Te Uri O Hau or Ngāti Manuhiri from the bill.”, and that Treasury recommended the exemption not proceed?
SPEAKER: Any one of the three.
Hon DAVID PARKER: No.
Hon Amy Adams: Was the Rt Hon Winston Peters one of the ministerial colleagues whom he had conversations with about the Te Ārai development?
Hon DAVID PARKER: By the end of the process, but not at the start.
Hon Amy Adams: So when he took his recommendation for an exemption for Te Ārai to Cabinet, did he know that prominent Ngāti Wai kamatua, chair of Ngāti Manuhiri, and one of the owning trustees of the Ngāti Manuhiri land at Te Ārai is John Paki, Winston Peters’ cousin?
Hon DAVID PARKER: No.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With respect, when one mentions the word “cousin”, does she mean “first”, “second”, “third”, “fourth”, or “fifth removed”, because that sort of insinuation—
Hon Members: That’s not a point of order!
Rt Hon Winston Peters: —beg your pardon?—is beneath that member?
SPEAKER: Well, I’m not sure that is a point of order, but what is clearly in question is a generally held convention around families of members. But it is a convention and not a Standing Order. Does the member have a further supplementary?
Hon Amy Adams: When he said, on Wednesday, 27 June, that no Ministers had declared conflicts in respect of Te Ārai, because there were none, does he think Mr Peters should have declared a conflict in respect of Mr Paki under Section 2.65a of the Cabinet Manual—
SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume her seat. This Minister has no responsibility for that. Further supplementary?
Hon Amy Adams: Isn’t the reality of this situation most accurately summed up in this way: as Minister, he didn’t want an exemption for the Te Ārai land; Treasury agreed they shouldn’t get one; the legal advice said there was no case to grant one; but, in a fiery debate around the Cabinet table, which included his own Māori caucus arguing for an exemption for all Māori land, New Zealand First won the day and saw a purpose-built exemption created just for their Northland friends and family members?
Hon DAVID PARKER: No. And can I further say that if the member wants an instance as to where potential Government action that affects value creates a sense of grievance, she needs to look no further than the bill which she promoted in respect of the Kermadecs, which proposed taking away all fishing rights in respect of a total fishery management area with no compensation, under a pretence that said that you could fish but you had a total allowable catch of zero, that you could go to court but you couldn’t get a remedy. I think that is a case in point as to where it is that responsible Governments look a little bit more deeply at these things than the superficiality that that member displays.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: On the issue of undue influence and connectivity of cousins to Ministers, is he aware that the Scottish-Māori relationship, to the extent that the questioner raised it, includes about 10,000 people?
Hon Member: Great question, cuz.
Hon DAVID PARKER: No—ha, ha! My friend quipped, “Great question, cuz.” But I do note that this is in a similar vein to last week when it was alleged that I had a conflict because I was at one stage a friend—not true—at one stage a business associate—not true—at one stage, had been the person’s lawyer—not true. And even if they had been true, there would not have been a conflict of interest. [Interruption]
SPEAKER: Order! Question No. 3.
Provincial Growth Fund—Benefits
3. JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First) to the Minister for Regional Economic Development: What reports has he seen regarding the Provincial Growth Fund?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Minister for Regional Economic Development: On behalf of the Minister, I have seen an International Monetary Fund (IMF) Article IV report which says, amongst other things, that the Provincial Growth Fund (PGF) is making our economy productive, stable, and inclusive, that it will relieve pressure on major urban areas by encouraging movement of population into the regions, and, furthermore, should ensure project selection that helps regions to benefit from income gains more in line with the major urban centres.
Jenny Marcroft: What challenges did the IMF report highlight?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: That’s a superb question. Could I just say that it highlighted something that we were aware of as a new Government: significant shortfalls in infrastructure investment—to be precise, 0.3 percent of GDP per year. It pointed out how dangerous that was for the economy and, of course, it’s got credibility because it was part-written by Grant Johnston, of the IMF nowadays but formerly John Key’s economic adviser.
Jenny Marcroft: How can the PGF help to meet these challenges?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: My colleague Shane Jones, the champion of the regions, is well aware of those challenges. The Government, unlike the last one, is not prepared to stand idly by while productivity stagnates and infrastructure falls into disrepair. Can I just say that the Provincial Growth Fund so far has invested in high-tech, high-value industries such as clean energy, food innovation, and value-added wood processing—to name just a few.
Question No. 6 to Minister, 4 July
JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I hope you can indulge me for a moment, Mr Speaker.
SPEAKER: Well, the member’s going to get to a point of order really quickly.
JAMI-LEE ROSS: Yesterday, we had an exchange where I sought leave for a document I was successfully able to table to be published under the authority of the House. I wish to bring to your attention the Parliamentary Privilege Act, namely section 10(2)(d), which does enable a document that’s communicated under the House’s authority to be a proceeding in Parliament. I therefore wish to seek leave for the document I tabled yesterday entitled Salary and Allowance Validation to be published under the authority of the House.
SPEAKER: OK. Now, I just want to check: this is the same document that was tabled yesterday, which is headed Salary and Allowance Validation: Confidential Legally Privileged. Is that the same document?
JAMI-LEE ROSS: Yes.
SPEAKER: Whose document is it?
JAMI-LEE ROSS: It was a document that was prepared for the Counties Manukau District Health Board.
SPEAKER: The question is: is there any objection to this document being published? There is objection.
Health Services—Counties Manukau District Health Board Review
4. JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany) to the Minister of Health: Does the Beattie Varley review of financial matters at the Counties Manukau District Health Board include reviewing the authorisation of remuneration or allowances of a former DHB senior executive; if so, was the review raised with him by Rabin Rabindran at their meeting on 29 March 2018?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): As the member is aware, I have not been provided with a copy of the Beattie Varley report, which is still being finalised, and neither has my office. I’m advised that remuneration and allowances are within the scope of the review. The focus of my 29 March meeting with Rabin Rabindran was the state of buildings at the Counties Manukau District Health Board (DHB), including problems with rot and mould due to years of under-investment. My recollection is that the review was raised in passing.
Jami-Lee Ross: Can he confirm that in addition to Rabin Rabindran, Dr Lester Levy, the Auditor-General, and former audit committee chairman Mark Darrow all wrote to him raising the review of the Counties Manukau District Health Board audit?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I can confirm that I received a number of people’s views on the situation at Counties Manukau, and that’s why I agreed to the process of investigation that was pursued, and, of course, I was assured by officials that an appropriate process was in place and that they would report back to me at an appropriate time, and I don’t see it as appropriate for a Minister to interfere in that process.
Jo Luxton: What other matters were discussed with Rabin Rabindran at the 29 March meeting?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: As well as the multiple building issues, we discussed the DHB’s rising forecast deficits. Like many DHBs, Counties Manukau has been struggling in the face of years of underfunding. That’s why in Budget 2018 we put an extra $66 million into Counties Manukau—
SPEAKER: Order! That is enough.
Jami-Lee Ross: Is he aware of notes from Rabin Rabindran of his meeting with the Minister where Mr Rabindran wrote, “I inquired about the review, which I understood had gone to the Minister’s office, and wondered why it had not been released. I did not get a clear answer but the Minister started saying there are other issues, such as the number of people employed at the DHB.”?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I can’t recall whether I’ve seen those exact notes, and I certainly note that my recollection of some of those events would be different to Mr Rabindran’s, but I do think it’s important that while this matter is being investigated, speculation is not helpful. In fact, the State Services Commission today has put out a report saying that ongoing speculation on matters relating to Counties Manukau is extremely unfair to Mr McKernan and people should not jump to conclusions. It also says that, in the meantime, people should step back and let the process run its course. Ongoing commentary risks compromising that process, and I think the member needs to consider that matter.
Jami-Lee Ross: Has he ever taken an opportunity, after all of those individuals raised the serious financial management issues with him, to actually read the district health board’s regional internal audit report to find out exactly what’s been happening in his portfolio?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The officials are running a process around this. Ongoing speculation is unhelpful, as I’ve told the member, because natural justice is something that ought to be able to run its course here. I have had no evidence presented to me that suggests conflicts of interest have not been well managed, and I ask the member to seriously consider whether it is appropriate to drag senior public servants’ names through the mud when no evidence has been presented.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: When these calamitous events that have been brought to this House everyday were happening, who was the Government?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Many of the events that have been described in this House occurred, of course, during the period that the previous Government was in office. I find it somewhat bewildering that the first allegation that member opposite brought to the House was that I was trying to cover up for activities that happened under their Government’s watch.
Jami-Lee Ross: Given he hasn’t read the audit documents that he was advised about by multiple parties, that contained the name of the senior public official, how can the public have confidence in him that he’s across the detail of his portfolio and doing his job?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: When we’re talking about conflicts of interest here, it’s worth noting that the recruitment of the Acting Director-General was the responsibility of the State Services Commission, that any conflicts of interest would have been raised during the recruitment process, and that the State Services Commissioner was aware of investigations into financial matters at Counties Manukau before he recruited the previous Acting Director-General, and I would advise that member to consider seriously the statement that the State Services Commissioner has put out, which indicates that people should step back and let the process take its course, because ongoing commentary risks compromising that process.
Question No. 2 to Minister—Amended Answer
Hon DAVID PARKER (Associate Minister of Finance): In my answer to the primary question, I said that the submission from Te Ārai to the Finance and Expenditure Committee was received on 15 March—it was 15 February.
SPEAKER: The Minister might also like to say that the select committee sought submissions, not the Government.
Hon DAVID PARKER: Fine.
Government Financial Position—Reports
5. Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he received on the strength of the Government’s finances?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Treasury today released the Government’s financial statements for the 11 months to 31 May 2018. They show the coalition Government is sticking to our commitment to run the books sustainably and responsibly, with surpluses, and keeping expenses under control. Core Crown tax revenue was in line with forecasts, at $73.5 billion, while expenses of $73.018 billion were 0.6 percent below forecast. Treasury said there was some variance within the sources of revenue and expenditure due to timing issues, which are set to reverse out in June, putting the accounts back in line with Budget forecasts.
Dr Deborah Russell: What do these results mean for the Government’s surplus?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The monthly variation of expenses contributed to the operating balance before gains and losses being a surplus of $5.228 billion in the 11 months, which was $447 million—or 9.3 percent—above the Budget forecast. Before anyone gets too excited, as with revenue and expenses, much of this variance is likely to reverse out next month. But I would like to note one comment from the head Government accountant, who said that “Source deductions are likely to remain above forecast to the end of the year.” Some members might desire an interpretation of that, and the best explanation came this morning from one of New Zealand’s leading business journalists, with his headline that “Booming employment market gives Crown accounts another boost”. In other words, the labour market is stronger than Treasury expected in May.
Dr Deborah Russell: Why is the Government taking the approach it is to fiscal management?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We have committed to responsible management of the Government’s books. We understand that it is important to run sustainable surpluses in the good times so that we have money set aside for any rainy day. We also have a responsibility to future generations. That’s why this Government’s economic plan includes not only responsible fiscal management but forward-looking, growth-friendly policies that the IMF liked so much this week, such as the R & D tax incentive, the Provincial Growth Fund, significant investment in education and training, the Green Investment Fund, and our record investment in land transport infrastructure that we announced this week.
KiwiBuild—Eligibility
6. Hon AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: Has he seen reports on his KiwiBuild eligibility criteria today that stated, “Needy families who could really use the help will be left out while a couple of doctors making $80,000 each will happily move into a nice new home”; if so, does he consider his eligibility criteria will ensure that KiwiBuild homes go to those who are most in need?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Housing and Urban Development): I haven’t seen that report, but I do consider that the KiwiBuild eligibility criteria ensure that homes will be bought by the families most in need, in three ways. First, by excluding investors we ensure the homes go to first-home buyers; (2), by setting an income cap at $180,000, we exclude the very well-off while ensuring that families such as teachers, tradies, and young professionals, whose homeownership has plunged in the last decade, can once again have a chance at owning a home; and, (3), by selling at a fixed price and using a ballot system everyone will have the same chance. Those on lower incomes will not be out-bid by those on higher incomes, as they are in the open market.
Hon Amy Adams: Does he realise that his income eligibility criteria, that includes households with incomes up to $180,000, allows households that are in the 15 percent most wealthy in New Zealand to become eligible for KiwiBuild?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I do realise that, and in setting the eligibility cap we looked at the data and saw that the greatest fall in homeownership in the past decade has been in the $80,000 to roughly $180,000 income range. This income range also comprises half of families with children, and these are the young families who less than a generation ago would have realistically expected they would be able to own their own home.
Hon Amy Adams: Supplementary.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Supplementary question.
Hon Amy Adams: Is the real reason—
SPEAKER: The Rt Hon Winston Peters.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Sorry.
Hon Amy Adams: I beg your pardon, who have you called?
SPEAKER: No, sorry—I called the Rt Hon Winston Peters.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: How many submissions has he received from Judith Collins on this matter of housing, and how many has he received from someone who’s taken her place while she’s temporarily overseas—I think, namely Ms Adams? Who’s asked the most questions in the past?
SPEAKER: Order! Order! The Minister doesn’t have responsibility for members asking questions.
Hon Amy Adams: Is the real reason the income caps have been set at more than double the median household income that he now accepts that he has failed to build houses that will be affordable for truly middle-income earners so he’s had to cast the net to include virtually every first-home buyer to ensure he can get the few houses he’s building sold?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The real reason for the setting of the eligibility criteria is that we’ve inherited a housing crisis that has dispossessed even the sons and daughters of the middle class who have worked hard, who earn good money, but who in our country’s biggest city find themselves completely shut out of homeownership.
Marja Lubeck: Who would miss out if the income cap was lowered or set at the same level as the KiwiSaver HomeStart grant?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: A couple of teachers with around five years’ experience may have an income in the $150,000 range. The Government was not prepared to set a cap so low that it would exclude hard-working teachers, tradies, and young professionals who now find themselves locked out of the Auckland housing market.
Hon Amy Adams: Will buyers who are beneficiaries of family trusts that own residential property be eligible to apply for a KiwiBuild home?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, I don’t think that someone with assets—considerable assets—who would have the pick of the homes on the market will choose a modest starter home and go through a ballot process. I just don’t think that’s realistic.
Hon Amy Adams: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It was a very straight question—
SPEAKER: It was. The member can ask—
Hon Amy Adams: —asking for a particular factual matter. The member should tell us if he doesn’t know what his policy says.
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: It’s not our intention to place further restrictions on the eligibility criteria. We don’t believe that the scenario that the member faces is at all realistic.
Marja Lubeck: Why did the Government choose to adopt a higher income limit than the KiwiSaver HomeStart grant?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The KiwiSaver HomeStart grant has not worked in Auckland and Queenstown. For example, less than 9 percent of HomeStart grants are for homes purchased in Auckland, grossly disproportionate to the number of Auckland first-home buyers. The cap is so low that even with the grant available, families struggle to find a home that they can buy. We knew that we needed to make sure that KiwiBuild actually responds to families in need.
Hon Amy Adams: When answers given on his behalf said that properties could be sold directly off the plans to some buyers without these properties going through a ballot, which buyers are going to get this fast-track option?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: In the planning for the sales process for KiwiBuild, we have retained the flexibility for later on in the KiwiBuild process—perhaps years three, four, or later than that, when supply will match or exceed demand—in situations where it won’t be necessary to put a ballot in place. In that case, in that instance, it would be the obvious thing to do to allow a direct sale.
Crown/Māori Relations—Iwi Consultation
Hon NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central): I seek leave to have this question held over until the next sitting day as an additional question, until the Minister is able to answer it.
SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that process? Yes, there is. Does the member still want to proceed?
Hon NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central): Yes.
SPEAKER: The Hon Nikki Kaye.
7. Hon NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) to the Minister for Crown/Māori Relations: Does he stand by his statement regarding Crown and Māori relations that “This is the start of a new way of working. We’ve got to make sure we don’t make mistakes we’ve made in the past”?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House) on behalf of the Minister for Crown/Māori Relations: Yes.
Hon Nikki Kaye: Does he think that the principle of a Government dismissing a Waitangi Tribunal claim within hours of it being made public is the start of a new way of working and good for Crown and Māori relations?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The Government has not dismissed the claim.
Hon Nikki Kaye: Does he believe that this Government has at all times had adequate consultation and has not breached the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi on education policies, and can he guarantee that no mistakes have been made by his Government on this issue?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The Government has a huge range of activities happening. In so far as the Minister has responsibility for that matter, yes.
Hon Nikki Kaye: Does he have confidence in the Iwi Chairs Forum and their relationship with the Crown, given statements made by Willie Jackson that he is not interested in iwi leaders’ concerns; Shane Jones, who has said he wouldn’t talk to the Iwi Leaders Forum before Halley’s Comet comes back; and comments by Sir Toby Curtis that there’s been a lack of consultation on education policies?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: On behalf of the Minister, I have no responsibility for the Iwi Chairs Forum.
Hon Nikki Kaye: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question—and if you go to have a look at the transcript—was actually confidence in their relationship with the Crown, not the Iwi Chairs Forum. It was very specific, and that is his job.
SPEAKER: I think the Minister can have another go.
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I have no ministerial responsibility for that organisation.
Hon Nikki Kaye: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This Minister’s whole responsibility is around relationships between the Crown and Māori, so if what he is saying, and the way that I worded my question was incredibly specific—does he have confidence in the relationship between the Iwi Chairs Forum and the Crown; confidence in that relationship. If he is going to say—
SPEAKER: Well, I think what he has just said is that the Minister for Crown/Māori Relations does not have responsibility for that relationship.
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That was not the question the member asked. The member asked whether I had confidence in the organisation. She tried to rephrase the question—
SPEAKER: No, no. The—
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: —but the original question as I heard it—
SPEAKER: I’m going to ask Nikki Kaye to ask her question again—
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Exactly as she asked it the first time.
SPEAKER: Exactly as she asked it the first time.
Hon Nikki Kaye: Does he have confidence in the Iwi Chairs Forum and their relationship with the Crown, given statements made by Willie Jackson that he is not interested in iwi leaders’ concerns; Shane Jones, who has said he wouldn’t talk to the Iwi Leaders Forum before Halley’s Comet comes back; and comments by Sir Toby Curtis that there has been a lack of consultation on education policies?
SPEAKER: All right. I’m not going to require the Minister to answer it again. He did answer it the first time.
Hon Nikki Kaye: Will he take responsibility for the issues raised by a member of the Iwi Chairs Forum in the Waitangi Tribunal that there’s been no consultation with Māori leaders on the review of the education system; and is part of the reason for this that fellow Ministers keep bagging the Iwi Chairs Forum and other Māori leaders, and that’s why there is a claim in the Waitangi Tribunal?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I absolutely reject the premise of the member’s question. In fact, the education work plan involves extensive consultation with all New Zealanders. There were many Māori represented at the education summits that were held in Christchurch and Auckland, including people who hold relatively senior positions within iwi around the country. This Government is interested in hearing the views of all New Zealanders on education.
KiwiBuild—Eligibility and Demand
8. ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI (Labour) to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: Who will be able to enter the ballot to purchase a KiwiBuild home?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Housing and Urban Development): With the first KiwiBuild homes on track to be completed shortly, and many more in the pipeline, yesterday I announced the KiwiBuild unit has opened its doors and invited potential KiwiBuild homebuyers to express their interest. I also announced the criteria these potential buyers will have to meet. They’ll have to be first-home buyers or second-chancers; New Zealand citizens, permanent residents, or those who ordinarily reside in New Zealand; intend to own and live in the home for at least three years; have an income below $120,000 for sole purchasers and $180,000 for couples. All eligible buyers will have an equal chance to own a KiwiBuild home at cost price through a ballot system.
Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki: Why has the Government set the criteria it has?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: KiwiBuild is about restoring the opportunity of homeownership to Kiwi families. We’ve aimed to strike a balance. We’ve excluded the very well-off while ensuring that families who a decade ago would have realistically expected to own their own home but have been locked out by the huge increase in house prices that happened in Auckland and Queenstown over the last nine years—we want those people to have a chance to own their own home.
Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki: Why has the Government set the income limits at $120,000 for an individual and $180,000 for a couple?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: A generation of young New Zealanders who have good jobs are priced out of homeownership. It’s a sign of just how bad it’s got for those families that in places like Auckland, couples with good jobs, like two teachers with five years’ experience earning, let’s say, $160,000 a year are locked out of homeownership. In fact, since 2007, the greatest fall in homeownership has been for families earning between $80,000 and $180,000.
Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki: What is the Government doing to support families who may not be able to afford to buy their own home?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: We understand that there are a lot of people who would love to have a crack at homeownership but simply cannot afford to take on a mortgage. That’s why we’re working on a shared equity scheme that will give them that chance. We’re also implementing reforms that will make life better for renters, and we’re building thousands of extra State houses.
Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki: What interest has there been in purchasing a KiwiBuild home?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I said that the KiwiBuild unit was opening their doors, but, in fact, Kiwis have smashed the door down. Over 19,000—
Hon Dr David Clark: How many?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: —over 19,000—New Zealanders have registered their interest in the last 24 hours. This just shows how many young New Zealanders are desperate for a chance at homeownership, and as KiwiBuild ramps up, we look forward to seeing these families buy and move into their own homes.
Police—Appointment of Deputy Commissioner of Police
9. CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South) to the Minister of Police: Does he stand by all his statements and actions regarding the appointment of Wally Haumaha to be Deputy Commissioner of Police?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Acting Minister of Police): Yes, in the context in which they were made and taken.
Chris Bishop: Did the Rt Hon Winston Peters disclose to him during the appointment process of Mr Haumaha that he had once sought selection for the Rotorua electorate as a New Zealand First candidate?
SPEAKER: Order! Order! I’m just considering the responsibility of the Minister for the actions of the Acting—I’ll let him answer. It is very marginal.
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: No.
Chris Bishop: Why did Cabinet appoint the Hon Tracey Martin to initiate a Government inquiry into the process of the appointment around Mr Haumaha, given she is a New Zealand First Party MP and Minister and someone with long and deep links to the New Zealand First Party?
SPEAKER: I am just going to seek some advice from the Acting Prime Minister on this question. My understanding is that a Cabinet decision was not one that was made by the Minister of Police—can I seek some—
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Mr Speaker, that’s correct.
SPEAKER: So, therefore, there’s not responsibility of the Minister of Police for that Cabinet decision. In fact, you know, any good process would have him not being involved in it.
Chris Bishop: Why should the public have confidence in any inquiry led by the Hon Tracey Martin into the appointment of Mr Haumaha as Deputy Commissioner of Police, when she is a New Zealand First Party MP and Minister?
SPEAKER: No, the member can resume his seat. The question is very clear about his statements and actions. The appointment by Cabinet of Tracey Martin to oversee from a Cabinet point of view an inquiry is not an action or a statement of the Minister of Police.
Chris Bishop: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister of Police has made comments about the specific Cabinet inquiry that Cabinet has ordered into the appointment of Mr Haumaha. So surely that brings the inquiry into the bailiwick of—
SPEAKER: And if there had been reference to that in the question, then it might well have been allowed.
Chris Bishop: Why has he expressed public support for the Cabinet inquiry led by the Hon Tracey Martin into the appointment of Mr Haumaha as Deputy Commissioner of Police, when Tracey Martin is a New Zealand First MP and Minister?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Cabinet decisions are a matter of Cabinet collective responsibility, and, as a Cabinet Minister, I stand by them.
Chris Bishop: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was pretty specific. Why has he expressed—
SPEAKER: Well, the member couldn’t get a more specific answer than you just got.
Chris Bishop: Why is the Minister hiding behind the cloak of Cabinet collective responsibility in order to maintain the idea that the public should have confidence in an inquiry into a person with New Zealand First connections led by a New Zealand First Party Cabinet Minister?
SPEAKER: The member got it wrong in the first phrase. That made the whole question out of order.
Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill—Consistency with Bill of Rights 1688
10. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) to the Minister of Justice: Does he stand by his answer on Tuesday that the Government continues to support the principle established 330 years ago with the Bill of Rights and codified unanimously by this Parliament in 2014 that voters alone get to dismiss MPs, and his statement, “No leader of any political party represented in Parliament, under the Electoral Integrity Amendment Bill, has the power to remove a member of Parliament”?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Yes and yes, and I would just hope that that member fully understands the full historical context of the 1688 Bill of Rights, knowing that it was a charter for anti-Catholicism.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does he agree with the statement by his justice officials: “The bill enables party leaders to remove MPs from Parliament.”?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I’m really just looking for guidance. I was briefed this morning by officials who had attended a closed session of the Justice Committee about actions that were taken by the honourable member who just asked the question, in relation to his confidence in them. That caused considerable consternation, and it appears to be that that member is alluding to the statements he has made in that closed session in the select committee.
SPEAKER: Can I ask the Hon Dr Nick Smith whether the quotation he used came from a closed session of the committee, that has not yet been reported to the House?
Hon Dr Nick Smith: No, but the statement was made by his officials in an open session earlier in consideration of the bill. So the statement stands—
SPEAKER: No, no, Andrew will answer the question.
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: If you could repeat the question, sorry.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does he agree with the statement by his justice officials: “The bill enables party leaders to remove MPs from Parliament.”?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I refer to the text of the bill, which is very clear, which is that in order for a member to have their seat vacated under that bill, it requires a number of steps, including a vote of two-thirds of the relevant MP’s caucus. It is not the decision of the leader of a political party alone.
SPEAKER: And I probably should have ruled the question out, because of the obvious fact that officials do not give evidence to select committees.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: They still make statements, Mr Speaker.
SPEAKER: Yes, but they don’t give evidence, as the member said.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: How can he state his bill does not give the power to a party leader to dismiss an MP when the explanatory note for his bill says, and I quote, “The bill … provides for a vacancy to occur if the member’s party leader gives [the appropriate notice to the speaker]” and further states that “The giving of notice … is at the [party] leader’s discretion,”?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The passages that that member refers to are correct on their face, but they are not the full explanation of the content of the bill.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: How can he state that he supports the 330-year-old principle that voters alone get to dismiss MPs when his bill enables a party leader with the two-thirds support of his caucus to dismiss an MP?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Well, the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill is totally consistent with the principle established 330 years ago in the anti-papist Bill of Rights.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Can the Minister name any other parliamentary democracy, that he would want New Zealand to match up to in its standards, that provides for a power for party leaders to remove a member of Parliament?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I can name at least one other country that has a provision that allows a process by which parliamentary members of a political party can express no confidence and cause a vacancy of a fellow member’s seat, and that is Japan.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Given that the justice Minister has made reference to proceedings in the select committee this morning, I seek leave of the House to—
SPEAKER: No. No. The member’s well out of time if the member’s referring back to the beginning of this question.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: A member can seek leave to table a document, Mr Speaker, at any time.
SPEAKER: Well, the member may seek leave to table a document. Is it a confidential document from the select committee?
Hon Dr Nick Smith: The document is the notice of motion with respect to the business of the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill at the Justice Committee this morning.
SPEAKER: At a closed session—the member may seek leave. Is there any objection? Yes, there is.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I did wait till the end of the supplementaries—but earlier on in this question you have referred to the question—I think you used the words “probably out of order” because it referenced evidence provided by officials and officials don’t give evidence. My submission to you, Mr Speaker, is that that in itself doesn’t rule the question out of order, but it certainly gives licence to the Minister to answer in a certain way.
SPEAKER: The member is correct. I should have asked the member to rephrase it correctly.
Tertiary Institutions—Financial Position
11. JAMIE STRANGE (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What action, if any, has he taken to address challenges in the institutes of technology and polytechnics sector?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Yesterday, I announced that the Tertiary Education Commission will be consulting on the option to appoint a commissioner to Unitec and dissolve its council. This is not an action that has been taken lightly. Unitec is in extreme financial difficulty and needs urgent assistance. They have an estimated shortfall this year of nearly $20 million and another next year of nearly $30 million, despite the sale of their land. This is on top of the Government’s cash bailout of $8.5 million in February for Tai Poutini Polytechnic and a write-off of $24.9 million in debt owed by them.
Jamie Strange: What other institutes of technology and polytechnics are currently facing financial challenges?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: In 2016/17, New Zealand saw a considerable deterioration in the finances of our institutes of technology and polytechnics. The latest data shows at the end of 2017, the Manukau Institute of Technology made a $7 million deficit, the Whitireia Community Polytechnic made a deficit of $8.4 million, Toi Ohomai Institute of Technology made a deficit of $10 million, Western Institute of Technology made a deficit of $3.6 million, and the Northland polytech made a deficit of $3.3 million, to name some of the larger ones.
Jamie Strange: What broader actions is the Government taking to address sustainability issues in the institutes of technology and polytechnics sector?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The Government’s taking this incredibly seriously. As I indicated, Unitec is not the only institution in the sector that faces financial difficulties, and, in fact, some quite serious financial difficulties. While some polytechnics have remained financially and educationally strong, most have struggled to adjust to the falling student numbers that occurred over recent years. These challenges are pressing and do threaten the viability of the system as a whole. We know that the institutes of technology and polytech network is vital for providing quality vocational education and training for our communities and, in particular, for supporting regional economic development. I have asked the Tertiary Education Commission to work with the sector to identify ways to address the immediate issues and to put all of our institutes of technology on a more viable footing in the longer term.
Justice System—Transitional Housing
Hon DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to have this question held over as an additional question until Minister Davis is able to answer.
SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that? There is. Does the member want to proceed?
12. Hon DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) to the Minister of Corrections: Does he stand by all his statements and actions?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): on behalf of the Minister of Corrections: Yes, in the context they were made and taken.
Hon David Bennett: When he said that “rather than looking to build large-scale prisons, we want to look at alternative options like transitional housing”, what criteria makes an inmate eligible for transitional housing?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: That is yet to be determined.
Hon David Bennett: What extra security arrangements made to their placements will be put in place to ensure the public are kept safe?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: That is yet to be determined.
Hon David Bennett: Will any category three offenders be eligible for transitional housing?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: As I indicated in answer to the second supplementary question the member raised, the Government is yet to determine the criteria for access to the housing.
Bills
Ngāti Tamaoho Claims Settlement Bill
In Committee
Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one question.
The CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be not.
Parts 1 to 3, Schedules 1 and 2, and clauses 1 and 2
Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): Thank you, Mr Chairman. For the benefit of the members of Ngāti Tamaoho who are in the gallery, let me just take a moment to explain the process that we’re doing at the moment. This is called the committee of the whole House stage.
We work very hard to make sure that the bill for your settlement is absolutely perfect, and, in doing that, the amazing staff of the Parliamentary Counsel Office have found some mistakes. So, with the agreement of your negotiators, we are in the process of correcting those mistakes. We have to do that at this stage of the House, and I’m going to read out, sort of explain, what the changes are, and then, as I understand it from our very good friends in the National Party—they said they’re not going to debate these changes—
Hon Christopher Finlayson: No.
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: —so we will fly through this. That’s the Catholic influence on that side, I might add. It explains why we don’t like the 1688 Bill of Rights. And we will conclude that part, and then the House will resume and Mr Rurawhe, who is, technically, the Chair of the committee right now, will sit in the fluffy chair at the back and pick up the position as Speaker of the House, and we will then get into the final debate and, therefore, the final stage of your settlement bill. I did want to make sure that everybody was clear about that, so you’re not confused. And, on that point, can I just say that the Māori Affairs Committee reported the Ngāti Tamaoho Claims Settlement Bill back to this House on 5 July and recommended it be passed without amendment.
The bill is to comprehensively settle Ngāti Tamaoho’s historical Treaty of Waitangi claims. This Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 36—“Supplementary Order Paper” is parliamentary language for “amendment” or “change”—provides two minor changes to the bill. Changes set out in the Supplementary Order Paper update wording regarding the administering body of the Hunua Falls. So there are two changes. The first clarifies, in clause 52(3), that the provision relates to the Hunua Falls reserve land as defined in subclause (1). What it does is add the words “of the reserve land” after the words “as if they were the administering body”. And the second change is to clarify, in clause 52(9), that interests may be varied as well as renewed, by adding the words “, or varying” after the word “renewing”.
These are minor and technical amendments—that was itself evident. They make no change to the redress package, and I’d like to thank the Parliamentary Counsel Office for their thoroughness in ensuring that the bill is accurate and correct and, frankly, almost perfect—in fact, it is perfect. Not only members of this committee but members of Ngāti Tamaoho can be assured that they will have a perfect bill on which to proceed. On that basis, I commend this bill to the House for the two changes outlined in SOP 36.
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National): I’ll just take a very brief call to endorse what the Minister has said. Parliamentary Counsel have done an excellent job on this legislation, as they do on all Treaty legislation, and we can be really proud of the work they do. And these corrections are very minor. The second point, for the benefit of the gallery, is this: he referred to the National Party as his “very good friends”. One can go too far sometimes!
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 36 in the name of the Hon Andrew Little be agreed to.
Amendments agreed to.
Parts 1 to 3, schedules 1 and 2, 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 Ngāti Tamaoho Claims Settlement Bill be now read a third time.
Madam Assistant Speaker, I said before that Adrian Rurawhe would assume the Chair as Speaker, but, Madam Assistant Speaker, you have taken that role. I would like to begin by welcoming the Ngāti Tamaoho Claims Settlement Bill to the House today. I feel incredibly privileged to support this bill and see it through its final reading.
This bill has taken many years of hard work to reach this point, and I offer my sincerest thanks to all who have been involved in it. I extend a very warm welcome to Ngāti Tamaoho, who are with us today. They have travelled from Tāmaki-makau-rau and further afield to be here to be part of this celebration of this final step in this very important exercise. It is pleasing to see so many here for this purpose. I also acknowledge the representative of Kīngitanga who is here today. Nau mai, haere mai. E ngā iwi, e ngā reo, e ngā mana, tēnā koutou katoa.
I want to acknowledge the many driving forces who have lived this journey. I acknowledge the many tūpuna who are no longer with us but who stand with us in spirit as we remember the leadership and inspiration their legacies have left behind. Nanny Mere Taka, Tokoroa Pompey, Barney Kirkwood, Tiraha Ngerengere, and your tūpuna before them began this journey many years ago. They are in our thoughts today. Moe mai rā.
Ngāti Tamaoho have been served by many strong and devoted negotiators and trustees. I also wish to acknowledge the various members of the negotiation team, starting with Ted Ngātaki and Warahi Paki; the lead negotiator, Dennis Kirkwood; and the Ngāti Tamaoho Trust negotiation team—Te Roto Jenkins, Gordon Katipa, Kiri Waitai Wilson, Tāmara Taka-Jones, Panetuku Rae, George Wheatley, Nick Maaka, Tori Ngātaki, and Christine Herzog—for their commitment to their people.
They have done Ngāti Tamaoho proud throughout their dealings with the Crown and their determination to make a difference for Ngāti Tamaoho today and in the years to come. They have continued to conduct themselves with dignity during the most difficult times of the settlement process. While all unique, their contributions to achieving a settlement will be remembered by all, and the lasting effects of their work will be felt for generations. I’d also like to take this opportunity to thank the former Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations—my not-quite best friend Christopher Finlayson—for his work in progressing the Ngāti Tamaoho settlement.
Negotiations are a long and complex process. This will ring true for all who have been involved in any settlement process, and Ngāti Tamaoho has been no different. The settlement process for Ngāti Tamaoho started in 2003 with the first claim lodged by Ted Ngātaki, followed in 2008 with two more claims lodged by Piriwhāriki Tahapeehi and Ben Katipa respectively. In April 2010, the Crown recognised the mandate of the Ngāti Tamaoho Trust Board to represent the people of Ngāti Tamaoho in negotiating a comprehensive historical Treaty settlement. The trust and the Crown signed terms of negotiation in October 2010, and an agreement in principle was signed in December 2012.
During this period, Ngāti Tamaoho also worked with Tāmaki-makau-rau iwi to sign the Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau collective redress deed in September 2012. I admire Ngāti Tamaoho’s ability to negotiate the best settlement possible for their iwi while navigating the complex waters of collective negotiations in Tāmaki-makau-rau. Ngāti Tamaoho and the Crown initialled a deed of settlement in December 2016 and signed the deed in April 2017. The bill had its first reading in the House on 22 June 2017 and the second reading was on 3 May this year. These are significant milestones which have led to where you stand today.
The relationship between Ngāti Tamaoho and the Crown has been a long and sometimes fraught one. Gradual but continuous land loss, alongside many conflicts, left Ngāti Tamaoho landless, and the effects of this have been felt for generations. This is the reason we are here today. The Crown did not honour its promises to Ngāti Tamaoho. Prior to 1840, Ngāti Tamaoho rangatira sought to develop commercial relationships with Pākehā settlers by entering into land transactions. After the signing of Te Tiriti o Waitangi in 1840, Ngāti Tamaoho continued to seek economic opportunities by selling land to the Crown. The benefits Ngāti Tamaoho expected to enjoy were not realised and, despite Crown assurances that one-tenth of land would be retained for public purposes, especially for the benefit of Māori, the Crown did not keep this promise and abandoned the policy. This is an all too familiar story for many iwi. Crown purchasing activities eventually contributed to tension and armed conflict between Ngāti Tamaoho and neighbouring iwi.
In 1863, the already fraught relationship between Ngāti Tamaoho and the Crown deteriorated rapidly following the Crown declaring that Māori in the South Auckland region must swear an oath of allegiance to the Crown or vacate their settlements. The Crown did not give Ngāti Tamaoho sufficient time to understand the oath, and, despite Ngāti Tamaoho never having been in rebellion, Crown troops burnt buildings and looted property at the Ngāti Tamaoho settlement at Pōkeno prior to the invasion of the Waikato.
Following the actions of the Crown at Pōkeno, the Crown unfairly labelled Ngāti Tamaoho as rebels, evicting them from their settlements and confiscating most of their remaining lands. The Crown apology presented in the settlement to Ngāti Tamaoho reflects the Crown’s regret about its actions at the time. We cannot build the foundations for a positive relationship and move forward if we do not acknowledge what has happened in the past, and I’d like to read now from the formal apology: “The Crown sincerely regrets unfairly labelling Ngāti Tamaoho as rebels and confiscating much of your remaining land. The Crown also unreservedly apologises for the hurt and ongoing grievance caused by the burning and looting of Pokeno. The Crown attacked the settlement prior to its invasion of Waikato despite Ngāti Tamaoho never having been in rebellion and for this [the Crown] is truly sorry.”
By 1900, Ngāti Tamaoho had lost most of their land. Many experienced severe social and economic marginalisation and deplorable housing conditions. Māori children experienced discrimination and segregation at a State-run school in Pukekohe. Landlessness, environmental degradation, and alienation and continued failures by the Crown to honour its obligations under Te Tiriti o Waitangi have harmed successive generations of Ngāti Tamaoho. The Crown is deeply sorry for its actions.
The settlement package set out in the bill contains an agreed historical account, Crown acknowledgments, formal apology—some of which we’ve just heard—cultural redress, and financial and commercial redress. Through this settlement, the Crown has sought to atone for the past injustices it inflicted upon Ngāti Tamaoho and provide opportunities for Ngāti Tamaoho and the Crown to move forward. The cultural redress recognises the traditional, historical, cultural, and spiritual association of Ngāti Tamaoho with the Tāmaki-makau-rau region. It also recognises the connection Ngāti Tamaoho has with Āwhitu Peninsula, Hunua Ranges, and Manukau Harbour through statutory acknowledgments and deeds of recognition. These instruments will enhance the ability of Ngāti Tamaoho to participate in specified resource management processes and require the Crown to consult with Ngāti Tamaoho on areas they are associated with.
A cultural revitalisation fund of $590,000, provided as part of the cultural redress, will enable Ngāti Tamaoho to continue working towards the conservation of their gifted sites. This fund is an important means of re-establishing the connection that Ngāti Tamaoho lost with their environment all those years ago. The commercial redress package includes financial redress of $10.3 million that aims to provide Ngāti Tamaoho a start to building a strong economic foundation in which to embark on future endeavours. This package will go a long way towards Ngāti Tamaoho re-establishing connections with various parts of their rohe, strengthening the identity of Ngāti Tamaoho as an iwi, and providing the foundation for a stronger social, cultural, and economic future.
While the Crown can never fully compensate iwi for their loss, I acknowledge Ngāti Tamaoho’s generosity in accepting the redress contained in this settlement package and trust that today marks a new beginning in the relationship between Ngāti Tamaoho and the Crown. Through this settlement, the Crown hopes to express its deepest remorse for its actions and work towards alleviating Ngāti Tamaoho’s grievances. The Crown looks forward to building a new relationship with Ngāti Tamaoho based on cooperation, mutual trust, and, above all, respect for Te Tiriti o Waitangi and its principles.
I want to congratulate all those who helped Ngāti Tamaoho reach this momentous occasion today, but most of all to congratulate Ngāti Tamaoho themselves. Ngāti Tamaoho’s perseverance, courage, and grace are inspiring and have brought us a settlement which will help build the future for their people. I commend this bill to the House.
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National): The National Opposition joins with the Government in supporting this legislation and welcomes the representatives of Ngāti Tamaoho to the House. I recall very well a very rainy Sunday, 30 April 2017, when I signed the deed of settlement in the beautiful Hūnua Ranges, and it was a pleasure to work with Ngāti Tamaoho over many years to reach this stage.
I think that the Minister’s outline of the historical background was very good, and I don’t intend to say too much more than what he said, but I do want to make one point, and it’s referred to in the summary of the historical account, and read into the record of the House a very important summary, and that is that young children from this iwi and other iwi experienced discrimination and segregation at a State-run school in Pukekohe. It wasn’t just in the State-run school; there were instances when people were segregated in the local cinema and were treated very much as second-class citizens. There are some people in this country who would say, “Well, maybe that sort of thing happened in Bloemfontein, but it would never have happened here.” Well, it did. And members of Ngāti Tamaoho and their children were treated very badly indeed, and that is an important fact that needs to be highlighted, and it’s one of the reasons why we are engaged in this historic Treaty resolution policy: because these things matter.
The second point I want to make is that the area of interest of Ngāti Tamaoho is centred in and around the Hūnua Ranges, but it goes much further than that. The area of interest goes down to the Manukau Harbour, to Franklin. As I’ve said, it takes in the Hūnua Ranges, the Awhitū Peninsula, but it also goes down into central Auckland. Again, the historical account mentions the fact that Ngāti Tamaoho rangatira also sold land in Remuera directly to Pākehā after the Crown temporarily waived pre-emption in 1844. So the area of interest was indeed very large. There are some iwi—and of course I won’t mention them here because it would be impolitic to do so—that think they have absolute control over certain areas in Tāmaki, but it just was not like that. The areas of interest were overlapping, and it has caused issues in pretty well every settlement that I negotiated when I was Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations.
The Māori Affairs Committee addressed the issue of overlapping claims in its report and said they were very difficult issues, and particularly referred to concerns that had been expressed by Te Ākitai Waiohua and Ngāti Te Ata—very good people in both groups—who had concerns with overlapping claims. Then the report also says that Ngāti Tamaoho said overlapping claims had been very difficult to deal with as the Office of Treaty Settlements claims process is designed to address issues with the Crown not with other iwi or hapū, and I really acknowledge that. I acknowledge the difficulties that Ngāti Tamaoho faced. These overlapping claims are very difficult to deal with, and, as the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations is going to find out during his term, they will be the bane of this life, just as they were the bane of my life. They’re complex and they’re emotional, and always the Crown is always the one that is criticised, but so often it’s important for iwi to get on with these overlapping claims sooner rather than later so that the Crown’s dispute resolution process need not be called on.
In this case, there were difficult issues. I think all three groups dealt with them very well, and I commend all three groups and I look forward to the day that Te Ākitai, too, can sign its deed of settlement—very good people; and Ngāti Te Ata. Everyone here, of course, still grieves for the passing of the great Ngāneko Minhinnick and also Tāhuna Minhinnick. That has added concerns to negotiations with Ngāti Te Ata over, for example, overlapping claims, because they’ve been through a very difficult period. So the best advice I can offer iwi is to get on with these overlapping claims as soon as possible, and also step back and recognise that iwi are not, as it were, protected behind hermetically sealed walls. There are areas of interest that overlap and there are going to be these tensions which arise, nowhere more obviously than in a place like Tāmaki.
The second point I wish to make in this third reading speech is to say how pleased I am that the Hūnua scenic reserve will be transferred back to a number of iwi, including Ngāti Tamaoho, and it will continue to be administered as a reserve, and public access is going to continue. As I said last week, in the context of the Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki third reading, the Department of Conservation (DOC) has come a very long way in recent times to recognising that, in appropriate circumstances, areas of land can be transferred to iwi as cultural redress, particularly where they have very strong emotional links to those areas. Therefore, I simply express the hope that this will continue in the years to come and that DOC won’t revert to a proprietorial approach to areas of land throughout the country; that there will be circumstances where lands must be handed over, because it is far more appropriate that they sit with the iwi than be Crown controlled.
So I think the best years for this iwi are ahead of it. It is a strong and a noble iwi, very well led by gentle and communicative and cooperative rangatira, and I hope that the young people from Ngāti Tamaoho will recognise all the wonderful things that this current generation has done for them. I believe Ngāti Tamaoho will take its place within Tāmaki, playing a very important role across the city for the benefit of frankly, all of Auckland.
In that regard, can I simply close by saying, Ngāti Tamaoho are members of the Maunga Authority, and that it’s very important, as I said last week, that all members of the Maunga Authority, when dealing with the volcanic cones in Auckland, realise that there are a number of interests in the volcanic cones. There’s the obvious iwi interest, which is why we had that legislation passed in 2014, but there’s also the broader public interest. There have been some concerns in recent times—for example, in relation to Mount Eden—that some changes have been made that have restricted public access, and that it is very important for the Maunga Authority to work with the broader community so that they understand the changes that have been made and why the changes have been made, so as to avoid unnecessary strife. I am sure, when I look at the leadership of Ngāti Tamaoho, I believe that they are exactly the people to play that very important role on the Maunga Authority to make sure that the public are brought along with changes that are made.
Can I conclude by wishing Ngāti Tamaoho all the best. It was great dealing with you. I feel that I have learnt so much about this country by dealing with people like you. Someone once wrote a book called The Education of a Public Man—well, that’s really what Andrew Little’s going to find out as Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations. You learn so much about your country, and 10 years ago I would have said there would never have been any discrimination of the kind that I mentioned at the beginning of this speech, but it did happen, and it’s very important that this country address those sorts of things. So that’s why I’m so pleased that this legislation now has its third reading. I commend the bill to the House and wish this great iwi all the very best for the future.
MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): E Te Māngai o Te Whare, tēnā koe. Tēnā tātou katoa ōku hoa kaimahi katoa ki roto i tēnei Whare Pāremata. Ko te mea nui o tēnei rā ka tū au ki te whakautu i a koutou, i ō koutou kaha i tēnei rā o Ngāti Tamaoho. Tēnā tātou katoa. Nei rā taku mihi aroha; kikī ana tēnei Whare i ō koutou wairua, i te hau o Ngāti Tamaoho. E ngā uri o Ngāti Tamaoho i roto i tēnei Whare, tēnei te mihi mahana ki a koutou katoa. Kia ora.
[To the Assistant Speaker of the House, greetings. Greetings to one and all of my colleagues in this Parliament. The main thing today is to stand and respond to you, to your strength on this, the day of Ngāti Tamaoho. Greetings to you all. This is my loving greeting; this House is overflowing with your spirits, with the essence of Ngāti Tamaoho. To the descendants of Ngāti Tamaoho in this House, this is a warm greeting to you all. Thank you.]
Things happen for a reason, and today I am particularly delighted to stand in this third reading debate celebrating the longstanding generosity and strength and resilience of Ngāti Tamaoho, especially considering what you have been through over the generations and over the centuries, because I wasn’t supposed to speak on today’s bill. I had even let Warahi Paki know that I wasn’t going to be able to be in the House to greet you all today and to stand here ā-tinana [in person] to feel your wairua all around us. So I’m particularly happy that I am here to address you. My colleague who was supposed to speak on this, who is our fantastic Pākehā tangata Tiriti spokesperson for Te Tiriti, Jan Logie, is unable to make it back from the plane in time. I am incredibly honoured to take her place and be able to address you today.
I spoke in the first reading and, in the whole 20 minutes that I had to prepare for this, I went back and had a look and remembered—remembered your story, remembered your history, remembered your whakapapa, and remembered your strength from my speech in the first reading on this, and why—and all of the connections that I have to your story came back to me just in time for me to stand.
I’m going to concentrate on kaitiakitanga today, because Ngāti Tamaoho are kaitiaki, not rebels. Ngāti Tamaoho have always been kaitiaki, even when they were made virtually landless. So the connection and the importance of whakapapa and the accountability that you have always held to your ngahere, to your awa, to your maunga, to your people, to your tupuna, and to your mokopuna to come was never severed. You have continued despite all of this, and despite being, in Warahi’s words, underserviced for ever by all authorities, by all powers—by local government, by regional government, by central government—and underserviced with all of the basic living needs that communities need, having had your land and environmental responsibilities taken by shady manner, by shady actions, or by outright theft. You have maintained, through wit and ingenuity and sheer accountability, the leadership and connection to your lands. Those shady deals and shady sales that happened around the South Auckland area, around your whole iwi tribal rohe—and including, I’ve read, some lands in Remuera, which is a good thing to remind us all in this House—are quite typical of many of the Treaty deals that happened. Some of our prime lands and whenua were absolutely stolen from iwi. So I did want to put that on the Hansard as well.
Now, I wanted to pick up on your words, Warahi—and all of you from Mangatangi Pā, from Waikato Awa, from Maungaroa Maunga, and from Tamaoho and Waikato iwi. The long, agonising wait, says Warahi, is actually the patience and generosity that Ngāti Tamaoho have had and have benefited our country with despite being underserviced by powers, as I mentioned, and not having the full affirmation of your kaitiaki mana over your waters. An example is the work you have done to maintain māra kai, water kirihi, the pūhā, the tuna, the tuna heke, the kōura, the catfish, and all the whakapapa parts of our ecosystem; and the biodiversity that you have had to struggle to care for despite the settlements, the colonies that happened as a result of the land rip-offs, the Pākehā colonies that rose, and the infrastructure that was put in place in a shoddy, ad hoc way that caused the environmental degradation that you have then had to try and keep tabs on. What that did to the water supply, the dam; what that did to rerouting water distribution—this has happened all around the country. Our awa have been rerouted from our valleys, from our hapori, and from our families, to be rerouted away from us. So that has happened for ever, and it absolutely happened to Ngāti Tamaoho as well.
I’m a South Auckland resident and have been for all of my adult life. I have visited Hunua Falls and the Hunua scenic reserve for most of my adult life and have gifted that place to my tamariki to be able to take them there to benefit in our ngahere. And I cannot wait to see the affirmation of the cultural mātauranga Māori and leadership that Ngāti Tamaoho will have to have over our ngahere if we are truly going to save them and if we are truly going to protect them for mokopuna. I look forward to your leadership on being able to work with the authorities, including the Department of Conservation and all the authorities that have the power levers, and being able to insist on the benefits of mātauranga Māori, Māori science, and Māori whakapapa knowledge of ecosystems and biodiversity to help guard against things like kauri dieback. And I look forward to supporting your voice and making sure that this House upholds your expertise and your background and your connection to those areas, for the benefit of all of us.
So, in closing, I am here. I am taura here living in Auckland for my iwi of Ngāpuhi, Te Rarawa, and Ngati Porou, living on your lands alongside the other mana whenua of Tāmaki-makau-rau. I am here, appreciative of all the benefits that my whānau and tamariki and parents and grandparents, as long-time residents in South Auckland, have received with the benefit of living on your whenua. I am here as a co-leader of the Green Party, who understand that dealing with large natural groupings such as iwi has really caused some frustration, and we are very clear that it should go back to the actual natural groupings of hapū and, indeed, whānau. I am here because the Green Party know that there is no such thing as full and final settlement, and that Te Tiriti is a relationship between Crown and rangatira, who have rangatiratanga over their whenua rohe and rohe moana. And I am here because Warahi sent me an email. And I replied to you, Warahi, saying, “I’m so sorry I’m not going to be in this House today, but I take on board your words.” And I have taken on board your words and put them on this floor in this Whare, because the words of Ngāti Tamaoho are the most important words.
Nō reira, tēnei taku mihi aroha nō taku ngākau, nō taku wairua, nō taku tinana, nō ōku tūpuna ki a koutou, ki ō koutou tūpuna, ki ō koutou maunga, ki ō koutou awa, ki ō koutou ngahere me ngā rākau rangatira o Te Wao Nui a Tāne, ngā mea katoa, ngā kararehe katoa o ō tātou whakapapa. Ki a koutou ngā mokopuna kāore anō kia tae ki tēnei ao mārama, nō reira, he mihi hōhonu, he mihi aroha, he mihi kau ana. Kia ora mai tātou katoa.
[Therefore, this is my acknowledgment from my heart, from my spirit, from my body, from my ancestors to you, to your ancestors, to your mountains, to your rivers, to your forests and the important trees of The Realm of Tāne, all things, all the animals of our genealogy. To you the grandchildren who have not yet arrived in this world of light, therefore, a deep greeting, a loving greeting, I greet you. My appreciation to us all.]
ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. As the MP for Hunua, I welcome you to this House, Pāremata, and I just want to acknowledge all the rangatira and the kuia from your iwi. I also particularly want to acknowledge the negotiating team that was involved in bringing this settlement to its conclusion over a long period of time, and I particularly just want to—whilst I see many of you and know many of you—acknowledge Dennis and Hero up there, who I have a lot to do with and I know have played a part, particularly in the electorate that I represent.
In getting to this stage today, I think it’s just worthwhile acknowledging the work of the Treaty settlement Ministers, in particular my friend and colleague the Hon Chris Finlayson, and, of course, the good work that the Hon Andrew Little is carrying on in bringing this matter to a conclusion.
I know this bill is a long time in coming, and I know that you have expressed concerns and issues with the length of time. But we have got there. And I know that it’s cost you a lot—I remember having a discussion with you, Dennis, and your lovely daughter—but we are here today. I think, when you look back at the documentation that’s in the bill, it’s a salutary lesson in what has gone on in the past.
It all started well, didn’t it? Prior to the 1840s, your iwi had friendly relationships with Pākehā and traded well and, obviously, set about trying to have a positive relationship, as did, by all accounts, the settlers that came in that period to live in that area. In the 1840s and the 1850s, that continued, but it was the turning point in 1863 that really changed the nature of that relationship, with the requiring of an oath that was presented to your iwi without sufficient time for due consideration, which led to the burning of property and, over time, the dispossession of land.
When you read it in the actual bill, I think the sobering nature of what that meant for you and for your people—and it’s easy to say the word “you”; what it means to each and every one. It’s just interesting, with the impassionate language: “Many experienced severe social and economic marginalisation and deplorable housing conditions.” Māori children were discriminated against and segregated at a State school run in Pukekohe. When you think about the generations that have passed and what that meant for them individually and what it meant to you as an iwi, it must be terribly troubling, and looking back in history, something that you know has occurred. But what I think is the interesting thing about that is that out of great adversity comes a certain strength and certainly a lot of understanding, and I think you have been truly patient in getting to the point where we are today.
I know this settlement is small, but it is a settlement, and I am particularly glad that you’ve set up your post-settlement group to work with it and work through all the settlement land holdings and other issues that you will be getting. It’s great to see the list of areas that you will have administration over or control of, particularly Āwhitu Conservation Area, which I love; parts around Drury, Hingaia; the Hunua Stream, of course; and the Hunua Falls, which is a great favourite of mine; Mauku Stream; and also the Waiau Pā Reserve. They are all fabulous areas, and I do enjoy visiting them.
But I just want to say to you that my door is always open. I wish you the best, and to any extent that I can help you in the future going forward, so that we can have an even more positive and better relationship, then you know all you need to do is knock on my door and it shall be opened. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Before I call the honourable Minister, I’d just like to remind the House that a passing reference to the Speaker would be useful in these debates. I know the Treaty bills are very special, but just a passing reference in terms of procedure would be appreciated.
Hon RON MARK (Minister of Defence): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. Tīhei mauri ora, tīhei; Ngāti Tamaoho, haere mai, haere mai ki Te Whare Pāremata, haere mai ki te huihui nei [I sneeze, the breath of life, I sneeze; Ngāti Tamaoho, welcome, welcome to Parliament, welcome to this gathering], and welcome to this third reading of your Treaty settlement bill. My name, as the Assistant Speaker has just announced, is Ron Mark, and I’ve got the privilege and the honour of speaking on behalf of New Zealand First, although I have to state right from the outset that I did not sit through the Māori Affairs Committee hearings on your settlement and I’ve just had the opportunity just now to peruse the document before me.
My name is Ronald Whiti o Maaka, and I am Ngati Porou, Ngāti Kahungunu, Raukawa, and Te Arawa descent, and also of Tūwharetoa and I’m also—it’s out of my head—descended from my people from over in the Horowhenua area and Te Ātiawa. My bones go back down, actually, into the top end of the South Island, in around Motueka, being one of those people from Whakatū. You could say that my ancestral lines cover everything south of the Bombay Hills, so I don’t know too much about your rohe. But I’ve just had the opportunity to peruse the settlement.
As a former lead negotiator for the Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki Nui-ā-Rua Treaty settlement, it is interesting for me, when I read page 2, in particular, and then go into the summary of historical account. Those deeds that occurred from 1840 on, for which you have sought redress, are very, very similar to those issues, those grievances, that my Ngāti Kahungunu people have also been seeking redress for, and which I hope to see settled in the same manner through this House in time.
Can I congratulate you. I note that Ngāti Tamaoho Trust and Ngāti Tamaoho members negotiated your deed of settlement. That they first got Crown recognition—that is, the deed of mandate—in 2010 and that you progressed through in December 2016 to initial a deed of settlement actually says to me that you moved at quite some speed. We took about that length of time in the Wairarapa just to agree to appoint a group of people who would actually undertake obtaining the mandate and setting up the trust. I think we took about six years to get through that process as we discussed the matter amongst ourselves. So I have to say congratulations to you, because those formative years of setting up your trust and getting concurrence and agreement from your iwi as a whole would not have been an easy step, but it was the most important step. Getting mandate recognised by the Crown as having had the mandate to progress the claim on is the first step forward.
That you had a Treaty settlement signed in April 2017 and that we are here in 2018 and completing the third reading indicates an eight-year period in total, which I’m quite astonished by, because we’re still working, in the Wairarapa. I’m hopeful that we might see that settlement pass through this House, just as yours is now, during this term of Parliament.
The overlapping claims issues are briefly discussed on page 2 of the bill. Can I say that we recognise the challenges that you would’ve faced. Some of those are outlined in here with other iwi. It is interesting that when you get to that part of the claim, it requires your trustees, your negotiators, to enter into those often sensitive overlapping issues. Sometimes, agreement is easy to find; sometimes, because of disputes—and I’m only drawing on my own experience as a lead negotiator—the contesting of views, and things of history, of whakapapa, and of ownership of eponymous ancestors, they can prove to be challenges. I’m not sure in my mind right now whether you faced exactly the same challenges that other iwi have faced in that area. All I do know is that, at times, it can become very demanding, very testing, very challenging, very emotional, and very difficult. That you as an iwi have progressed to this point suggests that you found pathways through or, indeed, that you found compromises that today you are prepared to accept and live with. May I wish you all the very best as you progress beyond this point, carrying those issues with you, as I know you must.
I’ve had a brief scan of the summary of the historical account, and it’s interesting to me to read the activities of your iwi prior to the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi as you sought to engage with Pākehā settlers and sought to engage in what would’ve been productive land transactions designed to enhance your own economic circumstances and give your people that ability to move forward as one with Pākehā settlers. The same happened in the Wairarapa, and I can see also the changes that occurred post the Treaty settlement and, clearly, Governor Grey’s influence in legislation—again, the very same issues that other iwi have faced as well, and in particular in the Wairarapa, where leasehold agreements were signed and were later crushed by the Crown, in particular, Governor Grey, of the time.
I and New Zealand First acknowledge that when your iwi entered into these negotiations, you would’ve had to accept that the final document would be full and final and that the final document would contain an apology from the Crown and that the final document, the agreement laid out in here, would be enduring. It would last in perpetuity. Those are interesting conditions to enter into at the outset and do, I know, pose challenges. Some would suggest it’s hard to enter into negotiation where it seems that the railway lines have already been laid and to progress to the next station you have to stay on those railway lines—there is no deviation. That you are here now, at the third reading, and that you are asking the House to endorse this agreement indicates to New Zealand First that you have reached a full and final settlement, that you are happy with the contents of this agreement, that you—and I suspect you have scrutinised the apology that the Crown is issuing to ensure that it sits comfortably with your people, that it does contain those points, those aspects which you hold dear to and for which you seek redress and which you wish history to record.
On the basis of that, this appears to New Zealand First to be a document that Ngāti Tamaoho are happy with, and it will lay the foundation for your future advancement of your people, the establishment of a financial base from which you may be able to grow and develop opportunity. We in New Zealand First wish you all the very best as you move forward. Ka kite.
JO HAYES (National): Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā. Ka huri au ki te mihi ki Ngāti Tamaoho, kia ora. Ki ngā hapū o Ngāti Tamaoho kia uru mai ki tēnei rā pai, he rā o te whakanui, he rā o whakaaetia ai tō mate me Te Karauna, ā, ka whakatauhia ētahi wāhanga: nau mai, haere mai ki Te Whare Pāremata, he whare mō ngā tāngata katoa. Kia ora.
[Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I turn to greet Ngāti Tamaoho, kia ora. To the hapū of Ngāti Tamaoho who have entered on this good day, a day for the celebration, a day on which your issues with the Crown are agreed to and some aspects are settled: welcome, welcome to Parliament House, a house for all people. Thank you.]
I’m pleased to stand once again in this House to speak on the third reading of another claims settlement bill, the Ngāti Tamaoho Claims Settlement Bill. The third reading—this is the most important part, of all of our readings that happen in this House. It is important because there is really only one other step left to go with this bill: Royal assent, when it goes off to the Governor-General for her signing.
I want to acknowledge the many people, the negotiators of Ngāti Tamaoho, for the hard work that they have done in bringing this bill to its final form. I want to thank all the whānau, all the leaders of Ngāti Tamaoho, and I want to also acknowledge mokopuna of Ngāti Tamaoho as well. While all the mātua and pakeke sit up in the gallery, it is for mokopuna that you work so hard. They are your future; they are our future. That’s why I stand here proud, once again, in being able to tautoko a third reading of a claims settlement bill.
My colleagues have already outlined various details in this particular bill, but I just want to outline the statutory acknowledgments over some of the waterways and conservation lands and resources. Before I came to the House, I went on the Ngāti Tamaoho website and had a look at some of the projects that Ngāti Tamaoho have been working on, especially around the area of te taiao, the environmental area, and the six major issues that Ngāti Tamaoho have been working in and on. It’s all around the quality and control of the waterways. I am confident that now that this bill has come to this particular part of its process, that having Ngāti Tamaoho in with the regional council, in with the Auckland Council, the Department of Conservation, and other Government agencies, that you will certainly have a very loud voice in how the Manukau Harbour is to be managed, especially around some of the areas of pollution in that area. So I’m really pleased that you’re going to be part and parcel of managing all of those areas.
I also want to make comment around resilience of Māori, because we talk about it in the House all the time when we come into third readings of claims settlement bills. And people have already discussed here in the House about the resilience and the patience that the people of Ngāti Tamaoho have gone through to get to this space.
But I also want to talk about some of the other things that have happened—I’ve heard about in the House today—around the racism, some of them call it unconscious bias, towards our Māori rangatahi, our Māori tamariki. I want to share with Ngāti Tamaoho that even in my family we weren’t immune to things like that. When my sister turned five years old, we lived 2 miles—back in the day—away from the local primary school. It was a metal road. That school bus drove straight past her as she walked to school. That’s the kind of thing that, as Māori—the resilience and the determination that we have suffered and have gained over time have actually set us in good stead to be great negotiators when it comes to claims settlement bills. I want to thank you all for your perseverance.
When I started my kōrero, I talked about mokopuna, because today everything that’s being said in this House is all being recorded, as you know, in Hansard. And, hopefully, one day when your mokopuna walk the halls—and maybe some of them will walk the halls of this House—they will be able to look back into the history books of Parliament and see the work and the great deeds that you have done in getting this bill into the House and getting it through in its final reading. From today onwards, all that responsibility of the future of mokopuna will lay in your hands. It is not really how much you get; it is what you do with the money, it’s what you do with the lands, it’s what you do with your responsibilities that really counts at the end of the day. They are things that I tell my children, and I talk to my mokopuna about that, as well.
So, in closing, I know my contribution is short but, you know, it’s the words that are actually expressed that are the memorable part of the speech. So I turn back to you, because, as I said at the start, I do stand proud every time I stand to speak on these bills. I think that no amount of money will ever pay back the hurt that Iwi Māori have suffered. However, if we keep looking at the past, we will learn that we must strive for a better future. And so I’m very proud to stand and wish Ngāti Tamaoho all the best for your future, for the future of your mokopuna, and I’m very proud to commend the bill to the house. Kia ora.
Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Associate Minister for Māori Development): Tēnā koutou katoa. Ko Mōkai ki runga, ko Tāmaki ki raro, ko Pare Hauraki, ko Pare Waikato, Te Kaokaoroa-o-Pātetere, ko Mangatōtō ki waenganui hoki ake mai ki te nehenehe nui. Tēnei te mihi ki a koutou Ngāti Tamaoho tae mai nei i tēnei wā. He hōnore nui ki te tū i mua i a koutou i tēnei wā, ngā kuia, ngā koroua i whakarangatira i a mātou i tēnei wā. Tēnei te tino mihi ki a koutou. He rā nunui tēnei mā koutou tae mai nei ki te whakanui tēnei rā, tēnei te tino mihi ki a koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa, haere mai, nau mai, kia ora.
[Mōkai is above, Tāmaki is below, Pare Hauraki, Pare Waikato, Te Kaokaoroa-o-Pātetere and Mangatōtō are in between and back to the great forest. I greet you Ngāti Tamaoho who have come here at this time. It is a great honour to stand before you at this time, the elderly women and men who have ennobled us at this time. I cordially greet you. This is a big day for you who have come in celebration; I truly acknowledge you, my greetings to all of you, welcome, and hello.]
Madam Assistant Speaker, I just wanted to acknowledge people who have joined us here today, a great day where we celebrate this kaupapa. Let’s not forget some of our kaumatua and kuia who have passed on: Nanny Mere Taka, Barney Kirkwood, Te Raha Ngarengari, and of course the very famous—or should I say infamous—Toko Pompey, who we will never forget and who advocated this kaupapa endlessly on Radio Waatea and every time we saw him, and of course came up with a wonderful song that Richard Eriwata sung many years ago, the “Tamaoho” song. So we’ll never forget our old mate, and I’m sure he’ll be smiling down on us today.
Of course it’s only right to acknowledge the negotiating team: Ted Ngātaki, Warahi Paki, the lead negotiator, Dennis Kirkwood, Te Roto Jenkins, Gordon Katipa, Kiri Waitai Wilson, Tamara Taka-Jones, Panetuku Rae, George Wheatley, Nick Maaka, Tori Ngātaki, and Christine Herzog. My congratulations to all of them for the mahi that’s been done.
The Tāmaoho story is one of the saddest stories in terms of this country. To be made landless in 1900 by a vicious and ruthless Crown is a disgrace in terms of what happened with this country. I salute the former Minister, who talks about telling our stories in schools. He said this a number of times, and hinted at it today, too. He says that our story should be told in the schools. The Tāmaoho story must be continually and continually told. And I say with respect to our people who are here today that that obligation is not just on the House but on our kaumatua and kuia and our people who are here today. We’ve got to tell our kids, tell our mokopuna, the Tāmaoho story, because the Tāmaoho story is not exclusive to Tāmaoho. It is the Māori story. It’s the nation’s story. It’s the story of colonisation. Sometimes I think that we don’t ever want to talk about colonisation. It’s in the too-hard basket for this House, and it’s seen as an excuse, but we all have a duty and obligation to talk fairly and rationally about how colonisation devastated this country, and in fact devastated countries all around the world in terms of indigenous people.
As you know, I worked for 10 years on talkback radio, and when a Māori baby died I would come into the studio the next day and pick up emails telling me, “Oh, Jackson, your people are murderers. Jackson, your people are abusers.” We’d be overwhelmed with emails telling us what a rotten race we were. And when Māori went to jail, emails would come in: “Oh, you’re 15 percent of the population, Jackson, but you’re 50 percent of the jail population. Oh, Willie Jackson and John Tamihere, all your people are criminals. You’re all criminals.” And when a Māori business went broke, or some individual Māori stole some money from the boss, emails would come in and they would say, “See, Jackson, your people can’t be trusted. You’re all thieves.” And, sadly, our people fill every negative statistic in the prisons and in terms of abuse, violence, health, education, employment—you name it, Māori lead the way.
Now, I’ve always thought it can’t be because Māori have some sort of violent DNA or criminal gene—that can’t be the case. There have to be reasons why Māori and indigenous people all around the world are leading the way in negative statistics. You see, our story is the Australian Aboriginal story. Our story is the American Indian story. Our story is the Canadian Indian story. Our story is the South African black story, the native Hawaiian story, and, whether you want to accept it or not, it all comes back to the colonisation story.
But let me say today, and put it on the table, that I’m not saying colonisation is an excuse for some of the terrible crimes that have happened and do happen in society. I’ll never use that as an excuse, as a reason why Māori commit so much crime. I won’t accept that, even though I attended an institute the other day and I had a young Māori woman telling me that the reason why Māori are murdering too many people and raping too many people and abusing too many people was all because of the Pākehā—I’ll never accept that sort of rubbish. Rubbish. We have to take personal responsibility. We all know that in the House.
But there’s got to be some background to the madness. There’s got to be some background to the madness. You can’t say that colonisation hasn’t had some effect on this country. So we all have an obligation, surely, to tell the history of this country. You see, the effects of losing your language, your culture, your land, and your whakapapa has to be devastating in some way and lead to some of the most catastrophic statistics that can be out there. In my humble opinion, colonisation has a lot to answer for. The whole essence of colonisation was to destroy the beliefs of indigenous people and they so very nearly succeeded. In fact, 19th century politician Sir Francis Dillon-Bell said, “The first plank of public policy [was] to stamp out the beastly communism of the Maori”. If that’s not an example of the coloniser strategy then nothing is.
But we have come through all that. We have come through all that. And our people of Ngāti Tamaoho have shown, through their grace, through their humility, and through their goodwill, that they’re looking at another time. And so there is an opportunity, as other tribes have shown, to forge a future with the compensation that has come—a compensation that will never acknowledge the effects of colonisation and a compensation that, sadly, won’t give us back Remuera, but a compensation that will give us a start.
Hon Peeni Henare: Not yet.
Hon WILLIE JACKSON: “Not yet.”, as the Hon Peeni Henare says. There’s a chance to rebuild, and that’s an opportunity that I ask our people who are here today to grasp. We have an obligation in the House to keep talking about how we get our history and our whakapapa in the schools. We have to be careful—because we’re all watching the polls—but parties have to be mature, have to understand that as Finlayson says and has had for many years, this country will only grow—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I apologise. I’ll just ask the member to refer to other members by their proper names.
Hon WILLIE JACKSON: My apologies, Madam Assistant Speaker. As the Hon Chris Finlayson said, this country will only grow when the true story’s out there, and our Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, Andrew Little, concurs and the Māori caucus also concurs. We have an obligation and a chance to rebuild through the settlement, so I ask the beneficiaries today to never stop telling the Ngāti Tamaoho story and I ask the House: let’s work a strategy out, a strategy where we can come together so that this country will know the history, the whakapapa, and the background so that justice can be understood and told in every part of the country.
Nō reira, tēnei te mihi ki a koutou; he hōnore nui. Tēnā koutou katoa.
[Therefore, greetings to you all; it is a big honour. Thank you all.]
HARETE HIPANGO (National—Whanganui): E mihi ana ki ngā hapū me ngā uri o te iwi o Ngāti Tamaoho. Nau mai, haere mai, whakatau mai ki tēnei wā, te ao hou, te wā o te ao hou. Ko au he uri nō Whanganui, e tū ana au ki te karanga o te pire whakatau o tā koutou kerēme.
[I greet the subtribes and the descendants of the iwi of Ngāti Tamaoho. Welcome, welcome, welcome to this time, the new world, the time of the new world. I am a descendant of Whanganui, standing in relation to this bill of settlement for your claim.]
Madam Assistant Speaker, I take this call, addressing you, as the tikanga of this House requires, although there may be moments that I do turn to acknowledge Ngāti Tamaoho.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Kia ora.
HARETE HIPANGO: I also acknowledge our former Minister of Treaty settlements, the Hon Christopher Finlayson, and the current serving Minister, Andrew Little, for all the work that has preceded them as this Ngāti Tamaoho Claims Settlement Bill advances to its final passage to be made into law. This is the bill of Ngāti Tamaoho—your claims settlement bill. Standing here is immensely humbling. It’s also a tremendous privilege to be able to address the House and also the people in the formulation—the final passage of the making of your law.
I stood for the first time to address the House in the second reading on 3 May, and, in doing so, I referenced that, as a younger woman, I travelled through your rohe, not knowing, in the days when I studied as a student at Auckland University. I now know your history. I have had the privilege of serving as a member on the Māori Affairs Committee and, as a result of that, my knowledge of what your whakapapa and your stories are has been enhanced.
I mentioned in the second reading of this bill that I would speak more substantively to the bill itself. So, in saying that, we acknowledge that this is a significant milestone for all of the hapū, the iwi, and the uri of Ngāti Tamaoho, and I acknowledge all those who’ve worked on this settlement. It acknowledges the past wrongs of the Crown, and that has been outlined within the bill—soon to be the Act—in clauses 7, 8, 9, and the apology specifically at clause 10.
I will turn to the key messages that, as a member of the National Party, the National-led Government initiated the negotiations, and it’s acknowledged that there has been some level of grievance, understandably and rightly so, for this to have taken so long.
Settlements help iwi unlock economic potential and boost the growth and development. As I look up to you all, I see that the generations span. Your succession there is in place for your young ones to carry on the whakaaro and the work of your old people and those of us who are ageing, in here, with our young ones.
Moving forward to the aspects of the bill—as you know, Part 1 is a historical account, and that has been relayed before the House. Part 2 addresses cultural redress and the revitalisation of those aspects of who you are and your environments and your people. And Part 3 is around the financial and commercial redress.
So dealing specifically with those parts, it’s acknowledged that the historical account is detailed there—clause 8, the acknowledgments, clause 9, and I move, fast-forward, through to aspects of the cultural redress. As you know, your negotiators, on your behalf, sought under this settlement a $590,000 cultural revitalisation package. That, in part, addresses the vesting of sites of cultural significance, and that will come about on the date of settlement—Clarks Creek property, Karaka property, and Waitete Pā property are all to be administered as a historic reserve. These are your lands and you will embrace the responsibility as kaitiaki and mana whenua, as you always have done.
Hūnua Falls as well—with the joint vesting of that in your settlement trust body and with the Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki Trust, Ngaati Whanaunga, and Ngāti Koheriki. Also, the statutory acknowledgements outline—and this is listed in Schedule 1 of the bill—all those properties that will now come into the management of you as a people. Geographic and name changes of sites: there are 14 of those—21—and then the naming of 10 unnamed historic sites that you will give the significance of those, as is part of your whakapapa.
The bill outlines, in considerable detail, what those cultural aspects are around your revitalisation package, and then the financial redress of $10.3 million, and with the transfer of four sites back into your management, into your kaitiakitanga.
In closing, it’s been addressed before the House here that no amount of redress will ever be enough to compensate for the wrongs of the past. However, I referenced in my opening that this is the new chapter—te ao hou—and that is a step towards the acknowledgment, recognition, and reconciliation. Ngā mihi nui ki a katoa.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): This is a split call—5 minutes. I call Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi.
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, for the opportunity to stand in support of the Ngāti Tamaoho Claims Settlement Bill. This is my absolute privilege and, truly, honour—to participate in this settlement bill—and this is the first time I am participating in the debate of any settlement bill.
I feel that there is a special connection with Ngāti Tamaoho and the Indians. Indians, when they got to New Zealand—after working in Waikato, they moved to Pukekohe, and we know that there is a special connection over there. Before I go any further, I would like to say to ngā whānau o te iwi o Ngāti Tamaoho [the families of the tribe of Ngāti Tamaoho], tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.
I know my pronunciation might not be very good, but you can understand my feeling—what I feel like today. And on behalf of all the Indians, I would like to thank you for your open arms in having Indians in your patch and giving them the opportunity to settle down over there.
Some of the names I would like to mention here, of the Indians who have been part of Pukekohe—my good friend, Mohanpal Singh Bhatt, and his father-in-law Jawala Singh. One of the streets has been named in Pukekohe with his name. He came to Pukekohe in 1920 and has been there ever since. Now he has passed away, but his family is still over there.
A good friend of mine, Ganges Singh, whom many of you might know, was also from that same patch. The Bhaanas and Masters, they own a lot of land over there, and they are part of that fraternity which grows a lot of vegetables in Pukekohe. So I feel like today this settlement addresses a lot of the humiliation that was seen by our forebears over there. I have been told it is similar to the kind of humiliation the Indians felt in the 1920s when the White New Zealand League used to isolate Indians from the mainstream.
So it is very important. I know it has taken a very long time to come to this settlement, and I won’t take any more time. I want this bill to be read completely so that it can go to the next process. I will stop my contribution over here, and I commend this bill to the House.
Tamati Coffey: E Te Māngai o tēnei Whare?
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I call—
Hon Members: Tamati Coffey!
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I call Tamati Coffey—five minutes.
TAMATI COFFEY (Labour—Waiariki): Ha, ha! Ka pai tēnā!
Te Arawa ūe, Te Arawa ūe
Ā ko te whakaariki, ko te whakaariki
Aha, tukua mai kia piri, tukua mai kia tata
Kia eke mai i runga ki te paepae poto a Houmaitawhiti.
Ā, tuatahi, ki tō tātou matua nui i Te Rangi, ā, ko ia te tīmatanga me te whakamutunga o ngā mea katoa. Tuarua, ki tō tātou Kīngi a Kīngi Tuheitia, rātou ko te whare o te Kāhui Ariki. Tuatoru, ka hoki ngā mahara ki a rātou mā kua wehe atu ki te pō, ngā kuia, ngā kaumātua o Ngāti Tamaoho, o te iwi whānui o Aotearoa, anō hoki ki te whānau pani o te pēpi, i mate ai i te tīmatanga o tēnei wiki i Te Māhoe, i Matahina i tōku nei rohe. Moe mai, moe mai, e oki ngā mate.
Ā, rātou ki a rātou, tātou ki a tātou tēnā koutou: tēnā koutou, a Ngāti Tamaoho, tēnā koutou katoa, huri rauna. Ko au te māngai o te rohe o Te Waiariki e mihi atu nei mai i Ngā Kurī-a-Whārei-ki-Tihirau, mai i Maketū ki Tongariro, kei te mihi, kei te mihi, kei te mihi.
[That’s great!
O Te Arawa, o Te Arawa
An intruder, and invader
Let them approach, let them come close
To advance upon the threshold to the house of Houmaitawhiti.
Firstly, we greet our Father in heaven, the beginning and end of all things. Secondly, we greet Kīngi Tuheitia and the royal household. Thirdly, we think about those who have passed on, the elders of Ngāti Tamaoho, and the people of New Zealand, and the family as well of the baby who died at the beginning of this week at Te Māhoe, at Matahina in my region. May the dead sleep, sleep and rest.
Now, let’s return to the living: greetings Ngāti Tamaoho, greetings to you all around. I am the representative of the Bay of Plenty region, from Ngā Kurī-a-Whārei to Tihirau, from Maketū to Tongariro. I greet you, I greet you, I greet you.]
Ngāti Tamaoho, today is your day, and we all stand here and we acknowledge you, and we acknowledge your whakapapa, and we acknowledge the wrong, and we acknowledge the attempt to put things right, as well.
This is a new process for me, as a new MP, to come into this House and to look over the process that occurs when we have iwi coming to the House to make right things that have gone very, very wrong in the past. And your story is one of those stories. But today marks the day of a new dawn. It is Matariki this week, and today, I guess, marks the New Year—a new time period for you, moving forward.
Can I say that I was very impressed, and I did have a laugh to myself, when I looked at your website. On the home page, I think, the whānau, everybody up there in the gallery, would be interested to know that on the home page of the Ngāti Tamaoho website, whilst there’s a little bit saying “Register if you’re one of us.”, the next bit down is a little karanga out there—well, a challenge, really—to your own people, saying that you’re seeking the next Ngāti Tamaoho Governor-General, that you’re actually seeking the next Ngāti Tamaoho Prime Minister, the words being, “Now that our Treaty claims work is nearly finished, we’re turning our attention to the goals in our 2050 strategic plan, which includes having at least one Governor-General or Prime Minister who is of Ngāti Tamaoho descent.”
Ka rawe! I love that you have taken an inch, and you have taken that mile. I love that you are dreaming big and you are seeing this not just as the day when you get to settle your grievance with the Crown but when you also create an aspiration for your mokopuna, for your uri yet to come, to say to them, “You don’t need to aim low any more, kids. Aim high! Go for the top job! If those people down there can do it, you can do it too.” And I think that’s a strong message that you should be sending out to your whānau, to identify who that kid is going to be, who those kids are going to be, and I look forward to monitoring that, to seeing, one day, the day when you get to stand there in the gallery again and sing for your mokopuna in the House, your Ngāti Tamaoho, and you get to stand there proudly and look down on them and know that things have come full circle—from the time where you’ve come from at the start of your journey and looking forward into the future.
You have lots of be proud of. You have a very bright future ahead. You’ve set your goals in the most beautiful way, and I absolutely, wholeheartedly, from my rohe, commend this bill to the House. Kia ora rā.
JO LUXTON (Labour): Tēnā koutou katoa. It gives me great pleasure to speak to this settlement bill. I wasn’t on the Māori Affairs Committee, but I have spoken to colleagues that were on the committee and have told me a little bit about the bill and about Ngāti Tamaoho. I want to join with other members in welcoming the people who have journeyed to Parliament today for the third reading of their settlement bill. This is a significant milestone in an arduous process, but one that will provide opportunities for their future. So I congratulate Ngāti Tamaoho for their decision to accept this settlement.
I listened carefully to the Minister’s contribution on the history of Ngāti Tamaoho. It outlines how the Crown has failed in its obligations to Ngāti Tamaoho, the result of which has left Ngāti Tamaoho without the economic base that it once enjoyed. This alone is reason enough to apologise to Ngāti Tamaoho, so I support the Minister’s comments about the apology.
I understand that there were only two submissions on this bill. I guess that means that everyone must agree with this bill, as it is my experience that if people disagreed with the legislation then the committee would have heard all about it. Therefore I do want to acknowledge the submitters that took time to give their thoughts and their concerns to the committee. I’ve looked carefully at the Māori Affairs Committee report and it seems very clear to me that the committee have given thoughtful consideration to all the concerns raised with them.
I would like to mention some of the cultural redress that is part of this settlement. There are provisions made in respect of geographic place names and, in particular, the Pratts Road Historic Reserve is changed to Te Maketu Historic Reserve. I think that it is important that geographic place names are returned to their original names, so I am pleased for Ngāti Tamaoho.
There are two properties, the Clarks Creek property and the Karaka property, that are to be vested in the trustees in fee simple. This, I believe, is very important. It is important that there is cultural reconnection for Ngāti Tamaoho to these lands. The Hūnua Falls property is vested in fee simple to be administered as reserves, and I see that there are extensive provisions to be made for the timing of the status and future of improvements owned by the Crown on the property as well as the future joint administration of the property. Finally, there is a cultural revitalisation fund of $590,000 provided as part of the cultural redress. Surely this redress will enable Ngāti Tamaoho to continue working towards the conservation of their gifted sites.
I want to acknowledge the Ngāti Tamaoho negotiators, the Crown negotiator, the officials, and I also acknowledge the Minister, the Hon Andrew Little. This is a very good settlement bill and it will provide excellent opportunities for Ngāti Tamaoho and their future generations. I am certain that they are looking forward to progressing their plans to the future. As one of the last to speak on the final reading of this bill, I’d like to say that Ngāti Tamaoho have waited long enough for their legislation to be passed and I don’t want them to wait any longer, so I commend this bill to the House. Tēnā koutou katoa.
SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you very much, Mr Assistant Speaker, and it’s a pleasure to take a call on this Treaty settlement bill this afternoon here in the House. I’d, firstly, like to just acknowledge all the representatives from Ngāti Tamaoho who have come to Wellington here today to witness the third reading and the passing of this legislation which is important in their history. I’d especially like to acknowledge the chair, Dennis Kirkwood, who I’ve had the pleasure of working with in the past—and I acknowledge your presence here as well.
The third reading of this piece of legislation is an opportunity where Parliament formally acknowledges the wrong which was done in New Zealand’s history and apologises for what was done. Reading through the legislation and the history and the agreed statement of facts of what has happened is truly an opportunity for us as Parliament to apologise for the wrongs which were done by the Crown and to provide redress.
So it is good to see that this bill does include a number of aspects to the redress. There is the agreed historical account, the Crown acknowledgments and apology, the cultural redress with sites to be vested with joint management of the Hūnua Ranges, and the financial and commercial redress as well, which will go a long way to supporting Ngāti Tamaoho with their aspirations for their future and for their young people and for the future of their relationship not only with the Crown but also with the community in which they live.
So I just want to acknowledge everything which has been said today and to acknowledge Ngāti Tamaoho, to congratulate them on the settlement, and to wish them all the very best for their future from this day. So thank you very much, Mr Assistant Speaker.
Hon PEENI HENARE (Minister for Whānau Ora): Ka noho tonu ahau ki roto i Te Reo Māori mō te roanga ake o taku kōrero. Heoi anō e Ngāti Tamaoho kua riro māku nei ngā kōrero katoa hei whakakapi i roto i Te Whare i te pō nei. E mihi atu ana ahau ki a koutou katoa, ka tautoko atu i ngā mihi rangatira i utaina ki runga i a koutou, mai i tō koutou taenga mai, kaua i tēnei wā, engari mai i te pānuitanga tuatahi o tēnei pire, tae noa mai ki tēnei wā.
Ka tautoko anō hoki ngā aituā maha i wahaina mai e tēnā, e tēnā o Te Whare i te rā nei. Ā, kotahi tonu te kōrero mō rātou kua ngaro atu ki te pō: haere mai, haere. Heoi anō ko tāku e tāpae atu ana i ngā aituā maha o te wā, ā ko tērā kei roto o Ngāi Takoto, ko te pāpā o Shane Jones kua ngaro atu ki te pō. Kotahi tonu te kōrero: okioki, okioki, okioki.
Ka whakahokia mai ngā rārangi kōrero ki a tātou, e te pāpā, e Anaru Tarawhīwhiwhi, tēnei e mihi atu ana ki a koe e te kanohi o Te Kīngi i wahaina mai e tōku matua nei a Te Hōnore a Wiri Hakihana i te kōrero e pā ana ki a koutou. E tika ana ko Tāmaki ki raro, nō reira e mihi atu ana ahau ki a koe e te pāpā e Anaru, ā, me te whakaaro nui ki Te Kīngi Māori, te Kīngi o te mana motuhake, arā, ko Kīngi Tūheitia.
E mihi atu ana ahau ki a koutou e Ngāti Tamaoho. Āe, e tika ana i roto i ngā kōrero kei roto i te pire, ā, ka whakapāha Te Karauna ki a koutou mō ngā tūkinotanga a Te Karauna ki a koutou i roto i ngā tau. Kaua ko ngā tau tawhito anake, engari ki roto i ngā tau nō nāianei tata ake nei.
Nō reira ka noho ahau ki te whakarongo ki ngā kōrero katoa o Te Whare ka whai whakaaro tēnei uri o Ngā Puhi, ka pēhea nei a Ngā Puhi ka whai pānga ki tēnei kaupapa? He maha ngā wero kei roto. I kite atu ahau i te tere o tō koutou mahi ki te whakatutuki i tēnei o ngā ture ki roto i Te Whare, e mihi atu ana, nā, he wero tēnā ki ōku ake o Ngā Puhi. Hei aha rā te tōmuri mai o ngā take o Ngā Puhi, me aro tōtika atu mō ngā uri whakatupu te take.
Engari e mahara atu ana au i ngā kōrero a ōku mātua tūpuna. I te hekenga mai o Ngā Puhi ki roto o Tāmaki Makaurau ki roto i ngā tau, anei te toa a Ngāti Tamaoho, anei ko te toa a Ngāti Te Ata. I tipi tō haere o ōku mātua tūpuna o Pōmare i tō koutou kāinga. He aha te take? Kia kaua a Ngā Puhi e takariri ki a koutou o Ngāti Tamaoho, nā runga i te mōhio, he iwi motuhake, he iwi toa, he iwi rangatira koutou. Nō reira, e mihi atu ana ahau ki a koutou, e ōku rangatira.
Kāti, e mōhio ana tātou i ngā mahi tūkinohia e Te Kāwanatanga, e Te Karauna, i a Ngāti Tamaoho. E mōhio ana ahau, otirā, Ngāti Tamaoho, nā Kāwana Kerei te tohu ki ngā hōia, kia hanga i tētahi huarahi roa rawa atu, ka kai i ngā whenua o Waikato, ā, ko te take nui o taua tāima ko te raupatu. Nā ko te huarahi matua e kīia nei ko te Great South Road, ka kai ngā whenua o Ngāti Tamaoho e noho mai nei i te rā nei. Nō reira koia rā tētahi o ngā tūkinotanga mai i te upoko o te motu whānui, arā ko Kāwana Kerei i ōna wā.
Nā ka heke iho mai ki ngā tāima i kōrero mai e Te Hōnore Chris Finlayson i a ia e kōrero ana ki roto i Te Whare. Ka kōrero mai Te Minita tawhito mō te āhuatanga ki te mahi kaikiri, te mahi kaikiri ki ngā tamariki mokopuna o te wā nei. Āe mārika, he aha te take e ohorere ana ki te nuinga o ngā tāngata o Aotearoa ki te whakarongo atu i ngā mahi kaikiri a te Pākehā ki a Ngāi Māori ki roto i ngā tau.
Heoi anō, ka whakaaro ake ahau ki tōku tupuna, ki a Tā Hēmi Henare. Ka mutu te pakanga tuarua o te ao ki roto i ngā tau waru tekau, i haere atu tōku karani pāpā ki te RSA ki roto o Kawakawa. Heoi anō ko te tohu a te kaiwhakahaere o te RSA, “Ei, haere mai e hine ki roto, haere mai ki te kai rama, engari ō hoa hōia Māori me peia atu ki waho nā runga i te koretake o koutou, nā runga i te mahi haurangi o koutou, nā runga i te take he kiri parauri tā koutou.”
Ehara tēnei i te kī atu kotahi rau tau ki muri, kāhore. E hoa, kei roto i ngā tau rua tekau, toru tekau kua pahure ake nei, i kite atu tātou katoa i tēnei tū āhuatanga. Nō reira ki te rongo atu i Te Minita tawhito Te Hōnore Chris Finlayson e kōrero ana mō tēnei take, āe, e tika ana te kōrero a tōku matua nei, Te Hōnore a Wiri Hakihana, āe, me kōrerohia wēnei take ki roto i tēnei Whare. Ka mau ki runga i te rikoata o te Hansard ngā tūkinotanga o Te Karauna ki a tāua te Māori ki roto i ngā tau, kāti.
Ka kōrero a Te Hōnore a Anaru Iti mō te āhuatanga o te tāone e mōhio nei tātou i ēnei rangi arā ko Pōkeno. E tika ana me mau ngā kōrero kei roto i te pire. Tā te mea ko te nuinga o ngā tāngata o Aotearoa whānui e pahure nei i te huarahi matua o Pōkeno, ā, ka tau ki te tāone o mea, o Pōkeno mō te ahikirīmi te take. Mehemea e mōhio ana rātou i te hītori me ngā whakapapa o te whenua rā, kāore e kore ka whai whakaaro anō te hunga Pākehā ki ngā mahi i tūkinohia ai e Te Karauna ngā hunga kei roto i te tāone e mōhio nei tātou a Pōkeno i ēnei rangi.
Kāti, whakapuhi ake ahau i te kōrero a Te Minita tawhito e pā ana ki ngā take kei roto i ngā pire, arā ko ngā overlapping interests. Hei tāna hei aha rā te whawhai, me aro atu ki ngā tau me ngā mahi kei mua i te aroaro. Āe mārika. Ko tāku atu ki a ia, otirā ki tēnei Whare, e tautoko atu ana ahau i te tū o Ngāi Māori tukuna mā te tikanga wēnei tū āhuatanga hei whakatikatika. Kaua ko te ture. Mehemea ka whakakohatungia ki roto i te ture, āe, ka wehe Ngāi Tāua te Māori. Ka whawhai a Ngāi Tāua te Māori ki a Ngāi Tāua te Māori. Mehemea ka whakamanahia ki roto i te pire, anei, ko tēnei wāhi ki a koutou, engari ko tēnei wāhi, anā, kei a koutou tētahi atu rōpū. He take nui tēnā o te wā nei, he take nui tēnā o te wā nei.
Nō reira, ko tāku atu ki te iwi Māori, arā ki a Ngāti Tamaoho e noho mai nei, āta whakaarohia, kia tūpato, kia mataara, kia mataara. Kia kaua e tukuna mā te ture Pākehā tātou anō wehewehe ai. Nō reira he wero tēnā kaua ki a Ngāti Tamaoho anake, engari ki te tini o ngā iwi kīhei i tutuki i wā rātou take kerēme ki mua i te aroaro o Te Karauna. Anā, ko Ngā Puhi tērā, anā ko ētahi atu o ngā mana whenua ki roto o Tāmaki Makaurau. Nō reira taihoa ake nei tātou ka kite mehemea ka taea Te Minita o ēnei rangi te whakatutuki ngā moemoeā o ngā iwi, arā ko Ngāti Tamaoho e noho mai nei ki runga me ngā iwi o ngā mana whenua ki roto o Tāmaki Makaurau.
Kāti, ehara i te mea ohorere ki tēnei Whare e toru ngā wāhanga o tēnei pire: arā ko te whakapāha, nā, ki roto tonu i te whakapāha ko te rīpoata o ngā tūkinohia a Te Karauna ki a Ngāti Tamaoho kātahi. Ka rua, anā, ko te āhuatanga ki roto i ngā mahi whakahoki atu i ngā whenua me te mahi whakahaere i ngā whenua ki a Ngāti Tamaoho. Kua kōrero mai Te Whare mō te āhuatanga ki ngā wairere ki Hunua. Nō reira e mihi atu ana ahau ki tērā tū āhuatanga.
Ka mutu ko te wāhanga tuatoru o te pire. Ka whakaritea nei ki roto i te pire i ētahi āhuatanga ka whai reo anō a Ngāti Tamaoho ki ngā mahi e pā ana ki a rātou, me ngā whenua kei roto i wā rātou ake rohe. Nō reira, heoi anō, ka kī atu ahau ki a Ngāti Tamaoho i tēnei wā, ā, ka kī mai tēnei Whare me pēnei, engari ko te wero nui ka kī atu Te Kaunihera o Tāmaki Makaurau me pērā. Nē? Kia tūpato, kia mataara. Āe, ahakoa ngā kōrero o tēnei Whare, he whare anō kei roto o Tāmaki, he kaiwhakahaere anō kei roto o Tāmaki, arā, ko Te Hōnore a Phil Goff tērā.
Heoi anō e Ngāti Tamaoho, kua tata pau te wāhanga ki ahau. Heoi anō, ko tāku e mea atu ana ki a koutou e ōku rangatira, mā te atua koutou e manaaki, e tiaki, mai i tō koutou wehenga atu i Te Whare nei, kia tae pai ai koutou ki roto o ngā wā kāinga o Ngāti Tamaoho, puta noa i te motu whānui, e ōku rangatira, e te pāpā e Anaru, koutou ngā mātua, ngā tūpuna, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.
[I will remain in the Māori language for the duration of my speech. And so, Ngāti Tamaoho, it is up to me to conclude all the speeches delivered tonight in the House. I acknowledge you all and reinforce the esteemed greetings that have been lavished upon you, right from the time of your arrival, not this time but at the first reading of this bill, right through until this time.
I also support the many deceased who are connected to those of the House today. There is only one thing to say about those who have departed to the dark realms: welcome, go. What I have to add to the many deaths of this time is the death within Ngāi Takoto, the father of Shane Jones, who has gone to the dark realms. Only one thing can be said: rest, rest, rest in peace.
The threads of my speech now return to us. Sir, Anaru Tarawhīwhiwhi, I greet you, the representative of the King who was addressed by my elder the Hon Willie Jackson in his speech about you all. It is correct that Tāmaki is below, therefore I greet you sir, Anaru, and acknowledge the Māori King, the King of our independence, that is, King Tūheitia.
I greet you Ngāti Tamaoho. Yes, what is said within the narrative of the bill is correct, and the Crown apologises to you for the ill-treatment by the Crown to you throughout the years. Not just in years gone by, but also in very recent years.
And so, while I sat and listened to all the speeches from the House, this descendant of Ngā Puhi pondered, how does Ngā Puhi relate to this issue? It holds many challenges. I saw how quickly you worked to achieve this law in the House, I acknowledge that, and it is a challenge to my own of Ngā Puhi. What is the point of the claims of Ngā Puhi trailing behind, we should take heed with the purpose of benefiting our descendants.
However, I recollect what was said by my ancestors. When Ngā Puhi travelled down to Auckland throughout the years, here is the victor, Ngāti Tamaoho, here is the victor, Ngāti Te Aka. My ancestors, including Pōmare, called in at your home. What for? So that Ngā Puhi wouldn’t vex you of Ngāti Tamaoho, knowing full well that you are an independent tribe, a brave tribe, a chiefly tribe. Accordingly, I greet you, my noble ones.
Well then, we know about the unjust deeds by the Government, the Crown, to Ngāti Tamaoho. I know, and indeed, Ngāti Tamaoho, it was Governor Grey who instructed the soldiers to build a very long road and consume the lands of Waikato, and the main purpose at that time was confiscation. The main road, which is known as the Great South Road, consumed the lands of Ngāti Tamaoho, who are sitting here today. Hence that was one of the destructive acts by the head of the country; that is, by Governor Grey, in his time.
And right through to the times that were spoken about by the Hon Chris Finlayson when he spoke in the House. The former Minister spoke about the features of racism, racism towards children and grandchildren of this time. Yes indeed, why should most of the people of New Zealand be surprised to hear about the racist acts by Pākehā towards Māori throughout the years?
And so I think about my ancestor Sir Hēmi Henare. After the end of the Second World War, in the 80s, my paternal grandmother went to the RSA in Kawakawa. But the manager of the RSA said to her, “Gee, come inside girl, come to drink rum, but your Māori soldier friends must be banished outside because you are so useless, because you get so drunk, because you have brown skin.”
I am not saying this happened 100 years ago, no. Friends, within the last 20 or 30 years, we have all seen this sort of thing. Consequently, when I hear the former Minister the Hon Chris Finlayson speaking about this topic, yes, what was said by my elder the Hon Willie Jackson is correct; yes, these topics should be spoken about in this House. The unjust behaviour by the Crown to us the Māori people throughout the years will be captured on the record provided by Hansard, and that is right.
The Hon Andrew Little spoke about the state of the town we know today as Pōkeno. It is appropriate that those stories should be captured within the bill. Because most people of wider New Zealand traverse the main road of Pōkeno, and they stop at that town, at Pōkeno, for an ice cream. If they knew of the history and the genealogy of that land, then no doubt the Pākehā people would consider the unjust treatment by the Crown to the people of the town we know today as Pōkeno.
Well then, I will further indulge what was said by the former Minister about the topics within the bills, namely the overlapping interests. What he said was to forget about quarrelling, and look instead towards the years and the tasks ahead. Yes indeed. What I say to him, and indeed to this House, is that I support the stance of Māori to leave it to customary practices to resolve this sort of thing. Not the law. If it becomes cemented in law, yes, we the Māori people will be divided. We, the Māori people, will be fighting ourselves, the Māori people. If it is legitimised by the bill, then here you are, this bit goes to you, but this bit goes to another group. This is an important issue in these times, an important issue in these times.
Thus, what I say to Māori tribes, and to Ngāti Tamaoho sitting before me, is to carefully consider, be careful, be alert, be vigilant. Do not let the Pākehā law divide us. Therefore, this is a challenge not only to Ngāti Tamaoho but to the multitude of iwi who haven’t completed their claims with the Crown. Indeed, that includes Ngā Puhi, and others as well who have territorial rights within Auckland. For that reason we will soon see whether the Minister of these days can meet the aspirations of the tribes, of Ngāti Tamaoho to the south and the tribes with territorial rights within Auckland.
Well then, it won’t surprise this House that there are three sections to this bill: that is the apology, and within the apology is the report on the unjust treatment by the Crown to Ngāti Tamaoho, firstly; secondly, the aspects about returning lands and their management to Ngāti Tamaoho. The House has spoken about the matters relating to the waterfalls in Hunua. Therefore I acknowledge those matters. Furthermore, the third section of the bill. The bill provides several functions so that Ngāti Tamaoho will regain a say about actions that impact them, and the lands within their own territory.
Therefore, and so I say to Ngāti Tamaoho at this time, this House says it should be thus, but the big challenge will be if the Auckland Council says something else. Eh? Be careful, be vigilant. Yes, despite what this House has said, there is another house in Auckland, and another manager in Auckland, that is the Hon Phil Goff.
And so, Ngāti Tamaoho, my time is nearly up. There is nothing else but to say to you, my esteemed ones, may God care for and protect you from when you depart from this House until you arrive safely back at your homes within Ngāti Tamaoho and throughout the country. My revered people, sir, Anaru, all of you, the elders and ancestors: thanks and best wishes to everyone here.]
Bill read a third time.
Waiata
Bills
America’s Cup Road Stopping Bill
First Reading
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I call the Hon Chris Finlayson—ah, Kris Faafoi.
Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Civil Defence) on behalf of the Minister for Economic Development: Mr Assistant Speaker, I’m not sure who’s going to take offence! I move, That the America’s Cup Road Stopping Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Environment Committee to consider the bill.
At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by Monday, 3 September 2018, and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting, except during oral questions, during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 191, 193, 194(1)(b), and 194(1)(c).
The purpose of the America’s Cup Road Stopping Bill is to support construction relating to and the operation of the 36th America’s Cup in Auckland by permanently stopping a portion of Brigham Street on Wynyard Point. Hosting the America’s Cup has the potential to bring economic, social, and cultural benefits to New Zealand. Cost-benefit analysis estimates are neutral or a slightly positive return on investment, and shows that the America’s Cup could generate economic benefits of between $600 million and $1 billion over the period of 2018 to 2021. In addition, there are expected leverage and legacy benefits for all New Zealanders, particularly the continued revitalisation of Auckland’s waterfront and reputational, cultural, and national pride effects.
The Government announced in March that the Wynyard-Hobson option has been selected as the location for the 36th America’s Cup. Negotiating the Wynyard-Hobson option required cooperation between central government, local government, and Emirates Team New Zealand. The final agreed option resulted in a major cost reduction for taxpayers and Auckland ratepayers of more than $50 million compared to other options, with an intrusion into the harbour of only 6,600 square metres compared to other options which envisaged intrusions of up to 22,800 square metres. As well as being less expensive and creating a smaller harbour intrusion than other options, the Wynyard-Hobson option also allows the earlier removal of hazardous substance tanks from the southern part of Wynyard Point. It is more straightforward to consent and creates a positive legacy for Auckland. It is a venue that all New Zealanders can be and will be proud of.
For the Wynyard-Hobson option to be viable, a portion of Brigham Street on the Wynyard Point needs to be stopped by early November 2018 to enable construction of syndicate bases, which will stretch across Brigham Street to enable boats to be launched from the Wynyard Wharf during the America’s Cup regatta itself. The portion of road to be stopped is currently owned by the Auckland Council and managed by Auckland Transport. The America’s Cup Road Stopping Bill will permanently stop the road by removing the road status of a portion of Brigham Street, and allow for the Auckland Council, as owner, to apply for title to the former portion of road.
As the landowner, Auckland Council will be responsible for stopping vehicle and public access to the land, to enable construction and event activities to occur. A new link road connecting Hamer Street and Brigham Street will be created to enable continued access to Wynyard Point. The portion of Brigham Street is required to be stopped by 1 November to allow construction to start, and for this reason, I move that the select committee report back in a shortened time frame of two months on 3 September 2018. This will allow the bill to be passed by 1 November 2018.
Legislation is being pursued because normal road stopping processes under the Local Government Act 1974 and the Public Works Act 1981 were unable to stop the road in the required time frame. Road stopping under the Local Government Act would take a minimum of six to 12 months, which would not enable the construction to begin by November this year. As Brigham Street directly abuts the water, stopping the road under the Public Works Act would trigger the requirement to provide an esplanade reserve along the water’s edge. As construction and operation of the bases requires launching facilities up to the water’s edge, such a reserve would not be compatible with the construction and operation of the America’s Cup. If we were to stop the road under the Public Works Act, we would, therefore, need to apply to revoke the esplanade requirements. This process would take up to 90 months, which, again, would not enable the construction to begin by November of this year. For these reasons, we have proceeded with the use of legislation for stopping a portion of the road, which is in the House now.
Officials are seeking written approval to the road stopping from affected tenants and have consulted the Auckland Council, Auckland Transport, and Panuku Development Auckland on the road stopping. As ownership of the land will remain with Auckland Council, the Office of Treaty Settlements have advised that as there appears to be no Crown interests in the land, there are therefore no implications for the Tāmaki Collective or any other right of first refusal. Officials have been engaging with mana whenua in Auckland on the development of infrastructure for the America’s Cup and will continue to engage with iwi as part of the larger America’s Cup project and on the road stopping on Brigham Street.
This is a specific bill with limited impact which will ensure that the portion of Brigham Street can be stopped in a timely manner to enable the construction of the syndicate bases for the America’s Cup. This bill has no wider application in respect of any other road stopping. So I commend this bill to the House.
JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany): Thank you very much. The National Party will be supporting the America’s Cup Road Stopping Bill. We also will not be opposing the shortened report-back period for the Environment Committee.
It’s clear that it’s very unusual for the Parliament to pass legislation which overrides local government processes and overrides the Public Works Act, but where there are important issues and circumstances that require the Parliament to do that we should be willing to do so, and certainly New Zealand hosting the America’s Cup in several years’ time is one of those important issues. The issue we have before us is, simply, whether a road should be stopped. It’s about whether this can be done in a faster manner than what the normal processes would allow, and we think it’s fairly sensible for a piece of legislation to be used for that purpose.
The America’s Cup is going to be a huge economic benefit for New Zealanders. I think it’s also going to be quite a social and cultural benefit for New Zealanders as well as we showcase our country to the rest of the world. And, certainly, the America’s Cup is an issue and an event of national significance for New Zealand. It’s quite appropriate that where an event of national significance is to occur, we consider ways in which we can enable the Auckland Council and other authorities to progress matters to do with the arrangements for hosting the event. That’s, essentially, what this bill does.
We know from the previous instances where New Zealand has hosted the America’s Cup that the infrastructure that’s been created around that regatta is infrastructure that Aucklanders, and I think New Zealanders, are quite proud of. It’s my hope that after the America’s Cup is complete—and, of course, we will be successful again in future regattas—that we’ll be able to see infrastructure constructed around Wynyard Quarter that will benefit us for many years to come.
To ensure that we enable these processes to be done smoothly and expeditiously, we support this bill so that can happen. Aucklanders are going to be proud of hosting the regatta. New Zealanders are going to be proud to see our country on the world stage, and getting Auckland up and running and ready for the event is important. I support this bill, and we will not be opposing it.
DARROCH BALL (NZ First): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to take a quick call in support of this bill, and we support all the recommendations that the Minister has put forward. I just want to make a couple of quick points about the seemingly inconsequential bill itself. I suppose it is in regards to the amount of legislation that is changing, but it is actually quite substantial in the effect that it will have in the planning, facilitation, and function of a very important and worthwhile sporting event that New Zealand will be hosting on the world stage.
As has already been noted, it’s actually making quite a quick passage, and will be making quite a quick passage, through this House, and that is important because it provides certainty with the time in preparation for the cup to be hosted, especially the planning area. Although this seems like a small thing in regards to having to stop a road from being a road, essentially—or a small part of it—on the waterfront, it’s essential for the planning of the cup itself and where all of the public and the different teams will be able to function.
I think that some people in this country are questioning—it is a minority, but it is questioning—the investment that New Zealand will be making into the hosting of this big sporting event. I’m not sure if the Minister mentioned it, but the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment actually did a high-level economic assessment on the hosting of the cup, and they noted some important things. There are some very, very positive economic impacts, not only in the short term, when we’ll be hosting the cup, but over the medium and long term as well. And any of those costs that will be invested into the infrastructure, especially, and the running of the cup itself will far outweigh the costs. There’s a list of things that are beneficial for this country as a whole, both in the short term and the long term. I think one of the things that a lot of people underestimate is the exposure that we get in the international media as a country as a whole. I think that the potential value of “Brand New Zealand” will have a huge boost because of the exposure that we have.
Just lastly, a point from, I believe it was, the last host, which was Bermuda, and a couple of the comments from the Minister that was in charge of hosting that event in Bermuda. They noted the importance of the infrastructure change that they made to host the event, and they had a cost-benefit ratio in the vicinity of one to five. So, if we put in just a small investment that will ensure that the cup is held successfully, that it flows smoothly, and that it has a lasting infrastructure—not just a small one or short-term one, but a long-term one—I think that New Zealand and the public of New Zealand and the international community will be better off for it. We support this bill. Thank you.
DENISE LEE (National—Maungakiekie): Thank you so much, Mr Assistant Speaker. It’s fantastic to stand and take this call to support the passage of this bill, the America’s Cup Road Stopping Bill, and to be able to add to prior speakers’ comments around what a fantastic event this will be and how we can get in behind what this will do to “Brand New Zealand” and to, once again, take back the cup, which we, so deservedly, have taken on and have won.
I’m a proud Aucklander. Auckland has a very proud sailing heritage. It’s been called the City of Sails for a long time, apart from the time when Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development tried something a little bit dubious and looked at a different logo and perhaps a different byline that didn’t go over well for the five minutes that it lasted. The City of Sails is what we’ve always been known as, and this will absolutely activate and underscore that adage that we know and we love so well. This event will also unlock a new generation of yachties. We love to be on the water and we love to be in Auckland, and I’m sure every one of my colleagues would agree with that.
Wynyard Point, in the context for which this road stoppage will take place, is a fantastic area that will be unlocked. When you sail into—no pun intended—events like this, it provides leverage for you to do much more than just the event itself. So the council and councillors will be incredibly proud to not only undergird and be part of this event but they will have, going forward, facilities that will serve Aucklanders long term and not just in the short term. There are other leveraged events and business connections that can come out of this event, so for us to do our bit here and to mechanically do something so small as to unlock 0.322 hectares and take it from being owned by Auckland Council and managed by Auckland Transport. and put it into the hands of the America’s Cup team, I guess you could say, is something that we support and it is the right thing to do.
There are also tangible and non-tangible benefits. Under “tangible” will be that as a result of this bill, you’ll be able to cross the road and experience the syndicates and the base’s connections to the water, and, of course the “non-tangible” is the spirit of the event—the joy that Aucklanders and the rest of the country will receive from seeing the transformation down at Wynyard Point in wonderful, sunny Auckland.
I’m going to finish by saying I wish Team New Zealand well—we all do, of course. It was a real privilege, from the National Government’s perspective, to commit $5 million instantly when the Bermuda win took place. We knew that that $5 million was needed to secure staffing, to make sure that our fantastic men and women in Team New Zealand didn’t go anywhere and stayed with New Zealand, because we want another win again. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. We’re proud to support this.
Bill read a first time.
Bill referred to the Environment Committee.
Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice) on behalf of the Minister for Economic Development: I move, That the America’s Cup Road Stopping Bill be reported to the House by Monday, 3 September 2018, and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 191, 193, and 194(1)(b) and (c).
Motion agreed to.
Bills
Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Amendment Bill
Third Reading
Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Housing and Urban Development) on behalf of the Minister for the Environment: I move, That the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.
The bill will correct an oversight in the legislation that manages the effects of activities in our offshore environment and ensure that the cost recovery regime can operate fairly. A new board of inquiry process for deciding certain marine consent applications was added to the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act—the EEZ Act—in 2017 through the Resource Legislation Amendment Act. An additional provision is needed now to allow recovery from an applicant of board of inquiry costs. That power was not created at the time of the amendment, which means that those costs currently fall to the Crown.
This bill will give effect to the intended policy by providing for cost recovery in respect of boards of inquiry. The bill was examined by the Environment Committee in a short select committee stage, and I would like to acknowledge their consideration and the scrutiny that they provided to this piece of legislation.
I would also like to acknowledge the New Zealand Law Society, who wrote to the Environment Committee and to the Minister for the Environment concerning this bill. Their correspondence included, among other things, a suggestion to clarify that existing cost recovery provisions in the EEZ Act will continue to apply, and that suggestion was reflected in a drafting change made by Supplementary Order Paper 48 at the committee stage.
This bill is urgent, technical, and intended to give effect to existing policy settings. It was not considered appropriate to contemplate broader policy changes in relation to the bill. A more comprehensive review of the resource management system will be considered next year.
The EEZ Act regulates activities in New Zealand’s exclusive economic zone and extended continental shelf in order to promote sustainable management of natural resources and protect the environment from pollution. The case by case consideration of applications for marine consent for discretionary activities is an important function in achieving that purpose. This bill will now align the cost recovery model for EEZ boards of inquiry with other processes under both the EEZ Act and the Resource Management Act. The bill will provide for the Minister for the Environment to recover from the applicant the actual and reasonable costs of a board of inquiry appointed to decide an application for marine consent.
It’s important that the Government acts fairly and transparently when recovering costs. The bill sets out criteria that the Minister must have regard to when recovering costs from an applicant and requires the Minister to provide an estimate of the costs likely to be recovered at the request of the applicant. Board of inquiry costs will not be recovered for applications made before the amendment comes into force.
The Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) is the key agency that manages marine consent processes. This amendment will enable the Minister to delegate cost recovery and the provision of estimates to the EPA. It will provide that the costs of a board of inquiry are a debt due to the Crown, recoverable by the EPA in a court of competent jurisdiction. The amendment will not affect the EPA’s existing power to recover the costs of its functions under the Act.
In short, the change will ensure that the marine consent process for all activities results in a private cost, just as it results in a private benefit, and I support the third reading of this bill.
Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. The Minister who’s just resumed his seat, Phil Twyford, has, I think, captured the essence of this amendment bill. It is a small technical bill that is required to correct a drafting error that was made to the Resource Legislation Amendment Act legislation that took place during the last Parliament. There was a very large and complicated piece of legislation—ran to some 700 individual clauses and about 250 pages of legislation—and as a result of a drafting error, the intent that was meant from Cabinet to actually enable the Environmental Protection Authority and the Minister to recover costs associated with the board of inquiry application relating to a marine consent was omitted. So this piece of legislation corrects that. It means that the obligations to fund are apportioned correctly and appropriately to the seeker of the consent rather than to the Crown, and that was always the intent.
The Opposition doesn’t oppose this. We understand the rationale and accept the way in which it has gone forward. The Environment Committee operated a very truncated process, which was befitting the narrowness of this amendment and the time frames that were required to meet pending applications that might soon come to pass.
I think that with the exception of the contribution from the Law Society, we would have been able to probably pass this in a very, very quick way, but the Law Society came to select committee, funnily enough, after the select committee had reported back to the House, with a written submission that was then taken into account by the Minister for the Environment by way of a separate Supplementary Order Paper, that the Minister who’s just spoken has referred to. That is appropriate and right as well.
So I want to acknowledge and thank the Law Society for their contribution to this bill. Their diligent and careful analysis of it has meant that we’ve actually, I think, arrived at a better bill. This is the kind of drafting error that occurs from time to time, and it would be very unfair to apportion blame to the hard-working and diligent officers of the Parliamentary Counsel Office who do the drafting and who have to make these things work. It’s a complicated process, and I think that they almost always do a good job. It’s not every day that a situation arises where this has occurred; normally, it doesn’t.
I’ve heard Government members in earlier contributions on this bill take quite a sanctimonious approach, trying to apportion blame, somehow, to the previous Government for some kind of deliberate oversight. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Cabinet minutes make it very clear that this was always the intent of the legislation, that it was always meant to be, and to apportion that kind of blame is actually to unfairly, in my view, criticise the hard-working and diligent folk who make up the Parliamentary Counsel Office. I think that that would be terribly unfair of Government members if they were to pursue that line of debate in this third reading.
Her Majesty’s loyal and hard-working Opposition support this bill.
JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to stand and speak on the third reading of this, the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Amendment Bill. It’s a pleasure to support this bill on behalf of New Zealand First. As has been mentioned throughout the passage of this bill through the House, this is a very narrow scope, this bill—a bit of a housekeeping legislation as we tidy up a small technical fault, a minor fault, in the original Act. So I won’t take a very long call—a short call on this, just pointing out our support of this bill and to ensure that it is safely through the House.
We do note that before this amendment was put before the House, there was one submission to apply for a marine consent, which has resulted in the Crown taking the cost of the board of inquiry. So with the swift passing of this bill, there will be no future costs to the Crown relating to a board of inquiry, and that’s a very good thing. So New Zealand First does support the tenor of if it is for private gain, then the private organisation should incur that cost.
I’d just like to note that New Zealand First and, in fact, this Government values our marine environment and is committed to genuinely sustainable approaches to the management of our seas and our sea life. I’d just like to note that yesterday, in another committee—the Māori Affairs Committee—we were lucky enough to have a group of children from Pātea, who have their own issue that they have had in their rohe around seabed mining. They brought to us this wonderful array of beautiful kai moana, and the Environment Committee have actually said, “We would like them to come and bring their kai moana into the Environment Committee.” But, back to the bill, I note that our Government certainly values our marine environment and will genuinely look towards sustainable approaches to the management of our seas and our sea life, and on that I commend this bill to the House.
TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise to take a very short call on the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Amendment Bill.
Look, this very small, technical amendment has been significantly traversed. In fact, when it was first raised as an issue, I think both sides of the House very quickly saw that this was just simply a quick tidy-up to ensure the intent of the legislation when it was passed last year, which was—to repeat—that if there was a board of inquiry, the costs associated with the board of inquiry assessing the benefits or otherwise of a marine consent needed to be borne by the applicant—very simple. It aligns with the other particular Acts and regimes that we have in place.
As you know, we suggested that this could be done very quickly as part of a statutes amendment bill. Indeed, we were prepared to deal with it all in one hit. Ultimately, the Government decided that we should take it to a very truncated select committee process. We did that, with limited feedback from potential participants—all in favour. Then we got, as noted, this rather late but valuable observation from the Law Commission, who, essentially, signalled that there was an opportunity for further clarification. The Minister for the Environment—, through Supplementary Order Paper 48, has done that. Again, I’m not going to traverse that. It’s highly technical, but it does provide absolute clarity with respect to the application of this regime.
It’s not a huge cost—total exposure to the Crown is perceived to be $1.6 million—but we need to treat these approaches in a consistent way. When it became clear that there was a potential opportunity for a private benefactor who was putting through a marine consent to not have to bear the cost of that board of inquiry, then, clearly, we needed to move. We’ve done that. It has no negative perspective from any speaker; we’re all in favour of it. We’re in the third reading, and I think it’s time for us to move on, support this, and get on to some more substantive matters in front of the House. I support this bill.
Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green Party): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker; thank you. On behalf of the Green Party, I am pleased to support the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Amendment Bill—.
Like other speakers, I will be brief, because Jenny Marcroft made the comment that, in terms of seabed mining, the petition to the Māori Affairs Committee and some of the advice that came through on this bill was that the seabed mining applications, which a decision-making committee had decided as part of the Environmental Protection Authority’s (EPA’s) functions under the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act (EEZ Act), had averaged approximately $2 million. And so what this bill does, as others have noted, is ensure that the applicant for the marine consent under the EEZ Act pays the cost of a board of inquiry hearing.
We now have boards of inquiry under the EEZ Act, as happens under the Resource Management Act, rather than decision-making panels for notified marine consent applications. And the fact that applicants pay the cost of the decision-making panel means, of course, that the Crown doesn’t have to pay that cost, and that is because the applicant is seeking to use a public, common-property resource, a public space, in the exclusive economic zone, and it’s appropriate that applicants actually pay for the costs of processing those applications—that it’s not borne by the wider public.
So this is a technical fix-up. It’s a small, perfectly formed bill. It’s the work of a Minister who’s actively engaged in ensuring that the legislation in the environment space works well. I thank the work of the Environment Committee in bringing it back to the House, and officials. The Green Party supports the bill.
ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I’m very pleased to take a call on the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Amendment Bill at its third reading. This bill was what should have been a short stroll but ended up being somewhat more of a marathon—
Simeon Brown: A maritime marathon.
ERICA STANFORD: A maritime marathon—that’s right, Mr Simeon Brown. The fact is that, in essence, this really should have been a very short, truncated process because it was just a simple fix-up. It was a drafting error, as happens with lots of these large, complex pieces of legislation. But despite this, I think it was at the first reading, the second reading, and the committee stage, the Minister for the Environment, Mr Parker, decided to gain some political point scoring over this and did get up a few times and try and make what, really, was an anthill into a huge hill, trying to apportion blame, as Mr Simpson said earlier, to say that this was an example of a wider problem with the original legislation, which it really wasn’t.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I recognise that the member is new, but a third reading speech is as the committee has accepted it to be, not the debate on the second reading.
ERICA STANFORD: Yes, sir. Thank you for your guidance. Basically, I want to take only a short call on this. As I said, it is simply a short fix-up, remedying what was a drafting error in the original legislation. It really should have been done as part of a statutes amendment bill; it wasn’t. However, here we are at the third reading, and I want to thank the Environment Committee, which I sat on, for all their hard work. It was, in the end, a very short, truncated process despite many people from the Government getting up and saying, in their speeches, that it should have had a full process. But never mind; we won’t go into that.
So here we are at the third reading. It was a simple drafting error that needed a full select committee process, according to the Government, but then didn’t have one. But it probably did need one, given that we have a Supplementary Order Paper. I am glad that the marathon is finally over, and I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.
Bill read a third time.
Sittings of the House
Sittings of the House
KIERAN McANULTY (Junior Whip—Labour): The House has made marvellous progress this week, and I understand it is the view of all parties in this House that there is an appetite to rise early. I therefore seek leave for the House to rise, and I wish all members a safe and happy recess.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Leave is requested for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be not.
The House adjourned at 5.16 p.m.