Thursday, 9 August 2018
Volume 731
Sitting date: 9 August 2018
THURSDAY, 9 AUGUST 2018
THURSDAY, 9 AUGUST 2018
The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.
Prayers.
Business Statement
Business Statement
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Next week, the House will give a third reading to the Appropriation (2018/19 Estimates) Bill. An imprest supply bill will be taken at the same time. The Overseas Investment Amendment Bill, the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill, the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2), and the Tariff (PACER Plus) Amendment Bill will complete their remaining stages. As notified to the Business Committee, the National Animal Identification and Tracing Amendment Bill will pass through all stages under urgency.
Points of Order
Audrey Young—30 Years with New Zealand Herald
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I apologise, but I hope the House will indulge me. I’d hoped to do this yesterday, but I wonder if, on behalf of the House, I can congratulate Audrey Young on her 30 years with the New Zealand Herald, which was marked yesterday. She started on 8/8/88. I can remember that day well from sixth form. I know that she has been here in the precinct for 24 of those 30 years. And I’d like to say, on behalf of all members of the House, that we’ve always appreciated, Audrey, your focus on getting to the heart and the truth of the matter, and being a true representative of the fourth estate. So thank you for what you’ve done.
[Applause]
SPEAKER: And, for once, I’ll say, “No comment.”
Oral Questions
Questions to Ministers
Defence Force—NH90 Flight Simulator
1. DARROCH BALL (NZ First) to the Minister of Defence: What progress, if any, has been made regarding the procurement of a flight simulator for the NH90 helicopter fleet?
Hon RON MARK (Minister of Defence): Yesterday, I announced the purchase of a $42.73 million flight simulator for the New Zealand Air Force’s fleet of eight NH90 helicopters. This purchase is funded from within the New Zealand Defence Force baseline—
Hon Member: Have you flown in it?
Hon RON MARK: Ha, ha! It will boost the availability rate for the NH90 fleet and free up more operational tasking hours that would have been used for training. The simulator facility will be ready for training activities at Ohākea in July 2020.
Darroch Ball: What will this purchase mean for the air force pilot training pipeline?
Hon RON MARK: Having a New Zealand - based simulator is the most efficient way to train and sustain the number of pilots in the fleet. It is projected to increase the number of trained NH90 pilots by over 30 percent by 2028 and will place less strain on the air force resources than the current system does. This will mean more pilots for supporting military operations in New Zealand and abroad, and undertaking other tasks for Government agencies and maintaining their search and rescue coverage.
Darroch Ball: What are the benefits of having a simulator based in New Zealand rather than overseas?
Hon RON MARK: Training for NH90 pilots currently includes simulator-based training in Germany and Australia, which involves pilots being away from New Zealand for several weeks at a time. Having a simulator in New Zealand will make more pilots and flight instructors available for deployment at short notice. The maintenance of the device will be provided by a contractor under an initial 13-year contract, which will provide three long-term jobs in the Manawatū region. The purchase follows the announcement earlier in the year of the lease of four new King Air aircraft as well.
Police—Deputy Commissioner of Police, Accusations Against Wally Haumaha and Inquiry into the Appointment Process
2. Hon PAULA BENNETT (Deputy Leader—National) to the Prime Minister: Does her Government expect high standards from all Government departments and Ministers?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance) on behalf of the Prime Minister: On behalf of the Prime Minister, yes.
Hon Paula Bennett: Does she believe that high standards have been met by police leadership in appointing Wally Haumaha as Deputy Police Commissioner?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Matters around the process for the appointment of Mr Haumaha are the subject of an inquiry, and I won’t comment further on those matters at this time.
Hon Paula Bennett: Will she ask the police commissioner if he heard reports either formally or informally of intimidation towards women by Wally Haumaha, in light of a story that’s just come out today?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I repeat my earlier answer—
SPEAKER: On behalf of the Prime Minister.
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I’m sorry. On behalf of the Prime Minister, I repeat my earlier answer that matters around the appointment of Mr Haumaha are the subject of the inquiry. What I would add is, any suggestion of bullying or intimidation in Government departments is unacceptable.
Hon Paula Bennett: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I was very careful with that question, sir, that I didn’t mention the inquiry or this being about it. It was about a particular new report that’s come out today and wasn’t about his appointment, as such.
SPEAKER: And in my view, the inquiry goes round the processes for establishing the suitability of a particular candidate, and therefore the question was not only addressed but answered.
Hon Paula Bennett: Will the inquiry cover new allegations that have been put today of intimidation by Wally Haumaha to other public servants who were working with him?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I’m sorry, Mr Speaker. Can you just repeat the question? Sorry.
Hon Paula Bennett: Will the inquiry cover allegations that have been put today about intimidation of Wally Haumaha towards public servants?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Prime Minister, the inquiry has been set up to look into whether or not all relevant information was available in the appointment of Mr Haumaha. On the face of it, it would appear to me that those allegations fit within that category of the terms of reference.
Hon Paula Bennett: Will she be asking the chief executives of corrections and justice if they had reports from senior female employees that they wished not to be in the same room as Wally Haumaha?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Prime Minister, I can assure the member that we will be following up with the chief executives of those agencies on the allegations that have been made in the article.
Hon Paula Bennett: If those chief executives heard that female employees had felt uncomfortable in the company of Wally Haumaha, would she expect them to have taken action?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Prime Minister, I repeat that those are allegations, but, as I said in an earlier answer, we take very seriously any allegations of bullying or intimidation, and they are not acceptable and, of course, they should be followed up in circumstances where they are drawn to the attention of chief executives.
Hon Paula Bennett: Does she believe the public can have faith in police leadership, when they either didn’t know or didn’t act on issues around Wally Haumaha working with other public servants?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I can’t comment on the detail of that matter, except to note that these matters arose during 2016, and I’m not aware of all the information that would have been transferred at that time either to chief executives or, indeed, to members of the executive.
Hon Paula Bennett: Is she concerned that after 11 years of police working hard to change their culture towards victims of sexual assault and intimidation, her Government’s handling of the appointment of Wally Haumaha may now have victims feeling that they can’t go forward to the police?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We would always want victims in any circumstances to feel comfortable that they can come forward. I reject parts of the question the member asked in the earlier part.
Hon Paula Bennett: Was there any involvement of New Zealand First Ministers or parliamentary under-secretaries either formally or informally in the promotion of Wally Haumaha?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Prime Minister, the promotion of Mr Haumaha to Deputy Police Commissioner was dealt with through the normal processes. I’m not aware of any of the allegations that the member has made in her question.
Economy—Economic Growth
3. Hon AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) to the Minister of Finance: Has he received the Reserve Bank’s Monetary Policy Statement released today that shows GDP growth forecasts in the coming year have fallen by 0.5 percent; if so, what effect would lower GDP have on Government revenue?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I have received the Reserve Bank’s August Monetary Policy Statement (MPS). It does not show what the member’s question suggests, as it appears that she has included figures from the June 2018 quarter—which is in the past, not the coming, year—and added quarterly forecasts in a linear manner, rather than taking into the account the need to be cumulative.
Hon Amy Adams: Has he seen yesterday’s Reserve Bank survey of expectations, which shows that GDP expectations for the next two years have also fallen by 0.5 percent; and, if so, is he concerned that the only time in the history of the survey that GDP expectations have fallen so fast were during the Asian financial crisis in 1997 and the global financial crisis in 2008/9?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: There are a number of different forecasts and commentary to make. For example, I have received advice today from the Treasury that the growth forecast in the August MPS for the coming year—that being the current third quarter of 2018 to the same quarter next year—shows expected GDP growth of 3.3 percent. There will always be a range of forecasts and expectations. Can I say, in answer to the second part of the member’s question, that if she is seriously suggesting that a New Zealand economy growing at an average of 3 percent over the next few years is in any way akin to the global financial crisis, she really needs to do more homework.
Hon Amy Adams: Is he aware that the Reserve Bank today have noted that Government spending is underpinning our growth; and, if so, does he consider that economic growth based on Government spending is the sign of an economy that is either productive or sustainable?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Government spending in the form of the KiwiBuild investment and the Families Package is a very important and necessary part of managing the transition away from the previous Government’s reliance on housing speculation and population growth to improve productivity. As we see the effect of research and development spending, the provincial growth roll-out, more skills in our workforce—as announced in part today by the Prime Minister—we will see that transition, but it is going to take some time to make up for nine years of neglect.
Hon Amy Adams: Has he seen comments today by former ANZ Chief Economist Cameron Bagrie that “The economy is not tracking as expected. The Treasury is projecting 3 percent-plus growth. Something closer to half of that is on offer. We won’t get that growth back. Each 1 percent change in growth is worth around $800m in revenue.”; and, if so, is he still going to stand here and pretend that the economy is humming along nicely?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: There are a range of different forecasts about where growth will reach. Today, Westpac believe that they think the Reserve Bank wasn’t ambitious enough in terms of the forecasts; similarly, ASB thought the same thing. Mr Bagrie’s entitled to his opinion on this, but we on this side of the House continue to believe—as, indeed, the Reserve Bank does—that we will average around 3 percent growth over the forecast period.
Hon Amy Adams: So what does he say to former ANZ chief economist Cameron Bagrie, who has also said today that “the Labour-led Government’s fiscal hole is looking deeper by the day”?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What I would say to Mr Bagrie—and, indeed, to the member asking the question, is, when her predecessor started digging the fiscal hole it didn’t work out very well for him, and she shouldn’t follow suit.
Hon Amy Adams: So, in light of every bank and economic agency in the country revising down New Zealand’s growth prospects since the Labour-led Government has taken office, with that list now including the Treasury and the Reserve Bank, why is he still in denial that the Government’s economic policies are hurting the economy and reducing the living standards and future well-being of New Zealanders?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I reject the premise of that question. If the member reads today’s Monetary Policy Statement, she will see that, over the forecast period, the Reserve Bank is projecting 3 percent growth or thereabouts over the next few years. It is going to take some time to transition away from the economy that we were left by the National Party, that was based on housing speculation and population growth, but we are committed to building a modern economy for New Zealand.
Economy—Monetary Policy Statement, August 2018
4. TAMATI COFFEY (Labour—Waiariki) to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he seen on the economy?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Today, the Reserve Bank released its August Monetary Policy Statement (MPS) and its official cash rate (OCR) decision. This will be beneficial for members, with the OCR left on hold at 1.75 percent. The MPS forecast that the slowdown in GDP growth, which began at the start of 2016, should turn around from the June quarter this year, with GDP growth of 3.2 percent forecast in the year to June 2019. The Reserve Bank notes that over the medium term, growth is expected to be supported by fiscal policy, export growth, and supportive monetary policy settings, and that GDP growth should average a little above 3 percent over the next 3 years.
Tamati Coffey: What did the Reserve Bank say in the Monetary Policy Statement about recent and future growth trends?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The Reserve Bank said that growth in the March quarter had been soft in services, construction, and primary production—the latter being due to weather-related events and the effects of Mycoplasma bovis. It noted recent weakness in business confidence surveys and weaker than expected house price inflation. However, the MPS shows that the Reserve Bank expects growth to pick up over the rest of 2018 and for medium-term growth of about 3 percent a year, to be supported by monetary policy, fiscal policy, business investment, and net exports.
Tamati Coffey: What risks did the Reserve Bank highlight in the Monetary Policy Statement?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, it always pays to keep an eye on these risks. The Reserve Bank said that, while there is still a positive global economic environment, downside risks to the global outlook had increased since May, in particular due to trade tensions overseas. The Reserve Bank also noted that there is a potential for low business confidence to feed through into firms, delaying investment. However, they said the outlook for business investment is positive, in part due to low interest rates continuing to support greater investment.
Police—Deputy Commissioner of Police, Appointment of Wally Haumaha and Inquiry into the Appointment Process
CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South): To the Minister of Police, does he stand by all his statements in regard to the Government inquiry into the appointment of the Deputy Police Commissioner?
SPEAKER: Order! The member will read the question as it’s printed.
5. CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South) to the Minister of Police: Does he stand by all his statements with regard to the appointment of Wally Haumaha as Deputy Commissioner of Police?
Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Police): Yes, in the context within which they were given and knowledge at the time.
Chris Bishop: Does Mr Haumaha enjoy his confidence as Deputy Commissioner of Police?
Hon STUART NASH: There is an inquiry under way which will determine the process under which the senior State servant was appointed, and I think we need to let that play out.
Chris Bishop: Is he aware that Mr Haumaha was asked in his interview for the Deputy Commissioner of Police job, “Is there anything you need to disclose that we should know before we make our decision on this appointment that might cause damage to the police or the Government?” and that he answered no; and does he think that statement is correct?
Hon STUART NASH: I wasn’t sitting on the panel.
Chris Bishop: Does he stand by his statement that he would have “done things slightly differently” if he was aware of Mr Haumaha’s statements to the Operation Austin inquiry before he was promoted; and in light of today’s new allegations, what would he have done differently?
Hon STUART NASH: Yes.
Chris Bishop: Is it correct that Mike Clement, who graduated from the Police College with Police Commissioner Mike Bush, warned Mr Bush about Wally Haumaha and the potential risk to the reputation of police if he was promoted to assistant commissioner, which occurred just 12 months before he was appointed to the deputy commissioner role?
Hon STUART NASH: I suggest that member ask deputy commissioner Mike Clement those questions.
Chris Bishop: Was Mr Haumaha invited to apply for the role of Deputy Commissioner of Police, which the publicly available State Services paper says some people were invited to do; if so, who invited him to apply?
Hon STUART NASH: My understanding is the State Services Commission invited a number of people to apply for the role. They sent out a letter to all people who they thought may well have been appropriate.
Chris Bishop: Can he confirm that when he captioned his now infamous weightlifting video in the parliamentary gym—
SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will ask the question conforming to the Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings.
Chris Bishop: Can he confirm that when he captioned his weightlifting video in the parliamentary gym, “Peeni Henare, Wally and Alf - just calling those out who doubted …”, the “Wally” in the caption was a reference to Wally Haumaha?
Hon STUART NASH: Yes.
Tax System—Multinational Enterprises
6. Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of Revenue: What recent steps has he taken to prevent the misuse of tax treaties by multinationals to avoid or minimise tax?
Hon Gerry Brownlee: This is a very important member.
SPEAKER: Order! Before the member answers, who made that interjection?
Hon Gerry Brownlee: It was me. I was speaking to my colleague.
SPEAKER: No, the member wasn’t. The member boomed across the House.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: I have a naturally large voice.
SPEAKER: That’s right; well, we’ll deal with it.
Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Revenue) I’m happy to inform the House that the OECD’s multilateral instrument, or MLI, has now been ratified and will enter into force for New Zealand on 1 October 2018. The misuse of tax treaties by multinationals to avoid or minimise tax was one of the key concerns the OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) Action Plan sought to address. The MLI is a key component of the BEPS response, as it will quickly and efficiently modify thousands of existing international tax treaties to incorporate the OECD treaty recommendations on anti-abuse, transfer pricing, and dispute resolution.
Dr Deborah Russell: How does the Multilateral Instrument ensure that multinational companies pay their fair share of tax in New Zealand?
Hon STUART NASH: Double tax agreements are tax treaties that aim to mitigate double taxation across borders and border transactions between countries. However, there was evidence that there was wide misuse of these treaties by multinational companies to reduce or eliminate their worldwide tax. The MLI provides New Zealand and other jurisdictions with the ability to swiftly close the identified loopholes by adjusting most existing international treaty clauses automatically rather than renegotiating each treaty individually.
Dr Deborah Russell: What other measures is the Minister taking to ensure multinational companies pay their fair share of tax?
Hon STUART NASH: In addition to the MLI, the BEPS Act, and the up and coming first exchange of information under the automatic exchange of financial account information initiative, this Government has also not fully ruled out a diverted profits tax or equalisation tax to further address tax avoidance by multinationals. I expect further discussions with officials once the BEPS measures are bedded down.
Police—Deputy Commissioner of Police, Inquiry into the Appointment Process
7. CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South) to the Minister of Internal Affairs: Does she stand by all her statements around the Government inquiry into the appointment of the Deputy Commissioner of Police?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education) on behalf of the Minister of Internal Affairs: Yes, in the context they were given, except for one of my supplementary question answers yesterday, which I corrected later in the day.
Chris Bishop: Will she make amendments to the terms of reference of the Government inquiry into the appointment of the Deputy Commissioner of Police to incorporate the issue of whether Police Commissioner Mike Bush was told about the allegations revealed in the New Zealand Herald this afternoon; if not, why not?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: As has already been answered in the House today, the terms of reference don’t need to be adjusted for that matter to be investigated as part of the inquiry. It is certainly within the scope of the existing inquiry, as the terms of reference make very clear.
Chris Bishop: Why did she say yesterday, in relation to the Government inquiry into the appointment of the Deputy Commissioner of Police, “I will not be overseeing the inquiry; I’m just the Minister of Internal Affairs.”, when, as that Minister, she is the appointing Minister for the inquiry, and the inquiry reports to her?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: In that regard, the Minister is acting on behalf of the whole executive—Cabinet. The appointment of the person to conduct the inquiry is a matter that the Minister takes to Cabinet, and the ultimate report of the inquiry will also go to the whole Cabinet.
Chris Bishop: Why did Cabinet make her the appointing Minister for the Government inquiry, when the Minister of Internal Affairs has never been an appointing Minister for any Government inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2013?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Because Cabinet felt that I was the most appropriate Minister to undertake that role. I’d note that there are many Ministers in Government who have not, or whose portfolios have not, overseen an inquiry; that doesn’t mean that they can’t do so in the future.
Chris Bishop: What is the reason she considered candidates to be the member of the Government inquiry into the appointment of the Deputy Commissioner of Police in two tranches, with—quoting her—“at least five in the first tranche, and then another five in the second tranche”?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: To get the right person.
Chris Bishop: Can she confirm the Cabinet paper proposing the establishment of the Government inquiry is in her name, the terms of reference for the inquiry were proposed by her to Cabinet, she is the appointing Minister and formally appointed the inquiry member, and the inquiry reports back to her as Minister of Internal Affairs?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes, yes, yes, and yes, and the Minister does so, basically, on behalf of the Cabinet.
Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill—Commentary
8. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) to the Minister of Justice: Does he agree, in respect of the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill, with the description by his ministerial colleague Eugenie Sage that it is a “dead rat that we have to swallow”, and by Greens at Vic that “The bill is a threat to democracy and terrible legislation”; if so, why is he continuing to argue for its passage?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): In answer to the first part of the question, the Hon Eugenie Sage is entitled to her view; in answer to the second part of the question, no; and in answer to the third part of the question, because this Government is committed to ensuring the maintenance of the fundamental principle of MMP, that party-proportional representation in Parliament has to be protected.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does he accept the view of the Victoria University (Vic) Greens in describing the legislation as terrible and that it would breach the constitution of MMP in Germany, which states that MPs must be “representatives of the whole people, not bound by orders and instructions, and subject only to their conscience.”, and why should MPs in New Zealand not also be only subject to their conscience and the public good?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: In response to the first part of the question, no.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does he agree with the statement on his bill by Newsroom, titled “Power corrupts”, that quotes former Green MPs Sue Bradford, Jeanette Fitzsimons, and Keith Locke, stating that this Government was founded on the dishonourable foundation of these terrible electoral law changes?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: If I understand the question correctly, the answer is no, I don’t agree with those propositions.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does he agree with the further statement by the Greens at Vic, “There is no justification for this legislation. There has just been three defectors in the past 18 years. The Government should just be honest and state the only reason they are passing this bill is to grab power.”?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: No.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Supplementary, Mr Speaker
SPEAKER: Question No. 9—Jan Tinetti—
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Supplementary—he answered a little quicker.
SPEAKER: Oh, sorry—supplementary question, the Hon Dr Nick Smith.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: When he stated, “There has been a lot of scaremongering on this bill. They are all wrong.”, was he referring to the Greens at Vic, his ministerial colleague Eugenie Sage, the 23 constitutional academics, the Legislation Advisory Committee, the Human Rights Commission, the Clerk’s Office, former Speakers, or past Green MPs, all of whom have been highly critical of his bill?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: No—just that member.
International Education—Post-study Work Rights
9. JAN TINETTI (Labour) to the Minister of Immigration: What announcements has he made on post-study work rights for international students?
Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister of Immigration): Yesterday, I announced a package of changes to post-study work rights for international students. The changes remove a channel of exploitation through the removal of employer-assisted visas, and provide open work visas of varying lengths depending on course and location of study.
Jan Tinetti: Why has he made these changes?
Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: The changes are designed to achieve four things: one, to improve student experience, including by reducing avenues for exploitation; two, by lifting the value proposition of our international education offering; three, to better match the courses of studies undertaken by international students with the skills needed in New Zealand, if those students wish to settle in New Zealand; and, fourthly, to support regional development and skills training.
Jan Tinetti: How does New Zealand compare with other nations in relation to post-study work rights?
Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Of our comparator countries, only Canada has more generous work rights. New Zealand now compares favourably to Australia, the US, the UK, and Ireland across all levels of study.
Jan Tinetti: What has the reaction of the sector been to his announcement?
Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Overwhelmingly positive. I will choose just two quotes. Auckland University’s Deputy Vice-Chancellor Jenny Dixon says, “This modernisation of work rights supports our efforts to recruit high quality, high achieving students who enhance our learning community at the University of Auckland.” John Diggins, head deputy chief executive of the private training establishment Te Rito Maioha, said, “We very much support what the Minister has said today.”
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Is it still the Government’s intention to make further changes to post-study work rights to meet their stated objective of a 12 to 20 percent reduction in those student visas, or is this it?
Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: That is not a stated objective of the Government. We took some policy proposals out to the sector. We listened to them. We are a Government that works with the sectors that we regulate.
Building and Construction Industry—Liability and Risk
10. ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua) to the Minister for Building and Construction: What are the key elements to be addressed in the “risk and liability reallocation” work in relation to the construction industry she announced yesterday during question time?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Housing and Urban Development) on behalf of the Minister for Building and Construction: Two key elements are investigating how we can ensure that consumers are protected through mechanisms such as insurance-backed warranties, and whether we should limit or alter the liability of certain parties under the Building Act. We know that unbalanced risk affects how people procure, design, and construct buildings, and it makes building consent authorities risk-averse and slow to authorise innovative and more efficient construction techniques and products.
Andrew Bayly: When is it appropriate for design risks to be novated from Government agencies to their contracting counterparties?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: That’s a question that I think is best dealt with in the detail, and I’m not going to express a view about that here and now. We’re committed as a Government to reviewing risk and liability, not only in the residential sector but across the broader industry. There’s work under way by the ministry on that now, and the Minister expects to be able to take proposals to Cabinet on this towards the end of the year.
Andrew Bayly: How should civil construction risks be apportioned between the Government agencies and their contracting counterparties?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, the question of civil construction risk is not contained in the primary question, which was about risk and liability reallocation work that the Minister announced in yesterday’s question time.
Andrew Bayly: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question relates to construction and relates to risks.
SPEAKER: Yes, but the specific primary question relates to an announcement yesterday during question time. I think the Minister acting for the Minister who made the announcement has made that reference, and, therefore, while the member might not be satisfied with the answer, it’s certainly been addressed.
Andrew Bayly: What other risks is she proposing to reallocate to Government agencies from contracting counterparties under the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment’s Government procurement guidelines?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: So in relation to the matter raised in the primary question, there are no other risks being allocated in the way the member refers within the risk and liability reallocation work that I referred to in yesterday’s question time.
Andrew Bayly: What new initiatives has she announced to protect subcontractors against the risk when construction companies fail?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The question of risk allocation between head contractors and subcontractors is not dealt with within the risk and liability reallocation work that I referred to in yesterday’s question time.
Youth Unemployment—Mana in Mahi
11. RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga) to the Minister of Employment: What recent announcements has the Government made to support employers and young people?
Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister of Employment): Mr Speaker, kia ora. I’m really pleased to inform the House that this morning, the Prime Minister, Minister Sepuloni, and I jointly announced Mana in Mahi - Strength in Work, which is a programme that will support young people to transition from benefit into employment while, at the same time, working towards level 4 or industry-required qualifications, and working with our small to medium sized enterprise partners to address our skills shortage across a range of key industries that are vital to the New Zealand economy.
Rino Tirikatene: What are the key components of Mana in Mahi - Strength in Work?
Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Mana in Mahi is for people who are receiving a benefit, particularly those aged 18 to 24. Young people who take part will be paid, and they’ll work towards recognised training qualifications—real qualifications that employers are looking for. This initiative will also include different industry qualifications, alongside those that can be obtained as New Zealand Apprenticeships. We’re very pleased to support this strategy from our Prime Minister, which has been one of compassion from the start of her tenure here in Government.
Rino Tirikatene: How will Mana in Mahi support employers?
Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Employers will get a wage subsidy to help with the cost of hiring a young person getting a benefit and supporting them to get these qualifications. This will cover the real costs that businesses face in taking on a young person and getting them trained up, and it will encourage employers to give young people on a benefit a chance. At the same time, this is another pathway to addressing the skills shortage that many of our industries are facing.
Broadcasting, Communications and Digital Media—Public Media
12. MELISSA LEE (National) to the Minister of Broadcasting, Communications and Digital Media: Does she stand by all her statements and actions in the broadcasting, communications, and digital media portfolio?
Hon CLARE CURRAN (Minister of Broadcasting, Communications and Digital Media): Yes, in the context that they were made and taken.
Melissa Lee: How will she allay the fears of independent and commercial media providers that say “there is a genuine risk that the Government, through its owned media channels, may become the only broadcaster in New Zealand”?
Hon CLARE CURRAN: The Government is clearly focused on investing in funding for public media, which in this country is woefully low and has undergone frozen funding for around a decade. Compared with other comparable countries, our investment in public interest media and in our culture has been woeful in the last decade. We are aware of the pressures, generally, on the media sector. I do not believe there is any direct correlation between investment in public media and the impact on commercial television.
Melissa Lee: Does she agree with statements by Stuff Ltd that an expanded RNZ+ service “will not achieve the desired end of delivering sustainable, quality, trusted journalism in NZ.”; and, if not, what evidence does she have that the expanded services will deliver sustainable, quality, trusted journalism in New Zealand?
Hon CLARE CURRAN: No, and investment in non-commercial public interest media in this country—as I’ve said in my previous answer—and having a strong commercial media sector are two things that can coexist at the same time.
Melissa Lee: Why is she continuing to pursue her existing plans for public media in New Zealand, when her own advisory group has been told by stakeholders that “RNZ does not have the history, skills, experience, or infrastructure necessary to fill [the] gap in local coverage.”?
Hon CLARE CURRAN: The advisory group which I appointed has undergone a first round of consultation, largely with the commercial media sector, and of course they would say that. The advisory group is currently undergoing another round of consultation, now that it’s got more time, with a wider range of stakeholders, and I look forward to their advice.
Melissa Lee: Does she believe RNZ would be able to meet the needs to fill the gap in local coverage if she had actually followed through on her $38-million-a-year plan for public broadcasting, prior to Budget 2018?
Hon CLARE CURRAN: As I have said numerous times inside and outside this House, the investment in this Budget in this financial year in public interest media is the biggest in a decade and it is a down payment on an ongoing investment in our national identity and our culture, in our ability to tell our stories no matter where we are in New Zealand, across Māori and Pacific, and an investment in public interest journalism and an investment in our regions. These things are critical, and I would hope that all of us in the House actually adhered to that and actually believed that.
Melissa Lee: Supplementary?
SPEAKER: No. The member has used her supplementary questions.
Urgent Debates Declined
Deputy Commissioner of Police—Allegations
SPEAKER: I have received a letter from Chris Bishop seeking to have a debate on a matter of urgent public importance in relation to allegations printed today with regard to the Deputy Commissioner of Police. I apologise to the House for not having quite the considered ruling that I would normally have but this reached me in the House after the House commenced.
I am not going to accept it and I’m going to rely heavily on the wise ruling of Mr Speaker Carter in 2016, when he said allegations can never constitute a particular case of recent occurrence. I also want to make it clear that if what the member has indicated are allegations were in fact established facts, I would still not accept it, because there is an inquiry that is looking into it and it would be, in my opinion, inappropriate of the House to pre-judge that inquiry.
Bills
Ngāti Rangi Claims Settlement Bill
First Reading
Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I move, That the Ngāti Rangi Claims Settlement Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Māori Affairs Committee to consider this bill.
I’d first like to extend a very special welcome to the people of Ngāti Rangi who are here with us in Parliament today to hear the first reading of their bill. I also have with me the taonga which was gifted to me at the deed of settlement signing earlier this year. It is here to keep me company, as well. Ngāti Rangi iwi, rau rangatira mā ko aku mihi atu ki a koutou, nau mai, haere mai.
[To the people of Ngāti Rangi, esteemed leaders, I acknowledge you all; welcome, welcome.]
I particularly want to acknowledge the kaumātua who honour us today with their presence. For decades, they have worked tirelessly to ensure Ngāti Rangi’s voice has been heard by the Crown, and I regret that many kaumātua have passed on before they could bear witness to this bill’s first reading. To Ngāti Rangi, since your first Wai claim was lodged in 1990, you have been resolute in achieving this milestone. Twenty-eight years later, the Ngāti Rangi Claims Settlement Bill has begun its passage through the House. I must therefore acknowledge the work of the Ngāti Rangi Trust. The trust has held the Crown to account for the prejudice it has caused Ngāti Rangi since the Treaty was signed in Whanganui in May 1840.
The Treaty was meant to signify a partnership between Ngāti Rangi and the Crown. However, this aspiration was not realised, as the Crown repeatedly breached its obligations under the Treaty. The Ngāti Rangi negotiation team never lost sight of the future it envisions for its people—a future where each member of the iwi knows and appreciates their history, where their language flourishes, and where iwi members thrive economically and socially within their rohe. I heard the Ngāti Rangi lead negotiator, Che Wilson, clearly describe this vision earlier this year when we signed the Ngāti Rangi deed of settlement in the shadow of the maunga, Ruapehu, and I’m certain this settlement lays a foundation for this future.
Through long days and many long nights, Che Wilson has led the negotiations for Ngāti Rangi. He’s been supported by a united and well-organised negotiating team including Shar Amner, Kemp Dryden, Cassandra Reid, Toni Waho, and Carl Wilson. I acknowledge the work of the Crown team, led by chief Crown negotiator Dr John Wood, with support from the Office of Treaty Settlements, the New Zealand Defence Force, the Department of Conservation, Land Information New Zealand, the Ministry of Education, the Minister for Social Development, Oranga Tamariki—Ministry for Children, Te Puni Kōkiri, and the Ministry for the Environment. Lastly, I’d like to acknowledge the work of my predecessor, the Hon Christopher Finlayson. For three years, he encouraged and facilitated settlement negotiations with Ngāti Rangi, and I commend him for his dedication in starting negotiations with Whanganui and the Ruapehu regions.
Before I outline the features of this bill, it’s important to acknowledge the long history between Ngāti Rangi and the Crown, which makes this settlement and the Crown’s apology necessary. When the Treaty was signed in 1840, Ngāti Rangi envisioned a partnership with the Crown. For 178 years, Ngāti Rangi have remained committed to this partnership, while the Crown has often failed to reciprocate. Many members of Ngāti Rangi fought for the Crown in wars both here and abroad. They made large tracts of land available for European settlers to live on and to farm—land that has become vitally important for all New Zealanders. In the 19th century, the Crown sought to construct the North Island main trunk railway on a route which would cut the rohe of Ngāti Rangi in half. Although Ngāti Rangi willingly provided land for this purpose, when the Crown needed more land, it simply took it and paid no compensation. At the start of the 20th century, the Crown took more land on the slopes of Ruapehu for the Tongariro National Park, again without compensation, and this time without consultation.
For most of a century, the Crown also failed to provide Ngāti Rangi with any role in the subsequent management of the land, despite knowing the strong customary association between Ngāti Rangi and Matua te Mana, Ruapehu. Later, during the middle of the 20th century, the Crown acquired the plains around Waiōuru, which included Te Onetapu—land of immense significance to Ngāti Rangi as the site where their revered ancestor Taiteariki died. This land is now used for live firing and munitions testing for the benefit of New Zealand’s defence.
Around the same time, the Crown redirected precious waterways within Ngāti Rangi, within the rohe, into the massive central North Island hydro-electric power generation scheme—again, without consulting Ngāti Rangi. The Crown’s use of these waterways to generate electricity has disrupted the natural flow of 26 tributaries to the Whangaehu River. It has undermined traditional fisheries and fishing practices, and local authorities have considered the Whangaehu River to be biologically dead.
Despite the commitment Ngāti Rangi made to their partnership with the Crown—and for the benefit of the nation—the lack of social and economic development in their rohe has encouraged the widespread dispersal of Ngāti Rangi peoples from their homeland. That Ngāti Rangi have committed themselves to the revival not only of their iwi but also of the wider community despite the Crown’s acts and omissions is testament to the iwi’s strength and courage. The Ngāti Rangi Claims Settlement Bill is but the latest part of the iwi’s broader strategy to fulfil its aspirations for the future. What is good for the community is good for Ngāti Rangi, and vice versa.
Negotiations were impressively swift and decisive. Ngāti Rangi began negotiations with the Crown in 2015, signed an agreement in principle in March 2017, and signed Te Rukutia Te Mana, the Ngāti Rangi deed of settlement, one year later.
The Ngāti Rangi Claims Settlement Bill includes redress designed to aid Ngāti Rangi on their journey to vibrantly exist in 1,000 years. I need to impress upon this House that Ngāti Rangi have consistently emphasised to the Crown their traditional and contemporary role as kaitiaki for the natural world within their rohe. The environmental and natural resources redress included in this bill is, therefore, essential to enable Ngāti Rangi to fulfil their kaitiaki responsibilities, particularly the Te Waiū-o-Te-Ika framework, which establishes a joint river entity comprised of all iwi connected to the Whangaehu River, who will work for the benefit of the awa. Furthermore, the bill also provides for the establishment of Te Pae Ao—a joint committee for the Ngāti Rangi and the Crown to manage 10 reserve sites within the Ngāti Rangi rohe. Six cultural sites will be vested in Ngāti Rangi, including the beds of the sacred Rotokura lakes, and defence lands will be vested in the iwi and then gifted back to the Crown as a contemporary gesture of Ngāti Rangi’s generosity towards the people of Aotearoa New Zealand.
A unique feature of this bill is the volume and depth of its relationship instruments, with 14 Crown agencies and six local authorities. These relationship instruments represent the Crown’s formal commitment to Ngāti Rangi to act as a Treaty partner and friend. The bill also provides financial and commercial redress for Ngāti Rangi, including a $17 million contribution to the future development of the iwi. Ngāti Rangi will also receive commercial redress properties, including the ability to purchase the Karioi Crown-licensed forest.
Although no settlement could ever compensate Ngāti Rangi for the prejudice they have suffered by the Crown’s acts and omissions, this bill heralds our entry into a renewed relationship, and a significant contribution to the fulfilment of the aspirations of Ngāti Rangi that they hold so clearly for their future. I consider the bill should proceed without delay to the Māori Affairs Committee, and I commend this bill to the House. No reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātau huri noa.
NUK KORAKO (National): Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā. Tēnā rā koutou ngā kōwaitaka o tō tātou mātua tīpuna. Tēnei te mihi o Ngāti Rangi. Nau mai, haere mai, e whakatau mai Te Whare Pāremata e mihi nei, e tangi nei koutou ngā kaupapa whakahirahira koutou tūmanako nei koutou hāpai nei; ka mihi, ka mihi, e mihi atu ki a koutou katoa.
[Greetings to you collectively, descendants of our ancestral forefathers. I acknowledge you, Ngāti Rangi. Welcome, pay homage indeed to this House of Parliament here, acknowledging you as you grieve over matters of significance to you in regards to your aspirations that you take aboard; and so I acknowledge, commend, and salute you all.]
I was reminded, actually, just before question time, of when I attended the pō’hiri for Ngāti Rangi here in Parliament, that, as a son of Ngāi Tahu, Kāti Māmoe Waitaha, we do have a very, very succinct and direct relationship when we talk about the pounamu, because it was Poutini, actually, that went north to this beautiful area and, in some ways, coerced—I won’t say “taken”, but took Waitaiki and went south again to the Arahura River. So I acknowledge my part of that whanauka and that story of Ngāti Rangi.
It is, then, with real pride that I stand to speak to this first reading—this reading of “Te Pire o Te Rukutia Te Mana”—the first reading of the Ngāti Rangi Claims Settlement Bill. And, in doing so, I want to look back on a small part of the long history of Ngāti Rangi, particularly within its own rohe and upon its own whenua, used in the development of this bill. And that small part relates to the events that occurred in the 1860s, with the Upper Whanganui River Iwi, and the decision of some Ngāti Rangi to support the Crown when fighting broke out, thus earning that name kūpapa.
The word “kūpapa” has come to represent a meaning that is not supported in history—it is not supported in history. The real meaning of the word is in some ways neutral, and that’s what Ngāti Rangi were—“kūpapa” in the real meaning. Now, to put a bit of context there, such were the times that Māori could not remain neutral for long. Sides had to be drawn, and Ngāti Rangi found itself having to determine where it stood and what that stand would take. So what we have here with Ngāti Rangi is that it was about siding with the Crown for the mere fact of survival.
Many Ngāti Rangi chose to stand with the Crown during the fighting that broke out in the region, but such is the complexity of whakapapa, whanaungatanga, that others would stand with whānau against the Crown forces. Cousin fought cousin, father fought son, and the sorrow of Ngāti Rangi involvement in these battles is best summed up by the words of a late aunt, and that was the Ngāti Kura kuia Rūmātiki Wright, who raised at Hiruhārama, or Jerusalem, in Whanganui, on the Whanganui River, by saying, “Resistance and collaboration are both valid forms of survival, if we are there at the time then we can debate that, but when we are not there, it’s too easy for us to look back on history and pass judgement.”
Well, judgment was passed on Ngāti Rangi, and, indeed, it was a very, very unfair judgment. For standing with the Crown, many Ngāti Rangi were labelled as the Crown’s opponents merely for living in the same rohe as their whānauka who fought against the Crown. In attempting to exercise their tino rakatirataka by entering private lease arrangements with Europeans without the Crown’s involvement, the Crown prevented this and instead inserted themselves as lessees to these commercial dealings. Even before the leases ended, the Crown vigorously purchased over half the land Ngāti Rangi wished only to lease.
The fragmentation of Māori lands through the individualisation of title accelerated the huge land loss that we now see in the historical account. How many times have we actually sat here in this House and heard repeated stories on how land was taken from iwi Māori? But today is the important day. It is the ultimate here that on this day of the first reading to acknowledge what happened to Ngāti Rangi, we are here to ensure that the sins of the past are finally, in some ways, laid to rest. So let’s just have a look at what I’m talking about in the historical context.
In 1907, the Crown set the boundaries of the Tongariro National Park without consulting Ngāti Rangi. Wāihi tapu sites of immense significance to Ngāti Rangi were located on that block. Ngāti Rangi were excluded from the administration of the park until the 1980s. Efforts by Ngāti Rangi to try and retain their land were all but in vain. So from landholdings of 62,000 acres in the 1900s, today it has only 13,500 acres left, and that is the travesty here, again, that Ngāti Rangi actually have gone through. Much of that is because of the Public Works Act. Most of it was through the Public Works Act, an all too familiar mechanism—isn’t it—on Māori land that was taken in the name of progress, and that progress, as we see with Ngāti Rangi, had a huge influence on what happened to this iwi.
So the result of this loss was a desecration of an economic base, the abilities to sustain themselves, and the consequent loss to wairua. That, in turn, manifested itself, as we’ve seen so many times, through poor educational outcomes and social disruption, and one of the worst things is the dispersion of population away from their ancestral lands. So this settlement is, indeed, a chance for Ngāti Rangi to claw back what has been lost.
The settlement, in some ways, is a good start when we look at the quantum of $17 million in commercial redress. At least that will be the start of that economical journey through to ensure that the iwi continues to have what we may know as tino rakatirataka. The cultural redress is comprehensive as well, and others will actually go through that, but I think the important thing is that resurrection, in some ways, or the beginning of the relationship with the Department of Conservation and that partnership, particularly on lands that are actually controlled or owned by the Department of Conservation or the Crown.
Perhaps, most importantly, is the Crown apology. I think it’s one of the most important. When we look at Ngāi Tahu, in some ways it wasn’t the money that was important; it was about the apology—it was about the apology. Indeed, in this deed, it is no exception. Now, there is still a process to go through. This is the first reading. Then it will come down to the Māori Affairs Committee. Then there will be the hearing of submissions. Then there will be a second reading. Then there will be a committee stage. But, at the end of the day, we will see those beautiful faces there in the gallery that will be there for the third reading, and then the final part of the settlement. So we all look forward to that day when that can happen.
I acknowledge the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee, Rino Tirikatene, and the way that he actually guides our committee through these particular important Treaty settlements and that process. So on that note, I, indeed, commend this bill—this incredible bill, “Te Pire o te Rukutia Te Mana”—to the House. Kia ora koutou katoa.
ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): Korōria, hareruia ki a Ihowa o ngā mano tūāuriuri, whāioio; kī tonu te rangi me te whenua i te nui o tōna korōria, tīhei mauriora. Kei te mihi atu anō i te āhuatanga ki ō tātou tini mate, rātou katoa hinga mai nā puta noa i ngā moutere nei; nō reira e ngā mate maha o te wā, hoki wairua atu ki a rātou mā. Āpiti hono, tātai hono, te hunga wairua ki te hunga wairua; āpiti hono, tātai hono te hunga ora ki te hunga ora, nō reira tēnā tātou katoa.
Tēnā tātou katoa o Te Whare nei. Tēnā tātou ngā whānau me ngā hapū o Ngāti Rangi. Tēnei au tō koutou whanaunga e tuku mihi atu ki a koutou, nau mai haramai. Haramai ki Te Whare Pāremata mō te pānuitanga tuatahi o te pire hei whakatau i ngā kerēme o Ngāti Rangi. Nō reira Ngāti Rangi tēnā koutou—tēnā koutou i runga i ngā kōrero mai rā anō, otirā i runga i ngā kōrero i roto i te pire hei whakatau i ngā kerēme.
Anei ētahi o ngā kōrero i roto i te pire. “Ko te Whare Toka o Paerangi, koia ko Ruapehu maunga e tū nei i te puku o te Ika-a-Māui hei poutokomanawa mō te Ika. Ko ngā āhuatanga o te poutokomanawa e hāngai pū ana ki tōna tūranga i waenga i te Kāhui Maunga, tērā ko Matua te Mana. … Ko tēnei mana i ahu mai i te kōpū tonu o Papatūānuku, ka kumea ake e Pikimai Rawea, e Ranginui e tū iho nei, hei whenua, a nā wai rā, hei maunga kōrero, hei pātaka iringa mana mō te Ika-a-Māui tatū mai ki a tātau te kaupapa tangata.
“… Ko Ngāti Rangi ngā uri a Paerangi atua, a Paerangi tipua, a Paerangi tupuna e hono kau ana ki te mana tuku iho o ngā Atua o te pō heke iho ki a Matua te Mana. He hono tāngaengae i whakatōkia ki roto i te ira tangata taka iho ki a mātau ngā uri whakatupu o Ngāti Rangi, mai i te wā i tapaina tō mātau maunga e Māui Tikitiki-a-Taranga e mea ana: ‘Nāku te ika i hī, nāku anō i whakatau.’
“… Nō Matua te Mana te mana motuhake o Ngāti Rangi, te iwi o Paerangi, heke iho ki a mātau e hāpai ana, e pupuru ana i te mana atua, i te mana whenua, i te mana tupuna urunga tomo ki hēnei rangi ki te mana kei te kaupapa tangata. Ko tōna mana, e hono kau ana ki ngā maunga whakahī me ngā wai tuku kiri o te Ika nui. Nō reira, me pēnei anō, ko te mana motuhake o hāna uri o Ngāti Rangi e tū nei hei tohu, hei whakaatu ki te ao.”
[Glory and hallelujah to Jehovah of the myriad hosts; heaven and earth are filled with his glory, rejoice, there is life. I acknowledge our dear departed, those who have recently died throughout these islands; therefore, to all the many recently deceased, may your spirits return to those who have gone before. Let the connections be drawn and the departed spirits rest in peace together; let the connections be drawn and the living find the living, I give greetings to one and all.
I greet all of us here in this House. I greet the families and subtribes of Ngāti Rangi. Here I am, your relation, extending warm greetings to you all; welcome, welcome. Welcome to Parliament for the first reading of the bill which will settle Ngāti Rangi claims. Therefore, Ngāti Rangi, greetings—greetings while we remember relevant stories from long ago, stories which are now recorded in the bill seeking to settle the claims.
Here are some of those things which have been included in the bill. “Mount Ruapehu, the House of Stone of Paerangi, stands in the middle of the North Island as the centre pillar of the Great Fish of Māui. The centre pillar metaphor complements his role as the central figure of the Mountain Clan, the Absolute of Authority. … His mana has its origins in the depths of Papatūānuku, drawn by Maui’s Fishing Hook, Pikimai Rawea, it was drawn forth by Sky Father and turned the fish to land and into a mountain and this mana was then bestowed upon us as a people.
“… Ngāti Rangi are the descendants of Paerangi the God of the Milky Way, of the demi-god and ancestor and connect directly to the mana of the pantheon of Gods and of the mountain, Ruapehu. This metaphysical connection comes from the beginning of time and flows in the veins of the descendants of Ngāti Rangi since the time that Māui Tikitiki-a-Taranga named and recorded its name in the following proverb: ‘It was I who fished up and calmed the Great Fish.’
The mana motuhake of Ngāti Rangi, the descendants of Paerangi, emanates from Ruapehu (Matua te Mana) and this responsibility has been carried from our origins as a people through to the present. Our mana motuhake connects to our mountains, land and waterways. This responsibility that continues to be exercised stands as a testament to Ngāti Rangi as a tribal nation.”]
Thank you for allowing me to read these words directly from the deed of settlement before the House. They are, I believe, very important to Ngāti Rangi. As an uri, as a descendant, of Ngāti Rangi, it’s an honour and pleasure for me to take a call in this first reading debate of settlement claim. Can I acknowledge the many that have gathered here to hear the first reading—the many that are watching on television and listening to this debate. Can I, in particular, acknowledge, as the Minister did also, the negotiators for Ngāti Rangi: Che Wilson, Shar Amner, Kemp Dryden, Cass Reid, Toni Waho, and Carl Wilson.
As someone who has been a negotiator myself, I quite understand the challenges that present themselves for negotiating. Can I say through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that it is a difficult job, but what I can see within this bill is that the kaupapa tuku iho, those things that are passed down to the negotiators for Ngāti Rangi have permeated themselves through the framework of this legislation. I think that’s a very important thing, because the framework for Treaty settlement negotiations is such that they are not always friendly to the settlement iwi. It’s a Crown construct that those iwi need to work within, and so to be able to achieve where the settled iwi is able to include the way that they think and see the world within that framework is to be commended, and I do so today.
I also want to look to the future, as my cousin Che Wilson did on the marae when the deed of settlement was signed. He spoke about what the future of Ngāti Rangi might look like. He spoke about the encapsulated hopes and aspiration for the future by talking about some young people that might exist in a few decades to come and what the world might be like for them. I think that this process—it needs to be acknowledged that this is about the future. This is not compensation; it is redress. And why would we accept redress in what is not a perfect framework for settling claims? We would do it for the future opportunities that it would present for future generations.
And the Crown has its part to play. My colleague Nuk Korako talked about the apology, and I join with him and acknowledge what he said. It’s important to also acknowledge that an apology needs to mean something for the past, for now, and into the future. And focusing on the future, what it needs to mean for the future is that the Crown never ever again puts Ngāti Rangi in the position that it has done so far. That’s a very high bar. That’s a very serious matter for the future, because unless we uphold the apology that is in this bill, then—I won’t say it’s meaningless, but it would mean that that apology has been trampled on, and we don’t want that for the future. So all future legislation that comes through this House needs to ensure that it’s mindful of the agreement with Ngāti Rangi, that we do not pass laws in this House that impact negatively on Ngāti Rangi ever again, and that the Crown never ever takes such actions against Ngāti Rangi.
So my final point that I want to make is just to encourage every single whānau of Ngāti Rangi, every hapū, to make a submission to the Māori Affairs Committee on this piece of legislation. Whether one is for the bill or against it—I would imagine most will be very much for this legislation—it’s really important that the Māori Affairs Committee hears that kōrero. And one more thing: I do want to acknowledge other uri, other descendants, of Ngāti Rangi in the House, Jo Hayes and Harete Hipango. I’m sure we join together to acknowledge Ngāti Rangi today. Nō reira, tēnei ahau e tuku mihi atu ki a tātou i tēnei rā whakahirahira; tēnā tātou katoa.
[Therefore, I acknowledge one and all on this important day; greetings.]
JO HAYES (National): Tēnā koe, Madam Deputy Speaker. E koro mā, e kui mā, rau rangatira mā, tēnā koutou. Ngā whānau whānui o Ngāti Rangi, ka nui te mihi atu ki a koutou; nau mai, haere mai ki te Whare i te rā whakahirahira.
[Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Esteemed elders, distinguished leaders: greetings to you all. I extend warm greetings to all the kinsmen of Ngāti Rangi; welcome, welcome to the House on this important day.]
I stand here each time with the Treaty settlement bills, always very humbled at having the opportunity to speak at the first right through to the third readings of these bills. This one, like a couple of others that I’ve spoken on, is also very dear to my heart: the Ngati Porou bills, the Whanganui Iwi river claim bills, and the Ngāti Rangi bills, and no doubt there will be a few more that will come through this House that I whakapapa to. My mother is of the Ngāti Rangi iwi. Her whānau, whānau tīpuna, are the whānau Te Whareponga, Karaitiana, and Herewini of the Whanganui River. I know that even though she lives in Masterton, her heart is always divided between the Masterton whānau and the Whanganui whānau, and I always say to her, “We are one, mum. We are one.”
So I pay acknowledgment to all of those who have come here today from Ngāti Rangi, from Ōhākune and surrounds, to come and listen to the first reading of your bill, and to hear some of the things that we are going to recite back to you—the work that you have done. This being the first reading, we still have to come and hear what the whānau have to say through the submission process, which I always look forward to because it’s usually at that time that we get closest to whānau that have actually gone through this process.
I want to acknowledge Che Wilson, sitting up in the gallery. Che and I—I am whanaunga to all of them in the gallery, but with Che, we go back a long way in some of the mahi that I did in Wanganui, and some future work yet to come. I want to also acknowledge his team of negotiators as well, a couple of them that I’ve had work relationships with, Kemp Dryden and also with Toni Waho, so I also want to acknowledge you and the other negotiators as well.
I want to pay tribute to tūpuna that have passed and I want to pay tribute to mokopuna yet to come, because this is what this is all about at the end of the day. What happens here today reflects and will be the investment of the future for Ngāti Rangi. We see it in the six pou of their negotiation framework that they used to be able to make sure that everything stays within their realms so they took control of their negotiation process. That is, the Ngā Poupou o te Wharetoka: the pillar of the House of Stone of Paerangi—Paerangi being the tupuna of Ngāti Rangi; Paerangi being the god of the Milky Way; Paerangi who begat Ngāti Rangi. Kia ora.
So I want to talk about those six poupou because, in the contributions so far—from my colleague Nuk Korako to my whanaunga Adrian Rurawhe, they have touched on the aspects of the six poupou, the first one being “Hohourongo”, whereby the iwi seeks durable settlement of their historical grievances. We have heard that discussion in the House today, through the Minister, through my whanaunga Adrian, and through Nuk Korako, about the apology and the meaning of the apology. That apology actually sits as a base for a durable settlement process.
We look at the second pou of the six poupou, “Te Matapihi”. That is the Crown relationship—again, that apology, the meaning of that apology, and the ability for iwi and Crown to keep and go back and revisit their relationship into the future. I think it is the revisiting of that relationship that brings the relationship closer, and it also puts in the checks and balances should anything go a bit astray.
“Ngāti Rangitanga”: this is where Ngāti Rangi talks about being strong and resilient into the future for Ngāti Rangi. This is the mokopuna. This is being strong and resilient for the mokopuna.
“Hauoratanga” is very straightforward. That is the well-being of Ngāti Rangi. Not just the health and the education but the whole being, the wairuatanga—the whole being. This is what this process is about, and this is what the negotiation pous are about: to make sure we keep those all in check for Ngāti Rangi.
“Te Ao Tūroa”: the environment and the relationship of the people to the environment. It is very close—it always has been for Māori. We move in and out of the environment so seamlessly. This is what this particular pou stands for.
The last pou, “Muramura Te Ahi”: the importance of their way of negotiating the deed that came through. These were the pou that Ngāti Rangi has used for the negotiation process, and I think they’re very sound pou. They’re robust pou. They are pou that go into the future—that are futuristic for Ngāti Rangi. I think that the Crown has also been able to come to respect those pou.
I want to talk about the process of actually coming here today, and the work of the Hon Andrew Little, Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations—the Minister that picked up the very well-honed Treaty settlement baton of the Hon Chris Finlayson, who started this process with Ngāti Rangi back on 15 February 2015 when they sat down and nutted out those terms of agreement that actually started this process to the House.
I move forward to March 2017, when the agreement in principle was signed between the Crown and Ngāti Rangi, and that was another step forward to this place today. Then, of course, in March 2018 when the Hon Andrew Little made his way up into the whenua of Ngāti Rangi to sign the deed of settlement, to today, where we stand to celebrate the first reading of this bill.
I want to talk a little bit about the whakataukī of Ngāti Rangi, because Ngāti Rangi are so intrinsically involved with the central plateau. Ruapehu, being the god of Ngāti Rangi, has such a prominent place, not just in the history of Aotearoa New Zealand but in Ngāti Rangi’s history, and, as I said, is the god of Paerangi, the god of the Milky Way, Madam Chair—Madam Deputy Speaker. I keep calling you Madam Chair, mainly because we’ve just come out of committee.
I want to pay homage to the cultural redress that Ngāti Rangi has negotiated for themselves. This is around the framework of Te Waiū-o-Te-Ika—the Whangaehu River that starts up in the maunga and makes its way and weaves its way all the way down through Ngāti Apa whenua and out to sea—and the statutory recognition and values of Te Waiū-o-Te-Ika, Te Mana Tupua o Te Waiū-o-Te-Ika and Ngā Toka Tupua o Te Waiū-o-Te-Ika.
I want to talk about those four intrinsic values—and I know that the clock is chiming down and my time is running out, but I want to make sure that those particular four intrinsic values of Ngā Toka Tupua o Te Waiū-o-Te-Ika are heard in this House. They are: “Ko te Kāhui Maunga te mātāpuna o te ora: The sacred mountain clan, the source of Te Waiū-o-Te-Ika … He wai-ariki-rangi, he wai-ariki-nuku, tuku iho, tuku iho … Ko ngā wai tiehu ki ngā wai riki, tuku iho ki tai hei waiū, hei wai tōtā e … Kia hua mai ngā kōrero o ngā wai, kia hua mai te wai ora e.”
As 32 seconds count down, I wanted to make sure that I had those out. They were pretty quick coming out, but I wanted to have them said in this House so they go down in the history of the Hansards of Parliament so that when the mokopuna come here to this Parliament and do research on the history of this, they will see those four intrinsic pou set out in this House today.
I am absolutely proud and privileged to commend this bill to the House, and I look forward to the future. Kia ora.
Hon RON MARK (Minister of Defence): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. E Te Māngai o Te Whare, tēnā koe. Ki ngā uri o Ngāti Rangi, tēnā koutou katoa. He nui aku mihi mahana, ngā mihi maioha, me ngā mihi aroha hoki ki a koutou. Nau mai ki tēnei Whare, Te Whare Pāremata, tō tātou Whare. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.
[To you, the descendants of Ngāti Rangi, I greet you all. I greet you with great warmth, with affection, and with love. Welcome to this House, Parliament House, our House. Greetings, greetings to one and all.]
Ngāti Rangi, as one of Ngāti Kahungunu, I welcome you, and also as one of Ngati Porou, Whakatōhea, Ngāti Raukawa, Te Arawa, Tūwharetoa, Ngāti Awa, Rangitāne, and Ngāi Tahu, I also welcome you to this place for this very important day.
I acknowledge, with a degree of personal humility, your maunga, Ruapehu, who I have walked around, run over, and lived on, beneath, and under many times over the years of my military service, and your awa, the Whangaehu, a river that I have plodded in and out of, been drenched by, frozen by many, many times as I exercised both as a young soldier and then, in years after that, as an officer training young soldiers in your rohe, in your taonga tuku iho. I thank you very much, and I acknowledge you.
Speaking to Te Rukutia Te Mana, it reminds me of my own journey as a lead negotiator for the Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki Nui-a-Rua’s Treaty settlement. Looking at some of the issues and the special factors that are contained within your deed, the matters that have now been resolved between Ngāti Rangi and the Crown, I can’t help but see the similarities between your claim and Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki Nui-a-Rua. The quashing of leasehold agreements legally entered into between the people of Ngāti Rangi and settling Pākehā is something that was also done in the Wairarapa. For those of us who know, it is actually, when you look back, something that one takes a little pride in, knowing that your ancestors, your tipuna, had the foresight and the vision to see the advantage in not selling land, as some people these days seem to think is the right thing to do—selling land to anyone, any foreigner that steps foot on this shore. It is comforting to know that our ancestors saw that as a stupid thing and did not want to partake.
They saw greater value in leasing the land on a long-term basis to encourage investment, to encourage growth and development but still retain ownership of your own taonga, your treasure that your children, for generations to come, might continue to profit and gain from such a wise, strategic economic decision. Like I said, it was the same thing in the Wairarapa. I would say, even, that our iwi had vision, our ancestors had vision, and they could see the economic gain in that.
What is difficult to comprehend in this day and age is that a Governor and a Government would seek to quash those arrangements and supplant themselves as the only body capable of buying, selling, and transacting real estate contracts, so denying Ngāti Rangi the opportunity to develop its own economic base. Lease-holding agreements that were collaborative and legal arrangements between those two parties would have delivered economic gain and advantages intergenerationally for eternity. The destruction of those arrangements, along with confiscation via use of the Public Works Act and even just straight-out confiscation without recompense, all served to undermine and destroy the social and economic fabric of the iwi, the fragmentation and destruction of its people, and even driving many, many members of the iwi into poverty and destitution. It is a story that has been repeated up and down this land, and it is an absolute pleasure to be able to stand here today and deliver New Zealand First’s contribution in support of the first reading of your settlement, let me assure you of that.
It is also ironic that a people who served alongside the Crown, loyally, at great cost to themselves, should have ended up in the position that they did. But, again, that sadly is the way it worked out for many iwi who did the very same thing. The notion that having allied oneself and fulfilled one’s obligation under a treaty to support the sovereign, to support the Crown, the notion that one would then find oneself disadvantaged by that very same body and having to fight to retain one’s own land and re-establish one’s own economic base, one’s own very existence, is something that is hard to understand today, but it happened. Again, I share an understanding of that from my great ancestor and namesake, Rongowhitiao Te Puni Maaka, also known as Arekatera, who fought as one of the Te Arawa—in fact, led Te Arawa and Ngāti Raukawa—only to find himself fighting in the courts to retain what was left of their land in Horohoro. So we understand. I just want you to know that I, personally, understand the journey that you have travelled as a people.
Today, I do have the privilege of standing here as the Minister of Defence, and I wish to acknowledge Ngāti Rangi for its generosity, its grace, and for the hospitality that you showed me on 10 March this year, when I attended your signing not only of the deed, Te Rukutia Te Mana, but also the relationship agreement between Ngāti Rangi and the New Zealand Army through the chief of army. The grace that you have shown and the recognition that you have for the importance and the value of that real estate, even though it was taken, to the security and the defence of this nation needs to be recognised by all of New Zealand.
The fact that in your cultural settlement, you are accepting ownership of—I’m just going to pop straight out of my head right now—Irirangi, and that you will then gift it back to the people of New Zealand, again, is a hallmark of your generosity, your grace, and your realisation of the importance of Irirangi and the entire Waiōuru training area to this whole nation. That is something that I as the Minister of Defence, I as a Minister in this Government, as a former defence service person, and someone who has the pleasure and the privilege of being the Minister of our entire defence force, want to thank you for. We want to thank you. We applaud you for your decision and for your deed of settlement and the journey that you have walked. We look forward to a swift passage through this House and to being able to be here to congratulate you in the third reading. Thank you very much.
IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It’s a pleasure to get up and speak to the first reading of the Ngāti Rangi Claims Settlement Bill. I want to acknowledge all the members of Ngāti Rangi who have come to Parliament today, but I particularly want to acknowledge Che Wilson, who’s always very kind to me. The first time I ever visited him under that amazing mountain, in a little office across the—I can’t remember the name of the creek, but it’s certainly across the railway line in Ōhākune. Ever since then, he’s kept me informed of what’s going on in the world, and he certainly is a great educator. I also want to just briefly acknowledge Soraya Peke-Mason, who I met first in local body politics, actually. Soraya has been a member of the Rangitīkei District Council ever since that time—quite a while now, actually.
I think this is an exciting day, and I just want to comment on a press release I saw, where the press release said, “This bill is significant for the people of Ngāti Rangi.” Well, you’d have to think that’s an understatement, wouldn’t you? It’s got to be more than significant. I think it’s a very special day. I think all these Treaty settlement processes are very special days, and before I go any further I just want to acknowledge Minister Little and the Hon Chris Finlayson, who I’ll talk about a little later, because we had some interesting discussions in the course of this settlement bill. I also want to acknowledge Jo Hayes, Nuk Korako, the Hon Ron Mark, and—who else spoke?—Adrian Rurawhe, right out of the heart of the Rangitīkei electorate. I’m sure that South Islander Rino Tirikatene will come along and try and grab a bit of this glory here, too, but I’ll forgive him for that. I think that it’s pretty special, because they can detail all the fact, and I’m going to get into a bit of the fiction.
This is without a doubt one of the most beautiful parts of New Zealand. There’s no question that these people live in one of the most beautiful parts of New Zealand, not only because it’s a beautiful part of New Zealand; it’s the home of, certainly, one national park right in the thick of Ngāti Rangi territory and another national park right on their border. Not only that, when you read the details of the settlement, there are significant reserve lands involved in this settlement, all of which are pretty amazing places. Right in the heart of that, there are huge tourism developments going on as well, and I think it’s a pretty special part of New Zealand. It’s a part of New Zealand that they should be proud to live in, and I know they are.
I’m one of those very lucky New Zealanders. My family have been in New Zealand since about 1840, and we’ve had the privilege of living in the same street since 1870, and I’ll bet there aren’t too many Ngāti Rangi who have had the privilege of living in the same place since 1870. The reason they haven’t is because of the way they’ve been treated by the Government in successive generations. When you think about it—and I should never say this, because I’m extremely proud to be a member of Parliament—I’m quite pleased that my ancestors weren’t members of Parliament in the days when what went on in early New Zealand went on, and I think that’s pretty significant. I’m pleased to say that my ancestors weren’t part of those decisions. It’s almost impossible, when you read the background to this claim, to believe the things that happened, not only to this claim but only a week or two ago we had Ngāti Tūwharetoa in here—very similar thing. Wherever you go with the Treaty process, it’s exactly the same. I think it was Adrian Rurawhe who said that this is not a settlement; this is an acknowledgment of what’s passed and it’s a way forward. And I look forward to the way forward, because I think it will be very exciting.
I just want to make mention of the way different iwi deal with these claims, and I’ve watched Ngāti Rangi in the last seven or eight years, and they certainly haven’t sat around waiting for this settlement to get dealt with. They’ve got on with the job of looking after their people as best they can, and doing what they needed to do to prepare for a time when this settlement finally goes through—and it won’t take long, because I’m sure, as one of the earlier speakers said, there won’t be a lot of dissension around the terms of this settlement process now it’s got to the point it’s got to.
It really intrigues me that—and the Hon Ron Mark made mention of it—the dissolution, I guess, of Ngāti Rangi lands went on for so long. I don’t think it finished until about 1970, and in 1970, I think, they ended up with 13,500 acres left. I’d have to say they’re pretty good farmers, though—they’re good at that—so what they had left they made the most of, and I think that’s of great credit to them.
I want to talk about a couple of other things that I think are really critical to this settlement process, and it’s something you never think about and most New Zealanders would never see, because it’s been done years ago. But when you look at the huge implication the Tongariro power scheme has had on where I live, for example—down by the coast—and that it’s had on the whole of the Rangitīkei, Whanganui, and certainly the area that Ngāti Rangi live in, it’s distorted the environment to some extent, because you can’t take water from one end of the country and stick it down a river on the other end of the country and not have a dramatic impact on the environment and the place that we live. I think that’s a significant part of this process. It will never be fixed, because it can’t be fixed, but it’s an issue, and it’s not that long ago that it happened.
I’m sure that sort of thing would not be able to—the Resource Management Act has probably taken care of that sort of thing, and it’s a very good thing it has, because it’s certainly made a big difference to the way that part of New Zealand works, and I know that on the Rangitīkei River, it’s made a big difference to the way that that works. So that’s one of the things that’s had a big impact on this settlement process, on this iwi, and on this part of New Zealand.
Another one—and it’s very significant—is the Whangaehu River. I think if you think about it, aside from the fact that it comes out of the Crater Lake on Ruapehu and, I guess, to a large extent, it’s acidic, the most critical thing about that river, of course, is it’s the home of one of New Zealand’s great disasters in the Tangiwai rail disaster. I think that when you see the little bit of progress—or I suppose it’s significant progress—that’s been made with the memorial at Tangiwai in the last year or two, at least it’s an effort to recognise the significance of that event. I’m very pleased to see the way that’s coming together, and I hope it continues.
The Hon Chris Finlayson did ask me what I thought about the proposition around the Whangaehu River, and, obviously, I’m not qualified to comment on it, but I find it very interesting. I think that putting together a group of people to—well, you won’t fix it, will you? But, certainly, to try and implement the repair to that river and the catchment around it, and also to its tributaries, is pretty significant. Of course, it runs out to sea not very far from Adrian’s home—in fact, I think it runs through his home on the odd occasion, whether he likes it or not—and that’s one of the challenges that we’ve got with these rivers. But it does run out to sea not very far from where he lives, and it’s a very destructive little river when it gets going, as well you know. It does an awful lot of damage. So I find those two things are interesting.
The other interesting thing for all of us, of course, is that the Waiōuru army base is a piece of New Zealand history and the Waiōuru training area is a piece of New Zealand history, but what most people don’t realise is that Irirangi was a navy base about 200 kilometres from the sea—a pretty extraordinary thing. So it originally was a navy telecommunications base right in the middle of the North Island, and so those are also very significant things.
I want to wish Ngāti Rangi all the best in the course of their travels. Certainly, I know that this bill will get through this House in expedient time, under the very careful chairmanship of Rino Tirikatene, the man from Ngāi Tahu—but he won’t hold that against you, I’m pretty sure.
Nuk Korako: Oh!
IAN McKELVIE: Oh sorry, Nuk—he won’t, either.
But I guess the only other thing I wanted to mention was that whilst almost everyone’s claimed relationship to Ngāti Rangi, I’ve looked around in my history and I can’t find any. I’m out of luck there, so I guess I have no vested interest in this issue! So, anyway, I want to wish you all the best. I’m sure this process will work very well, and I look forward to seeing the results of it in years to come. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
JAN LOGIE (Green) E Te Māngai o te Whare, tēnā koe. Tēnā tātou katoa; ōku hoa kaimahi i roto i tēnei Whare Pāremata, tēnā tātou katoa. Nei rā taku mihi aroha e ngā uri o Ngāti Rangi i roto i tēnei Whare tēnei te mihi mahana ki a koutou katoa, kia ora.
[Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Greetings to one and all, to my colleagues in this House of Parliament; greetings to you. May I also extend warm greetings to the people of Ngāti Rangi who are in this House; greetings to you all, greetings.]
As always, it’s a great honour to stand in this House today as a Green Party MP, to acknowledge Ngāti Rangi and this important next step forward for them. I recognise and I understand that it’s been 28 years from the first claim to get this legislation to the House, even though the negotiation of the actual settlement, in relative terms, was quite quick. This is always a significant day and, I suspect, for all the registered members of Ngāti Rangi—they number around 2,500 people—this day is a significant moment. It is the result of many years of work, after generations of heartbreak and betrayal on behalf of the Crown.
I’m always conscious that when we stand at this time to, in some sense, welcome in a piece of legislation where there is so much heart vested in it, it is a great responsibility to stand here and receive it. I do notice, though, that sometimes in this House it’s easy, as we all support the settlements—sometimes there’s a subtle sense of congratulations on our part as we stand in this House. But, on behalf of the Green Party, I want to acknowledge that for Ngāti Rangi, this process does not undo the damage done. While iwi katoa resilience and negotiations skills are irrefutably impressive, the Crown has still set limits that sit uncomfortably with the true spirit of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and with the true meaning of restitution.
Sometimes this process can even create more conflicts between hāpu. When the Crown changed land law to undermine collective ownership—pitting family against family, and, indeed, ruling through division—they created divisions that are hard to heal. The process of settling can help heal but it can also inflame these old wounds. I understand that this settlement, for some, will be no different. Te Tiriti supports hapūtanga, and yet hapūtanga is often undermined by the settlement process. I want to acknowledge that up front before going into the detail of your claim, which many of you will rightfully feel proud of getting to here, because of the scope and the size of the power of the Crown that you have been up against.
So, firstly, just to acknowledge some of the history, and, particularly—it will be brief and inadequate. I will set some of the points on record though, because it is a point of principle that most Pākehā in this country never, ever get to hear this history. Just this week I received an email from somebody who was complaining about Māori access to settlement of something, saying that that was just racism. I needed to send them a link that outlined just a little bit of how much has been taken from Māori. So it is so important, I believe, for us as a country, for Pākehā to be able to hear at least just a tiny bit of what happened.
So for Ngāti Rangi, they signed Te Tiriti as an exercise of their mana and a partnership to which both sides committed themselves to the future. That was the basis to which they signed that important document. Yet the Crown did not act as a partner; the Crown acted as a coloniser, and that was not a one-off action on behalf of the Crown—and indeed, you could say, by some of the limitations around this process, is not an action that has ended on behalf of the Crown. The Crown introduced a series of native land laws that provided for the individualisation of Māori landholdings that enabled them to be fragmented and for whānau and hapū to be set against each other.
Very significantly for the people of the mountain—one of the iwi within this country who do not whakapapa back to a waka but indeed to the mountain—the Crown proclaimed the boundaries of Tongariro National Park without consulting with Ngāti Rangi. The land of these people that could not be separated from these people was taken without consultation. Wahi tapu of immense significance to Ngāti Rangi are located on this land that was taken. They were excluded from the administration of this park until the late 1980s. As has already been mentioned in this House, Ngāti Rangi, forward thinking, were looking to lease land to be able to have a regular income—great financial planning that many people would advise towards—but the Crown intervened and actually put themselves in that place of lease owners and sub-let. Just the cruelty and injustice of that, to me, is so symbolic of what has been done.
All of these things add up to a profound impact of a displacement, a loss of economic base, and a wounding to the people as the land and the waters were ruined. That impact is not just happening to the separate land there; it happened to the people. I do notice in the settlement deed, and indeed through the process of discussion through the select committee, that we will be looking at the options for redress. To me, it speaks to that connection of the people to their awa and to their land, the number of redress provisions in here that are so specifically about reconnecting the people and the land.
The Te Waiū o Te Ika framework for the river has those four intrinsic values, recognising that the communities draw sustenance and inspiration from the water and that the communities are united in the best interests; that the waterway cannot be divided and that that is for the future prosperity of mokopuna; that hāpu, iwi, and all communities benefit physically, spiritually, culturally, and economically where water and its inherent life-supporting capacity is valued and enhanced; and that uplifting the mana of Te Waiū-o-Te-Ika in turn uplifts the mana of the hāpu and iwi.
These points, for me, are particularly significantly at the moment as we have, and move into, discussions around water and ownership and place. There is a spirit to the water that cannot be separated from the people, and I believe this settlement acknowledges that. Also, it establishes Te Pae Ao, a joint committee of two Ngāti Rangi and two Crown appointees, to be able to administer selective reserve sites as if it had been appointed as administering body under the Reserves Act, which provides a future model for shared oversight and protection of precious lands.
I, too, want to finish by offering the Green Party’s thanks to Ngāti Rangi for their generosity of being able to bring us to this point, and hope that we have a better future as a result of this.
HARETE HIPANGO (National—Whanganui): Te Māngai o te Whare e tū ana au ki ngā karanga o ngā tūpuna, o ngā tāngata, o ngā mokopuna, o ngā uri o te iwi o Ngāti Rangi. E tū ana te Pire o Ngāti Rangi claims settlement. Kei a koutou i tēnei wā e ngā whanaunga o Ngāti Rangi, mihi atu, nau mai Ngāti Rangi i roto i te Whare.
[Madam Deputy Speaker, I stand to speak at the bidding of the ancestors, the people, the little children, and the people of Ngāti Rangi. The Ngāti Rangi claims settlement is under way. It is now your turn, the relations of Ngāti Rangi. I acknowledge you, Ngāti Rangi. I welcome you to the House.]
Today is a day of reflection. It is a day to reflect on the journey of Ngāti Rangi, to reflect on the ebbs, the flows, the turbulence, the currents, the losses, the woes, the grief, the wrongs, the injustice, the mamae of Ngāti Rangi, and our—your—history. It has been a 28-year journey of Treaty negotiations for Ngāti Rangi for us to be in the House today. For me to stand as uri of Ngāti Rangi is an immense privilege, and it is also one that I am immensely conflicted by, because the enormity of that responsibility struck me early this afternoon when you all entered into the Legislative Council Chamber. As we were there, I was reflecting on all of those who have gone before in this Whare, and all of ours who have also passed on. However, we know that they are here with us in spirit.
It is a day of mixed and strong emotion, evoked by these reflections and memories of those gone before, but for those of us here today—and looking at our young ones who have accompanied us—it is about the pathway into the future. It is an enduring presence of the past that Ngāti Rangi has brought to this House today, those moments from the past to be taken into our future—a lens adjusting now from that past, with a hope and vision, focused forward and fulfilling aspiration, potential, and purpose.
I acknowledge my colleague the Hon Christopher Finlayson, who, at the time of being the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, participated in this journey. I acknowledge the Hon Andrew Little, now Treaty negotiations Minister, who attended his first deed of settlement, and signed that at Raketapauma Marae.
I also acknowledge my colleagues of the Māori Affairs Committee. We will be earnestly deliberating at some length in terms of the contents of the bill, the details of the legislation, and the importance of the responsibility that we have in listening to further submissions at the hearings, and we will be addressed by Ngāti Rangi at a time when we come to visit you further and listen to kōrero on what we have before us written in this bill. This bill is the bill of the Ngāti Rangi people with your claims settlement.
I also acknowledge the negotiators: cousin Che, cousin Toni—all whanaunga actually—Carl Wilson, Kemp Dryden, Cassandra Reid, and, furthermore, the trustees on behalf of Ngāti Rangi. You will continue the responsibility that is beholden to you by your people but also that will be legislated in this bill. I look up at you, Keria, Soraya, Raana, Shar, Darnielle, and Brendon. With those responsibilities, you know that you carry along the way the support of your people, both present and those who have gone before.
The first reading of a settlement bill traditionally is about the opportunity to recount and reflect upon the Crown’s relationship with the claimant group—tangata whenua, mana whenua. With this first reading of the bill, I reflect upon the Crown’s apology and its cause and necessity. I reference that I stand here in this moment in a conflicted position today because I am addressing this House and the people of Ngāti Rangi as an agent of the Crown. Little had I expected all those years ago—back in the 1990s, attending the wānanga for the mau rākau with my babies at the time and my tāne hoa, and looking at you, Che, the young man that you were in those days; all of us were much younger—that we would be in this House today, and also, in a matter of time, here for the third reading and conclusion, for the passage of all of those efforts over the generations to be legislated. I stand here conflicted because I am speaking as an agent of the Crown, but I am uri of Ngāti Rangi and Wanganui.
So I turn to the importance and significance of the apology that is entrenched, or will be entrenched, in this bill. In time, I will speak at greater length in detail on the different aspects and elements of the acknowledgments, but, importantly today I will speak on the apology. As the uri of Ngāti Rangi here today will well know, clause 10 of the bill states very clearly that “The Crown is sincerely remorseful that it has not treated Ngāti Rangi as the friend and ally you have always been … The Crown is deeply sorry that its acts and omissions have caused you”—I read from the bill—“to lose tribal control over the sale and settlement of your land. The Crown sincerely apologises for its failure …”. It is profoundly remorseful that “it has not honoured Ngāti Rangi’s partnership … with the respect and integrity that [Ngāti Rangi has deserved]. The Crown humbly apologises. [It is] With this apology, and through this settlement, the Crown seeks to atone for those acts and omissions that have caused Ngāti Rangi harm,”. However, I have talked about moving forward into the future; so that apology is about finally lifting your burden of grievance and to rebuild that relationship.
Before concluding, I’ve mentioned that there are significant parts within the acknowledgment, and I would like to take that opportunity at either the second or the third reading, because, in reading through, those acknowledgments detail for all of us the personal relevance and association that we have through each of the stories of our whānau, through the confiscations, through the wrongdoings. One in particular that has struck a chord with me personally is the acknowledgment—and this is at clause 9(3): “The Crown acknowledges that martial law was in effect in 1847 when a group of Māori youths were court-martialled and executed …”, and that strikes to the heart for many of us in terms of our whakapapa.
So, in concluding, I stand here humbly to acknowledge to us all that mamae that we carry and that it is time for us to move forward into the future with hope and positivity. With a humble and hopeful heart, I commend this bill to the House.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I understand this is a split call. I call Jo Luxton.
JO LUXTON (Labour): Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā. Tēnā koutou Ngāti Rangi. Tēnā tātau katoa. It’s my privilege to be able to stand and take a call on the Ngāti Rangi Claims Settlement Bill in its first reading. I want to acknowledge the Hon Chris Finlayson and the Hon Andrew Little for the work that they have done in getting this settlement bill to the House.
One of the key principles within the Treaty is partnership, and, as my colleague and the previous speaker, Harete Hipango, has said, today is a day of reflection, and I am reflecting on what partnership means. Partnership is about communication, it’s about acting in good faith, and it is about trust. There are clear examples in history when the Crown did not communicate, did not act in good faith, and broke trust with Ngāti Rangi. Two examples of this are the land that was taken on Ruapehu, taken without consultation and certainly without compensation, and the precious waterways within the rohe that were diverted for a power scheme—again, without consultation.
While a settlement by no means compensates Ngāti Rangi for all they have suffered, for all the hurt, and for all that they have lost, this bill, however, is an important part of the process of repairing and strengthening the relationship between the Crown and Ngāti Rangi going forward in the future.
I am not going to take up any further time and hold this process up, because I know that this is an important process that we really need to get moving so that it can get to select committee and follow the process therein and end up at the third reading in the House in the near future. And I look forward to seeing that happen, and I absolutely commend this bill to the House.
DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): Tēnā koutou Ngāti Rangi. I’d like to acknowledge everybody that has come down from Ngāti Rangi today to be here on this historic occasion for you all. I’d also like to acknowledge all of the previous speakers—in particular my fellow colleague Harete Hipango. I can see that it’s been very emotional for you all just through my colleague here today, who, historically, is a very rational speaker but has really taken this on board, and it’s a great pleasure for her to be in the House today.
I’d certainly like to acknowledge the current Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, Andrew Little, and everybody who’s helped to get this bill here today on this historic occasion. This bill is about certainly acknowledging the past and all of the omissions and acts that the Crown has taken or not taken prior to 1992. I won’t recount them here; you’ve heard them quite clearly today, and we will hear them more throughout the cycle of the bill. But it’s also about focusing on the future. It’s about, hopefully, the Crown never doing these acts or omissions again on the people of Ngāti Rangi. It’s also about the shared hopes and aspirations that you have for your nearly 2,500 members.
It is, in part, a degree of compensation; although I must acknowledge that the level of compensation can never take away the acts or omissions that the Crown has done over the years. In focusing on the future, I hope that, certainly, National supports this bill; that we settle; and that the people of Ngāti Rangi can focus on the future in terms of investing in their people, investing in their cultural heritage, investing in their land, and also building their capital.
This process is very clear. We’re at the first reading of this historic bill, and, upon passing it, it will go to a select committee—the Māori Affairs Committee—where the specifics of this bill will be debated in more detail and submissions from the people and the public will be made. Then I look forward to coming back when it comes back to the House for the second reading and the third and final reading to certainly support this historic piece of legislation.
I’d also like to acknowledge the progress that we have made as a Parliament over the years on these Treaty settlements. About 85 deeds have been settled or signed by the Crown over the past few years, and, certainly, today this continues under the Labour-led coalition, but it also continued under the National-led coalition, under the Hon Chris Finlayson.
So with our previous Government, we had, certainly, passed 16 Treaty bills, and I look forward to passing more of these bills so that we can focus as a nation on the future, because I think that these bills are not only about acknowledging the past but I think, most importantly, they’re about giving us the ability to let go and to focus on the future in terms of partnership, like my colleague Harete outlined. But it also allows us to focus on equal respect for one another, both the Crown and iwi, and, finally, the shared hopes and aspirations that all of us share for Māori in New Zealand. I am incredibly privileged to be giving my first speech on a Treaty settlement to the people of Ngāti Rangi, and I support and commend this bill to the House. Thank you.
RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe, Madam Assistant Speaker. Tēnā koutou Ngāti Rangi; tēnā koutou ōku rangatira. Nau mai, whakatau mai ki roto i Te Whare Pāremata e takatū nei. Nau mai whakatau mai te whakatutuki i ngā wawata o rātou mā. Āe, he rā nui tēnei; nō koutou tēnei rā. He hōnore nui tēnei ki te whakatū ki te mihi atu ki a koutou. Nō reira nau mai whakatau mai ki a koutou; e ngā rangatira huri rauna i tō tātou Whare tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.
[Greetings to you of Ngāti Rangi; greetings to my chiefs. Welcome to you and may you welcome me to Parliament House, which is being prepared. Welcome to you and may you welcome me and achieve the aspirations of those who have gone before. Yes, this is an important day; it is your day. This is a great honour to be stood up to acknowledge you all. Therefore, welcome to you and may you welcome me; to all of you chiefs around the room, greetings to each one of you.]
It’s an absolute privilege to be able to speak at the first reading of this Ngāti Rangi Claims Settlement Bill. I am indeed just humbled, actually, from listening to all of the contributions that have been made this afternoon. By the time you get down to speaker 10 it’s pretty hard to come up with some fresh material—ha, ha! But, no, it is truly humbling, and I want to acknowledge all of the colleagues from around the House who have been joining us to acknowledge Ngāti Rangi, who have travelled from afar to come here to Parliament today. I read on Ngāti Rangi’s website that they’re up to third base in terms of their settlement, and so today marks the run to home base, I guess, and the run to home for the settlement.
I certainly am delighted to be able to speak at this first reading and also to be able to guide this process through from third base to home with my fellow members of the Māori Affairs Committee, who will be working together to further examine the bill. I guess we’re looking forward to travelling up to Ōhākune to be able to hear from you all, so it’s always significant. We consider a lot of different Treaty settlements from all over the motu. There are lots on the go at the moment, but we treat every Treaty settlement with the utmost focus in all of the mahi that we do. So we’re looking forward to continuing on that work as soon as we complete this first reading.
I want to acknowledge Ngāti Rangi here today—in particular, I want to acknowledge the rangatira that signed Te Tiriti o Waitangi Way back in 1840. As we’ve heard today, those great rangatira, who had foresight, who had great hope and aspirations for their people in signing the Treaty—and, unfortunately, they were let down very badly by the Crown and, as we’ve heard and has been recorded in the agreed historical account, I think it’s very important that that is acknowledged and recorded in this bill.
As we hear in so many Treaty settlements, it’s about land loss, and with that the loss of mana, the loss of reo, the loss of identity, the loss of those connections to mahinga kai and to ancestral landscapes. Ngāti Rangi are no different. There are a lot of—as I say—taniwha that have been created through laws in this country that have inflicted great damage across the great tribes of our country. I don’t need to go into them, but if we look at Ngāti Rangi—again: land loss, individualisation of land out of customary title, public works, Crown purchases, the creation of National Parks without reference to the hau kāinga, the iwi of the land. All of those were inflicted and Ngāti Rangi have had to endure through all of that, right since the signing of the Treaty.
Of course, there were very hard decisions that the chiefs of Ngāti Rangi had to make throughout that colonial past that we have as a country—hard decisions in terms of trying to secure the future for their iwi: having to fight, and having to engage in warfare. So I just acknowledge all of that history and all of those great rangatira and leaders that have paved the way for Ngāti Rangi and right through to these leaders here today. So I acknowledge Che Wilson and all of the people involved with Ngati Rangi Trust who have brought us to this stage. In particular, we know that a claim was laid in the Waitangi Tribunal in about 1990, and there has been a flurry of activity, especially over the four or five years, to lead us to this point. So I do want to acknowledge all of that work and all of the support that Ngāti Rangi have given to the negotiators.
We’ve heard a lot in this House this afternoon about connections and, indeed, I guess that’s what—especially as Māori, we like to make connections to people that we meet and to places. So I acknowledge all of the whanaunga connections that are here within the House today and the speeches that we’ve heard from Harete Hipango, Joanne Hayes, my tuakana Adrian Rurawhe, and the Hon Minister Ron Mark and all of his great connections as well.
I don’t believe I have a whakapapa connection to Ngāti Rangi. However, I’ve been eying up that stone all afternoon. I know that was a gift, I believe, to the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, Andrew Little, and my eyes have been fixed on that stone. Then I heard the korero from my whanaunga Tutehounuku about Poutini and Waitaiki. We know the great story, how he whisked her away, down to Te Tai Poutini, down to the West Coast. So I know that there are connections there through the stone.
I do want to acknowledge Che, who said the opening karakia which opened up our tupuna whare there in the Arahura. I know that with the stone from Te Kāhui Maunga all the way down to Te Tai Poutini we do acknowledge those connections that we have in Te Ao Māori.
So it is, again, a delight to be able to speak in support of this bill. I do want to pay reference to Mr McKelvie especially. I thank him for his contribution. All I would say to Mr McKelvie is that we’ve got two readings left, and I know he can get the pronunciation right. It’s Ngāti Rangi. He’s got the “ngā” in the “Ngāti”; he just needs to get the “Ran-gi” out of the “Raarngi”. So hopefully he can take up that challenge and we can—[interruption]—Oh, Mr McKelvie.
Hon Member: He’s right there.
RINO TIRIKATENE: Ha, ha, Mr McKelvie, yes. So two more readings left and Ngāti Rangi is such a beautiful name and—well, there’s also Ruapehu, Rangitīkei, Tangiwai, but for now, Mr McKelvie, I think “Ngāti Rangi” would be a wonderful tribute to the iwi.
But, that aside, I just want to once again acknowledge the iwi of Ngāti Rangi who are here to celebrate this special day, this very historic occasion. We are looking forward to embarking on our task as a committee. We look forward to further contributions that will be forthcoming in the latter readings of this bill.
With that, without further ado, āpiti hono tātai hono, rātou te hunga mate ki a rātou; āpiti hono tātai hono, ko tātou te hunga ora e tau nei ki a tātou. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa. [let the connections be drawn, and may the departed rest in peace together; let the connections be drawn and we the living remain with the living. I give greetings to one and all.]
Kia ora.
Hon DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): Tēnā koutou, e te iwi o Ngāti Rangi. Hopefully, that’s close enough.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Shall I call the honourable member?
Hon DAVID BENNETT: Yes, thank you. Oh, I get a second go.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I call the Hon David Bennett.
Hon DAVID BENNETT: Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. Tēnā koutou, e te iwi o Te Ngāti Rangi. I probably come from a different side to this question here today. I have no iwi affiliation like my good colleague from the Rangītikei who spoke earlier. But I am a dairy farmer and so we love the land and the land means a lot to us as farmers, and so when I look at a settlement in this House I can only but a fraction understand your connection with the land, but to a certain extent I feel that bond as well.
I also could understand and feel, to a limited extent, your loss. When you see young people up in the gallery watching, who have come to see this settlement today, I can only think of the mix of emotions that would be there: from anger, to pain, to retribution, to hope, and to desire for the future—all those emotions that your leaders have harnessed to get to this stage here today and to come to a settlement, never forgetting the past but looking forward. Those emotions, I say to the young and the future leaders of Ngāti Rangi—don’t lose them, but harness them to make this settlement something even stronger so you can deliver that future that I know is your ambition here today.
It is possible. The world does change. This place has changed immensely in the time I’ve been here and New Zealand will change a lot in the time of the next generations of iwi. There will be quite a different New Zealand in 50 years’, 100 years’ time. When we look at some of those landholdings that are there now, it is a very, very small percentage of what was lost, but I can guarantee you that in 100 years’ time it will be a much different story and those landholdings will be much bigger and there will be another generation coming through that will understand the pain but also want to achieve a lot more for the iwi. It is difficult when you’re not part of the iwi to understand completely, but, hopefully, we do have the ability to put right some of the wrongs that have been in the past and to at least try and harbour and build on the ambitions of the future, as we are all only people and we do make mistakes. But, in the end, time is a great winner and, in the end, things do come to their natural fruition, and success does come through time.
So, to the young ones: don’t give up, be strong, and look at what has been achieved today. There is a lot more you will be entrusted to achieve to rebuild, but it can be done and can be done successfully. As someone that comes from Hamilton, in the heart of Tainui, we have seen how that can happen, and there’s still a lot more to be done there as well, but there is that future ahead and it is a promising future that can only go forward, and so I would encourage you to keep that spirit alive.
I’d just like to also acknowledge the people that have taken a very valuable part in making this happen here in this House. I’d like to acknowledge, first of all, Andrew Little, the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations. I have sat on committees with Andrew for a number of years and I’ve found him to be a very genuine and hard-working and dedicated member of this Parliament. I know he will look back on his time as Treaty negotiations Minister with fondness and it will be something that I know he will take home as an element of pleasure after being in this Parliament—to have been part of that process. So I thank you, Andrew. You are a good man and you do a good job in this area. There’s another bill coming up later, which we won’t be so conciliatory about with him.
I’d also like to acknowledge Chris Finlayson, who from our side has been a very instrumental part in the negotiations as well and similarly feels the same way and has the same ambitions and dedication to making the settlements a reality.
There is a beautiful area that we’re learning more about in the speeches here today that is the home and heart of the iwi. I was quite impressed with Ron Mark who, especially with his defence hat on, talked about how there would be that gifting back of that land so that New Zealand can benefit from it. That is a very genuine and heartfelt gift to this country. We look around this room—the plaques that represent the fallen soldiers from all races that are New Zealanders. They do need a place where they can train. They do have a place there that is embedded in the heart of our forces and is part of the history of our country. So the action that you’ve taken in supporting that is very much appreciated in the defence of New Zealand and the values that New Zealand aspires to. So I can see that you are going to be achieving a wider good not only for your iwi but a wider good for New Zealand. That’s something I think you can treasure as well, and thank you for that gift.
We also heard heartfelt stories in the history and, Harete, thank you for sharing that with us in an emotional way. It gives us some understanding, too, of some that history that we may not have personally experienced, but, as somebody linked to that community, you have experienced it, so it gives us a personal understanding of what has happened and we thank you for sharing that with us in the way that you did.
In this Parliament we all go home to our different tribal affiliations and in our parties, but there is one thing that we always do take great pride in and that is at the end of a settlement when there is an agreement amongst all the parties and there is a sense that we have actually achieved something of a positive purpose that day. Everybody leaves this room with a sense of pride and comfort that they have achieved what they set out to when they came to Parliament, which is actually to do good for their community. As we say, it may only be a small way, but it is something, I can guarantee you, that every member of this House will take great pride in—being able to, hopefully, be part of your journey to help you on that next stage. We encourage all that are involved to take this opportunity, to work with the ongoing process of renewal and building that future, and we wish you all the very best in that endeavour. We know it’s going to take time, but we know that the spirit, the strength, and the courage of your people will make it happen. So we wish you all the best. You have the apology of this Parliament and the New Zealand people, but you also have the blessing for the future endeavours that I know you will take. Thank you.
Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Minister of Customs): Mr Speaker, tēnā koe. He uri ahau o Te Tairāwhiti. Nō reira ka huri ki te mihi whakatau ki ngā hapū maha o Ngāti Rangi. Nō reira e te iwi, nau mai haramai, nau mai haramai, nau mai haramai i runga i te kaupapa whakahirahira te pānui tuatahi o koutou pire. Nō reira tēnā koutou ōku rau rangatira, kui mā, koro mā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.
[Thank you, Mr Speaker. I descend from Te Tairāwhiti. I therefore turn to add my words of welcome to the many subtribes of Ngāti Rangi. To you all, welcome, thrice welcome to this important occasion, which is the first reading of your bill. Therefore, distinguished leaders, esteemed elders; greetings, greetings to one and all.]
It is indeed an honour to stand and rise from a region that is first to see the light, the Tai Rāwhiti, to celebrate this important first reading of the Ngāti Rangi Claims Settlement Bill. We’ve had some amazing speakers who’ve got up and honoured these fine folk, and I just wanted to add my warm congratulations to the beginning of the last part of the puzzle, which is the legislative part. On behalf of the people I represent from the Tai Rāwhiti, I bring you warm greetings in acknowledging the hard mahi that has gone on to get to this place.
We talk about connections—I want to talk about a fulla that’s sitting up there, by the name of Che Wilson. Che and I worked together many, many years ago, so I want to lay claim to some of the attributes—the good parts; the rest, well, someone else can lay claim to that. But I do want to acknowledge Che and all the negotiators for all the hard mahi that you have done in bringing this bill to the House. Of course, we only get the easy part. We don’t get to see the raru and hardship of the hui at home, to get our people to understand that this is the best deal we’re going to get so we can move on. We don’t see that. We spend two hours of that reading acknowledging the efforts that we know—I know I can’t do justice to the amount of struggle and strife and all the angst that has gone into this bill, but I do want to say I am indeed pleased and privileged to join in the voices of everyone in this House in acknowledging this first reading of the Ngāti Rangi bill.
It might be of some use to my colleagues in this House just to touch on the Treaty process, because my colleague Adrian Rurawhe did speak about how difficult and challenging Treaty processes are. Adrian and, of course, our other colleague Minister Nanaia Mahuta—we’ve all been former Treaty negotiators for our iwi. So we come from that perspective around the struggles of the process that Adrian Rurawhe talked about. First and foremost, you’ve got to have claims. And before you have claims, I want to acknowledge the great tōtara from the north, the Hon Matiu Rata, who in 1975 established the Waitangi Tribunal, which gave fit to us to raise our concerns in that tribunal. So I want to acknowledge Matiu, but I say we’ve got to, first and foremost, put claims down. So to all those whānau members that have put claims in the Ngāti Rangi settlement bill, I want to acknowledge you. Some of them, unfortunately, may not be with us, but their kaupapa and their strength to get a decent hearing over that struggle is really important to acknowledge.
Then you have deed of mandate. Some would say that’s the hardest process, because it’s about convincing your own that you’re going to speak on their behalf with the Crown. So that’s the deed of mandate, and, of course, we see that playing out in the Far North—I’m looking around for my colleagues from the Far North. The deed of mandate is really critical. Just to say kia kaha—sorry, that was a “kia kaha” moment to our Ngāpuhi whānau up north.
Once we’ve got our deed of mandate sorted, then we go into negotiations. And, of course, the Crown will offer and we counteroffer, and it goes back and forth. That’s the process of negotiation. Then we sign an agreement in principle. The agreement in principle generally says this is where we got to—Crown and iwi. Then we make some ultimate changes around the edges, and then we sign the deed of settlement. So this is what’s happened on this occasion. Of course, once the deed of settlement is signed, the legislative process kicks in, where we’re having the first reading, select committee, second reading, third reading, done and dusted.
But, for me coming into Parliament, it was always about beyond Treaty settlements. It is around saying to the Crown, “What ongoing relationship should we have with iwi Māori?” It’s a valid question to ask, and I’m pleased that the coalition Government recognises that we have an ongoing commitment, if iwi choose—and the offer is only if iwi choose; they can choose to opt in, opt out. That’s why under the Jacinda-led Government we have the new Crown/Māori relations—
SPEAKER: Order! The Prime Minister, or Jacinda Ardern maybe.
Hon MEKA WHAITIRI: Sorry, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has, in her wisdom, created the Crown/Māori relations portfolio, which is to address how we maintain our relationships going forward.
But, back to the bill, the Ngāti Rangi Claims Settlement Bill has four parts. I don’t profess to go through them. They will definitely get scrutinised through the select committee. But, of course, as I went through the bill I was distinctly looking for any particular mechanisms that will fall into my lap as the Associate Minister of Local Government, responsible for post - Treaty settlement tools.
As I said, I look forward to the report back from the select committee because, as we well know, once iwi settle there are these ongoing challenges, and, when it comes to consenting and land use and getting access to water, a lot of that actually sits in the domain of local government, not central government. It is really important that the councils in which Ngāti Rangi resides actually take the challenge to start engaging with the iwi early on. I applaud and plead to the councils to do that actively, because the benefits, as the iwi go forward, are not just going to be to their members only. Treaty settlements are a way in which we can unlock economic potential in regions that have often been neglected; the step change or the catalyst for change is actually iwi Treaty settlements. It’s important, I believe, that if we are going to maximise the value of the Ngāti Rangi Claims Settlement Bill and what will flow on, that we are actively working—councils—with iwi, with industry, because we have land and we have people. But we need the tools to unlock that economic potential and social potential that I mentioned earlier.
I want to also acknowledge the essential issue that is burning around Treaty settlements as we speak now, and that’s one around overlapping claims. I’m pleased to hear that Ngāti Rangi has not got an issue around overlapping claims, but I know in other Treaty settlements it’s a big issue. I want to acknowledge the tikanga process that we’ve heard in recent times as a mechanism to break the deadlock between conflicting boundaries. It just made me think. It made me think: what do you think would happen to the Treaty settlement process if we started with a tikanga process? It’s a question I pose seriously. What would happen to the Treaty settlement process as we know it if we start with a tikanga process?
For one, the Crown and iwi would save a heck of a lot of money on lawyer fees, but it would just mean that, away from the scrutiny of public eyes, which we’ve seen around this place in recent days, two people who have a shared interest in the same area sit down and hui and talk to one another, with nobody else in the room. What would happen to the Treaty process if we adopted that? It’s just something to think about, knowing that many of these claims are settled but there are still overlapping issues on claims that are yet to make their way to this House. All I’m saying is that the use of tikanga processes, as I understand it, of getting people in a room to hui, to talk about their issues, whether it’s on whakapapa or other connections, I believe has merit—has merit. We should look at using tikanga processes, I believe, more at the front end of Treaty settlement processes rather than as a last resort when we can’t agree.
I do, again, want to acknowledge the strength and sacrifice of Ngāti Rangi. I want to acknowledge all their negotiators, all the officials that also worked on behalf of the Crown to get to this point. I too want to acknowledge the leadership of the Hon Andrew Little and the former Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, Chris Finlayson, for their work in ushering this bill to this stage. But today is Ngāti Rangi’s day. I want to acknowledge and stand, again, and salute them. Thank you for your contribution to this nation. Thank you for the sacrifice and for your patience. I look forward to the bill coming back so we can celebrate with you in the third and final reading. Nō reira, e te rangatira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.
Bill read a first time.
Bill referred to the Māori Affairs Committee.
Waiata
Bills
Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill
In Committee
Debate resumed from 8 August.
Clause 4 Section 55 amended (How vacancies created) (continued)
CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Members, when we were last considering the bill, we were debating the question that clause 4 stand part. However, before I give the call, I wish to advise the committee that I have now received several tabled amendments to this clause. First, I will advise the committee of an amendment that is out of order. The Hon Dr Nick Smith’s tabled amendment to delete clause 4 is ruled out of order as a direct negation of the question.
The Hon Gerry Brownlee was speaking, and he has four minutes and seven seconds remaining should he wish.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): In the spirit of the Treaty settlement that this House has proudly just acknowledged, I want to acknowledge an area where myself and the Minister in the chair, Andrew Little, are in total agreement, and that is that the evolution of political parties is actually a really important part of the democratic process. The way in which the Labour Party evolved in the 19th Parliament and the National Party evolved in the 1930s was actually, in my view, good for New Zealand, and both those major parties have made significant contributions to the good governance of this country. The reason the evolution of those political parties is so important is because, actually, parties do not exist for their purpose in themselves but actually to serve the democratic will of countries, and as issues change, as values change, this institution and the parties that work within it also need to change.
But here’s the bit where we strongly disagree, and the Minister in the chair, in respect of the new resignation section that we are debating—new section 55FA says that if a member ceases to be a member of the political party in which they were elected, then they cease to be a member of Parliament. The Minister’s argument that he’s put to the House is, well, actually, what we could do is have that provision on the law books but the leaders will not initiate the procedure that we’re going to debate further down the track. So we’re going to have this sort of legal anomaly, and that is where the Minister hasn’t triggered the mechanism, even though the law says that that member should cease to be a member of Parliament. I think that’s a really dodgy way for us to legislate. That view is not just mine; that view was actually expressed by a number of significant submitters at the Justice Committee.
Here’s the other flaw in the Minister’s speech: that can only occur—that evolution and that change of political parties—if it has the consent of the leader. So I want to challenge the Minister in the chair, with respect—and this issue is absolutely politically critical to the evolution of the Green Party. I put the practical question to the Minister in the chair: when Jeanette Fitzsimons and Rod Donald left The Alliance to form the Greens, would Jim Anderton have given his consent? Well, not on your nelly! I have to tell you, the fury that we experienced in the House at that time was enormous. The reality of this provision—so ironically, given the Green Party’s support for this provision—is there is absolutely no legal question that the formation of the Green Party would have been a stillbirth if this provision was the law at that time. The Green Party would never have been able to get started, and that is very significant, and that is a real anomaly that members of the Green Party need to address. Why are they voting for a bill that would prohibit the establishment of their very political party that they are so proud to have had in this Parliament for the last six terms?
The Minister did not mention the second point that I raised in my first contribution, and I’m going to raise it again and challenge him to address it. I assert that in pretty much the whole world this clause would be unconstitutional and illegal. I know that’s the case in Germany—the first country that had MMP. It’s very explicit in their constitution. I know from the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights that they have ruled it out. I’ve been advised that in the United States, in Australia—and I remind the member who wanted to interject that in Australia they don’t have MMP that, actually, in the Senate, their members are elected off a party list. So I ask the Minister this question: would the democracy of Australia allow this clause that he’s proposing? My advice is no. Does he have contrary advice? Absolutely. I was talking to a representative in both the French and the American—and I’ll tell you why they are significant: many of our liberal democratic values were established with the French Revolution and the American Revolution. In both those countries, they would almost have a riot and a revolution if a Government proposed what is proposed in this clause. So I challenge the Minister to address that issue of constitutionality, because it is certainly my view and the advice that we received at the select committee that the very provision in this bill would be unlawful in any of the countries with which we would want to be associated.
Then the further point I want to raise about this provision is around its compliance with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Let me just outline what’s occurred around this specific clause and its compliance with the New Zealand Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights in New Zealand—put in place, actually, by Sir Geoffrey Palmer—contains a very important provision: freedom of association. By saying that you can only be a member of one political party to retain your seat within the Parliament is acknowledged, by all of the advice, as a contravention of the New Zealand Bill of Rights. So the process that’s gone on around the New Zealand Bill of Rights with this provision is significant.
Now, what the Attorney-General has advised the House is that this provision will have a chilling effect on free speech—or the “expression of dissenting views” are his exact words—in his opinion. But here’s the part that should really make fellow parliamentarians nervous: when there is a New Zealand Bill of Rights assessment, the justice officials produce a report. Every single bill that comes before the Parliament is required, under our New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, to have that New Zealand Bill of Rights assessment. The only bill, in all the years since that has passed, which the Government has refused to release the justice ministry’s advice on is this one. Now, doesn’t that raise suspicions? Why would it be?
I’ll tell you why. The only reasonable conclusion that we can draw is that this part breaches the New Zealand Bill of Rights. Why do I assert that? I’ll tell you why. The select committee heard from 21 constitutional experts from the University of Auckland, from Victoria University of Wellington, from the University of Otago, and from the University of Canterbury. Every single one of them said that this provision breaches the New Zealand Bill of Rights. When I challenged the Minister and said, “Well, OK, I’ve got 21 experts that say it does; tell me who says it does not breach the New Zealand Bill of Rights—tell me anybody.”, he admitted he could name nobody except David Parker.
Now, that’s interesting, because here’s the point: is David Parker neutral in this? The honest truth is that David Parker depends on this bill for his job, because David Parker is not a neutral legal opinion on this provision. He, the Minister in the chair, and the Speaker are actually dependent on this bill for their jobs, because it was at the foundation of the formation of the coalition of this Government. So I say again: this provision breaches the freedom of speech and freedom of association provisions of our New Zealand Bill of Rights, and that should give the willies to every member of Parliament in this House.
The final point I wish to make is this: there are two very important international conventions. Those are the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In the departmental disclosure statement, it says that these provisions breach those two conventions. And here’s my challenge for the Green Party: how can you possibly tour to the far corners of the world—
CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Order! Don’t bring me in, thank you.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Indeed. How can the Green Party go to the far corners of the world—they go to Palestine, they go to Africa, they go to South America, they go to Asia—lecturing on those two important conventions on human rights and democracy, and when the issue comes up in this Parliament, what do they have to say? Absolutely zip—absolutely nothing. I say that that is a sell out. I say to the Green Party, you cannot credibly go to any other place in the world advancing the cause of the UN human rights conventions if you do not have the courage of your convictions to stand up in this Chamber and defend those rights.
Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I’d like to use an actual example, and I notice that we’re lucky enough to have in the Chamber this evening our Minister of Defence, the Hon Ron Mark, who is also a past deputy leader of the New Zealand First Party and a man that I’m sure is not afraid to get to his feet and actually take a call on this. But I’m really addressing my remarks—I’m going to ask Minister Andrew Little to stand and give me an answer to the real example in our last Parliament that I’m going to give.
It’s an example of when I was a member of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee. We had a petition brought to the committee that was extremely serious, and it related to the repatriation of our veterans, of our service people, in Malaysia. This is something that previous Governments—both National, Labour, and Labour and New Zealand First Governments—had failed to act on. The committee made sure that we allowed the families to come and make submissions. I actually travelled around the country and met with families and listened to their stories, and by the end of that, as the chair of the committee, I felt very strongly that, actually, we had to make a change.
There had to be a change in policy, and we should have been repatriating our defence personnel, particularly those in Malaysia—particularly those buried in a gravesite where we couldn’t guarantee that that gravesite at some time in the future, whether it be 50 years or 100 years, might not be disturbed. I thought it was important to bring them home, but that was in direct contravention to my own party’s policy on it.
The policy and the Minister of Veterans’ Affairs at the time, the Hon Craig Foss—who was very good—was very clear, and I was told very clearly that “That is not Government policy. That will not be happening.” So I was put in a quandary, because of my own integrity—my own feelings on the matter—and that of the committee, so we had cross-party agreement on this. The Labour members of the committee, the National members of the committee, the sole New Zealand First member of the committee, and, I want to acknowledge, Dr Kennedy Graham, the Greens’ member of the committee—we all agreed that the right thing to do was to have a change of policy. Yep, it was going to be tough. Yep, we were going to have to try and work it out. But it was time to bring our veterans home.
So we wrote a report. The report took a position against the Government, which put me in a fairly precarious position because I was the chair of the committee and I was a National MP and I was taking a position against my own Minister. Believe me, I was called up to the Minister’s office. We had a discussion around it, and, actually, at the end of the day, the National Government decided, “Do you know what? Although we’ve got some conflicting advice on this and although it is going to be difficult, it is actually the right thing to do and we are going to do it.”
Now, my question is this: while we’ve got the Minister of Defence in the House, it is for him—or the Minister of Justice himself—to stand and take a call and tell me whether or not this bill is going to have a chilling effect on how members of Parliament are able to come to decisions like the one that was taken by the select committee. I can tell you now that although I’m very proud to be a member of a party that does not support this, would never support it, and will never implement it, the fact of the matter is that if this bill had been passed, then I’d be reflecting a lot more on the decisions that I was making, because I’d be put at risk of actually being expelled from this Parliament and not being able to carry—well, the Minister has a quizzical look on his face. Do you not understand the bill? Do you not understand, Mr Mark, what this bill is trying to do?
This bill has put in place—your leader has got—
CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Order! Order!
Hon MARK MITCHELL: Sorry, Madam Chair. The Rt Hon Winston Peters—you are handing all the power to him—
Hon Ruth Dyson: Stop saying “you”.
Hon MARK MITCHELL: —to decide to—sorry, what was that?
Hon Ruth Dyson: Stop saying “you”.
Hon MARK MITCHELL: Excuse me, Madam Chair. Are you the person in the Chair, or is it the Hon Ruth Dyson, because she seems to think that she’s able to take on your role.
But the reality of this—
Hon Ruth Dyson: I’m helping you.
CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): She does have a point.
Hon MARK MITCHELL: Yeah. I just don’t think you need the assistance, that’s all, Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): No, I certainly don’t. However, I would like the member to acknowledge that you are bringing me into the debate.
Hon MARK MITCHELL: Absolutely—I acknowledge that, Madam Chair. So take a call, Mr Mark—[Time expired]
Hon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s always good in a difficult debate such as this to go back to the fundamentals and to the departmental disclosure statement to just really revisit, perhaps, the general policy statement and the measures that Cabinet and this Government went through in bringing forward this piece of work. My colleague Nick Smith has talked—oh, I’m sure he hasn’t finished, because he’ll have some other points to make around the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and the advice around that.
But I want to start with the general policy statement. It is part one of this paper. I want to unpick what proportionality of political party representation really means, because in questions in the House, the Minister of Justice’s stock answer to any question around this bill, this waka-jumping bill, has been: “It preserves the proportionality of political party representation in Parliament as determined by electors.” That’s it—that’s the answer. That’s the only defence. That’s the only reason.
So what does he mean by “proportionality”? Well, we know—
CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I apologise to the member—
Hon JACQUI DEAN: —what is meant by proportionality. It means that a number of people—
CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Order! Order! I just apologise to the member taking the call. Are you speaking to clause 4—
Hon JACQUI DEAN: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): —which is directly about political party membership?
Hon JACQUI DEAN: Yes, I am. Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, indeed I am speaking to clause 4. Maybe I was perhaps traversing a meandering path to get there, but indeed I am speaking to clause 4: how a member ceases to be a parliamentary member of a political party for which she was elected. Perhaps I was being a little too obtuse, so I will track back from that to the proportionality aspect of that clause to say that proportionality is indeed determined by the electors. That is how the likes of me, as a constituency MP, and others who are list MPs, get to be in this House. We understand that very clearly about proportionality.
What I don’t understand is how the ability for the leader of a party, in collusion with his or her caucus, can remove a member of Parliament in the name of proportionality, because that is clearly a sham. It is a weak excuse for giving the power—to get rid of an outspoken MP from that leader’s caucus. And that’s all it is. So this argument about proportionality is nothing more than a smokescreen in order for a leader and a proportion of the caucus to get rid of a member of Parliament who has indicated—or maybe the leader even thinks that that member may be proposing to leave the party.
How that happens is very, very unclear. So is the member who is dissenting—how does the leader know that that member is planning to leave the party? Is it a Chinese whisper situation? Does that not put all of us in peril, except for those of us in the National Party? But does that put us or members of New Zealand First, New Zealand Labour, and the Green Party—does that not put all those members in peril of impure thoughts?
So is that what it’s going to come down to? Is it going to come down to a thought in the mind of a list or an elected MP which is not totally aligned with the leader of those parties, and therefore the leader can surmise or guess that that member is about to leave the caucus and so pre-empts him by going to the Speaker and saying that this member is going to distort the proportionality of Parliament? What a sham—what a sham. How can the Minister of Justice stand in this House day after day and advance that argument, because the simplest of unpicking absolutely undoes it.
Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Thank you, Mr Chair. I just take this opportunity to respond as briefly as I can to some of the more recent contributions. To the member who has just resumed her seat, the Hon Jacqui Dean, I’m sorry to have to be in the positon of having to assist her to understand the meaning of the bill, but it’s a common theme that she has raised, and indeed that the Hon Mark Mitchell has raised, and it goes to a fundamental misunderstanding of the full text of the substance of this bill. So it’s not just about distortion, it’s not just about proportionality, but it is about—
CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! I’ve just come to the Chair and listened for the last minute of the Hon Jacqui Dean’s contribution. Can I remind members of the committee that we’re dealing with clause 4, which is amending section 55 of the principal Act—the Electoral Act—on how vacancies are created. It adds one paragraph, and members need to restrict their contribution to that. So my ruling is actually that in the last contribution the part that I heard was not in line with this clause, and now the Minister is answering those, which is also not in line with this clause. So, if there are new contributions on clause 4, I would like to hear them.
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Thank you, Mr Chairman, and I totally accept that point. I was about to get to the point of representation, which is, of course, the converse of a vacancy having been created. That’s what it relates to. Look, I’ll amplify the point a little more fully in the days that we will take up on debating this bill, except to say that there are a range of words that have to be considered together, the last of which is “representation”. That’s what happens in this House.
In relation to the Hon Mark Mitchell, the issue that he raised, with the example that he gave, of course would not apply, because the question of representation in the House—the converse of a vacancy in the House—did not arise in that situation. The situation would not trigger or engage this bill.
I turn to the contribution by the Hon Nick Smith. With all due respect to the honourable member, who speaks eloquently, again he spoke about all words in the proposed new paragraph 55(1)(fa) in clause 4, apart from the very first word, which happens to be the word “if”—“if”. And it might sound silly, and there will be viewers watching the television right now, perhaps listening on the radio, and they could say, “How could it possibly be that the word ‘if’ could be so fundamental?” But it is fundamental, because it then connotes that this is conditional, that these things are dependent on other things having happened, that the vacancy being created relates to things happening under other provisions of the bill.
It is not good enough for members to sort of be selective about which parts of the provision that we’re debating, but, actually, you’ve got to talk about the whole lot. So this provision applies if under subsequent sections a vacancy arises. But it is the “if” that is important. It is the “if” that is important. So, when we’re debating it, let’s debate all words, not just the bits that we wish to sort of touch on for the sake of convenience.
I say this to the member, because he’s made a good point about political realignment, and he said one thing that I think we do agree on, and that is that political realignments happen. That is the history of this Parliament. It is the history of every political jurisdiction, which is that from time to time political realignments happen, new parties emerge, new forces emerge, and none of that will change, and here’s why. Because, just as members will make political judgments about what they do to sustain their own principles and to sustain the principles of their party, parties, caucuses, and their leaders and the rest of the party organisation will all make judgments, and there will be times when an individual party member will vote against their party and the party leadership of the day and the caucus will make a judgment: “You know what? That’s actually OK. There’s nothing wrong here.” Just as Damien O’Connor did only a few years ago when he voted against his own party and his own party whip to support a piece of legislation that the Government of the day, the National Party, had been promoting.
The honourable member talked about constitutionality. I just make this point. Every country is sovereign to itself. They make their own rules, and we make our own rules. Of course, the problem is, I would suggest to the honourable member, we don’t have a written constitution. So we are able to make our laws, and the claimed benefit of an unwritten constitution is that there is some fluidity to it. Personally, I’m in favour of a written constitution, but that would be subject to the very challenge that that member is making—that a written constitution constrains members of Parliament. But you can’t have it both ways. He kind of wants constraints to stop this sort of thing happening and us making our rules, but he doesn’t want constraints because that’s the beauty of the unwritten constitution. At some point, the National Party is going to have to reconcile its irreconcilable views.
Hon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Thank you, Mr Chair. Listening to the Minister—actually, I have to say I am deeply indebted to you, Mr Chair, because I was in here for four hours before lunch. I sought the call more than 25 times and I didn’t get it once, so I am indebted. But let me take advantage of the opportunity I’ve got now. I’ve just been listening to the Minister, frankly, tying himself up in knots on this particular clause. And you were quite right, Mr Chair. We are looking at an amendment to section 55 of the principal Act. The reasons why a member of Parliament at the moment might leave this place are pretty significant. One would, very sadly, be the death of the member. Another would be the member voluntarily making a choice to resign, and we see that quite often for very good reasons that we understand. We’ve been to many valedictories over the years for that sort of purpose. Obviously, chronic ill-health might force somebody to have to resign, but they can also be some really serious things such as the member being convicted of a corrupt practice.
Now, I mention those provisions of the principal Act because here we are being asked to consider an amendment which is, essentially, that a member may also be dismissed because he or she fell out with the leader. Now, I think it is outrageous to put that out on the same level as the other very sound reasons that are in the principal Act. I see the Minister in the chair shaking his head, as he has done frequently, and yet I make the point that the Hon Dr Nick Smith made before. The Minister sits there and continues to say that he is right and every other commentator on this bill is wrong. And now he’s nodding. He is acknowledging that he is apparently the only one who is right. All of these highly respected academic experts, some of the great commentators who have looked in detail at this bill and who are very well placed to advise this committee, are all saying the Minister is wrong, and yet he continues to sit there and argue “No, I’m the only one who’s right.” I have to say that I think it was Dr Smith who said earlier, maybe another speaker, that he had a degree of sympathy for Mr Little because Mr Little is actually having to push this bill through; he probably doesn’t firmly believe in it. In fact, it would be interesting to ask the Minister now: does the Minister genuinely believe in this bill? He’s laughing now. Does the Minister genuinely believe that amending section 55 of the principal Act with clause 4 is the right, principled thing to do? I add my sympathy to the previous speaker who felt very sorry.
I wonder if I could ask the Minister the next time he takes a call: did he agree with the late Jim Anderton when he claimed “I didn’t leave the Labour Party; the Labour Party left me.”? Because that relates directly to the clause we are being asked to consider here. If a member of Parliament says “I’m sticking to the principles that I was elected upon, I’m sticking to the principles that the party I’m a member of took to the last election.”—in the case of the Labour Party, which held for about 80 years before that when Jim Anderton was resigning—if the member is genuinely of the belief that he or she is sticking to the principles of the party but the party is the one that has moved well away, how on earth could we expect clause 4 to be allowed? What a travesty it would be to allow clause 4 to apply to that person.
Now, in the last Parliament the member Richard Prosser was becoming increasingly disillusioned as a member of New Zealand First, and he of course paid a price in that he was bumped down the list. Now, whatever you might think of that, at least that was a list that was taken to an election, but if Richard Prosser—because he was speaking out against New Zealand First on a number of occasions, and he’s certainly speaking out about them regularly now—had been in a position where he was told “Right, you have to go.”, surely he would have been entitled say “But I work incredibly hard. I believed in what New Zealand First took to the electorate, I and the activists who worked”—I think he was based down in Christchurch—“with me to get me elected in Christchurch as a list member were doing our level best to comply with and to abide by the principles of our party, and here we are in a position where the party has moved away and now I’m being told ‘You are inconvenient, we don’t like what you’re saying, you will have to go.’ ” I think that is outrageous that section 55 of the Act should be amended in that way, and I really ask all members opposite to explain how they think they can justify it.
Hon RON MARK (NZ First): I have decided, listening to some of the commentary and listening to the Hon Mark Mitchell, that I would take a minute—[Members applaud]. They might not be applauding in a moment, Mr Chairman. I have to say I agree with Minister Little, who said that the example that the Hon Mark Mitchell gave was not applicable. It’s not applicable for a very simple reason. It’s not applicable because there’s never been an occasion when I have disagreed with my party’s defence policy or its veterans’ affairs policy. But it does raise an interesting question, and that is for Mr Mitchell himself to answer, as to how far he would have gone. How far would he have gone if he had not gotten his party to change them? I didn’t have a problem, because my party always had that stance. It was Mr Mitchell’s party that flip-flopped around like a little leaf in the breeze. The question is actually for Mr Mitchell, and, on the back of the rumours and speculation and his own admissions publicly recently: does he raise this point at this point in time, Minister Little, to actually lay the ground for what he is intending to do and maybe give some justification as to what his own intentions are, and to send the message to his own party? Maybe that’s why the former Minister has raised that point.
Hon Mark Mitchell: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I know that the speaker is deeply disappointed at no longer being a deputy leader of a party, but trying to suggest that I am going to start a party and then he apply for the deputy leadership is ridiculousness.
CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): That is a debating point. It is not a point of order. And, while I am on my feet, the encouragement I gave earlier about talking to the clause applies to everyone in the Chamber, and the member has taken his first 1½ minutes to talk about issues that are actually not related to clause 4 of this bill, and I would like him to turn his attention to clause 4.
Hon RON MARK: So thank you for that, Mr Chairman, and I would simply conclude by saying that the example was actually erroneous. And I do take note, within this, that Mr Macindoe was making the point of clause 4 and using the example of Mr Anderton. I would simply say that Mr Anderton should have followed the example, and this is a very staunchly debated point right now, that Mr Anderton, if this bill had been in place, would have been required to go back to the electorate and seek a new mandate, as he should have at that time.
ALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): Thank you, Mr Chair, for the opportunity to speak on clause 4. I’d just like to make a couple of quick comments. I find it quite ironic that the Minister earlier proudly supported and accused this side of not having very many renegade MPs. He proudly supported the reputation and the history of the Labour Party for having these guys who stood up and had a view and crossed the floor and set up new parties. I find it ironic that that won’t be happening any more under this legislation. Those members, those renegades, those revolutionaries, will not be able to be revolutionaries. They will not be able to vote against the wishes of their leader.
The Minister mentioned Damien O’Connor just in his last contribution as a way that things should occur—that that’s the right way to do things—and Nikki Kaye could be used as another example. But that was where the leader agreed to disagree. That was where the leader said, “Yeah, it is OK to cross the floor.”—or, at least, to promote their idea and vote against the Government of the day. But the point is: what if the leader did not want that to happen? Minister Mark just said earlier, “How far would you go?”, and that’s the question. How far would Damien O’Connor go or how far would Nikki Kaye go with this proposed legislation? How much would they risk to be kicked out of their party and cease to be a parliamentary member of the political party—I’m referring to clause 4, sir—to make their point? They’re both members currently in the House—members of this Parliament. When their leaders may have said, “Sorry, buddy / sorry, Nikki / sorry, Damien, that’s too far. You will not make a protest. You will not be able to exercise your conscience. You will not be able to represent those who elected you here.”—being, specifically, the West Coast’s interests or the Great Barrier Island interests—what are those MPs to do?
Are they to risk their future careers as politicians simply because, and unfortunately because, of this threat that is looming over them that says, “If you are no longer a member of a political party, your position will be made vacant. You will be tipped out of the House.” And that threat to the freedom of expression of those MPs will be a real one. We didn’t come here to be kowtowing to our leader. Remember, there are two votes that people cast. They vote for a party, and they vote for an electorate MP. Now, if we just had the proposal where we just do everything that the leader says and kowtow to a leader, let’s just have one vote. Just give the people one vote. Choose your party, and we’ll chuck in the number of people that that represents proportionally, and we’ll stick to that proportionality for ever because we don’t need individuals in Parliament, because individuals don’t matter. Individuals’ consciences don’t count. Individuals’ opinions and representations of their electorates do not count. If they do count, this would not be in this amendment bill. This clause would not be here if individuals counted.
We are all here as individuals. At least, electorate MPs are here to represent their electorate, and that is an important right and privilege that we have here as electorate MPs particularly. So how can I possibly represent my electorate to the fullest of my ability and extent when I am limited by the threat of being turfed out as being a member of my political party because the leader does not agree with what I have to say or I disagree with the leader? And, as I mentioned, the two cases I mentioned earlier are where the leaders have been compromising and have agreed to disagree and allow the situation to occur.
Rt Hon DAVID CARTER (National): Thank you, Mr Chair. I hadn’t been part of this debate earlier, because I was meeting with a very important delegation—in the gallery now—our friends from South Korea. So I take this opportunity to acknowledge them in the gallery today.
It seems to me that clause 4, amending section 55 “How vacancies created” is the very operative clause of this dreadful legislation. I want you, Mr Chair, to think about your own valuable contributions that have been made to your caucus over many, many years. I have not been a member, obviously, of the Labour caucus or the New Zealand First caucus; I’m a proud member of the National caucus. I can tell you that when we have discussions every Tuesday over a wide range of issues, members feel free to give their point of view, and we discuss these issues in-depth, freely, and according to our own conscience, and then we come to a conclusion which binds us all.
With this clause there now and this legislation passed, I guarantee that every member of whatever party they belong to will think very seriously about their very contributions to caucus, because as you start to make your contribution to caucus, you will be judging how far you’re going in upsetting the leader of your party, to the extent that this clause may then force you to no longer be a member of the political party. I just ask the House to think about that.
Politics is a contest of ideas. None of us has all the answers. We develop our policies by talking about them, ruminating on the issues, and coming up with the best policy options, but what this clause does is it starts to stop that. It means that if I go into my caucus and I want to express a point of view, I’m always judging how that point of view might be taken by the leader and whether I perhaps overstepped the mark to the extent a process starts. It may not happen instantly on that particular Tuesday. It may be something that then develops over time and, ultimately, our leader, dissatisfied with the person who continually raises a point of view that he doesn’t agree with, starts to ferment in his mind a way he can get rid of that member of Parliament—how that member’s dissent can be stopped, and it becomes easy because of clause 4.
It just gives the leader the ability to suddenly make sure that we’re all clones. What’s that going to do for the democratic processes of New Zealand? That’s why, Mr Chair, as you’ve listened to this debate, you’ve heard how few countries in the world have gone with this legislation, because it’s wrong, and you can see it is wrong by looking over the other side of the Chamber—how the Government members are hanging their heads in shame. Even the Minister in the chair, who I’ve got a huge amount of respect for—one of the hardest-working Ministers in the current Government—doesn’t agree with this legislation. I’ve heard his few explanations when he is prepared to get to his feet. His heart’s not in this.
We all know why it’s here. It’s because one leader can’t control his caucus. So we’re being imposed with legislation because of the Rt Hon Winston Peters’ own skills in handling people. That’s why this legislation is here. Don’t shy away with any other excuses. That’s why I speak with some passion about this particular operative clause of this pernicious, dangerous legislation.
I note that Greg O’Connor is there. We had a meeting earlier about a forthcoming visit to the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU). I challenge him to go around proudly amongst those 45,000 members of the IPU, many of them in Geneva at the conference in October, and talk with pride about New Zealand entering into the same status as Zimbabwe—the same status as Zimbabwe.
So Mr Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity of speaking to this clause. I will oppose not only this clause, I will oppose every clause in this awful dreadful bill—
Hon Members: Mr Chair!
Rt Hon DAVID CARTER: —with every bone in my body. It should not be allowed to proceed.
CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Before I give the call, just because members can see the time clicking down, the member on his feet has the call for that time, and to start calling for a call is out of order until that member is finished.
VIRGINIA ANDERSEN (Labour): I move, That the question be now put.
BRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you for an opportunity to speak on this clause. I do agree it’s an operative clause and that the clause itself is very clear, and no one argues with what it means, and no one argues that it is the right of this Parliament to choose to enact this and, indeed, the bill, if that is the will of Parliament. But I think it’s very important when looking at this clause that we look at it within the context of the section it amends, because there are many other conditions under which a vacancy—traditionally, under the principal Act—can be created in Parliament, and this clause is quite different to all of those.
Except for an incredibly dark period in this country’s history when our democracy suffered under the yoke of a dictatorial piece of legislation that was introduced with a bill under the same name as this bill—except for that short time, where the Rt Hon Winston Peters was also part of that coalition Government with Labour—the provision of leaving a political party never formed a criterion for the eviction or the removal from the New Zealand Parliament.
So as parliamentarians here consider whether we should adopt this particular clause, and, indeed, whether we should adopt and support this bill, I say they should reflect upon the Electoral Act history in New Zealand and ask themselves this question: do we have confidence that the New Zealand Parliament in its long history has considered the prospect of people leaving their political parties and what implications that should have on their membership in Parliament? Yes, they clearly have. They clearly have for several reasons.
One is that members in this House today have noted a number of instances where members of Parliament have left or even been expelled from their party and remained in Parliament, at least for a period of time, as an independent. Jim Anderton was one that, of course, I can remember. I am old enough to remember the deep fight between him and how he saw the Labour Party leaving him. But there’s one even closer to home for me—actually, closer to my actual home, because just down the road from me in the electorate of Ōhāriu lives the Hon Peter Dunne. We are both residents in Khandallah. Of course, Peter Dunne left the Labour Party, and, through a succession of party forms, served in this Parliament a number of years, both under the old electoral first-past-the-post system and then under MMP, and retired as leader of the United Future party.
So we look back and think, if we’ve had all of these changes in our history, I believe it is very safe for us to say that Parliament has considered over the years that parliamentarians might from time to time leave the party under which they were elected into Parliament. Parliament has considered that, because the electoral laws in this country have gone through a number of iterations. The principal Act here is the Electoral Act 1993. That big change was, of course, preparing our electoral law for MMP. I don’t think there’s any question at all whether the Parliament of the time considered the potential for people to leave their political parties under MMP, because it had already begun. Peter Dunne had left the Labour Party ahead of the MMP election. In fact, a number of people from the National Party had left and formed parties also.
So we can absolutely, categorically state that Parliament, in its history, has considered what should happen to an MP if they leave the political party under which they were elected, and, except for those dark years when the Rt Hon Winston Peters has been part of a coalition with the Labour Party, this Parliament has consistently said it should not impact their right to sit, and stand, in fact, in this House as members of Parliament. Why is that? Because, first and foremost, once elected, members are elected as members of Parliament: country first, then party, then self.
That is why, when they’re not a member of the party under which they were elected, they remain in this House, because, first and foremost, they were elected to serve their country—to serve all of the people of New Zealand. Yes, they came into Parliament sharing the values of a particular party. In the past it has happened that, on occasions, they have felt that the values of the party they entered in and their own personal values have diverged, but they serve the country and they have the right to serve in this Parliament.
NICOLA WILLIS (National): I rise in solemnity today to talk about clause 4 of the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill. I refer you back to section 55 of the Electoral Act, that this clause adds to. What are the other circumstances under which an MP would be forced to leave this Parliament? Let us think of what severe circumstances they have been to date: a death, because someone has become mentally unfit, because there has been a criminal offence, or because they are serving another country or have become an MP in another country. And add to that list of things which are very serious a new clause which says, “Actually, if you resign from your political party, you will cease to be a member of Parliament.” We need to consider how grave that is.
A very good way to provide us a sense of that gravity is to think of other countries who specifically outlaw this kind of a clause from their electoral law. We can think of Germany—the home of MMP—which specifically precludes this sort of a provision being a grounds on which a vacancy can be called. We can think of exactly why that would be. We can think of the other countries of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, of which members opposite are part: an institution that is 180 years old and that says that countries that have these kinds of provisions in their electoral law are political party dictatorships. That is a gravity of what this committee is considering in clause 4.
What the Inter-Parliamentary Union says of those countries is that they cannot be seen to uphold democracy, because it is at the very heart of democracy that we will be held to our conscience and to our thinking as individuals, not beholden to the dictatorship of a political party. This clause undoes that grave principle. It assumes that resigning from a political party is a grave offence—that it is an offence that “lacks integrity”, if we are to read the title of the bill to have any real meaning apart from its Orwellian implications.
We consider, in this Parliament today, members of Parliament past who would have been forced to vacate this House if this provision had been in law: members such as Rod Donald, Peter Dunne, Roger Douglas, Jim Anderton, Winston Peters, Tariana Turia, and Hone Harawira. We consider these members. I may not agree with their views. I may not agree with the things they said in this House or the laws that they voted for, but they were true to their own views and were not forced to leave this Parliament because they resigned from a political party. But, today, the Government would say that those people should be forced to vacate this very Parliament.
This represents a grave cultural change. In this contribution, I want to draw your attention to the comments of the Attorney-General, who said in his not - section 7 New Zealand Bill of Rights report that the effect of having a clause such as this “has the potential to discourage an MP from speaking up against the party”. These are not my words. These are not the words of the National Party. These are the words of the Attorney-General—a Labour Party member of Parliament. He said that it has the potential to cause “a chilling effect on an MP’s freedom to express themselves inside and outside [this] House.” And he notes that this “suppression of dissenting voices … is a solemn matter for any Parliament.” Because, of course, it has the potential to do this not just prima facie, but also to have a chilling effect on the other actions which they take.
So, at this point, I would point to other countries in the world which have clauses such as this in their electoral law: Zimbabwe and Pakistan. I would urge this committee to consider the threat that we are dealing with, because what are the circumstances under which those countries have drawn these laws into action? MPs have been dismissed for expressing their doubts about the corruption of their own Government, because they have been forced from their political party and therefore have been forced from Parliament. MPs have been forced from Parliament for voting differently from their leaders. They have been forced from Parliament for holding press conferences without the consent of their party leader. That is the threat that is at stake today in this Chamber when we consider this clause 4.
RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): I move, That the question be now put.
TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I very much enjoy the opportunity to speak to this extraordinarily poor piece of legislation, and in particular, this clause 4, which is the enabler of such an extraordinary piece of legislation, which says that, despite being elected here and being asked by your constituents to give voice to their concerns, the ultimate arbiter of your value as a member of Parliament is whether you can continue to have the support and confidence of your leader. This is outrageous.
Every one of us in this House began a journey knocking on a door and looking at somebody who answered that door and said, “I would like to introduce who I am and the values that I stand for.” How many of you in this Parliament ever had a constituent who you were being introduced to for the first time and were talking to about what you would like to achieve as a politician on their behalf say, “I will judge you on your fealty to the leader?” None. None. Everyone is tested by the character test of your capacity to represent a particular community and the values that you as a politician will give voice to. No one out in the community that we all here tonight profess to represent would ask us above all else, “I ask you always to genuflect to the leader.”, and that is what this clause enables.
It states the conditions by which you have to resign as a member of the party, not because of a choice of values, or passion, or direction of country, or representing your constituent—none of that. That’s included in part, but the critical enabling clause here, that clause 4 reference—new section 55A, you go below that—is that the parliamentary leader can write to the Speaker and say, “I’m sorry but your contribution as a member of this political party is over, so, therefore, you have to resign your seat.” That is absolutely outrageous. If a form of this was put up as a member’s bill, I know that the Minister in the chair would have railed against it. He would have added his voice to the Attorney-General’s—
Hon Tim Macindoe: So would the Green Party.
TODD MULLER: —and certainly so would the Green Party.
What makes this so frustrating is that this is a place—of course, at times—of partisan debate, but one would hope that through the partisan debate there is an essence of values that underpin a conversation. Yet throughout the time that we have reflected on this bill, and particularly this conversation here about this clause—everyone knows it’s a façade on the other side. They look at the floor. They can’t look at the eyes and acknowledge the rational views that are being expressed on this side, because they know in their hearts this is absolutely wrong.
They are better than this. At their better times they are better than this. I disagree with most of the philosophical and policy implications of this coalition Government, but there are men and women of principle, but none of them have taken a call. None of them, with the exception of Ron Mark talking about the fact—
Alastair Scott: For two minutes.
TODD MULLER: —for two minutes—that “defence is good and I’ve always supported the leader, and I can’t ever imagine a time that I wouldn’t support a leader.” He could have just stood up and said, “The way I run my political career is, ‘How high, Winston?’ ” I mean, I’m sorry, this is an outrageous piece of legislation and everybody on the other side knows it and it’s an absolute disgrace.
GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): I move, That the question be now put.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): Thank you, Mr Chairman. I want to make this contribution on just one word, because there is one word in new section 55(1)(fa) inserted by clause 4 that means everything and that word is this: “if … he or she ceases to be a parliamentary member of a political party…”. Can I tell you why that word “ceases” is so significant. If it said the word “resigns”—that the member of Parliament voluntarily resigned from that party, that would make a huge material difference to what this clause is all about. The word “cease”—the word “cease”—is there because this isn’t about the situation where a member of Parliament voluntarily resigns from a political party. This provision is about the plank calls. This is a provision where a member of Parliament is forced out of a party.
Now my colleagues have referred to this bill as the “Brendan Horan Bill” and let’s just put this into context. I get quite annoyed when this bill is constantly referred to as the “Waka-hopping Bill” because Brendan Horan is the only member who has switched parties in the last decade. Did Brendan Horan want to leave the New Zealand First Party? Did he resign from the New Zealand First Party? Was this some voluntary “let’s hop out of New Zealand First”? No, it wasn’t. It was quite the opposite. He was desperate to stay in New Zealand First. Members on this side of the Chamber might ask why, but he was, and fair enough. And the part that’s so significant is this bill is driven by this provision where a member can be driven out of their political party and driven out of this Parliament.
Here’s a really important distinction. The Minister and Winston Peters have, a number of times, referred to the situation of Maurice Williamson and other members. Let me be very clear: it is my view and it is the view of the Inter-Parliamentary Union that it is appropriate for caucus to have the power to push a person out of caucus—that is appropriate. Caucus is a voluntary organisation. But it is a power of difference to say that a person is not only not to be a member of caucus but is to be forced out that door and out of this parliament. That is hugely constitutionally different, and here’s what’s even more significant. Force out that door a list member who is raising concerns about Government, and—guess what—they get to bring a poodle in. They get to bring a poodle in.
I would ask this question of my colleagues: how many people have you met that have said that in New Zealand we need to give party leaders more power? How many members have heard that? I have to say, have any members opposite knocked on a door and said, “You know what’s wrong with New Zealand? We need to be more authoritarian.”? That’s right—“We need to be more authoritarian. We want more of that culture of what the leader says goes.” I have to say, I have not heard that view once. I hear quite a lot of people saying, “I wish MPs acted with more integrity. I wish MPs acted more commonly with what they said they would do.”
I wish the Green Party would take a call and explain why they are voting for this bill, because we’ve been going for six hours and they haven’t taken a single call. I’d like Gareth Hughes to answer the question: does the Green Party believe New Zealanders want to give more political power to party leaders through this clause? The honest truth? There ain’t a New Zealander out there that holds that view—not one. There isn’t an editorial, there isn’t a journalist, there isn’t a constitutional academic that says we’ve got a problem in this country—that political party leaders don’t have much power.
What’s really in this bill is about the crude grab of power by Winston Peters, and nobody—nobody opposite, in this Parliament—having the courage to say to Winston, “No, that’s not right. That’s not democracy. That’s not what this Parliament has been about for 170 years. That is not part of the culture of this liberal democracy.” I am just so disappointed in members opposite, that they do not have the courage of their convictions—[Time expired]
GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): I move, That the question be now put.
CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The question is, That the question be now put. Those of that opinion will say Aye—
Tim van de Molen: Point of order.
CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): We are having a vote.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.
Ayes 62
New Zealand Labour 46; Green Party 8; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 56
New Zealand National 56.
Motion agreed to.
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith to clause 4 be agreed to:
replace clause 4 with new clause 4:
4 Section 55 amended (How vacancies created)
After section 55(1)(f), insert:
(fa) if, under section 55A, they cease to be a parliamentary member of the political party for which they were elected; or
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 56
New Zealand National 56.
Noes 62
New Zealand Labour 46; Green Party 8; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Hon Dr Nick Smith to clause 4 be agreed to:
replace clause 4 with new clause 4:
4 Section 55 amended (How vacancies created)
After section 55(1)(f), insert:
(fa) if, under section 55A, he or she ceases to be a parliamentary member of the political party for which he or she was elected or in the case of a merger of two or more parties he or she ceases to be a parliamentary member of that new merged party; or
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 56
New Zealand National 56.
Noes 62
New Zealand Labour 46; Green Party 8; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 4 be agreed to.
Ayes 62
New Zealand Labour 46; Green Party 8; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 57
New Zealand National 56; ACT New Zealand 1.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): Mr Chairman, I do note that you are required to report progress at five minutes to six. There isn’t the opportunity remaining for a five-minute contribution—there’s only 2½ minutes before you have to do that. I seek leave for the committee stage to conclude and for the Chair to report progress.
CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.
House resumed.
Progress reported.
Report adopted.
The House adjourned at 5.54 p.m.