Thursday, 26 July 2018
Volume 731
Sitting date: 26 July 2018
THURSDAY, 26 JULY 2018
THURSDAY, 26 JULY 2018
The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.
Prayers.
Visitors
Mexico—President of Senate and Delegation
SPEAKER: I’m sure that members will wish to welcome Senator Ernesto Cordero Arroyo, President of the Senate of the Republic of Mexico, and his delegation, who are present in the gallery, and note that he is on the left of the Chair.
Business Statement
Business Statement
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Next week, the remaining stages of the Appropriation (2018/19 Estimates) Bill will be completed, with the Estimates debate continuing on Tuesday and Wednesday, and the third reading taking place on Thursday. An Imprest Supply Bill will be taken along with the third reading. The committee stage of the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill will be held on Wednesday.
Motions
Korean War—65th Anniversary of Ceasefire
MELISSA LEE (National): I seek leave to move a motion without notice or debate to acknowledge the 65th anniversary of the Korean War ceasefire taking place tomorrow, 27 July.
SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that action. Is there any objection? There is none.
MELISSA LEE: I move, That this House acknowledge and recognise the 65th anniversary of the Korean War ceasefire, and that this House further acknowledge those 6,000 Kiwi service personnel who served in the cause of Korea’s freedom, and the 47 who never returned home to their families.
Motion agreed to.
Oral Questions
Questions to Ministers
Cost of Living—Policies and Reports
1. Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the cost of living?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): This morning, Statistics New Zealand released its household living-costs price indexes for the June 2018 quarter. This shows what we have heard from many New Zealanders over the last few years—that they have struggled to make ends meet—and it shows why the policies of this Government to lift incomes and living standards are necessary. The data shows that beneficiaries and those on the lowest incomes face a sharper increase on the cost of living than those with the highest incomes. This is consistent with the long-term trend we’ve seen in these indexes, which show that in the last nine years the increase in the cost of living for the lowest 20 percent of income earners was 65 percent higher than for the top 20 percent of income earners.
Dr Deborah Russell: What is the context for these increases in the cost of living?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I’ve seen a range of information that shows that the increases for the cost of living for New Zealanders have gone up over a long period. For example, Consumers Price Index inflation was 14.9 percent from the December 2008 quarter to the September 2017 quarter, yet according to the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment’s bond data over the same period, average weekly rent for a two- or three-bedroom house increased by 38.4 percent compared to that 14.9 percent for inflation. This demonstrates a consistent long-term trend that while some people benefited from economic growth, for many meeting their needs became harder and harder year after year.
Dr Deborah Russell: What is the Government doing to help address the increasing cost of living for New Zealanders?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: This Government has a number of initiatives designed to address this issue. The changes we’ve made through our Families Package will make 384,000 families better off by an average of $75 per week, once it’s fully rolled out. Low-income families in particular will benefit from this package, including through the winter energy payment and increases to Working for Families and the accommodation supplement, which will help them meet their basic needs. In addition to this, our KiwiBuild programme will deliver tens of thousands of affordable homes, which will help to slow rent increases by decreasing pressure on the supply of housing. This Government understands the pressures New Zealanders face in meeting their costs of living. Turning this around will take time, but we are putting measures in place to assist hard-working New Zealanders and lift wages, which have stalled for so many years.
Climate Change—Economic Impact and Emissions
2. DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) to the Minister for Climate Change: Can he confirm that modelling by NZIER under the wide innovation scenario in the Zero Carbon Bill discussion document shows that the average per household gross national disposable income for the net zero emissions target is $223,000, which is $10,000 lower than the 2018 to 2050 baseline; if so, what will be the impact on global temperatures under this scenario?
Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Minister of Conservation) on behalf of the Minister for Climate Change: Yes, I can confirm that the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research modelling shows that scenario, but the modelling doesn’t take account of the many ways in which action on climate change will improve people’s lives through reduced traffic congestion, and health benefits from more cycling and walking. As the member will know, there is a range of analysis, including Westpac modelling, that says New Zealand could save $30 billion in GDP growth by acting now on climate change.
David Seymour: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It was a question on notice which had a second part about the impact on global temperatures under this scenario, which she didn’t address at all.
SPEAKER: I think that is a fair point. The Minister will address part two.
Hon EUGENIE SAGE: Countries like New Zealand, which emit 1 percent or less in individual emissions, are estimated to have a combined total of around 30 percent of greenhouse gases globally. That’s around the same level as China, the US, and Europe, so we need to take action, otherwise we contribute to 30 percent of the emissions.
Health Services—Medicinal Cannabis Legislation
3. 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 support loose-leaf cannabis being available through the Government’s medicinal cannabis bill?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: What the Government supports is a sense of commitment to the law change which people like Helen Kelly were asking for, which is not accommodated for in the National Party’s legislation, which, if they’d have consulted with us, if they had any good faith, if they had any integrity, they would have asked us beforehand, and we could have helped them. And we still stand ready to help them.
Hon Paula Bennett: Does he support loose-leaf cannabis being available through the Government’s medicinal cannabis bill?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: What the Government supports is the bill that we put up.
Hon Members: Answer the question.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I’ll answer the question—I’m famous for it—ha, ha! Being frank and answering questions is my specialty. Can I just say what the Government supports is what we put up in the first hundred years of being a new Government—not after nine years of nothing—
Hon Members: A hundred years!
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: In the first hundred days of being in Government—yes, the first hundred days, sorry [Interruption]—actually, it has crossed my mind—
SPEAKER: Order! I am going to ask the Acting Prime Minister to complete it, but I think the volume’s got so high now around the House that the sound system is being interfered with. I think we’ll stay in this millennium anyway.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I was talking futuristically and optimistically, and that’s why I confused the 100 days with 100 years. But in the first 100 days, we put the legislation before this House and had a select committee study, and at every point of that select committee study the National Party members had a chance to put changes in.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: And they took that chance.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No. They didn’t do a thing. The very day the report came back to this House, they turn up with a bill that they hadn’t even shown the other side of the House the contents of, and it sits in a ballot box and may never see the light of day—and that member’s career looks like it may not see the light of day, either.
Hon Paula Bennett: How does he reconcile those comments with the fact that the National Party has repeatedly asked the select committee to include important detail like whether loose-leaf cannabis will be available, and has offered to work more collaboratively?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: One should not have to remind that member that the bill will be going before a second reading and on to a full committee of the whole House, and at each point they can make a constructive contribution. Please do so.
Hon Paula Bennett: So does he support loose-leaf cannabis being available through the Government’s medicinal cannabis bill?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Again, we don’t answer questions about our—[Interruption]. We don’t answer questions—[Interruption].
SPEAKER: Order! Now, that is enough. Mr King was probably the worst, because I could hear him over all of the people in between. But I will ask people to settle down.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: We don’t answer questions reflecting our own personal opinion. This is a coalition, and a very successful one at that. It is our want to consult all of our colleagues before such an answer is given. So if a member like that gets up and says, “Does he support …”, then I have to tell her: think about the Government in its totality, not just one of its major stars. Thank you.
Hon Paula Bennett: Does he believe that loose-leaf cannabis should incur an excise tax?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Could that member ask the question again?
Hon Paula Bennett: Happily. Does he believe that loose-leaf cannabis should incur an excise tax?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Again, I have to tell that member that my personal opinion is not what’s governing this country; it’s my colleagues and what they think as well: the ones behind me and all the ones over there. So we’ll have a full-scale discussion, and what our conclusions are will be reflected in the second reading of the bill and at the committee stage, at the time in which we are able to change it if we have to.
Hon Paula Bennett: Well, does he agree with the executive director of the Drug Foundation, who said Mr Reti’s bill “provides the detail a lot of people wanted” and “The beauty of the National bill [is] they’ve done a tonne of work and it lays out quite a few things.”?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, that is a comedy. If the National Party had done a tonne of work, then where was it in the last nine years?
Hon Chris Hipkins: Has he seen reports of the comments made by the former Associate Minister of Health, arguing that he had been advocating for these changes for nine years and was blocked from making them by the previous National Government?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I not only have seen such reports but I was absolutely alarmed by them.
Hon Paula Bennett: Does the Prime Minister support loose-leaf cannabis being available through the Government’s medicinal cannabis bill?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: For the umpteenth time, my colleagues and I will not be getting up and giving our personal opinions. We understand how democracy works, and what this Government will do—
Hon Paula Bennett: Point of order.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I’ll get around to answering your question.
Hon Paula Bennett: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I’m not asking for a personal opinion; I’m asking the Prime Minister—
SPEAKER: The member will resume her seat.
Hon Paula Bennett: Well, that’s how he answered it.
SPEAKER: I find it hard to believe that the member would interrupt—interrupt—a member who’s answering a question to complain about the quality of the answer before it’s finished.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: That member needs to understand that this Government governs on the basis of democracy and consultation, and when we’ve had our full consultation at the end of the second reading, before it goes to the full committee stage, as everybody up there knows, every chance will be given for changes to be made. Until that happens, we will not be expressing our personal opinion, because it does not help.
Hon Paula Bennett: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Twice now, I’ve had answers that he says he can’t voice a personal opinion on. I’m not asking for the member’s personal opinion; I’m asking for the Prime Minister to state what the Government’s position is.
SPEAKER: And if the member had listened to the answer, that was in the first sentence.
Hon Paula Bennett: Does the Government support loose-leaf cannabis being available?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I have to just repeat the last three answers, because the same question has been put in the same way. It puts me in mind of that 1965 song by a man called Len Barry, which goes “One, two, three … like takin’ candy [off] a baby.”
Housing—Homelessness
4. PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai) to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: What progress, if any, has the Government made in reducing homelessness this winter?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Housing and Urban Development): At Te Puia Marae in May, the Government announced urgent action to tackle homelessness this winter. This week, I announced that the Government has delivered more than 1,000 extra transitional public and Housing First places so far this winter, with many more expected to be ready soon. We know there’s a lot of work to do to end homelessness, but our winter 2018 plan is delivering the first step.
Paul Eagle: What will the winter 2018 plan mean for homelessness this winter?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, we know that homelessness will continue to get worse before it gets better. The winter 2018 response is an “all hands on deck” approach to helping people in need this winter. It’s strongly focused on working with the wider community to have more than 1,500 additional public, transitional, and Housing First places available compared to the end of last year.
Paul Eagle: What response has there been to the winter 2018 plan?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The Government’s incredibly grateful to the public, who responded in droves to the Prime Minister’s call to action. More than 280 members of the public—private landlords, landowners, NGOs, iwi, and developers have contacted us about potential housing opportunities. These contacts have so far resulted in 122 more housing places being made available with nearly another 73 expected to be ready shortly.
Simon O’Connor: Does the Minister still stand by his pledge and that of the Prime Minister that there would be zero homelessness this winter, including “No one needs to live in a car this winter.”?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I stand by the Prime Minister’s statement that no one needs to live in a car this winter, and I urge anybody who is without decent shelter this winter to come forward to Work and Income New Zealand. The Government will do its absolute darnedest to make sure that anybody who needs a roof over their heads gets one.
Job Creation and Unemployment—Effect of Government Policies
5. Hon AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by all of the Government’s statements, policies, and actions in relation to the New Zealand economy?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I stand by the economic statements, policies, and actions of the coalition Government, when understood in their context and when reported correctly.
Hon Amy Adams: Is he aware that in the first six months of the new Government’s term, job growth has more than halved from its rate of growth over the previous two years?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I don’t have that information in front of me. What I do know is that unemployment has reduced to 4.4 percent—the lowest it has been in many, many years.
Hon Amy Adams: Well, has he read ANZ’s recent jobs report, which states, “job growth has stalled and is starting to move in the wrong direction”, and, if so, is he aware that the increasing cost of labour and compliance will make it more difficult for employers to take on new staff?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I’ve certainly read the ANZ jobs report, and what I can say from that and other data is that the economy continues to grow. We are transitioning away from an economy that relied, under the previous Government, on population growth and housing speculation. That’s not sustainable. That has supressed wages. This Government’s going to make sure that everybody gets a fair go in that economy.
Hon Amy Adams: Well, does he accept that business has genuine concerns that the Government’s industrial relations reform will make it harder for them to employ staff, or does he agree with his colleague Mr Lees-Galloway that they’re just scaremongering?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I’ve heard concerns expressed by members of the business community about the Government’s changes. What we’re working towards is an environment of industrial relations that’s fair, that actually gives people access to things like lunch and dinner breaks. Once again, we can confirm where the moral compass of the Opposition sits when it comes to people actually getting lunch and dinner breaks.
Hon Amy Adams: Given the employment rate was so low when this Government came into office and there has never been a tension between unemployment and inflation since the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act came into force nearly three decades ago, why is he introducing changes to the Reserve Bank Act to create a dual mandate?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What we want is for monetary policy, just like every other aspect of our economic framework, to contribute to the growth of a more productive and more sustainable economy. We will continue to make sure that the Reserve Bank has a focus on inflation, but at the same time, we want it to look after how the real economy is operating. Employment is a good proxy for that. Many other countries in the world use it, and, in fact, those countries that have a dual mandate with both inflation and employment tend to keep inflation under control better than those with a single mandate.
Hon Amy Adams: In light of Statistics New Zealand’s release today showing that low-income households’ second and third most expensive weekly items are food and transport, why are Ministers in the Government promoting regional fuel taxes that will hurt the poor the most and, specifically, increase the price of food and transport?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We’ve already heard from the Minister of Transport many times that, on average, it’ll affect a family in Auckland by $5 a week. At the end of this Government’s project, they will have a functioning transport system that will improve productivity in that city by more than $1 billion a year. I’m sorry to say to the member that her Government’s nine years of neglect of transport infrastructure has come to an end.
Provincial Growth Fund—Ngāti Hine and Crown Joint Venture
6. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister for Regional Economic Development: Does he stand by all his statements and actions?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Acting Prime Minister) on behalf of the Minister for Regional Economic Development: Yes—on behalf of the Minister.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: When he said yesterday “the fact that they”—Ngāti Hine—“believe that the transaction suits both their interests and ours is hardly page one news.”, how do we know the transaction suits our interests—i.e., the Crown’s and taxpayers’—when he refuses to reveal the key details of the deal?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, to paraphrase a very famous Australian Prime Minister, Menzies, the first thing we’re going to do with Ngāti Hine is put a “g” in it and call it Ngāti Hine—pronounce it properly and ensure that people up there are not offended every time he asks a question. Now, having said that, there is a clear delineation of value to both the owners in the trust and the Government, and that is in a document which, as a commercial document, is confidential.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Why are the key details of the joint venture—annual rental and net stumpage rate—commercially confidential given that it’s public money and the public has a right to know to what extent he is subsidising a private trust?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: In the same way that the hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars divvied up in the Callaghan Innovation fund under that Government were in confidential deals—not available to the public—in the very precise, exact way that that Government behaved when they were in power.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: When he said yesterday that Ngāti Hine’s acting chief executive officer, the former New Zealand First MP Pita Paraone, was “most certainly within those discussions” about the project, what was the nature of his involvement?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The reality is that Pita Paraone is someone who was promoted to positions by the former National Government. He is a person of immense respect. His father was one of the last surviving leaders of the Māori Battalion. No one in the North, whatever their politics, thinks that he has been self-interested, other than in serving the people of his tribe or his iwi. This is the first time we’ve had any questions about the propriety of his involvement. In fact, it’s not possible for Māoridom to advance their cause if people of that calibre and experience are denied a chance to make a contribution.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That was all very interesting, but it did not answer the question at all.
SPEAKER: I think it did. Further supplementary?
Hon Paul Goldsmith: I suppose it’s worth it.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Was he aware that Mr Paraone told Radio New Zealand that “I had no part in … signing … the deal, or determining what the deal should be, other than to attend the actual planting of the first tree.”; and how does he square that with his comment yesterday that he, the same Mr Paraone, was “most certainly within those discussions.” on the project?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Because in the full picture of the developments in Northland, and particularly the intended Waitangi settlement, Mr Pita Paraone has been a very essential personality who’s very persuasive, and in that full context, he would have been involved there, and also with respect to Ngāti Hine because he belongs to that iwi. As someone who acted for that iwi myself 40 years ago, I know how long they’ve been waiting for some help, and it’s reflected in the very fine statement in today’s Northland papers explaining this: “It certainly is refreshing to have a government that seems to want to actually govern.”
Hon Paul Goldsmith: I ask again: what was the nature of Mr Paraone’s involvement in the discussions?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I could tell that member that everybody in Ngāti Hine has been involved in these discussions. It’s been a long cause that they have campaigned for, and in that respect, his involvement is no more special than any other member.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: How can people have confidence in the probity of his handling of the fund when $6 million has been given to a trust on conditions that he refuses to release, the acting CEO of which was a New Zealand First MP last year and is two spots off entering Parliament again on the New Zealand Party list?
SPEAKER: I think you mean “New Zealand First”.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Look, the fact is that the number of people seeking to enter Parliament on the New Zealand First Party list is legend, and I can understand why. It’s a certain course to a career, and a long career at that. Can I say, secondly—
Hon Members: Richard Prosser!
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Eh?
Hon Members: Denis O’Rourke!
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Oh, so you do have a voice, then? They do have a voice, do they? Can I just say that everybody that’s looked at Ngāti Hine, from a long way back, all the way back to the 70s, when Carter Holt Harvey sought to get a 99-year lease and was stopped by a very smart young lawyer at the time so that the properties and the land and forest stayed in Ngāti Hine’s control.
Hon Member: Who was it?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, modesty prevents me from saying who that lawyer was, but people in Ngāti Hine remember well, and there’s nothing untoward in this arrangement whatsoever, other than it begs this question: what has the National Party got against Māori advancement?
Defence Force—Operations
7. JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First) to the Minister of Defence: What recent reports has he received on the New Zealand Defence Force delivering value to the community, nation, or world?
Hon RON MARK (Minister of Defence): As established in the Government’s new Strategic Defence Policy Statement 2018, the Defence Force delivers value to the community, the nation, and the world. Recently, I received a report from the Defence Force, delivering value to the community by providing nurses to support the Ministry of Health and district health boards—in particular, Radio New Zealand National carried a report this morning where the nurses’ organisation’s industrial services manager said, “The New Zealand Defence Force nurses help keep people safe and the deployment didn’t undermine what the nurses were trying to achieve.” I commend the New Zealand Defence Force for being ready and able to provide support despite the National Party’s rather cynical posturing.
Jenny Marcroft: Is the Minister aware of any recent efforts by the navy that delivered value to the community, nation, or world?
Hon RON MARK: Yes. HMNZS Matataua was used recently to assist Zealandia sanctuary in mapping a lake floor in Wellington. This will play an important conservation role for the lake by helping to eradicate the introduced carp. And, sadly, HMNZS Matataua was called upon recently to assist police recover the body of Matthew Wallis from Lake Wanaka. The team helped locate and lift the wreckage, which enabled police to return Matthew to his family. Our condolences and deepest sympathies go out to them during this very difficult time.
Jenny Marcroft: Is the Minister aware of any other work where the New Zealand Defence Force has delivered value to the community, nation, or world?
Hon RON MARK: Yes. Last month, I told the House about the successful work HMNZS Taupo is doing on the world stage with Operation Wasawasa in Fiji. I can advise that they have helped Fijian authorities to retrieve over 12 kilograms of cocaine from a remote island only accessible by ship. Through the combined patrols, which began in early June, the New Zealand Defence Force has been helping Fiji authorities to enforce regulations for inshore fishing, to protect their fishery resources, and to police that South Pacific country’s borders. I congratulate, and the whole of the Government congratulates, the New Zealand Defence Force for the great work they are doing every day in support of our communities, our nation, and the world.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Before he approved the deployment of nurses into district health boards to assist with the 12 June nurses’ strike, did he satisfy himself that the parties to that dispute had fulfilled their obligations under sections 11, 12, and 13 of schedule 1B of the Employment Relations Act?
SPEAKER: Order! Unless the member tells me that that is a requirement of the Defence Act, I am going to rule the question out.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: It would normally be a requirement, under section 9 of the Defence Act, to make sure all laws are complied with before Defence Force personnel were deployed in New Zealand in peacetime. I’m just asking the Minister whether he was satisfied that all of those boxes had been ticked.
SPEAKER: Yes, and I think that goes further than the section 9 requirements. It is not the responsibility of the Minister of Defence, once he’s received a request, to go down below the surface into the negotiations and make legal judgments in that area. It is an area that some of us have looked at in the past.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. As you know, Mr Speaker, the Defence Act has been changed—what is it called? Amended—
SPEAKER: Updated.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: Updated. And it is a responsibility for the Defence Force to provide proper health and safety conditions for New Zealand troops on shore. You will remember a number of your colleagues, at the time, being quite concerned that those provisions might extend to deployments as well. But it is abundantly clear that the Minister ultimately making a request would have an obligation to ensure that people were being treated properly, inside the provisions of the Health and Safety at Work Act, in anything they were being asked to do.
SPEAKER: And that’s easily resolved. Are the sections that Mr Woodhouse quoted anything to do with the Health and Safety at Work Act?
Hon Michael Woodhouse: They are actually, in respect of the Code of Good Faith in bargaining. But, in support of the shadow Leader of the House, there are general obligations, I think, on the Minister of Defence to ensure that the deployments are consistent with other laws. I don’t see how the question can be ruled out. If he doesn’t know the answer or didn’t get that advice, that would be a perfectly appropriate answer. But I can’t see how the question is out of order.
SPEAKER: Well, I’m ruling it out of order, because I’m saying that those provisions of the Employment Relations Act are not his responsibility. He has an obligation, to my understanding—because, as I say, I have had some familiarity—to get an undertaking that the appropriate procedures have been put in place as far as employment relations are concerned, but not to dig down into the detail of the negotiations, which those sections relate to.
Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill—Statements
8. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) to the Minister of Justice: Does he stand by all his statements regarding the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Yes.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Can he confirm the advice of the Human Rights Commission that his electoral law changes would be illegal and unconstitutional in the home of MMP Germany, because the constitution imposed on it by the Allies, including New Zealand, after the defeat of Nazi Germany specifically contains a provision protecting the freedom of speech and association of members of Parliament?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I’m aware that the Human Rights Commission made a submission to that effect. Since we don’t have a written constitution or a basic law, and since the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill if enacted does not undermine the freedom of MPs, then I do not see that it applies.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Where is the justice in New Zealand insisting on basic democratic protections for Germany to protect freedom of expression and Parliament’s independence, but then proposing laws in New Zealand that contradict those?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I’m not quite sure what that member is referring to, but that is not what the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill does.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Is the Minister aware that in jurisdictions like Zimbabwe and Pakistan, where they do have the sorts of electoral law he’s proposing for New Zealand, MPs have been dismissed for exposing corruption within their own Government, MPs have been dismissed for voting differently on bills to what their leader directed them, and MPs have been dismissed for holding press conferences without the consent of their leader; and is that what he wants for New Zealand?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: That member is very helpfully allowing this House to enter the realms of the absurdity and stupidity. None of those things will apply under the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does he agree with the statement, and I quote, “electoral law should not be the subject of widespread divergent and disagreement between the parties. The convention is that the parties will agree on electoral law, because the voting public expect there to be a consensus on electoral law”, a statement made by list MP Andrew Little in 2014; and if so, why is he pushing through these major changes without any cross-party consensus?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: From time to time, different political parties do have a different view about our electoral law and our constitutional make up. Those differences are often traversed, well-versed. Some parties believe there should be a written constitution, others don’t. That is the nature of politics.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does he agree with the statement “electoral law changes should come from thorough independent reviews, and not self-interested political parties”; and if so, why have none of the five independent reviews and commissions into MMP recommended any changes in respect of where an MP has fallen out with their party?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Once again, that member draws a long bow, refers to a number of unrelated things, and draws a conclusion. The reality is that this Government sticks to the fundamental principle of MMP, which is that party political proportional representation is the be all and end all of MMP, and it is not for individual MPs of the day to undermine the will of the electorate.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My point of order is that my question specifically asked whether he agreed with the statement that electoral law changes should not be made unless they’ve been recommended by an independent commission or review.
SPEAKER: I’m going to ask the member to leave the quote out but ask the very tail of the question again.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does he agree with the statement that electoral law changes should come from thorough independent reviews and not self-interested political parties?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: This Parliament has passed electoral laws before that have not been the consequence of an independent review, and equally it has declined to pass laws that have been as a result of an independent electoral law review, like the previous Government refusing to fully implement the recommendations of the last review of our electoral laws.
Oil and Gas Exploration—Gas Supplies
9. JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: Does she stand by all her statements and actions regarding the Government’s decision to ban further offshore oil and gas exploration?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources): Yes. In particular, I stand by my statement welcoming the recent news that New Zealand’s largest gas user has secured supplies until 2029. It’s good to see this level of certainty in the context of the long-term transition we announced in April.
Jonathan Young: Does the Minister acknowledge that the data reported to the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) this year shows that current gas demand can only be accommodated by current supply until approximately January 2020?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The quality-assured data reported in the data from MBIE shows that we have around 10.5 years of gas. This has been the estimate of 2P reserves. This has been the number that it has been for the last 20 years, on average, give or take a few points. Nothing has changed. The member needs to realise that there is 100,000 square kilometres off the coast of New Zealand that is available for exploration. In fact, we have the busiest drilling season that Taranaki has seen in years coming up, and that member should be pleased.
Jonathan Young: Is the member aware that according to the data reported to MBIE this year, the 2020 shortfall between what is produced and what is needed is more than the entire consumption of households over the whole country?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The quality-assured data reported to MBIE—the 2P reserves—show that we have 10.5 years of gas reserves left. This is, I repeat, what it has been, on average, give or take a couple of percent, for the last 20-odd years. Does that member seriously think that Todd Energy would have just invested $100 million in a gas peaking plant that’s due to be completed in 2020 if they really believed that was the case?
Jonathan Young: Despite the Minister referring to the abstract—
SPEAKER: Order! Order! Start with a question.
Jonathan Young: Will the Minister, despite her referring to the abstract equation of 10.5 years, guarantee to New Zealand households, schools, hospitals, and businesses who rely on gas that they will not be hit by massive price spikes—as has happened in Australia—because of domestic gas shortages?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I repeat to that member: this is a long-term transition. We have exploration permits that go out for 30 and 40 years. If that member really thinks we’re about to run out of gas in 2020, then he should talk to his boss, the former Minister of Energy and Resources Simon Bridges, who was obviously asleep at the wheel as the Minister if that’s what he was presiding over.
Jonathan Young: Will the Minister guarantee to New Zealand households, schools, hospitals, and businesses that rely on gas, that, based on this data provided to MBIE, they will not be hit by massive price spikes?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: What I rely on is the quality-assured data supplied to MBIE that shows, just like we have for the previous two decades, give or take a couple of percent, we have 10.5 years of gas in reserve. If there really is to be a shortage, this is something that has been building up over the last decade. So that member needs to look to members within his own party, because decisions that were made 10, 15 years ago are what will have an impact there.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Will the Minister explain, in additional to Todd Energy’s recent decision, what the recent Methanex decision means with respect to this point of not being able to gain supply into the future?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: As mentioned in my primary answer, that Methanex has just signed a contract through to 2029, what we see is investment decisions being made with the knowledge the sky isn’t falling in. I suggest that member and his party with its new-found commitment to climate change may want to consider that too.
Jonathan Young: What is the Minister’s plan for supplying enough gas to New Zealanders that, even though Methanex have signed an agreement with no new gas yet discovered—what is her response if, over the next two years of exploratory drilling, they prove unsuccessful?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The deal that Methanex entered into through to 2029 is exactly the same kind of deal they have been entering into for the last few years. There is nothing new here. I repeat to that member that all the exploration permits that existed before our announcement exist. That is 100,000 square kilometres off the coast of New Zealand that is available for exploration. If there were to be no finds in that, then it’s a good job this Government has a plan to transition those communities and those people that are reliant on those jobs.
Consumer Credit—Vulnerable Consumers
10. JO LUXTON (Labour) to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: What is the Government doing to provide safe and appropriate lending options for vulnerable consumers?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Last week, along with the Hon Carmel Sepuloni, I attended the Financial Inclusion Industry Forum in Ōtara, which saw 150 people from across the public, private, and Government sectors come together to improve people’s financial capability and create safe lending alternatives. For the first time, we had business leaders, community agencies, and the Government sector in the room working together to improve people’s financial situations. On behalf of consumers and this coalition Government, which intends to make New Zealand an inclusive society where everyone can thrive, I sincerely want to thank all the organisations who took part. I look forward to our ongoing work to ensure all New Zealanders are protected from the misery of debt spirals and the predatory lenders creating horrible financial stress.
Jo Luxton: Which organisations and community groups has this Government been working with to provide safe and appropriate lending for vulnerable consumers?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Attendees came from across the public and private sectors. All our major banks and lenders were represented, as were Government agencies and community agencies. We had lenders and finance providers sit alongside the community groups who support the people who may have had issues with their products. Sadly, we had more people express an interest than we were able to accommodate, and I sat in on some of the working group sessions and heard firsthand a lot of the issues that need to be addressed, and I’m discussing these with my colleagues and officials. I am proud of the work that this Government has done in the short amount of time to get to the point where all of these people can come together to be part of a solution.
Jo Luxton: What are the next steps to support safe and affordable finance and to stop the predatory lenders?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Projects agreed for action at the forum included improved access to simpler, safer financing for vulnerable people and progressing an emergency savings safety net for New Zealanders. Three key concepts for vulnerable consumers to access safe, reliable, and affordable vehicles include an affordable ownership model, a social leasing model, and a community ride-sharing model, which the Financial Services Federation will now champion to develop. The Hon Carmel Sepuloni and I will receive a progress report in October, but in the meantime I’m progressing changes to the CCCFA to get regulation in place to stop predatory lending, which has gone on for far too long. I thank Fleur Howard of the Good Shepherd New Zealand Trust, who summed things up well at the end of the forum, when she said that the debt spiral is a real issue driving people into poverty, and if we’re going to help people get out of poverty, then we’ve got to make some of these schemes work. Doing nothing is not an option, which happened under the previous Government.
Prisons—Waikeria Prison
11. Hon DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) to the Minister of Corrections: Does he stand by all of the statements made in prison network capacity papers, including that the planned 1,500 bed facility at Waikeria is the “most efficient and cost-effective way to add quality and capacity to the prison network” and that large-scale prisons “allow a full range of specialist facilities and rehabilitation programmes”?
Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister of Corrections): Yes. Good decision-making is about taking your time to look at all the options. That is exactly what we did. In the end, we made the right decision to build a smaller prison and a specialised mental health facility. We know the option to build a smaller prison is more effective in providing real rehabilitation. What is not cost-effective is building mega-prisons which churn out better criminals, and not better people.
Hon David Bennett: When his Cabinet paper of 28 May 2018 describes the 1,500-bed Waikeria Prison as an American-style mega-prison, what specifically about the build makes it American-style, given his Cabinet paper—
SPEAKER: Order! Order! The question’s finished.
Hon David Bennett: No, it’s—
SPEAKER: It is finished.
Hon David Bennett: No, I’ve got to explain—
SPEAKER: No, you don’t “got to explain” at all. You’ve asked the question.
Hon David Bennett: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I haven’t finished the question, because it’s got a “given”; that was the point.
SPEAKER: And you’re not allowed “givens”.
Hon KELVIN DAVIS: American-style prisons are bigger and house more people. What we will do is build a smaller prison with mental health facilities. Only on “Planet National” is building a mega-prison a good idea.
Hon David Bennett: Why, then, in his Cabinet paper of 20 December 2007 did he propose to build the 1,500-bed Waikeria proposal, saying it was the only sensible plan of action?
Hon KELVIN DAVIS: The member’s got it wrong, because what we were talking about is continuing the preparation work in anticipation of building something. If we didn’t do that, we could have had to foot a big bill.
Hon David Bennett: I wish to table a document showing that the Minister said—
SPEAKER: Is the document publicly available?
Hon David Bennett: It has been released recently; yes, it is, but—
SPEAKER: Well, I’m not going to put it to the House.
Hon David Bennett: Can he confirm that he said at Vote Corrections Estimates that no additional specialist facilities and rehabilitation programmes for the pop-up beds proposed in the prison capacity Cabinet papers are funded in Budget 2018?
Hon KELVIN DAVIS: I’m sorry, Mr Speaker. Could he repeat the question.
Hon David Bennett: Can he confirm that he said at Vote Corrections Estimates that no additional specialist facilities and rehabilitation programmes for the pop-up beds that are proposed in his prison capacity Cabinet papers are funded in Budget 2018?
Hon KELVIN DAVIS: In terms of the pop-up units that I think the member’s referring to, there will be some facilities, but not to the extent that you would get in a—such as what we’re building at Waikeria.
Hon David Bennett: I’d like to table the transcript where the Minister said that there would be—
SPEAKER: Is this a select committee transcript?
Hon David Bennett: Yes.
SPEAKER: If the member proposes once more to table something which he knows can’t be tabled and won’t be put to the House, I will treat him—as previous Speakers have done with members proposing in that manner—as being disorderly.
Hon David Bennett: How does the Minister reconcile his answer that there would be additional funding, when at the Vote Corrections Estimates he said there would be no extra funding for those services?
Hon KELVIN DAVIS: No, that’s not what I said. I’ll tell you what the facts of the matter are now. When we became Government, the prison population was some 10,400. It is now lower than what it was when we inherited the situation. In fact, it’s decreased by some 600 since March. Whatever the member is trying to get at, the fact of the matter is that what this Government is doing not just in corrections but also across the justice sector with my colleagues the Hon Stuart Nash and the Hon Andrew Little—what we are doing is working; we haven’t changed a single bit of legislation, and yet we are getting these decreases in the prison population. Now, it’s early days yet. It may be just a bit of a blip. As I have said previously, we have to wait for a few more months’ worth of data to see if this is an actual trend, but we are doing better now in nine months in Government than those people did in nine years of Government.
Hon David Bennett: Does he think that $750 million for just 600 beds at Waikeria Prison is good value for money, when the $1 billion to build 1,500 beds would have managed demand as well as including better rehabilitation and mental health facilities, according to his Cabinet papers?
Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Again, they’re missing the point. What we’re doing is reducing the prison population. It’s started to go down. We’re doing a lot better. But only on “Planet National” is there spending $250 million on capacity that is not necessarily a good thing.
Hon David Bennett: Can he confirm, in his 28 May 2018 Cabinet paper, saying that on 9 April Cabinet directed the Department of Corrections to place its planned procurement of a new prison facility at Waikeria into a state of managed delay, that at that stage no contract for a public-private partnership (PPP) had been signed by the Department of Corrections, despite Grant Robertson saying on 20 June 2018 that the PPP contract for Waikeria Prison was in place, and that breaking it would have cost significant sums of money to this Government?
Hon KELVIN DAVIS: At that stage, a procurement process was in place. But, look, we just took a pragmatic position. A PPP is going to build the prison, and, as I’ve said earlier, the Department of Corrections will be the organisation that will run it, and so they should.
Police—Liquor Licensing of Clubs
12 CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South) to the Minister of Police: Is he confident that the Police are behaving appropriately with regard to their responsibilities under the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice) on behalf of the Minister of Police: In answering this question, can I assist the member by saying that—
SPEAKER: Order! “On behalf of”.
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Sorry. On behalf of the Minister of Police, can I assist the member by saying that the police’s role under our constitutional arrangements is to enforce the law as they consider appropriate, and not with regard to the opinion of the Minister of the day.
Chris Bishop: Is it acceptable for police to say to bowling clubs that they will not object to a licence if the club agrees to police suggestions around hours and other licence conditions, but they will object if the club doesn’t, and do these kinds of standover tactics have a place in New Zealand?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: On behalf of the Minister, the police have a statutory role of registering objections, where appropriate, to licensing authorities. The only opportunity they have to engage with licence holders is at a time when licences come up for renewal, and I have no criticism of police and licensing authorities, and those others involved in the decision making on licences, engaging with licence holders to ensure the safe distribution and sale of liquor in our communities.
Chris Bishop: What is his response to the decision of Judge Kelly in the Alcohol Regulatory and Licensing Authority decision between Rapira-Davies and Patel, in which the judge said “Reporting agencies should be careful to avoid ‘negotiating’ conditions with an applicant in exchange for those agencies not opposing the application. … It would be an improper use of their reporting role …”?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: On behalf of the Minister, and in pursuit of the relationship of comity between this House and the judiciary, I stand by the member of the judiciary’s comments.
Brett Hudson: Does he think it appropriate that police lodge an objection with no detail behind it to Johnsonville Club’s liquor licence renewal application, and only then open a direct line of communication with the club, something which they could have done prior?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: On behalf of the Minister, as I understand the process, the police have an obligation, when licences come up for renewal, to make their views known. That is the basis on which they engage with licence holders. I would suggest that it would be entirely inappropriate for the police, at any time that suited them during the currency of a licence, to go around and express a view about that licence holder, unless there had been a breach of the law.
Chris Bishop: When he said, “We still need to keep improving if police are going to achieve their ambitious organisational target of 90 percent trust and confidence …”, does he think blanket opposition to bowling club licences will build trust and confidence in the police?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: On behalf of the Minister, I’m not aware of any blanket opposition by the police to any liquor licences.
Chris Bishop: Has he seen the comments of racing Minister, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, in relation to BYO events at racing tracks—namely, “Why are bureaucrats in Wellington interfering with their lifestyle?”, and what will he be doing to preserve these great rural traditions?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: On behalf of the Minister, as I so often do when I go to the Tauherenīkau races: enjoy myself immensely.
Chris Bishop: When the Labour - New Zealand First coalition agreement committed to a serious focus on combating organised crime, in light of the recent behaviour by the police, can he confirm he did not mean this focus to extend to the Whitby Bowling Club, the Island Bay Tennis and Squash Club, and the Wellington Bridge Club?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: On behalf of the Minister, I have full confidence in the police’s strategies for combating all types of crime.
Bills
Ngāti Tūwharetoa Claims Settlement Bill
Second Reading
Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I move, That the Ngāti Tūwharetoa Claims Settlement Bill be now read a second time.
Before I begin, I’d like to extend a warm welcome to those members of Ngāti Tūwharetoa who have travelled here today to attend the second reading of their settlement bill, especially Sir Tumu te Heuheu and the Tūwharetoa Hapū Forum negotiation team. Ko aku mihi mahana ki a koutou katoa.
[My warmest regards to you all.]
This bill gives effect to the deed of settlement signed by Ngāti Tūwharetoa and the Crown at Waitetoko Marae last year on 8 July. This deed will be the final settlement of the historical Treaty of Waitangi claims of Ngāti Tūwharetoa that arose from the Crown’s acts and omissions before 21 September 1992. The bill defines and settles the historical claims and comprises five parts, detailing the cultural and commercial redress and significant Crown apology redress. This redress has been carefully negotiated with Ngāti Tūwharetoa and represents a restorative strategy for progress that is both enterprising and meaningful. The aim of the Ngāti Tūwharetoa Treaty settlement is to resolve the historical grievances of this iwi and restore Ngāti Tūwharetoa’s trust in the Crown by rebuilding our partnership, based on the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.
I’d like to keep my remarks regarding this second reading short, and I look forward to describing the bill in more and further detail and sharing my reflections about its intended impact at the third reading. I’d like to acknowledge the work of the Māori Affairs Committee, who have progressed this bill in a timely and professional matter. The committee began their consideration of this bill in December last year, and considered 80 submissions in total from interested individuals and groups. In March this year, the committee travelled to Taupō to hear 29 oral submissions. Consequently, the committee recommended several minor and technical amendments to improve the bill, including the addition of 24 Wai claims that relate to Ngāti Tūwharetoa.
I’m satisfied with these recommendations, as they ensure that the Ngāti Tūwharetoa Claims Settlement Bill has been robustly considered by the committee. I note a further amendment will need to be considered by way of a Supplementary Order Paper during the committee of the whole House stage. This amendment relates to the Waipāhihi Stream Conservation Area, scheduled to return to Ngāti Tūwharetoa as a recreation reserve on settlement date.
The second reading of this bill brings Ngāti Tūwharetoa and the Crown closer still to the conclusion of their settlement negotiation, and their first steps together in a renewed relationship as partners. I commend the Ngāti Tūwharetoa Claims Settlement Bill to the House. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Before I call the next speaker, can I just confirm that our time clocks are still not functioning, and remind you that I’ll give you a bell at two minutes remaining.
NUK KORAKO (National): E Te Mana Whakawā. Nei rā mihi hōhonu ki ngā uri o Te Arawa. Ka huri te titiro ki ngā tapuwae o Ngātoroirangi i takatakahia o koutou whenua. Ngā uri o Tūwharetoa ki te Aupōuri, tū mai, tū mai, tū mai koutou. E mihi kau ana ki a koutou Tūwharetoa iwi i tae mai ki te Ūpoko o te Ika ko te tautoko o te kaupapa nei. Te muru o te hara o te Kāwanatanga e mahia te kōrero, tū hui, te tuarua o te pire i te pire nei.
[Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I respectfully acknowledge the descendants of Te Arawa. I turn my gaze to the footprints of Ngātoroirangi, who traversed your lands. The descendants of Tūwharetoa i Te Aupōuri, stand proudly, stand proudly, stand proudly. I acknowledge you the tribe of Tūwharetoa who have made the journey to Wellington to be part of this prestigious occasion. The sins of the Government can be addressed in this second reading of the bill.]
I’m honoured to stand here once again to acknowledge Ngāti Tūwharetoa and the people who’ve come today to witness this second reading. In the preceding six months since the first reading occurred, there’s been a lot of activity. The Māori Affairs Committee are now around halfway through this particular process and most of the elements of the select committee and the settlement are in place. It’s now about ensuring that we continue to keep the progress moving forward to the third and final reading.
The bill is set out in five parts. Part 1 is the summary of the historical account and includes the parameters of the Crown apology to Tūwharetoa. To me the apology is the most important part of the bill because a Crown apology is an acknowledgment that you, Tūwharetoa iwi, have been heard and that the hara committed against you is now in the stage of muru.
The other parts of the bill relate to cultural, financial, commercial, and other redress. In the period since the first reading, the Māori Affairs Committee received 36 original submissions. Fifteen supported the bill in full or in part, 15 had no position, and six opposed the bill. We also received 44 supplementary submissions and heard 29 oral submissions in Taupō.
In the process of working through the provisions of the bill, we were notified that we would need to amend clause 14(3)(a), which was a list, and it had to list 24 Wai claims relating to Tūwharetoa that are not currently listed in the definitions claim part within the bill itself. To ensure the integrity of the bill and the settlement with Tūwharetoa, these 24 Wai claims have to be included within the bill itself. Other amendments are nothing more than minor technical changes that do not affect the integrity of the settlement in any way whatsoever.
A settlement of this magnitude, with the number of iwi that border and at times cross over into other iwi rohe, raises the inevitable cross-claim issue itself, and this particular bill was no exception—and particularly with 20 neighbouring hapū and also iwi within the greater rohe itself. There’s been an extensive consultation, particularly between Ngāti Tahu, Ngāti Whāoa, and also Tūwharetoa, and I know personally how difficult cross-claims can be and how the perception of the imposition of mana is felt by Māori. And yet cross-claims preceded the arrival of Pākehā. Our old people had to find ways to live with each other in our competing demands on local resources, as was done here. And our tīpuna understood the need, though, to negotiate, and it was they who said: waiho i te toipoto, kaua i te taio [let us be close together, not wide apart].
My own Ngāti Waewae people, a part of Ngai Tahu, often speak of te tatou pounamu, or the greenstone door. What that actually means is that the pounamu was gifted to seal peace between people, and particularly within those issues around overlapping claims within the rohe. So I acknowledge the hard work of Tūwharetoa—and it was hard work—and particularly with their whanaunga iwi of Ngāti Whāoa and Ngāti Tahu in reaching a kind of broad consensus on what the Tūwharetoa settlement would actually look like.
So I still have really great faith—I think we all do, in the Māori Affairs Committee—that an agreement can be reached, particularly around the Rotokawa conservation area and then also where you look forward to that actually being concluded. I think one of the other difficulties that we have is that once a deed of settlement is signed, we’re actually bound to look only at the terms of the deed itself. So when we looked at Te Kotahitanga o Ngāti Tūwharetoa, when they requested the bill include a number of new provisions for the settlement, including the Motutere Recreational Reserve, we unfortunately were constrained by our own legislative boundaries and could not consider those matters outside of which is contained within the bill before the House. So this also included the Waitete Landcorp farm and the Ōnekeneke property as well. That said, the provisions of the settlement have remained pretty much intact within the bill itself: the cultural funds totalling approximately $3.95 million and then also the financial redress of $25 million.
I just want to take the time to acknowledge the hard work of my colleague the Hon Christopher Finlayson, who progressed so much of this settlement and, equally, our previous speaker, the Hon Andrew Little, who has kept the integrity of the settlement and is working really diligently to bring the settlement to a conclusion. In National’s time at the helm of Government, we signed 59 deeds of settlements. To see these deeds progress to legislation is deeply, really satisfying, because the sooner we settle Treaty claims, the sooner iwi and all New Zealanders can begin to reap the benefits these settlements bring.
I think it’s important though, because of those from Tūwharetoa that are here today, that we acknowledge their ongoing patience and their true aroha that they have shown in all these years of loss that they have suffered. The Tūwharetoa humility and manaaki to this whole country stands as a testament to the mana of a truly great iwi like Tūwharetoa.
Finally, I think it’s important though, as has been done by the previous speaker, just to acknowledge the work of the Māori Affairs Committee, our chair Rino Tirikatene, and the fact that we travelled quite extensively, in some ways, to Taupō and we heard very passionate submissions in regard to a number of the issues that I have highlighted today. I think the important part of it, though, was actually the mana of Tūwharetoa and also the way that they sat there and listened to the concerns. One thing about the Māori Affairs Committee is the fact that it’s always good to hear submissions that support a bill but it’s most important, actually, to hear the submissions that do not support the bill. So that was something that I think was really a great hallmark in the hearing of these submissions and the work that has been done.
On that note e te Mana Whakawā, huri noa i te Whare nei [on that note Madam Deputy Speaker, to one and all in this House], for that reason of honouring this iwi, I hope that we can get through as quick as we can to that third reading and to the final legislation being passed in the House. On that note, I commend the bill to the House. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, e mihi atu ki a koutou katoa.
RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe, Madam Deputy Speaker. Otirā, tēnā koutou Ngāti Tūwharetoa, Te Ariki, Tā Tumu me ngā hapū maha kua tau mai nei ki te Whare Pāremata, tēnā koutou, nau mai, hoki mai. Tēnā koutou i o tātou mate maha o te motu. Āpiti hono tātai hono, rātou ki a rātou, āpiti hono tātai hono, tātou te kanohi ora ki a tātou tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.
[Greetings Ngāti Tūwharetoa, paramount chief Sir Tumu and the many subtribes who have made it here to Parliament, greetings, welcome, welcome back. I also acknowledge those who have passed on. The connections have been made between those who have passed on, and connections have been established between us the living; greetings, greetings, greetings.]
E tū ake au te tautoko i tēnei pire, i tēnei pānuitanga tuarua—I stand to wholeheartedly support this bill, the Ngāti Tūwharetoa Claims Settlement Bill, at its second reading. This is another important milestone in the progression of this significant claim for Ngāti Tūwharetoa, the fifth-largest iwi in Aotearoa, and it certainly has been an enjoyable part of the process that we have conducted as a select committee in this phase. And I do want to acknowledge Tā Tumu and all Te Kotahitanga o Ngāti Tūwharetoa and all of the 26 hapū of Ngāti Tūwharetoa that are represented, previously through the Tūwharetoa Hapū Forum, and all of those hapū who gave very passionate submissions on this significant piece of legislation.
We, as a committee, travelled to Taupō, as my fellow whanaunga Tutehounuku Korako mentioned, and it was a very, very moving occasion, and I do want to acknowledge all of the kōrero that we received from Ngāti Tūwharetoa; from the Taupō District Council, who were supportive of the bill; likewise, too, other neighbouring iwi, who had differing views on certain aspects of the bill. But this bill is centred on Ngāti Tūwharetoa, and the cornerstone of all settlements, including this settlement for Ngāti Tūwharetoa, is the deed—it’s the deed of settlement that was signed just over a year ago now. And our job as a committee is to use the force of Parliament to put through legislation which is required to implement certain aspects of that deed. And so, bearing in mind those parameters, we worked conscientiously as a committee. We listened very carefully, and we certainly asked the officials that were advising us to do all they could to advise us on certain very tricky areas and some complex issues that arose in our consideration of the bill. And I do want to go into those, because there was a significant number of submissions—11 in total—regarding the Lake Rotokawa Conservation Area. And, as we have in all Treaty settlements, there are, inevitably, overlapping claims or overlapping interests, and we see that all over the motu, and none more so than Ngāti Tūwharetoa, who are overlapped by 20 other iwi or hapū groups.
The Lake Rotokawa Conservation Area was one of a particular mamae for Ngāti Tūwharetoa. The Crown expressed a willingness to include and return that conservation area to Ngāti Tūwharetoa. It was included in the agreement in principle. However, as the process of actually getting to the completion of the settlement took place and the Crown and Tūwharetoa sought support from their neighbouring whanaunga of Ngāti Tahu - Ngāti Whāoa to the inclusion of that particular aspect to the settlement redress, unfortunately, Ngāti Tahu - Ngāti Whāoa did not agree to that, and despite numerous efforts and hui, unfortunately, the Crown decided to remove that particular piece of property from the ultimate deed that was signed. And so that was a great area of concern to many, many of the affected hapū. It’s pretty rare, I would say, for a piece of land which the Crown has expressed a willingness to return—and, unfortunately, in dealing with the overlapping interests, no arrangements could be agreed upon between the various groups to ensure that that could actually be effected. So I do regret, actually, that Ngāti Tahu - Ngāti Whaoa wouldn’t go that step further—not even a joint or some dual-management arrangement could be agreed upon, and so, as a result, the property was taken out of the settlement all together.
I would also want to talk to the Motutere Recreation Reserve, and I do want to acknowledge the Te Rangiita hapū, who spoke passionately about that particular piece of land. This particular reserve is not included in the settlement, but there was support by the Taupō District Council and by Ngāti Tūwharetoa that it could be included as redress. And, unfortunately, given the parameters that we were constrained by, we were unable, as a committee, to expand the deed that had been executed to insert that particular property. However, I took some comfort from the remarks from the Hon Andrew Little that that aspect could be addressed in the future. And I certainly hope that administrative processes are put in place to ensure that that is followed through, because what we’re talking about is land that is, ultimately, vested in the Crown. There is a recreation reserve which is vested in the Taupō District Council, and the Taupō District Council has granted a lease, I understand, to like a camping operator—it’s a camping ground. And, ultimately, we would want to see the return of the underlying land, especially given all the parties agree to it, and I certainly would look forward to further progress from the Minister to ensure that that can happen.
There were many, many other issues that we traversed as a committee. I do want to make note of the Ōnekeneke property, which is going back to Ngāti Tūwharetoa as part of this settlement. However, there have been issues around the lease of that property—the lessee is the DeBretts hotel. So those issues are being worked on in regard to the validity of the lease that now sits on that property, but we have been advised that the Minister will be presenting a Supplementary Order Paper further, in the committee of the whole House, to clear that matter up. Because, at the moment, there are discussions under way, I understand, to clarify the lease situation.
Lastly, there were many other issues. I will go into further aspects as we go through. I have no idea where I’m at for time, but I heard the bell.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Forty-two seconds.
RINO TIRIKATENE: Forty-two seconds! I want to use up every second, because this is so important to Ngāti Tuwharetoa, but, ultimately, we are implementing the deed that has been executed. We did our best as a committee to try and address these other aspects. There has been a glimmer of hope that some action will be taken in future, and I certainly hope that is the case, and I just want to, once again, acknowledge Ngāti Tūwharetoa for their persistent hard work thus far, and we look forward progressing through the remaining stages of this bill.
Nō reira, tautoko ana ahau i tēnei pire, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.
[Therefore, I support this bill; thank you one and all.]
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National): This is a second reading debate, so I will keep my comments relatively short. I know that my friend the member for Te Tai Tonga wants to go the full 10 minutes, but I won’t. In opening my comments, can I acknowledge the MP for Te Tai Tonga, Rino Tirikatene. He’s an excellent chair of the Māori Affairs Committee. He is courteous, he’s generous in spirit, and he manages to get through the work. Whenever Kelvin Davis is answering questions in the House, I look across at Mr Tirikatene, who’s got a sort of beatific smile on his face, which suggests that he knows, as so many other people know, that he should be answering those questions, because he leaves Mr Davis for dead. And the same comments could be made about Ms Wall, who is a daughter of Tuwharetoa; of course, she should be in Cabinet as well, and the sooner that happens, the better.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Come to the bill.
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: But I’ll come to the bill. I’m just trying to be nice!
So there are a few brief comments I want to make. The first is dealing with overlapping claims. I often refer to Ngāti Tuwharetoa as sort of the Poland of Māoridom, surrounded by a lot of other iwi—big iwi, small iwi—and so it’s inevitable that there are going to be overlapping claims, and I want to commend them and I want to commend the good people of, for example, Ngāti Maniapoto for the way in which these issues have been dealt with. Overlapping claims are difficult issues; they go right to the history of an iwi, and they can be very emotional. I think that all iwi, including Ngāti Tuwharetoa, are to be commended for the way they have dealt with these issues. If one or two matters have remained outstanding, well, that doesn’t surprise me given where Ngāti Tuwharetoa is based.
Mr Tirikatene has dealt with the Motutere Recreation Reserve issue, and I endorse everything he said. I certainly hope that, at some stage in the future, this reserve will be able to be returned to Ngāti Tuwharetoa. There’s a technical reason why it was out of scope in terms of what we, in the Māori Affairs Committee, could discuss, but he has summarised that very well. There is a sensitive issue over the Ōnekeneke property, as he commented on a few minutes ago. We have to step through that very carefully. There will be a Supplementary Order Paper, and we have to make sure that that issue is dealt with adequately both for Ngāti Tuwharetoa and also for the hotel.
I just want to say something about Waiteti Landcorp farm, because that was another issue the committee dealt with, but it was outside the scope of the bill. Ngāti Tuwharetoa wanted it included as cultural redress, or they wanted a reasonable time frame to be stated for Ngāti Tuwharetoa and Landcorp farming to complete due diligence and negotiate the price. Look, I have every sympathy for every settling iwi trying to deal with Landcorp, because Landcorp have this view that disposing of farms is fundamentally the wrong thing to do. When I was the Minister, I was firmly of the view that my task was to get as many Landcorp farms to settling iwi as possible. I would complain about Landcorp and their attitude to settlements and the way in which they would inflate prices for farms. Their attitude, frankly, in relation to Treaty settlements is most unsatisfactory, and I have every sympathy for Ngāti Tuwharetoa—Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa is another example of where it’s like Napoleon on his way to Moscow: it was fighting every step of the way to try and get the right result for the iwi. So, often, what we used to do was appoint people to the board of Landcorp, hoping that they would have a better understanding of Treaty settlements. And, as an old mafia boss once said, “You can buy people, but how long do they stay bought?” In the case of directors of Landcorp, they would stay bought for as long as it took for the ink to dry on the warrant of their appointment, and then suddenly they would believe that Landcorp has this special role to run farms, and the return on capital is what? About 1.5 percent. I mean, they’re hopeless when it comes to making money out of these farms, whereas, of course, they belong to the iwi and should be returned.
So, look, I know that’s, perhaps, a little bit of rave, but I just want to emphasise the point that Ngāti Tuwharetoa on this issue and iwi on this Landcorp issue are totally right and if it were me, I would force Landcorp to adopt the old Nike slogan “Just do it.” I’d perhaps go further and adopt the Stalin approach: “Or else.” And I think that there really does need to be, on the part of the Government, an opportunity given to Landcorp to sharpen up their ideas.
So with those comments, I commend the bill to the House. As I say, it’s the second reading. It’s been a pleasure dealing with Ngāti Tūwharetoa, who are excellent people, and I really think that when this legislation is through, there is the issue of the mountains that needs to be addressed, and then I think in the central North Island we’re getting to a stage where most of the Treaty settlements will be justly and durably resolved. I’m sure the Minister is looking forward to negotiating with the balance of the Wanganui groups, and with the great Mōkai Pātea in the northern part of Mr McKelvie’s electorate, because they are issues that need to be addressed in the near future as well.
JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First): Tēnā koe, Madam Deputy Speaker. Ki te ariki o Ngāti Tūwharetoa, Tā Tumu te Heuheu, tēnā koe. Ki ngā uri o Ngāti Tūwharetoa, tēnā koutou katoa. Ka nui aku mihi mahana, ngā mihi maioha me ngā mihi aroha katoa ki a koutou. Nau mai ki tēnei whare, te Whare o Pāremata, tō tātou Whare. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.
[To the paramount chief of Ngāti Tūwharetoa, Sir Tumu te Heuheu, greetings. To the descendants of Ngāti Tūwharetoa, greetings one and all. My warmest, deepest, and most appreciative thanks to you all. Welcome to this House, welcome to Parliament, welcome to our House. Greetings to each and every one who is here.]
I greet you from my maunga, Whakarongorua, and from the waters of Hokianga-nui-ā-Kupe we greet you. I acknowledge your maunga, Tongariro, Taupō te moana, and thank you all for your presence here in the House today for this second reading of the Ngāti Tūwharetoa Claims Settlement Bill. It is my pleasure, on behalf of New Zealand First—Aotearoa Tuatahi—to speak on this bill.
Tūwharetoa, may I have the privilege of reciting one of your treasured sayings?
Ka titiro whānui au ki ngā kokonga o tōku rohe, kei reira ngā mana o te motu, ko ngā whānau, ngā marae, ngā hapū. Kī mai ngā kōrero o ō mātua tūpuna, whakaponotia, manaakitia, pūmautia ki ngā tikanga o Ngāti Tūwharetoa.
[I look to the furthest reaches of my territory where the real authority of the country resides—with families, marae, and hapū. I repeat the words of your ancestors—believe in them, look after them, and be steadfast in the customs of Ngāti Tūwharetoa.]
I’d just like to let you know that my broadcasting career—many years ago now–was born in the poho of Taupō-nui-a-Tia. My voice was first heard on the airwaves of Hits and Memories Radio Lakeland. It was a radio station on the hill overlooking the town of Taupō. We had the most amazing view out of any radio station in our country. We looked out over the waters of Taupō, through to the maunga in the distance. Many times they would be snowclad right throughout winter. It was the most amazing place to begin a career. I was nurtured and protected there by the wairua of Tūwharetoa, and I thank you for that.
Tūwharetoa are connected to Te Arawa, where I grew up—just up the road in Rotorua and then up the road and around the corner in Rerewhakaaitu. So Tūwharetoa are part of the place of where I grew up.
I’d like to acknowledge, in this reading, the chair of our Māori Affairs Committee, Rino Tirikatene—an excellent chair. We’ve heard made mention of this already today. It’s really a privilege to be part of this committee and to work in such a collegial manner on these Treaty settlements. Rino mentioned that this reading, this second reading here today in the House, marks a very significant milestone, and I’m privileged to be a part of it. The Minister, the Hon Andrew Little, spoke about, in his submission today, that this represents a restorative strategy for progress that is both enterprising and meaningful, and it is hopeful that, really, it does become enterprising and meaningful once we’re through the third and final reading of this bill.
In earlier readings, the first reading, unfortunately I wasn’t able to be a participant in that, but my colleague the Hon Shane Jones was, and I’d just like to read out what he said, in case you hadn’t heard it. He said that “This is not just a settlement about resources; this is an affirmation and a reminder to us as Māori parliamentarians of the role that the ancestors of this tribe have played over the years in not only contributing to the Kīngitanga but keeping alive the ancient Polynesian kaupapa of Te Ariki.” I think those are really important words for us to remember as Māori politicians.
I would like to also make mention of the Hon Christopher Finlayson, the former Minister, for the work he did in getting the bill through the stages when he was in charge, and also the comments he made about the many overlaps. We’ve heard a lot about that in the select committee, and how these must be worked through in a tikanga process. He made mention of the iwi and how you have dealt with all of these issues. You must be commended for that.
We heard 29 submissions when we headed to Taupō in March earlier this year, and it was really fantastic to go back to what has been a part-time home of mine in an earlier phase in my life. We had several minor and technical amendments that were made to the bill as a result of those hearings and those submissions that we received, and 24 Wai claims relating to Ngāti Tūwharetoa have been added to as well.
I won’t go into too many of the submissions, because they have already been spoken about in this House, but I would like to make mention of the kōrero we heard around Waihī Village—Turumākina hapū. We heard about the Māori reservation that was situated—this is on the south-western shores of Lake Taupō, not very far north-west of Tūrangi, if you’re familiar with that geography. They need funding assistance from the Taupō District Council for the installation of a water line. Now, this is because there has been a bit of an issue with the water treatment plant that supplies treated water to 26 properties and two marae there. The sewerage tanks, they are old, and, with the possibility of effluent seeping out into Lake Taupō—and none of us really want to think about that in too great a detail—they’re seeking help with sorting this out, aware that the Crown has funded and supported other initiatives to clean and upgrade waterways, and that, certainly, is something on the Government’s programme. I would just like to make mention of that submission, because it was something that I thought was very pertinent.
Also, I’d like to make mention of the Motutere reserve. That’s not included in this settlement, but we heard great support from the Taupō District Council as well as Ngāti Tūwharetoa that it could be included at some point in the future and there was acknowledgment from the Minister that hopefully this will be dealt with at some point in the future, as has been indicated.
Just towards the closing of my speech today, I’d like to just make note of a couple of lines that I heard during the submissions in Taupō, and the first is this: “It is the tikanga of Ngāti Tūwharetoa that has got us here. Tikanga will get this finished.” The second point is “This is an occasion in which we behave in mana. This will leave our mauri and mana intact.”, and I think those two statements are something that we can all reflect on.
So just in conclusion, puritia tō mana kia mau, kia ita, aha itaita, kia mau tonu. Nō reira, he hōnore, he korōria ki a Atua, he maungārongo ki te Whenua, he whakaaro pai ki ngā tāngata katoa [grasp tightly to the land, be firm; let not your mana, your land be torn from your grasp. Therefore, honour and glory to God, peace on Earth, and goodwill to all men.]
I commend this bill to the House. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.
Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā. Tēnā koe, Te Whare. Rau rangatira mā, tēnei te mihi ki a koutou i runga i te kaupapa o te rā. Tēnā koutou ngā iwi rangatira o Ngāti Tūwharetoa. Ariki, Tā Tumu te Heuheu; tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.
[Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and greetings to the House. I greet you our distinguished guests who have gathered here for this important occasion. Greetings to the supreme tribes of Ngāti Tūwharetoa, to the paramount chief Sir Tumu te Heuheu; greetings, greetings, greetings one and all.]
It’s wonderful to see so many representatives of Ngāti Tūwharetoa here in this second reading of the Ngāti Tūwharetoa Claims Settlement Bill. I want to start by just acknowledging your patience, and I’m only too aware, as your MP, how long this journey has been. I also want to acknowledge that the journey still has a few steps to go. I also want to acknowledge my colleague the Hon Christopher Finlayson, who has recognised—for Ngāti Tūwharetoa, as with iwi across New Zealand—how critical this process is and how important it is to get resolution, to get settlement in a full and final way, but actually how critical it is to acknowledge the wrongs of the past.
Many people across New Zealand, who might be listening to this debate today, will, of course, know of the mighty Ngāti Tūwharetoa. They might not recognise, though, that it is the fifth-largest iwi across New Zealand, with 36,000 members. I don’t think anyone will be surprised that Ngāti Tūwharetoa is at the heart of the central North Island. From personal experience, I would say you are the beating heart not only of the North Island but of the country, and it is very much centred on Lake Taupō, or Taupō Moana. Although in some of the speeches, in this debate and others, there’s been recognition of the impact on Lake Taupō of some of the public works, for example, that weren’t necessarily—with the hydroelectric power stations, and of course the dam has created quite significant changes for you and your awa.
I do want to also, in this second reading, say how enormously proud I am of Ngāti Tūwharetoa’s contribution to making sure that the health of the lake is also a significant priority, not just for you but in recognition of its vital importance to New Zealand. So not only is Ngāti Tūwharetoa strong, noble, and generous of heart; you are also an economic powerhouse, so vital to the Taupō district, so vital to the wider central North Island.
So I won’t speak at length on this second reading. I do want to just say that I used to be a member of the Māori Affairs Committee, with the now chair Rino, and I’m only sorry that I wasn’t a member of it to see your legislation work its way through the process. I know there’ll be some issues that are causing some frustration still, and I acknowledge the acknowledgment of the Minister to seek ways to resolve those outstanding issues. I will work with him to ensure that the progress is made in a way that is satisfying and resolving to you.
The reality of Treaty settlement bills is they are a critical part of New Zealand’s history but, more importantly, our future. Having listened to the stories of the past, there is absolutely no way, as a people and as a country, we can move forward together unless those wrongs are righted. So I acknowledge your generosity. I acknowledge your presence in the House today for the second reading. Kia ora, and I look forward to the final completion in the third reading.
MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): E te Māngai o te Whare, tēnā koe. Tēnā tātou, ōku hoa kaimahi. Tēnā koutou Tūwharetoa me ngā hapū katoa kua tae mai ki tēnei Whare Pāremata. Kia ora.
[Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Greetings to my work colleagues. Greetings to Tūwharetoa and the subtribes who grace this House. Good afternoon.]
I’m very, very pleased to be able to stand and make a short contribution to this second reading, particularly to put on record my deep regret, actually, at not having been able to attend the hearings in Taupō with my Māori Affairs Committee, especially after having spoken in the first reading, which I had the honour of doing.
For that reason, I want to focus quite heavily on the submissions themselves. I was able to have a deep look into the submissions, given that I wasn’t able to hear the submissions kanohi kitea [in person] on the day, but I made sure I went back and was able to consider the submissions—both written and on record—to keep being part of the deliberation kōrero at the Māori Affairs Committee. And my goodness, as always, there were issues that we needed, and will continue to need to work through, and there remain unresolved issues.
Firstly, I wanted to pick up on Motutere, actually, I think—is what we will go from here. The raru around the Motutere Scenic Reserve, in particular, jumped out at me because I remembered, far too long ago, as a university student, I was part of a group of six people—and I was the only woman—to paddle from Wanganui Castlecliff Beach back to Auckland. Of course, we crossed the entire Taupō lake as part of that journey—the whole trip took us four weeks—but we camped at Motutere, and at various other points along the lakeside, but, absolutely, at Motutere. It actually provided us with important refuge at that time because it was, I think, Cyclone Drena, a long, long time ago, which was whipping up a frenzy up the whole countryside, actually—up the whole North Island. So Motutere, in particular, jumped out at me. I regret, as we constantly do as a House—certainly as a Māori Affairs Committee, actually—that we weren’t able to resolve the Tūwharetoa request that the bill include the Motutere reserve as cultural redress, or as a mechanism for the reserve to be returned to Tūwharetoa, simply because it falls outside the scope of the amendments to this bill that the committee could recommend.
Now that in itself is part of the reason why the Greens fundamentally understand that we need to review the entire process of Treaty settlements—we’ve been very clear about that. Particularly, scope in legislation has been a bit of a clumsy tool to try and serve any sort of justice. We know and I’m clear that these legislations, unfortunately, don’t address justice entirely. They absolutely can offer, and make do, and make the best of the generations of colonisation and its impact and the injustice that has happened. But, certainly, the fact that that lay outside the scope of this bill, just goes again to indicate how unfit these tools and this process is for seeking any sort of real justice.
I did want to pick up on the submission of the Ngāti Te Rangiita hapū. I wanted to quote, particularly, what they said and what they included in their submission. Talking about the connection and why this is an unsolved issue, it states in their submission: “As Te Kanawa Pitiroi, one of our kaumatua, said recently: ‘It is something that is close to all of Ngāti Tūwharetoa. Motutaiko is a focal point for all areas around the lake. No matter where you are around the lake, you can see the Island. You cannot isolate the kōrero of Motutere. Motutere is a very special place. You cannot put a fence around the camping ground and say that’s it.’ ” I wanted to make sure that Hansard would hold on to those words forever, and that we, in our hearts, will be very mindful of the unresolved issues that remain.
Similarly, with the Waiteti Landcorp farm. Again, Tūwharetoa would have liked to have seen this included as cultural redress, or to negotiate a price for purchasing. We have to buy back our own justice. But we, again, were advised that this falls outside the scope.
Lastly, the Ōnekeneke property where the committee, again, was advised—oh my goodness, no, this was a thing, actually, when we found this out. The whole perpetual lease thing was super dodgy. Again, we are advised that there are ongoing discussions to try and sort through that. I really look forward to all of us being kept to account on the DeBrett’s Land Act 1948 lease. How am I going? OK. I haven’t heard a bell yet. I said I was going to be short, but the submissions are just too important—
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Four minutes.
MARAMA DAVIDSON: Thank you, thank you, Te Māngai. The submissions were just so important. I definitely want to pick up on Rotokawa. I understand deeply all the debates and all the views, actually, of all the hapū who have a valid mamae that the Rotokawa conservation land has not been included as cultural redress in this bill. I also have to thank the people who hosted me at the geothermal field, and, also, allowed me to hear where they are coming from. I want to acknowledge everybody’s connection and the outstanding issues that still remain. We in the Māori Affairs Committee kept the bill intact, which meant that Rotokawa is still not included in this redress.
Again, I understand all of the sides and the connections. I also understand that whenever these overlapping interests happen in this process, it’s also people who are each other’s people—it’s actually whanaunga, it’s neighbours, it’s literally our own whanaunga who are having to deal with these issues. Again, I ask this House and the Crown to stand up and take some responsibility for these processes that have often wedged many of our own whanaunga hapū against each other. I look forward to us playing whatever part we can to smooth ongoing korero, to help that through. But I want to thank everyone for putting their views in front of me about Rotokawa.
So, to wrap up for my contribution today, there are ongoing issues. We can’t leave it there even though the bill will proceed and become an Act. In this House, we need to be very mindful of the trail of further injustice and potential harm that we will need to really pick up and be accountable for. I also look forward to progressing Tūwharetoa’s bill through the House, and more importantly, to support the visions and aspirations for going forward. Kia ora.
IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Needless to say, I don’t have the degree of eloquence of some of my predecessors, but I just want to say a few things on this bill. I’ll point out at the start that I’ve never been privileged to sit on the Māori Affairs Committee. I have been along there for the odd kai and it’s almost as good as we have at the Primary Production Committee, but not quite. So that’s a very good part of the Māori Affairs Committee. Thank you, Rino.
I do want to congratulate the then Minister Finlayson and subsequent Minister Little for the work they’ve done on these Treaty settlement bills. I think these bills are, by far, the most rewarding bills that you can put through the Parliament, or in the three terms I’ve been here, I think they are, by far, the most rewarding, and whilst I don’t think they ever will address some of the interesting past we have as a country, they certainly do go a long way to resolving some issues.
My family have been going to Lake Taupō since the late 1890s, which is quite a significant time. The reason I want to raise this is, I think that when you go to that part of New Zealand and when you spend time in that part of New Zealand, you realise what a significant part of the country it is, what an amazing part of the country it is, and when you read the Crown acknowledgments in the course of this bill and the Treaty settlement process that’s taken place in that part of New Zealand, you realise what a significant injustice has been done, I think much greater than some other parts of the country. And I think it’s also a part of the country that has huge significance for all of us, whether it’s—I won’t tell you how long ago, but it’d be a good while ago, when I first went for a swim in the DeBrett’s pool; we used to go there often, as children. I think that’s just what reminds you of that part of the country. It’s a very significant part of New Zealand.
The other thing that I think’s so special about that part of the country—and from a farming perspective, I don’t think a lot of that part of the country would ever have been farmed, but it’s got huge significance from a conservation estate perspective, and I think that Tūwharetoa would probably do as good a job, if not a better job than the Government of managing that estate, and I think that that’s probably been largely demonstrated by them over the years.
The other couple of things I wanted to mention briefly—and I did want to touch on the Landcorp farm issue, but not for the same reason that’s been touched on to date. In my own part of the world, where I live, at the southern end of my electorate—and, of course, the top of the Rangitīkei electorate is well into Ngāti Tūwharetoa territory. And, also, all those overlapping claims, but one, affect a large part of the Rangitīkei electorate, as well.
But I just want to touch on an issue, and I know, and I’m sure Tūwharetoa know, that they’ll be there long after Landcorp. I’m sure they’ll always remember that, because in Flock House, just across the river from where I live, a very similar issue arose in the course of a Ngāti Apa Treaty settlement. Of course, Flock House wasn’t owned by Landcorp; in fact, it was owned by my family for over a hundred years. But it was a piece of land that Ngāti Apa was significantly interested in. In the course of the Treaty settlement process, they weren’t able to settle on it. It came up for sale very soon after, and they pounced on it pretty quickly. I think that we’ve got long memories in this country, and I know that Tūwharetoa will have a long memory. I do think that the comments that were made earlier about this sort of issue are hugely important, because it’s irrelevant, you know. Who owns what is not all that relevant in this country, because as long as we’re here for ever, I don’t think it matters.
So I think it’s very special to be able to be a part of, or observe, these Treaty settlement processes from—I suppose what I’d call a distance; but it is special.
I just want to finish with a couple of other things that my grandmother always used to say about the Tūwharetoa part of New Zealand, or about Taupō. One of her favourite sayings was “When you live by the coast, sonny, you always go inland for your holidays.” And we did. The other thing she always said was “You’d never eat a fish from this far from the sea, my boy.” And I think she was true there, too.
So I want to wish you all the best as this settlement goes through its remaining phases in this House, and I look forward to the time when the whole of the central North Island and, in fact, the Rangitīkei electorate, is completely settled, because I think we’ve seen massive progress as a result of these settlements, and I think it’s very exciting for all New Zealanders. Thank you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a split call.
Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO (Minister for Pacific Peoples): May I firstly simply acknowledge the iwi of Ngāti Tūwharetoa, who are present. Their mana, their reo—those who are present tonight, but those, also, who are no longer with us, who may have been part of this journey from the outset but have passed on. And simply just acknowledge and say kia ora tātou katoa.
In 2012, I had the opportunity, with a few members of the Pasifika community, to travel from Auckland to the funeral of the late Sir Timi te Heuheu, the husband of a former colleague of the House, Georgina. Though we’d travelled often that route from Auckland to Wellington passing Lake Taupō, this was the first time of actually travelling down to the coastal region there and seeing the beauty of that particular area. I make those remarks in an effort to make a connection to the significance and importance of the presence of people who are here and to the significance of the second reading of this particular bill. I also make a connection that, as I make my way around our regions and meeting up with the growing Pacific population, in Levin, in Gisborne, in Blenheim, and in other parts of New Zealand, I note that of the more than 62 percent of Pacific peoples who are born in Aotearoa New Zealand, in Gisborne almost two-thirds of that Pacific population have heritage into Māoridom. And that, to me, speaks about the future.
I then come back to the bill and I note that in the first part of this bill, it makes reference to an apology for mistakes that have been made in the past by the Crown, and that, to me, appears to have been a negotiated settlement between the representatives of Ngāti Tūwharetoa and the Crown. And I think even though there are significant parts of the legislation that will be of value to the present generation in future, for me the apology and the words that will be used in that apology are the significant component of this bill to me—and I’ll tell you why. It is because the experience of Ngāti Tūwharetoa is not isolated. It is an experience that many of mana whenua have also experienced. It is the experience that other indigenous cultures have faced right across the world. It is an experience that Pacific Island nations have also faced. And so I give support that that is so fundamental in moving forward. It is so fundamental that that history is recorded and taught to the next generation, because from where I stand it is important that the mistakes of the past are not repeated: not repeated in Aotearoa New Zealand, not repeated in the Pacific region, not repeated where indigenous cultures are.
I think what is happening in Aotearoa New Zealand with these settlements is almost the shining light and example that certainly I hold up in the Pacific region and certainly I want to acknowledge that this is the example that others look towards. I want to acknowledge Tūwharetoa Māoridom throughout New Zealand for this negotiation.
Finally, I just acknowledge my Māori colleagues on this side, on that side, on all sides of the House, because I think it’s been your determination—your heart—that has enabled all of us who are non-Māori, particularly our Palagi friends, to understand the depth of what this about. I want to acknowledge Rino, and I acknowledge also that though it’s our turn to take the lead in this, there have been other Ministers along the way. This isn’t about acknowledgment though; this is about acknowledging the heart of the work and that is acknowledging the faults that have occurred in the past. Kia kaha, Te Tūwharetoa.
HARETE HIPANGO (National—Whanganui): E te Māngai o tēnei Whare, tēnā koe. Kei te mihi au ki ngā whānau, ki ngā hapū, ki ngā uri o Ngāti Tūwharetoa tae atu ki Ariki, Tā Tumu te Heuheu; e te whanaunga, nau mai i tēnei rā ki te whakarongo ki te pānuitanga tuarua o tēnei pire. Tēnā tātou. Aroha mai mō taku kōrero poto ki a koutou i tēnei wā.
[Mr Assistant Speaker, thank you. I acknowledge the families, the hapū, and the descendants of Ngāti Tūwharetoa, including the paramount chief, Sir Tumu te Heuheu; to my relations, I welcome you today to listen to the second reading of this bill. Greetings one and all. Please excuse the brevity of my speech to you at this time.]
The brevity of my call with designated limited time this afternoon to address Ngāti Tūwharetoa in this House, acknowledging the historical significance and grievous journey and where and what we have arrived at today as agents of the Crown and select committee, falls somewhat short for a reasoned and explanatory overview, which I regret. However, I seek the opportunity at the third reading of this bill.
The purpose of a second reading is to critique and where enabled tweak and adjust the bill for further consideration, and that further consideration has been given due regard before our Māori Affairs Committee, and we will continue to do that as we advance this towards its final passage for the third reading and assent into law.
My fellow Māori Affairs Committee colleagues have addressed this House this afternoon on some of those many perplexing issues which came before us on papers and also at the hearing when we attended up in Taupō. We were perplexed, because as agents of the Crown there are times when we are limited with what we are able to do. We are perplexed because we know the injustices that have been associated with the journey that Ngāti Tūwharetoa people are here today for.
My mind and thoughts turn to many of those whom we know have gone before and looking up at you, my thoughts turn to my kuia Merepaea Pohe, of Tūranga-a-rere o Taihape, and when I travelled with my kuia from Taihape through to Taupō, on many occasions she talked about her memories as a young woman and associations with Uncle Hepi in the te Heuheu whānau.
I now turn to the deed of settlement and the signing of that at Waitetoko Marae on 8 July 2017, and my colleague, who I have the distinct privilege of referring to as my colleague now, the Hon Christopher Finlayson, stated that today marks the new beginning of a new relationship between Ngāti Tūwharetoa and the Crown and that we can never fully compensate Ngāti Tūwharetoa for the wrongs of the past, but today’s settlement contributes to a stronger economic and secure future for the iwi, noting that it was the 84th signing of a deed of settlement by the Crown and an important step and acknowledgment towards completion of Treaty settlements.
I’ve signalled that my time is limited to speak today. I’ll seize the opportunity at the third reading to go into greater detail, but I would like to conclude before commending this second reading to the House: Tā Tumu said, at that signing of the deed of settlement and as was recorded, that the future is now the focus, and in your words, uncle, I believe that this settlement provides a solid foundation for Ngāti Tūwharetoa to set its own course to a strong future. To move forward, we must be precise in our intent and bold yet humble in our actions. Kua mutu taku kōrero i tēnei wā.
[My speech has now ended.]
I commend this bill to the House. Tēnā tatou katoa.
LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. Te Ariki Nui o Ngāti Tūwharetoa, Tā Tumu, e ngā mana, e ngā reo, rau rangatira mā, ngā whānau o Ngāti Tūwharetoa, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.
[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. To the paramount chief of Ngāti Tūwharetoa, Sir Tumu, to the various authorities, voices, chiefs, and families of Ngāti Tūwharetoa who are gathered here, greetings, greetings, greetings one and all.]
And what an absolute pleasure it is for me as an uri of Ngāti Tūwharetoa to stand here proudly as one of yours to debate our bill.
I’m actually going to go through the select committee report because I think it’s really important that we understand what this is process is all about. And so, bear with me, but usually when bills are presented back at the second reading there aren’t any amendments. There aren’t any amendments because, essentially, the deed that was signed on 8 July 2017 at Waitetoko Marae is translated into this, which is a piece of legislation. The Crown, as you heard from my colleague Rino Tirikatene, is only bound by the deed.
As you’ve heard, there are issues that aren’t in here, and they’re not in here because they weren’t in the deed. One of which, actually, is the first amendment that the Māori Affairs Committee report actually recommends, which is to add the 24 Wai claimants that were found throughout this process, because, by right, they should be listed in here. They will acknowledge our tupuna who put in those Wai claims on our behalf, because this piece of legislation is a comprehensive settlement of all those Wai claims. They will have all our whānau names on them. That’s why those 24 that were missing from this bill—that will be added. It has to be in a Supplementary Order Paper, so we will have to have a committee stage debate.
In the select committee report we actually frame it as we must do it, because it would be a breach of the Treaty. Actually, it’s a breach of the Treaty settlement process and it’s also a breach of a comprehensive settlement. But, as we’ve already heard, there are issues to do with overlapping claims. That means this isn’t a comprehensive settlement. You know, there are issues that we will have to pursue into the future to get that. One of those issues is Lake Rotokawa Conservation Area. So there will be another opportunity for us to come back to this House to settle that particular issue that we have highlighted.
But I really want to focus on the three issues raised by Te Kotahitanga o Ngāti Tūwharetoa, the post-settlement governance entity. In these settlement processes, one would have assumed that we, as the Crown who is saying sorry, actually should listen to what some would say is the victim or the group that must be compensated. So you’ve highlighted the Motutere Recreation Reserve, and I guess what I want to highlight from what is written in the select committee report is that Taupō District Council—well, I’m going to say 100 percent, and maybe the Hon Louise Upston can help facilitate this; it says it 100 percent supports the reserve “being included in the bill”, but I presume it means being returned to Ngāti Tūwharetoa. That’s what should be recorded in here—not that it should be part of the bill, but that the reserve should go back to Ngāti Tūwharetoa.
So I actually think there is obvious scope post this legislation, given it wasn’t in the deed, for Taupō District Council, if it fundamentally believes that Ngāti Tūwharetoa should have Motutere Recreation Reserve—well, they can do something about it themselves and the people of Taupō can do something about it. And, obviously, through this process, if they have committed to that, then let’s work with them and let’s forge that partnership going forward between Ngāti Tūwharetoa and Taupō District Council. So, to any of the councillors and Mr Trewavas, who I hope is listening out there, this is a bit of a wero to you. I think the intent of your submission, at the heart of it was to return that piece of land to Ngāti Tūwharetoa.
I now want to focus on Waiteti Landcorp Farm—and I find this really interesting, actually, because the Office of Treaty Settlements (OTS), in their advice, said something really interesting. Essentially, they said it wasn’t part of—sorry, this is now my assessment of what I think OTS should do. They should evaluate the Crown’s policy on how Landcorp farms can be used as Treaty redress, because it seems to me that it doesn’t qualify as a piece of whenua that can go back, but if it is in Landcorp holdings, actually it is a Crown asset. If you want it, not as part of your settlement but if you want to purchase it, actually, why can’t the Crown help facilitate?
So I think you’ve highlighted another policy change—policy challenge—that we in the House now should follow up on with the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, and actually ask the question: so what constitutes qualifying lands for Treaty settlements? As I said before, if Ngāti Tūwharetoa wants that land, then we should do everything in our power to make sure that they get it because, lest we forget, this is about the taking of our lands. So if there are any lands available that can be returned to Ngāti Tūwharetoa, either through the process or through a contract to purchase, then let’s explore that and do everything we can as a Parliament to facilitate that.
The other issue is about the Ōnekeneke property. Again, I think this is about what is qualifying land, but I do note in the select committee report that it says a Supplementary Order Paper will likely be required during the committee of the whole House stage to address this issue. So there’s obvious intent from the select committee that that land should be returned to Ngāti Tūwharetoa. I don’t know how long that process is going to take, and I guess that is going to be an issue that is shepherded through by my colleague the honourable—he is very honourable to me—Rino Tirikatene and the members of the Māori Affairs Committee. I know my colleague Harete Hipango is on that committee. She will vigilantly keep the officials to task, to make sure that if there is any possibility for another Supplementary Order Paper then that will again happen at the committee stage of this piece of legislation progressing through the Parliament.
Just finally, I want to acknowledge that in clause 9—“Acknowledgements”—of our bill, we talk about warfare. So there is an acknowledgment that war happened. I just want to read this out: “The Crown acknowledges that the Ngāti Tūwharetoa rangatira Maniapoto and Te Rangitahau, who had whakapapa links to a number of neighbouring iwi and hapū, were caught up in the Crown’s unjustified attack on Ōmarunui in 1866. Te Rangitahau was detained on the Chatham Islands without trial and in harsh conditions for nearly 2 years. These actions were unjust and a breach of te Tiriti o Waitangi/the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.” So I just have to let the whānau know, because it’s actually not included in the report back from the select committee.
But I’ve been talking to Dylan and the whānau and I’ve actually written a letter to the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations about how we restore the mana of Te Rangitahau. How do we do it? We have a precedent before this Parliament called the Mokomoko (Restoration of Character, Mana, and Reputation) Act. Mokomoko, in that instance, did go through a court process. He was executed. In this instance there wasn’t an execution, but it seems to be that the trauma suffered by the whānau intergenerationally, that they presented through their submission, deserves some form of redress. So I have asked the Minister about how we could do that and there is a possibility through a private bill, with the consent of this Parliament, that we could acknowledge that injustice and actually address the historical trauma that has happened intergenerationally.
So, finally, tēnā katou katoa to my colleagues. I just want to say how proud I am to be a member of Ngāti Tūwharetoa, and today is a day when we think about all the people who aren’t here, but it’s also a day that we celebrate the fact that we are. And we are the voice, we are the kaha, we are the future, and we’re doing this for our mokopuna and tamariki to come. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.
JO HAYES (National): Tēnā koe, e Te Māngai o Te Whare. Tēnei te mihi atu ki ngā whānau whānui o te iwi o Ngāti Tūwharetoa. Nau mai haere mai ki tēnei Whare mō te pānui tuarua o tō pire Ngāti Tūwharetoa Claims Settlement Bill. Tēnā koe, Tā Tumu te Heuheu, tēnā rā koutou e koro mā, e kui mā, e rau rangatira mā. E mihi hoki ki ngā mokopuna, ko te kahurangi o te iwi o Tūwharetoa. Ko Tongariro te maunga, ko Taupō te moana, ko te Heuheu te tupuna, ko Tūwharetoa te iwi. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.
[Greetings Mr Assistant Speaker. I acknowledge the families from throughout the tribe of Ngāti Tūwharetoa. Welcome to this House for the second reading of your bill, the Ngāti Tūwharetoa Claims Settlement Bill. Greetings, Sir Tumu te Heuheu and greetings to our esteemed elders and leaders. I also acknowledge our grandchildren, who are the real fortune of the tribe of Tūwharetoa. I salute Tongariro the mountain, Taupō the lake, te Heuheu the supreme ancestor, and Tūwharetoa the tribe. Greetings, greetings, greetings one and all.]
Words cannot describe how humbled I am when I speak on these Treaty claims bills—and I speak on many of them. Just trying to comprehend the struggles faced to get to this stage many times leaves me speechless. However, taking the call in the second reading of this Ngāti Tūwharetoa Claims Settlement Bill is no exception to the feelings that I have whenever I get up to speak to these claims bills. I feel privileged to be recorded in your Treaty claims journey through this parliamentary process, and I feel privileged that we are able to help you along the way towards some resolution.
I want to pay respects to the many tupuna and the whānau who started the journey of settlement with the Crown, and there are many, many places throughout your rohe that shows those signs of where it all began, and I pay respect to those people—those people who have now passed away and sit within your whānau in the wairua and the aroha as they oversee this process. I want to acknowledge that their efforts haven’t gone unnoticed by us here, by former colleagues that have been part and parcel of your journey, and I just want to say that their efforts will be, I’m sure, for ever etched in the memories of the whānau of Ngāti Tūwharetoa.
I want to acknowledge the iwi and Crown negotiators, the advisers, the Office of Treaty Settlements and staff, and both the Ministers: the Hon Chris Finlayson, who laid the groundwork for this and many other Treaty claims bills to get to the House. I also want to acknowledge the Hon Andrew Little, the Minister of Justice, who has picked up the well-honed—and I’m sure you get this—Treaty claims baton that the Hon Chris Finlayson has left behind, and is completing this journey for you.
As I said in an interview on the radio recently to do with Treaty claims bills—I said to the interviewer that the kinaki of a settlement process is actually not in the paperwork but it’s in the process of the hearings: of hearing the stories, of hearing those who are happy with the claims process, those who aren’t happy, those who have had an opportunity to input in the directions and have their voices heard. And that, to me, is the most precious part of a Treaty claims process, because once we hear those voices, as a committee, we can then go away and do our deliberations within the select committee process.
I know that your claims—and my colleagues in the House have traversed the many parts of your bill in their contributions here today, and I know that there were some key issues that have been hotly debated in the submissions process and within the Māori Affairs Committee itself: areas that my colleague Louisa Wall covered over in the reserves, business sites, farmlands—all of those areas have been hotly debated and will no doubt carry on through as we head towards the conclusion and the Royal assent of this bill.
My kōrero will be short, because the sooner we can get to the end of this stage the sooner we can get to the committee of the whole House and into the third reading. So, I just want to end my kōrero by saying that the parliamentary process cannot resolve everything—as you are well aware. I have seen over time a lot of kōrero happen post - Royal assent, between hapū and whānau, between the iwi, between iwi and businesses, between iwi and local government, and between iwi and central government to iron out some of those creases and to reaffirm the relationships that they have had with the iwi. So I have seen that, and I am very confident that this will continue with Ngāti Tūwharetoa as well.
So, as I close my kōrero today, I just want to finish with a whakataukī, because I believe that this whakataukī epitomises the successes so far and into the future of all of those who have had some contribution in the Ngāti Tūwharetoa bill—your bill. It goes like this, and you will most probably be familiar with it: ehara taku toa he takitahi, he toa takitini [my strength is not from my individual effort, but rather from the efforts of many].
It was the success of a collective—a strong collective; a Ngāti Tūwharetoa collective. Tēnā koutou katoa. Kia ora.
TAMATI COFFEY (Labour—Waiariki): Tēnā koe. Nō te tihi o Tauhara Maunga ka titiro ki ngā wai o Ōnekeneke e hihi ana ki te kōpua kānapanapa o Tamamutu. Ko te Heuheu te tangata, ko Taupō te moana, ko Kurapoto te whare tupuna, ko Kuiwai te wharekai, ko Ngāti Hinerau, Ngāti Hineure ngā hapū, ko Hinerēhua Ngāmotu tōku kuia, ko Waiarangi Coffey tōku māmā, ko Tāmati Coffey tōku ingoa. Ko au tētehi o te uri o Ngāti Tūwharetoa. Ko au te māngai hoki mō te rohe o te Waiariki e mihi atu nei ki a koutou, te whanaunga kua huihui mai nei i tēnei rā, nei rā te mihi, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora koutou katoa.
[Greetings. From the peak of Tauhara mountain I look to the waters of Ōnekeneke, made famous by the fierce Tamamutu. te Heuheu is the ancestor, Taupō is the lake, Kurapoto is the ancestral house, Kuiwai is the ancestral dining hall, Ngāti Hinerau and Ngāti Hineure are the subtribes, Hinerēhua Ngāmotu is my grandmother, Waiarangi Coffey is my mother, and my name is Tāmati Coffey. I am a descendant of Ngāti Tūwharetoa. I am also the representative of Waiariki and I acknowledge you, my relations, who have gathered here today; greetings, greetings, greetings one and all.]
I am stoked to be able to stand here and contribute to what is the second reading of this, the Ngāti Tūwharetoa Claims Settlement Bill. It’s with regret that I wasn’t here for the first reading of the bill and my whānau, Te Ariki. I apologise for that. I guarantee you, though, I will be here for the third reading, and I am proud to be standing here for the second reading of this particular bill.
As I stand here, I think about my kuia, Hinerēhua, who would be very proud right now to see me stand here on behalf of our iwi and contributing to this very historic process. I bet, when she passed away in 2005, she never thought that her moko would be standing here representing her iwi, our iwi, and also, partly, the Government too.
My grandmother was a very staunch woman. She died in 2005, and it was three days after the death of my koro, who passed just three days earlier. The joke amongst our whānau was that she couldn’t live with my koro but she also couldn’t live without him as well. And so three days was the time that it took for her to pass away—they were both very sick. And as I stand here today I honour her as well.
This is a very comprehensive bill, and, as has been spoken about by my colleagues, they have nit-picked through every part of the bill, so there’s not much left for me to say, to be honest, although I was pleased to be at the signing of the deed last year on 8 July at Waitetoko. It was a beautiful day. It’s always a beautiful day when whānau come together. Usually they only come together for tangi, and every now and then a birthday if you can make the time, but last year at Waitetoko it was a significant event. Everybody was there: the Crown, but also the iwi, the hapū, as well. I remember it fondly.
My whanaunga and my colleague over here Louisa put it very well: that, actually, in the select committee report that came through, there was the identification that there were quite a few—24—Wai claims that were to be included as part of that process, and I’m very happy that that is going to be included in it. What’s not going to be included are some of the sore points, though, which haven’t managed to be sorted out—namely, Lake Rotokawa Conservation Area; namely, Motutere Recreation Reserve and Waiteti Landcorp farm—although I am proud to stand here today and say that only a couple of hours ago I was able to accompany a couple of our whānau to the Minister’s office on behalf of Te Pae o Waimihia, and deliver a letter—hand delivered to the Minister—about the particular take to do with Rotokawa.
And I feel as though that’s my job, actually—being here in the House is to be able to connect our whānau, our hapū, our iwi, with the Government. And today we did that. I would probably use the opportunity to signal to other rōpū that have been affected by that process—by those issues being taken out of the settlement—to actually understand that the door is open, and, just like that opportunity was created earlier today, the opportunity can be created once again.
I was very pleased, just last week, to be down at our Ariki’s office in Tūrangi. And while I’m talking about our Ariki, I’ve had a message from our whānau just correcting a record. My colleague over here, Su’a, talked fondly before about a visit that he made, and he met up with Timi te Heuheu and made that reference. It wasn’t, in fact, our current Ariki, Tumu te Heuheu, and I can understand the confusion in there. But I just wanted to correct that on behalf of the record: one, he is still here with us, and the other one has since passed away. So I want to just acknowledge that correction.
As I say, I was pleased to be down at our Ariki’s office in Tūrangi just last week to see the action was getting under way with the iwi’s action plan around wellness and well-being, and I look forward to seeing the development of that and seeing that come through as part of this whole journey that our iwi are on at the moment. I was also humbled and pleased to hear that they were starting to have the conversations around what to do around the Tongariro National Park situation. Now, the deed recognised the significance of the park to Tūwharetoa as a taonga tapu [sacred treasure], and records that Ngāti Tūwharetoa will be able to negotiate that cultural redress over the park along with other iwi and hapū with interests in the park within one year of the deed being signed. That is something that we can all look forward to. It is indeed a taonga tapu and I look forward to watching that as that progresses through the House. In terms of financial and commercial redress, Ngāti Tūwharetoa have indeed received a share of the Crown forest land in the central North Island, valued at $203 million, as part of the Central North Island Iwi Collective settlement back in 2008. Ngāti Tūwharetoa will also receive an additional financial redress of $25 million, and of this an on-account payment of $2 million will be made to Te Kotahitanga o Ngāti Tūwharetoa as soon as practicable after the deed is signed.
This is a pleasant moment, although it’s not the big one. Consider this the penultimate conversation before we go in for the big one which is yet to come. I look forward to that moment. I look forward to seeing our whānau fill up this gallery and participate in that moment, which is our moment, which is a historic moment, and I hope that my whānau can be down here to share in that occasion, as well. So I absolutely commend this bill to the House. To my whānau up there—we’re nearly there. Kia kaha. Kia ora rā.
Bill read a second time.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Members, this bill is set down for committee stage next sitting day.
Otirā, e tika ana kia tuku mihi atu ki a koutou kia whakapiri taku mihi ki a koutou Ngāti Tūwharetoa. Kei a koutou te wā he waiata.
[It is only right that I acknowledge one and all and add my thanks to Ngāti Tūwharetoa. The floor is yours to sing.]
Waiata
Bills
Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Monetary Policy) Amendment Bill
First Reading
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I move, That the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Monetary Policy) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Finance and Expenditure Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by Monday, 3 December 2018.
This bill follows from phase one of the review of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act. Phase one of the review focused on modernising New Zealand’s monetary policy framework, which this bill delivers on by amending the objectives of monetary policy to require consideration of maximum sustainable employment alongside price stability in monetary policy decision-making, and instituting a monetary policy committee to take decisions on monetary policy.
The genesis of this bill is some 30 years in the making. In fact, it was around 29 years ago, in December 1989, that the Reserve Bank legislation passed. A lot has happened in the world since 1989, and if we do think back to that time, many great events were occurring in the world. Seinfeld premiered on television. The Berlin Wall fell. Ronald Reagan was finishing his eight years as President of the United States. Tim Berners-Lee produced the first design for a World Wide Web, and in that year the very first internet connection came into New Zealand—through, of all places, the University of Waikato. I say that respectfully, of course. In New Zealand, David Lange had resigned as Prime Minister, and I was just finishing high school in Dunedin. In fact, I was here—my very first ever visit to Parliament was the day David Lange resigned in 1989.
Hon Ruth Dyson: Kieran wasn’t even in primary school.
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: And Kieran McAnulty wasn’t born. So it was a long time ago, and it is timely, after all of those 29 years, to take another look at the Reserve Bank legislation.
We do not do so lightly. It is a very important part of our financial framework in New Zealand, but after 30 years with much change it is time to make sure that we create a resilient and sustainable and productive economy, and make sure that every part of our apparatus fits with that. New Zealanders’ well-being is at the heart of this reform. The Government wants monetary policy to contribute to the shared prosperity of all New Zealanders. Together the changes in this bill represent a significant step in the development of our monetary policy framework. We will retain the operational independence of the Reserve Bank and continue the bank’s role in maintaining price stability, but we are strengthening the bank’s decision-making structures and ensuring transparency going forward.
In April 2017, I outlined our policy to modernise and reform the Reserve Bank legislation. This process has been clearly signalled. The policy included the two major changes to the monetary policy framework that we are looking at today: the broadening of the legislative objective from focusing only on price stability to focusing on employment, and ensuring that the decision-making process of the bank is modernised, so that there is a committee, including external appointees, who will have responsibility for setting monetary policy.
We follow this, in the coalition agreement between the New Zealand Labour Party and New Zealand First, to commit to review and reform the Reserve Bank legislation, and today is phase one of that commitment being honoured.
One of the very first announcements I made as a Minister, less than two weeks after being sworn in, was the terms of reference for our review. Those terms of reference split the review into two phases. Phase one is what we deliver on today. Phase two will consider the framework for financial stability, to ensure that the Act is fit for purpose and aligned with what the Government considers will provide a strong, flexible, and enduring regulatory framework that enjoys broad public and industry support. Phase one of the review was led by Treasury, who have been working closely with the Reserve Bank. An independent expert advisory panel was also established to provide advice to me on potential changes to the Act. The panel members, Suzanne Snively, Dr Girol Karacaoglu, and Dr Malcolm Edey, all put tremendous effort into this, and I thank them for it.
The key changes in this bill can be split into three main areas. The first of those is a change to section 1A of the Act: the purpose statement. We believe that this section of the Act should explicitly recognise the purpose of the Act and the bank’s monetary and financial policy functions to be to promote the prosperity and well-being of the people of New Zealand and to contribute to a sustainable and productive economy. The changes to this section included in the bill make it clear to the public that monetary and financial policy are not ends in themselves but a means to support the living standards of New Zealand and New Zealanders. Section 1A will now begin with the words “The purpose of this Act is to promote the prosperity and well-being of New Zealanders, and contribute to a sustainable and productive economy,”. I am very pleased that we are making such a change.
The second part is the change to monetary policy objectives. The current monetary policy framework, with its single price stability objective, has, by and large, served New Zealand well over 30 years. It was put in place at the end of an extended period of high inflation, which reduced the competitiveness of New Zealand’s exporters and created a drag on the New Zealand economy. It has been instrumental in reducing inflation and keeping it low over the past three decades. This has been crucial for supporting the well-being of New Zealanders, and the Government remains committed to ensuring that monetary policy continues to deliver low and stable average rates of inflation over time. However, as I have said, the Act is almost 30 years old, and there have been changes in the way the global economy, the financial system, and monetary policy operate since the Act’s introduction.
On the one hand, the bank has, for many years, in accordance with successive policy targets agreements, practised flexible inflation targeting, which, while focused on achieving a medium-term inflation target, also requires the bank to take account of the impacts of monetary policy on the real economy. On the other hand, the post - global financial crisis era has taught us new lessons—or, in fact, reminded us of old ones. Over the last 10 years, the global economy has experienced an extended period of weak inflation pressures while some other countries have experienced persistent high unemployment and low economic growth. Monetary policy has generally been the first port of call for policy makers to assist in bringing employment levels back to long-term, sustainable levels, and we have been reminded that in the face of large negative economic shocks, the real economy, and in particular the ability of individuals to find work, is an important target for monetary policy, as is price stability.
While the New Zealand economy has grown strongly over recent years and monetary policy has supported economic growth, the Government is keen to ensure that we learn the lessons from across the world about what kind of framework we need for the long term. This bill recognises the stabilisation role for monetary policy by giving the Reserve Bank a dual mandate to both maintain price stability over the medium term and support maximum sustainable employment. This specification seeks to ensure that monetary policy makes an appropriate contribution to supporting employment. In doing so, we recognise that prices will always be subject to temporary fluctuations, which it doesn’t make sense to try and eliminate, but what we are trying to do is seek to ensure price stability over the medium term. Monetary policy’s role is to assist the economy to adjust to periods of economic slack or exuberance, and that is when unemployment or economic activity is above or below its sustainable level. We believe these changes to the objectives will make a difference in terms of how we include all aspects of the economy within monetary policy.
In addition to that, we are changing the way that the decisions are made. We are creating a monetary policy committee that will make the decisions on monetary policy for the bank. This moves us on from the approach taken in 1989, where the Governor of the Reserve Bank had the sole responsibility for both monetary policy decisions and implementation. It is time to move forward from that, in line with international practice, and make sure that we have the right people in the room at the right time making the decisions. Under this legislation, the monetary policy committee will have between five and seven members—a majority will be internal members from the bank, including the governor, the deputy governor, and one or two other staff members; the balance of the committee will be external members appointed from outside the bank. They will bring different viewpoints to the decision-making process and introduce, challenge, and promote the inclusion of diverse views. We will appoint those committee members in the same way in which in the board currently appoints the governor, which is a dual-veto system between myself, as the Minister, and the board. There will also be a Treasury observer available.
The legislation also includes the accountability arrangements through the remit that will replace the policy targets agreement and the charter which will set the operational details for accountability, transparency, and decision making of the monetary policy committee. I believe that these changes represent steps forward in transparency and decision making on monetary policy. The committee will be required to publish a summary record of each of its meetings, and the bank will publish reports on monetary policy at least four times a year. These are changes to a significant piece of legislation in New Zealand’s history. We do not take them lightly. We look forward to the contribution that will come from the select committee in debating these, and I commend this bill to the House.
Hon AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I am happy to come down, of course, and take a call on this first stage of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Monetary Policy) Amendment Bill, and I want to just start by acknowledging the Minister of Finance. This is an important area, as he said in his speech. It’s an area that has been, traditionally and importantly, independent of politics, and it is important of course that we ensure the bank continues to operate in a way that is not subject to the cut and thrust of three-year terms of Government.
I’m actually happy to acknowledge that it is timely to review the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act, and I’ve said as much to Mr Robertson, and I want to acknowledge that Mr Robertson has been very good at including me along steps, in appropriate ways, making sure that I was informed. We are certainly going to reciprocate that approach from this side of the House, being constructive. It doesn’t mean, of course, that we will always agree, as I have signalled to Mr Robertson, and there are areas where we don’t agree, and, on balance, we won’t be voting for the legislation, as I’ve previously told the Minister of Finance. But I think that there is a lot in this legislation and in the review that is certainly commendable and worth supporting. So I want to be very clear that our opposition is not in totality. There’s a lot in here that we find very useful and worthwhile, and I look forward to working with the Minister on the second stage of the review as that continues to progress.
I want to deal reasonably briefly with the monetary policy committee, because that is an area where we see a lot of merit in what has been proposed. Of course we want to go to the select committee and see what comes in, and we may well find issues that need exploring, but, at this stage, I think the monetary policy committee makes good sense. The Minister has, obviously, looked at the Rennie report which came out, and then his own independent advisory panel went through a number of the recommendations in that, and the Minister has run through, in his speech, the core issues for the committee.
A couple of small points that are worth getting on the record: we do now have a very senior Treasury adviser sitting in on that committee in a non-voting role, and while I understand the way it’s being presented, which is that it’s important that there is an understanding at the Reserve Bank of what happens at Treasury, I am concerned at the increasing linkage that creates between Treasury and the executive and the Reserve Bank. Similarly, of course, with the external members of the committee, those are appointed and dismissed by the Minister. So there will have to be, I think, a high degree of probity and transparency around the management of both of those offices, to ensure that they don’t become subject to a criticism of any improper political interference.
Of course, the Minister has described the fact there will be a charter for the committee. That is important, and we look forward to seeing the draft of that and understanding, in better detail, exactly how that committee will operate, how they will work to reach a consensus, share views, and how that will be described and distributed. Equally, I have raised with the Minister the importance of ensuring that the members of that committee are very high-calibre people, with appropriate skills, and don’t become some of what could be described, perhaps unkindly, as the usual fodder of political appointments. This is a critical role and it deserves people of the right calibre, with the right skill set, and I would very much like to ensure that we make that appointment process a bipartisan one.
Turning to the dual mandate—and this is the area where we have, on balance, decided that we won’t support the legislation at this stage—I do want to pick up on a couple of the things that have come through in this. The first, as I said, is that this was certainly pitched in the Rennie review. When the Reserve Bank themselves responded to that review, they made the point—and I agree—that there is no demonstrated problem that we’re trying to solve here in reviewing the mandate. In fact, when you talk to the Reserve Bank—as I have, and as others have done in public session—about the concept of this imposing dual mandate, the response has always been, “Well, broadly it won’t make any difference to the way we make our decisions. We’ll continue as is.” So the question then becomes, “Well, what is the need to do it?”
I raised the point at question time today that there has been no example in the history of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act where inflation and unemployment have been in some sort of contest, and that this direction would have been useful. Not only is there a question then of “What is the problem we are trying to solve?”; there is no guidance or clarity around, if there was a tension between the two, how the Reserve Bank should resolve that tension. I would suggest that we’re creating a lack of clarity around exactly how that would operate, in a situation where there’s no recognised need to do it.
I think it’s well-known that monetary policy isn’t able to drive maximum sustainable employment over the long term. In fact, the departmental disclosure statement says exactly that. It says monetary policy has relatively little influence on the long-term or sustainable level of employment, which is more influenced by factors such as the level of skills and labour market laws. I think that’s absolutely right.
Now, I want to be really clear, of course I would expect a Reserve Bank or a central bank to be considering factors like employment, prosperity, economic growth, well-being—all of those terms as part of their decision making. They do already, as the Minister and I have discussed. In fact, the way the Minister has framed his interest in seeing employment considered in the current policy targets agreement reflects that that is already very possible in our framework. So there is nothing wrong at all with a Minister of Finance entering into a new policy targets agreement with the governor, as this one has chosen to do, and expressing that he would like the governor to pay particular attention. But to do it in a way that elevates the issue of maximum sustainable employment to the same level of price stability creates, I would suggest, a confusion and a tension which is unresolved and unnecessary.
I am concerned that given that the major levers that drive maximum sustainable employment in the long term are, in fact, fiscal policy and microeconomic settings, there is a far greater risk that the Government, which controls those levers, will instead look to either put pressure on the Reserve Bank or sheet home responsibility to the Reserve Bank should there be a decline in employment or job creation, when, in actual fact, the control for those matters sits squarely and almost entirely within the control of the Executive. So I think there are questions that need to be asked about why it’s needed, how a tension would be resolved, and whether there has ever been any example of such tension applying.
The other matter I wanted to raise is reference to other countries in the world, because it’s true that other countries do have mandates which go beyond price stability. What’s interesting is that when you read through them, very few of them pick out only employment, because the Reserve Bank will say—and does in many occasions—that in reaching their decisions around monetary policy and where they set the official cash rate and how they deliver on their objective of price stability, they already do consider a range of wider economic outcomes, of which employment is one. That’s absolutely appropriate. But I can’t see why the Government has pulled out, through this legislation, just one of those economic criteria, without reference to any of the other basket of criteria that matter equally.
The Minister, in his speech, referenced the purpose of the bill which he is amending—and I support, actually, the wording of the purpose clauses he’s written—which talks much more extensively around wider economic benefit. It talks about prosperity and well-being and a sustainable and productive economy. That’s the sort of language, actually, that other countries have used when they’ve included that wider basket of economic objectives in their mandate. But, in this instance, the Minister hasn’t copied that international experience. He hasn’t reflected the purpose of the legislation as he’s written it. He has instead chosen to pull out just one of those criteria of economic objectives and elevate that to a level where it is equally as important as price stability. Price stability and the need to maintain a low and stable level of inflation is a critical part of our monetary policy settings.
So I do think there are those questions around the confusion that’s created, and the reason that we now have these mandate provisions not reflecting the very purpose of the bill. I think those are serious issues that we want to work through as we work through the select committee process.
The last thing that I wanted to note in my concluding time on the bill, is in the regulatory impact statement on the bill when it talks about the benefits and why you would do this—so I had a look at that, thinking, well, what is the reason that the Government is giving as to why we need this dual mandate? And in fact the section that talks to the benefits of the proposal only refers to the benefits of the monetary policy committee, and we agree there’s benefit in that.
So my question again remains what is the problem we are trying to solve? How do we think this solution will solve it? Why have we differed from the very purpose clause that the Minister is introducing? And why have we not followed the international example which reflects that whole basket of economic conditions that the Reserve Bank has already taken into account?
So I do look forward to this going through select committee. I’ve given my assurance on behalf of the National Party that we certainly want to work constructively. I think it is helpful if we can get to an agreed position. But for the interim, we won’t be supporting the bill, because of the reservations that I’ve expressed at the stage.
Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Housing and Urban Development): The coalition agreement that forms the platform for this Government, an agreement between the Labour Party and New Zealand First, has both parties committing to review and reform the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act, and this is the next chapter in the great modernisation and reform project that is this Government.
In our first 100 days we announced the terms of reference for a review of the Reserve Bank Act, to move New Zealand to a modern monetary policy that meets the needs of the 21st century economy. It’s disappointing that the National Party is not supporting the bill at this stage, but I’m glad to see that there’s obviously constructive dialogue between the shadow finance spokesperson and finance Minister, Grant Robertson, and I hope that that dialogue will continue.
This bill legislates for changes stemming from phase one of the review of the Reserve Bank Act. They’re focused on modernising New Zealand’s monetary policy framework. The bill delivers on this with two measures: one is amending the objectives of monetary policy to require consideration of maximum sustainable employment alongside price stability; and, secondly, by instituting the monetary policy committee to take decisions on monetary policy. It’s our view that monetary and financial policy should promote the prosperity and well-being of the people of New Zealand and contribute to a sustainable and productive economy. Included in our changes on this to section 1A, we’ll have the Act now beginning: “The purpose of this Act is to promote the prosperity and well-being of New Zealanders and contribute to a sustainable and productive economy.”
We continue to recognise the important role of stabilisation in the bank’s mandate and the important contribution the bank makes in that respect to the whole economy. But we’re giving the Reserve Bank a dual mandate to both maintain price stability over the medium term and support maximum sustainable employment. What this means is that the bank will take employment outcomes into account when it reviews monetary policy. We’re not setting an unemployment or employment target for the Reserve Bank, but they can make sure that they’re keeping employment outcomes front and centre when they are making monetary policy decisions.
Why is this important? Well, employment is a proxy for the real economy. Inflation control is, of course, important, but it’s no longer the bogey, the all-consuming preoccupation that it was in the 1980s when the Reserve Bank Act came into effect. The bigger challenge now, both here and around the world, includes managing demand in the economy, investment, productivity, and real-world outcomes, like jobs. That’s why we are making this change.
New Zealand will not be the only country with a legislated dual mandate. Australia and the United States already have legislated mandates for employment alongside price stability, while other inflation-targeting countries tend to require consideration of real economy factors through secondary agreements, such as what New Zealand has with the policy target agreements. Economies with legislated dual mandates have succeeded in controlling inflation over the many years, while also taking into account their employment objectives. I want to point out the contradiction that was very evident in Amy Adams’ contribution. She says, “Well, they’re doing it anyway. They’re already taking into account employment objectives.”, and then in the same breath she says that making it an objective will create confusion. Well, you can’t really have it both ways.
Secondly, the monetary policy committee, which is the other main provision in the bill, changes the way that specific operational objectives of the monetary policy are set. The bill legislates to create a committee for monetary policy decisions—that is the official cash rate decisions—rather than just having them be the responsibility of the governor. Now, in practice, the Reserve Bank’s decision-making practices for monetary policy have adapted to reflect this already, with an internal governing committee collectively making decisions on monetary policy; however, the Reserve Bank Act has not been updated accordingly. We’re doing that with this bill, and also legislating so that a minority of members on the monetary policy committee are external members so that they bring in outside expertise and world view to monetary policy decisions. The members will be appointed by the Minister on the recommendation of the Reserve Bank board, and this means that there are appointed on merit and due to their abilities and knowledge rather than being pure political appointments.
I want to recognise the role of finance Minister Grant Robertson in leading this work and also the contribution of other Labour colleagues over the last few years in developing this policy. I also want to give special mention to the advocacy of the Rt Hon Winston Peters on monetary reform over a very long period of time, and also recognise the fact that the Green Party, the confidence and supply partners of this Government, have long advocated for monetary policy reform. This has been a priority for all three parties that make up and support this Government.
I look forward to phase two of the monetary policy review, which will look at, among other things, macro-prudential tools, which, as has been demonstrated over the last couple of years, can be powerful tools in helping to manage demand in the housing market. I think the effect of financial flows in housing markets and asset bubbles has been a somewhat neglected area of concern and policy debate as we grapple with the effects of the housing crisis in this country. I look forward to the consideration of phase two of the review in looking at macro-prudential tools and how they might help us in the future.
These changes highlight the importance of monetary policy as a tool to support the real, productive economy. Our concern with the productive economy is something that marks this Government out as different from the kind of Government we’ve had in recent years in this country. Our thinking on this has been evolving in recent years and will now be recognised in New Zealand law by adding employment outcomes alongside price stability as a dual mandate for the Reserve Bank.
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. It’s a privilege to be able to take a call on the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Monetary Policy) Amendment Bill. As has been outlined, the National Party believes that this bill is somewhat not needed, given that the Reserve Bank has done an outstanding job in securing and working to its mandate to actually keep inflation under control and prices stable.
Many of us are old enough to remember what happens when inflation gets out of control, and, particularly, can remember back in the days of the 1970s and 1980s, when, in fact, pricing was out of control and the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act needed to be brought into play. We are concerned at the, say, “mission creep” that we see for the Reserve Bank. So we are going to need to have some real convincing done for us in the Finance and Expenditure Committee and our caucus before we can bring ourselves to support this bill, because now we see the Government saying—the Labour - New Zealand First - Green Government saying—that it would now like to have responsibility for employment moving to the Reserve Bank.
I heard some words about well-being, so presumably well-being will eventually at some stage creep into the mandate of the Reserve Bank. I heard some comments from the previous speaker, Mr Twyford, around the housing market becoming more of the preserve of the Reserve Bank. I think one of the issues with this is that just because the Reserve Bank is competent there’s no need to give it all the work of the Government. I think one of the reasons that the Reserve Bank has been so successful in bringing about a stable monetary policy and environment is that it has had a single focus. It has not been at all alert to, or taking any notice of, the whims of politicians or of anything else. They’ve just done their job and done it exceedingly well.
So we, on this side of the House, are somewhat bemused at the problem that is trying to be solved by the Government. I would have thought that if you have something that is working so well and has done so for 30-odd years—and has a tremendous amount of credibility built up, not only in New Zealand but also elsewhere in the world, and is often viewed as one of the great examples of a success—why would this Government want to fiddle with the mandate and the obligations of the Reserve Bank?
I understand that there may be some tension between Treasury and the Reserve Bank on various issues, and I see that part of this bill is to put a Treasury person on a monetary policy committee, and that that Treasury representative will not have voting power, but will be there. There as what? There as an advisor? There as what? Making the tea? What? And the answer, I think, has to be that it seems very unclear. So we are going to want to have some pretty clear answers as to exactly what the role of a Treasury official is in those meetings of the monetary policy committee.
We know that, often, the better decisions are made after careful consideration by a group of people in a committee, rather than a sole person making a judgment call. That is already the practice at the Reserve Bank, so it seems to me somewhat superfluous to have this bill coming through at this stage. So, again, we’re going to need some convincing as to why legislation and legislative time are being spent on remedying something which is not broken.
We are concerned at—as I’ve said before—creep within the mandate of the Reserve Bank and its obligations. New Zealand already has one of the lower unemployment rates in the world at around 4 percent. That is a very good result that has been in place now for some years. I would not like to see that unemployment rate go up, and I would certainly not want to see a Government plan to blame a Reserve Bank should that unemployment rate go up, because it certainly seems to me that that could be a result should this bill be successful in its way through the House.
One of the problems that we had before we had the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act was a lack of focus, and certainly political interference in decisions—the monetary policy really needed to be free of that. So having a Treasury official sitting in a meeting; the Treasury official then reports through to the Secretary to the Treasury, who then reports through to the Minister of Finance, could well, actually, be seen as possibly bringing in some form of political influence or an attempt to do so when it comes to those monetary policy committee decisions. So these are all very genuine questions that we have and we will be, no doubt, looking at this very carefully on the Finance and Expenditure Committee.
So, from our point of view, some of the arguments I’ve heard from Mr Twyford are that, essentially, this has been a policy of the Green Party, it’s been a policy of the New Zealand First Party, and it’s been a policy of the New Zealand Labour Party. I have not heard an argument yet as to what is trying to be remedied, I have not yet heard an argument as to why it’s happening, other than that some political parties went out on the hustings and said there was a problem and that they were going to fix it. The problem is that there doesn’t appear to have been a problem, and that this could be a situation of considerable butt-covering—to use a very technical term—when it comes to making these promises.
So I think this is most likely a bill that the National Party is going to find is superfluous—worse than that, most likely going to find that unless we see better evidence and answers to our questions on the Finance and Expenditure Committee, it is going to be a bill that we see as, actually, a bit of the “thin edge of the wedge” type with this very strange acceptance that, somehow, the Reserve Bank needs to have responsibility for sustainable employment. I’m not sure that anybody quite understands what “sustainable” is in this, other than that you like to hope that people can remain employed, and perhaps that’s what it is.
But, ultimately, when we know, as we are told constantly by officials, that unemployment has very little to do with monetary policy and has a tremendous amount to do with skills and also confidence in business, it seems to me that this is a very strange requirement to put upon the Reserve Bank, given that the Reserve Bank has no power whatsoever to influence skills training of people who wish to be employed. It has no ability—no ability—to influence business confidence, other than for the Reserve Bank to do an outstanding job in keeping inflation rates at very reasonable levels so that people can plan better for their businesses and make decisions that they believe are in the best interests of not only their business but, actually, their employees.
So we think, at this stage, that this bill is not needed, it is window-dressing—a bit of butt-covering from Labour, the Greens, and New Zealand First—and seems to us to be not really worth much time at all. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I call Fletcher Tabuteau.
Hon Ruth Dyson: Oh, this’ll be better.
FLETCHER TABUTEAU (Deputy Leader—NZ First): Ha, ha! Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker, for this opportunity to speak to the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Monetary Policy) Amendment Bill 2018. Look, I just want to start out by saying this has been a 30-year journey, and we are actually slightly past the time that we needed to take a grip of 30-year-old legislation and modernise it, essentially.
I just wanted to acknowledge the contribution from the previous speaker, Judith Collins, because, as is the duty of Opposition, they put in some doubt and some questions into the motives and perhaps even the outcomes of the legislation, as they are particularly good at doing. So I just want to assure the previous speaker that in this legislation there is no mission creep. There is no attempt to change the fundamental structure of the relationship between the Reserve Bank, the Reserve Bank Governor, the Government, and the finance Minister. I just wanted to allay those fears of the previous speaker.
But I wanted to then acknowledge the contribution from the shadow spokesperson. I just wanted to acknowledge it because it was a fair and considered contribution from the Opposition. So, in that, I congratulate the shadow spokesperson for the earnest and thoughtful contribution, and I do agree that the select committee process will be an interesting and important part of the evolution of this legislation.
Of course, I cannot proceed without first acknowledging the Minister of Finance. As has been noted in all contributions thus far, this is an important undertaking between the Labour Party and New Zealand First, and, rightly noted, the Greens have had the same angst and concerns about this 30-year-old legislation which we’re seeking to modernise—modernise being the key word here. So I think, whilst perhaps I wouldn’t say timely, but in terms of this Government and this coalition arrangement, actually, kudos to the Minister of Finance. In the first two weeks of his role, he came out and said, “This is exactly what we’re going to do. This is the work that we’re going to work towards.”, and here we are now.
Hon Ruth Dyson: So he said he was going to do it and then did it.
FLETCHER TABUTEAU: He said he was going to do it, we made a commitment as a coalition to do it, and here we are.
Now, this is the first phase, and this legislation arises from that first part of phase one of the review of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act. So I think I’ll say it again, because it’s worth noting for the Opposition: this is about a modernisation, about amending some of those objectives of the monetary policy to require consideration of maximum sustainable employment. That is perhaps the main driver, although the second part is to institute a monetary policy committee in that decision-making process. To be fair to the contributions from the Opposition, actually, the Reserve Bank have had quite a formal process of consultation and engagement using a committee process. You asked the question: why are we here? Well, actually, it was optional for them to do so. This amendment bill seeks to put that committee approach, that committee decision-making process, into that committee, rather than what we have now, where we have good and due consideration by the Reserve Bank Governor of those who are appointed to be considered and make that due decision on the official cash rate, which is the primary tool we’re talking about here, but then can actually independently choose to ignore that advice of the committee.
Now, what we have seen from research and actual practical application around the world is committee decision-making has been proven to obviously be more diverse and considerate of a wider range of factors in that decision-making process, and actually—let’s be fair—although there has been no case that I can think of in New Zealand, what that has meant is that there can be no extreme thinking by one person that will determine what it is the rate should be.
So I think we need to be cognisant of that, and so it is a simple but important change. What we are trying to do is make sure that we’re focusing on price stability, but making that commitment to full employment, and then making sure the process of the committee is a full and proper one. Actually, what I should say is that we had the Minister announce phase two of this process last month, and I just wanted to point out where to from here. So phase two will consider the framework for financial stability to ensure the Act is fit for purpose and aligned with what the Government considers will provide a strong, flexible, and enduring regulatory framework that enjoys broad public and industry support. Actually, I just wanted to note that that is what the Reserve Bank in its mandate is actually required to do.
I just wanted to touch on the history of the Reserve Bank in New Zealand because I’m not sure too many people will be aware but in 1989, when it was established, it was actually a world first. It was established at a time of quite high inflation, at a time of quite extreme fluctuations in those prices, and so New Zealand very wisely and ahead of its time decided that the best way to do that would be through this regulatory framework, the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act of 1989. Originally, it was designed to cope with the extremes of pricing in the New Zealand market, and so originally the target was zero to 2 percent, so we were actually trying to eliminate inflation at the time. That was kind of the mandate back in the day.
I think about seven years later—I’m not quite too sure of the timing, but not too long later—we realised, actually, inflation in and of itself isn’t the problem; it is the maintenance of price stability, and so the target was actually changed to what it is that we have now: 1 to 3 percent. And so the economists and the Government of the time said, “Actually, inflation is OK. What we want for business is that confidence to know that we’re not going to get those huge fluctuations in prices, so that we can make good, long-term decisions in investments over time.” and hence the 1 to 3 percent.
So, I probably—I hadn’t realised, it’s like being back in a lecture theatre. I have spent way too long giving a history of inflation and the Reserve Bank’s formation itself. But to put that in context, that we were ahead of the time then and, unfortunately, we have fallen by the wayside is perhaps the best segue to finish my contribution this afternoon. This is 30-year-old legislation. New Zealand First and the Rt Hon Winston Peters have spoken to the inadequacy of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act in its current form, and what a great start we have here in terms of phase one in this legislation. So of course this has the full support of New Zealand First, and we look forward to it progressing through the House. Thank you very much.
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I don’t like to be unkind to the previous speaker—
Rt Hon David Carter: To “the Professor”.
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: —“the Professor”, as we call him, but his grasp of history is not very good at all. The Reserve Bank was not instituted 30 years ago; it has been around for many decades, and this legislation that came in, which he now wants to modernise by taking it back closer to where it was before 30 years ago, shows the strange logic that they’ve got on that side of the House.
Look, this bill proposes to do two things. One is set up a committee to make the decisions around interest rates, and while you can argue about that until the cows come home, I don’t think that they have built a particularly strong case for why we need to change what has a been a pretty successful model in New Zealand. But it won’t be the end of the world if we move to a committee, and so we will be interested in working through that in the select committee process.
But the second thing that this bill does is bring in what we call a dual mandate. At the moment the Reserve Bank is focused solely on inflation and using monetary policy to target a low inflation rate, between 1 and 3 percent. Now the proposal is to come up with a dual mandate and say they should focus on price stability and maximum sustainable employment. Now, we don’t support that and we haven’t seen any strong case brought to justify that. There’s a couple of issues with it. Firstly, there’s a question of principle and that is, if you want to have more than one policy objective—price stability and maximum sustainable employment—then in general you need to have more than one policy instrument, and at the moment the Reserve Bank only has one policy instrument, which is monetary policy—to control using monetary policy. It doesn’t have access to fiscal policy or all the many other policies that you need. So to try and deal with more than one policy objective with only one policy instrument is a flawed approach in principle.
Secondly, the idea that somehow a little bit more inflation will lead to more employment has been debunked a long time ago. It’s true that monetary policy can lead to a short-term impact on employment, and that is why it was so dangerous in the hands of politicians—and we’re going to have to go back far into even the National Party’s history with Robert Muldoon to say that if you drastically reduce interest rates, particularly at a time of high inflation, then you can get a short-term burst in economic activity and an improvement in employment.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Except I wouldn’t be doing that.
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Sorry—the nation or the policy makers. But it doesn’t last, and there’s no evidence that you get a long-term effect on employment by the use of monetary policy. Nobody can really claim that. So why we would have, as a dual mandate of the Reserve Bank, to use monetary policy to somehow influence maximum sustainable employment doesn’t make much sense. So if you struggle with that concept that a little bit more inflation does not lead to higher employment in the long term, then what would you be trying to achieve?
So the problem that we have with this proposal is that if you have this dual mandate, where both of them are equally important, and that’s what this bill is suggesting—it’s not that we go from price stability and try and do what we can to manage maximum employment; it’s that both are equal objectives—then, of course, eventually at some point those two objectives will be in conflict, and then the Reserve Bank will be in a hopeless position. I think we’ve got a pretty good arrangement that has served this country well, and I don’t understand the rationale for changing.
A number of Government members will say, “Well, everybody else in the world does it. Lots of other countries have all these mandates.” Well, the answer to that, I would have thought, is that New Zealand actually has a good, clear, simple single-objective piece of legislation that many other countries would wish to have. Most of them developed more than 30 years ago, at a time when people actually did believe that a little bit more inflation could lead to more employment, but that has subsequently been debunked. So it’s really taking us back to a position where we were more than 30 years ago, and I don’t see how it’s going to benefit the country in any way, shape, or form.
Now, if you are indeed interested in improving employment, then of course there are—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Of course I am.
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Sorry. If the nation and politicians are interested in increasing employment, then there are many things that can be done, well beyond the realm of monetary policy. That, of course, is just basic good government. The most important thing that any Government can do is deliver strong, stable, and predictable Government, leading to higher business confidence and consumer confidence, leading to investment, and when you get investment, that’s where you get jobs and growth.
Unfortunately, we’re getting a case study of how not to do that from this current Government, which, by introducing so much uncertainty into the minds of business people around the country—uncertainty through tax policy, where nobody knows. Who’s going to make an investment if they don’t know in two years’ time whether they’re going to be paying a capital gains tax on that investment, for example. There’s so much uncertainty around our immigration policy—the Government campaigned on slashing it and now it’s not quite clear. There’s so much uncertainty on foreign investment rules.
Hon Ruth Dyson: This must be 10 minutes up by now.
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: No—nowhere near. Nowhere near. There’s so much uncertainty on industrial relations policy, and also uncertainty following the strange manner of Government decision-making that we’ve seen, particularly in the oil and gas process, where a major industrial policy can be made without reference to any evidence or actual decent advice.
So when you combine all those things, that has led to and contributed to falling levels of business confidence. Many would-be investors who could invest in hiring a new person, building a new plant, starting a new business, taking a new risk, are right now keeping their hands in their pockets, because looking out, they’re not sure where things are going. So if the Government’s interested in employment, then that’s what they should be focusing on, with all the many, many levers that Governments have available to them, and do the right thing. But somehow suggesting that by encouraging the Reserve Bank to just give a little bit more inflation—that’s not the way to go about it. So on that basis we will not be supporting this bill.
CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. It is a pleasure to rise and speak to this, the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Monetary Policy) Amendment Bill. There are a number of reasons that it’s my absolute pleasure to rise and speak to this bill, not least to address the assertions of the previous speaker, the Hon Paul Goldsmith. With regards to “strong and stable”—I’ve heard that somewhere else before, and I must say that it’s one of the most meaningless pieces of political rhetoric that I think I’ve ever heard. If we’re looking to predictability, if we’re looking to a framework that New Zealanders can trust, that New Zealanders can engage with, that feels accessible, that feels as though it is being accountable, then they can find it in a piece of legislation like this, and indeed in the work programme of this Government.
I’ve just come from speaking to a group of young people about how impenetrable politics and this place seems—its institutions included. I think that this piece of legislation, this bill, is a fantastic starting point for providing greater transparency and accountability for one of our most fundamental institutions. This is, ultimately, about democracy. The Hon Judith Collins, in her contribution earlier, asked what this bill is trying to remedy, calling it “window-dressing” and “butt-covering”. I want to shed some light for the Hon Judith Collins on what this bill actually does, because it would seem as though she, perhaps, has not engaged with the depth of its content. This is, of course, in response to phase one of the Government’s independent review.
In the current Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act what you’ll find is that the only objective required in considerations regarding setting monetary policy is that of price stability. Now, as previous speakers have addressed, that is absolutely, fundamentally important. It is about predictability for consumers, for business people, and particularly those within our society who sit at the lower end socioeconomically. But what it doesn’t do, what it doesn’t provide for at the moment is what a few other jurisdictions have explored and what we’re now seeking to incorporate in the form of maximum sustainable employment, which is, simply part and parcel of a work programme that looks outside of a myopic focus on what we deem as success in the economy.
If I may ask this House, what is the point of referring to the abstract notion of the “economy” if the people who make it up aren’t doing OK; if they can’t find jobs? This is part and parcel, as I’ve said, of a broader work programme. It is a step away from that narrow view of the economy and of financial success as a country, happening in the context, I would add, of a broader Government work programme related to what’s happening with the well-being index and the “well-being Budget” later.
So too, this amendment bill moves away from a one-man decision-making policy towards a committee decision-making structure for monetary policy, with the monetary policy committee, which includes members external to the Reserve Bank. Now, as we’ve seen in research that’s been conducted both locally and overseas, committee decision-making ends up in better decisions than what we may sometimes see from the likes of captain’s calls.
But one of the really exciting things—that’s actually tucked away in schedule 3 of this bill and is something which excites a nerd like me so keen on public participation and democracy—is in clause 3(2) of Part 1 of schedule 3, in regard to the remit. Under “Process for developing advice”, it states that “The Bank must, before the remit advice is given,—(a) seek the views of members of the public on the matters that the Bank considers would assist it to prepare the advice”. That is lifting the lid on what may seem an impenetrable Government institution, if I’ve ever seen it.
So too, there is the requirement that the bank must, as soon as practicable after the remit is issued, publish a copy of the remit advice on an internet site maintained by or on behalf of the bank, and whilst I note the archaic wording, that’s another really exciting feature which opens the door in regard to transparency and accountability. So I would love to see what comes out of the select committee stage and would hope that the Opposition would engage with it, so that we do end up with the most robust kind of framework moving forward.
So too, I’m incredibly excited as to what we’ll see coming out of phase two of the independent review. The Green Party is proud to be supporting this bill.
Rt Hon DAVID CARTER (National): First of all, for the benefit of the Hon Ruth Dyson, I won’t take a full 10 minutes, because I know that she gets a bit prickly at this time before 5.30 p.m. and is always keen to get on that flight back to Christchurch to service the Port Hills electorate.
I listened with interest to the contribution by the Minister, the Hon Grant Robertson, when he mentioned the importance of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act, and with that I totally agree. It has been the very foundation to our economy for a long period of time. I listened with interest also to “Professor” Fletcher Tabuteau, and, of course, I think I’m very grateful that he’s here in Parliament and not now lecturing to students because, of course, if he was lecturing to students suggesting New Zealand was the first country in the world to have an independent monetary policy, an independent Reserve Bank, then it’s probably unfortunate they were so ill-informed by their lecturer at the time.
But what we’re doing here, and the reason National’s not prepared to support the legislation, is effectively we’re doing two things: we’re legislating the process the Reserve Bank uses now and then legislating that it goes and makes its final decision for a committee. We’ve had the Reserve Bank Governor recently before the Finance and Expenditure Committee and he tells us that’s exactly the way the Reserve Bank makes its decisions now. So why we need legislation to do that when it’s exactly the way the Reserve Bank operates and has operated for a period of time suggests to me, in all honestly, that why we’ve got this legislation before the House is we had a Government formed after the last election that didn’t really expect to be in Government. It’s rushing round to fulfil some promises and loose comments they made through an election campaign, so it’s come up with a piece of legislation that it will put before the House.
And I guess the good news is—and, again, we heard comments from the Minister and particularly from the Hon Phil Twyford about how this legislation’s been discussed and brought together between the Labour Party, the Green Party, and New Zealand First. And I think the good news is that the New Zealand First policy, announced and pronounced by the Rt Hon Winston Peters on many, many occasions, that the Reserve Bank Act should also take into account in making its decisions the level of the exchange rate—at least that notion has been consigned to where it should be: the dustbin. And the Rt Hon Winston Peters either has forgotten that he’s gone around the country for many years claiming manipulation of the exchange rate should be the role for the Reserve Bank Governor—and that has been forgotten. So I think that’s good news.
The other comment I wanted to make is around maximum sustainable employment. I don’t believe this wording’s necessary. I again took the opportunity to ask Adrian Orr, as he appeared before the select committee, what exactly it means, and he was a bit unsure. He was very vague with his answer. And I do take this opportunity of congratulating Adrian Orr on his appointment as the Governor of the Reserve Bank. I think he’ll do a superb job, but they are words that aren’t well defined and could mean all sorts of things to all sorts of decision makers—“maximum sustainable employment”.
So for those reasons, I think, in summary, while it’s always good to have a look at Acts that have been around for 30 years to consider whether they’re still relevant, the fact that we have a two-phase discussion process being initiated by the Government and the fact that this is the result of the first phase and not the complete phase suggest to me, as I said earlier, this is a Government surprised to be in a position of power, surprised to be in a position where it’s got to advance policy. It’s come forward with something relatively simple and relatively unnecessary. It’ll go before the Finance and Expenditure Committee, where, no doubt—that committee works very collaboratively, well-chaired, I might add, by Mr Wood—we’ll work through the issues and bring it back before the House. But it’s unlikely to change the position that the National caucus is taking at this stage. I thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I understand this is a split call—Dr Deborah Russell.
Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I’d like to echo some of the comments made by our colleagues on the other side of the House. The Finance and Expenditure Committee, while we may fight tooth and nail over some policy issues, is nevertheless quite committed to arguing through the technical details of many bills and getting them right, so I’m looking forward to working with the Hon Amy Adams and the Hon Judith Collins and the Rt Hon David Carter and other members of the Finance and Expenditure Committee to work through the technical details of this bill.
I do want to address just one point that has been raised by the members of the Opposition—though I might say, in passing, if they think we are surprised to be a Government, I think they’re even more surprised to be in Opposition. They possibly need to learn how MMP works. But getting back to this idea about the dual mandate, and particularly looking at maximum sustainable employment, now the honourable David Carter raised an interesting point here that perhaps we weren’t even sure what this term means. Well, may I suggest that this select committee will work hard on that phrase of “maximum sustainable employment”.
We’ve talked a little bit in this debate about how pernicious high inflation could be, how the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act was brought in in order to deal with high inflation. May I suggest that high unemployment is pernicious as well. Even that 4 percent unemployment figure we’ve had, it disguises partial employment, it disguises the gig economy, and it disguises the fact that many people have not had long-term employment, and that has a long-term effect on them. Graduates who don’t get work coming out of university—it holds them back right throughout their lives. People who don’t have sustained employment find that it affects not just their bank balance but their actual place in the community, so focusing on employment is a worthy goal. It is something that we do need to focus on. I’m looking forward to working through this bill and working out just exactly how we can ensure that our Reserve Bank can work towards focusing on these dual goals of keeping inflation under control and keeping unemployment under control too. I commend this bill to the House. [Interruption]
LAWRENCE YULE (National—Tukituki): My apologies, Madam Assistant Speaker. I know how much everybody wants to get home. Look, it’s my pleasure to take a short call on this Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Monetary Policy) Amendment Bill. As we’ve said, and as this side of the House has articulated already, there’s a great deal in this piece of legislation that we’re supportive of, and I see no reason why we won’t go through with supporting an independent monetary policy committee and that sort of notion.
But, actually, I do want to talk about the dual mandate from a slightly different perspective than other speakers, because I am struggling to understand what exactly we are trying to fix. For 30 years—
Chlöe Swarbrick: It’s in the bill, mate. It’s in the bill.
LAWRENCE YULE: I understand it’s in the bill. For 30 years we’ve had a wonderful system. The economy has gone incredibly well. We have single-mindedly focused on inflation and done an incredibly good job at fixing that. So if you look at the current state of the New Zealand economy and the state of the Government books—and the state of unemployment in New Zealand, which is around 4 percent, a very low level by international comparisons—then you have to say: what are we trying to fix? Because when this Opposition now, but Government then, left Government, the New Zealand economy was in incredibly good shape, and the benefits of that are flowing through even now. If you lose focus on things in life, in my view, and you broaden it too much, you lose the focus. We have focused on inflation for 30 years since the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act came into place, with an independent person doing so, because inflation is actually like rust: if you don’t keep focusing on it, it destroys everything in an economy. My concern about this bill is as you start looking at employment and long-term employment issues as well, the Government takes its focus off that, as does everybody in the New Zealand economy.
So I stand here today, just before we rise for this week, and say this side of the House is not convinced that a dual mandate, first, is warranted, or, secondly, will make any difference. And, thirdly, I worry it’ll make things worse, because when the economy’s not going so well, decisions will have to be made, and decisions when you have a dual mandate will automatically compromise the single-minded determination of various Governments to focus on inflation. There can be no other way. It will compromise that, and I believe, personally, as does this side of the House, that inflation is one of the greatest evils in any society and in any Government. If you have a low-inflation environment, employment is actually, generally, very high—you know, there is very little unemployment—and I worry that this bill, as it’s written, and as it comes in, seeks to spread that concept into two parts.
I think that actually we risk undermining the very success of this economy, of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act, of the Reserve Bank Governor, and of all the things that that particular regime has helped get New Zealand through today. So I’m happy to speak against this particular part of the bill, and I look forward to the select committee working through the good parts. Thank you.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I understand this is a split call. Michael Wood, you have five minutes.
MICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): Madam Assistant Speaker, thank you very much. Can I start off this speech firstly by acknowledging Minister of Finance Grant Robertson for introducing this piece of legislation—and it’s a significant piece of legislation. Can I also acknowledge other members of the House who have spoken on it. I think the debate, despite the fact that the Opposition has indicated their intention to vote against at this stage, has been a constructive and quite a considered debate. I think some of the points that have been raised can be well considered at select committee to see just where we can get to on those issues. I might note that the original debate on the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act, back in 1989—I checked out Hansard—was a little more fiery. There was quite a good interjection I noted in it. When the speaker Ruth Richardson said, “What does the Minister know that we do not know?”, Mike Moore yelled out, “Most things!” So the debate today has been a little more low-key and a little more considered.
One of the things I just want to put to the House and to members of the Opposition is there are, basically, I think, two things—two themes—that you can read into this bill. One is that it is an evolutionary bill, and a number of members who have spoken have made the point, quite well and quite fairly, that some of the things contained within this bill are kind of picking up on practice that is already beginning to emerge. So, for example, the Reserve Bank tells us that they have been shifting more in the direction of a committee decision-making model. I don’t think that it’s therefore a weakness to actually have legislation which transparently reflects that in terms of the way that the public can view it.
The second point is around transparency, and I want to pick up on one thing that hasn’t been noted in the debate here today: that by having a committee process and by ensuring that the minutes of the committee are published—which is one of the other aspects of this bill—the people of New Zealand, the people who rely on these decisions, can actually get more of an insight into the decision-making process not just of the governor but of the whole committee, and can begin to see where that committee might be moving over time. I think that will be of interest to New Zealanders. I think it is fair and reasonable that New Zealanders have access to that information, given how significant the decisions are, and I actually think it is market information that will be extremely useful to a range of other people.
I think most of the points in this debate have been made very well, so I’m probably going to leave it there, but I do look forward to the further discussion at select committee, and I would urge all members to reflect on those two points. This is an evolutionary piece of legislation, not a revolutionary one, and it certainly does increase the transparency of some very important decisions that are made within our economy. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.
DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I rise on behalf of the ACT Party in opposition to this bill—this piece of ministerial vanity and economic vandalism. Make no mistake: the people of New Zealand are being deceived that they can somehow get something for free. They are being promised that, by speeding up or slowing down the printing presses, a group of people—no longer an accountable individual; a committee of people—can somehow get them jobs. And it’s instructive to look at the cover sheet—very well designed by the previous Government, I might add—and ask yourself: what is the problem that they are seeking to solve with this piece of legislation? There is not one there. They say that, somehow, monetary policy could be used to stabilise the real economy—only at the expense of price stability, and price instability simultaneously destabilises the real economy. It cannot be done, and it is impossible that this bill can deliver what it promises to deliver.
Now, the kind analysis that, in civilised debate, we are supposed to offer is that people who put forward dopey, vandalising bills such as this have good intentions but they are misguided. They have brought in the rhetoric that they had when they were campaigning on university campuses and applied it to the big boy’s job of being the Minister of Finance. But there’s another possibility, because if it is impossible that fiddling with the money supply will improve economic stability and employment, then what other motivation could a Minister have? He hasn’t put one in the regulatory impact statement. What else could possibly be his motivation? And it’s this: we heard from the Minister about the dark old days of 1989. Well, just prior to that, we had a very different politician in charge; a guy called Muldoon. And he came along and he said, “Ah, ha, ha.” And every time there was an election, he ramped up the printing presses and got the short-term sugar hit, and then New Zealanders got the economic instability that followed.
Now, some people might put two and two together and ask themselves: why is it that a Minister is solving a problem that does not exist and devolving a set of decisions not to one individual who is totally accountable and whose job depends upon maintaining price stability but to a committee of people—a range of people—that he will have influence on the appointment of? Could it be that this is not just dumb policy; this is actually evil policy. This is an erosion of the independence of the central bank. This is the current Government attempting to take control of the printing presses—not quite Venezuelan style; just in a sort of smaller capacity than they’re used to.
It is a way that this Government will be able to influence the supply of money, and I bet this House that, when this is in place, and when their committee is making the decisions, we will no longer have independent monetary policy; we will have a pattern that will be detectable in a few electoral cycles, which will tell us that the money supply goes up and inflation goes up and the economic sugar hit comes out right before an election, and then, once the election is gone, they take the punch-bowl away and the New Zealanders get the economic instability that the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act was designed to take away.
This is a black-letter day in New Zealand lawmaking. The Minister either has no idea what he’s doing or he has every idea what he’s doing. He is seeking to corrupt the independence of the Reserve Bank. He is seeking, for political advantage, to take away the price stability that New Zealanders have enjoyed for the past 29 years, and what a shameful day to erode those policy settings that a previous Labour Party proudly put in place. I am very proud to be opposing this stupid bill. Thank you.
ALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I too would like to speak against the bill for a couple of reasons. I do agree with Lawrence Yule, in that there is a real problem when we’ve got two—at times conflicting—targets.
It wasn’t that long ago when stagflation was rife: where you have a situation when inflation is high and unemployment is high. It wasn’t that long ago. In which case, cutting rates would help one and hurt the other. Dr Russell mentioned that unemployment was already too high, so, therefore, she would, I assume, want to cut interest rates further today because unemployment, in her view, is too high. But we know that cutting interest rates today has risks associated with inflation but, more importantly, with price stability. House prices will go north if we have Deborah Russell’s way.
Hon Andrew Little: So what have they been doing for the last 10 years?
ALASTAIR SCOTT: So what I’m trying to do here, Mr Little, is explain the conflict that is inherent in having two targets. Already we hear, in the current settings, the problem that the Reserve Bank Governor has when he’s already got an inflation target but also has to consider price stability. So look back at his reports over the last three years, and he’s often in a dilemma as to whether to cut rates, to kick in the inflation rate to get it back to his target, but knowing that cutting rates creates pressure on house prices. So you’ve got a conflict when you’ve got these two targets, and that is why I oppose this bill.
Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. It gives me pleasure to rise to speak in favour of this most excellent bill. I’m surprised that the Opposition doesn’t understand the idea of balance, the idea of tension, and the idea of reconciling those tensions, because that’s exactly what this bill does and what is needed. I’m extremely surprised that the member for ACT doesn’t even seem to understand monetary policy, given his party’s so-called monetarist approach.
The official cash rate is not about printing money; it’s about overnight interest rates to set the market for interest. It’s not the only lever of interest rates in the country; the fact is we’re a small economy and we’re affected by overseas markets, as well. In fact, this bill, in terms of monetary policy, is simply about balancing the economy, ensuring the best employment outcome and the best inflation outcome, and we need to balance those things against each other. Anyone who doesn’t know that those two things are related needs to go back to university.
Look, that feeds right into the fact of the wellness framework, which also underpins this and which I congratulate our Minister on: the fact that there is more than one thing we need to measure, more than one goal that we need to achieve. Frankly, there’s not a lot more to say than that in respect of this bill. This bill is about balance—balance in our economy and balance in our monetary policy—and, on that basis alone, I recommend it to this House.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Monetary Policy) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.
Ayes 63
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.
Noes 57
New Zealand National 56; ACT New Zealand 1.
Bill read a first time.
Bill referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee.
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I move, That the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Monetary Policy) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 3 December 2018.
Motion agreed to.
Sittings of the House
Sittings of the House
Hon RUTH DYSON (Senior Whip—Labour): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Despite the differences of opinion in the final vote, I think it was a very constructive debate, and as such, it’s a good note—
Hon Gerry Brownlee: Oh, come on! We’ve just had a week off! Come on!
Hon RUTH DYSON: Ha, ha! I wondered why the member had come down. Ha, ha!
Hon Gerry Brownlee: Can’t believe it! Oh, dear Lord!
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! Let’s hear this point of order.
Hon RUTH DYSON: On that note, I’d like to seek leave for the House to rise, rather than start the next bill just for a couple of minutes.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.
The House adjourned at 5.55 p.m.