Thursday, 6 September 2018
Volume 732
Sitting date: 6 September 2018
THURSDAY, 6 SEPTEMBER 2018
THURSDAY, 6 SEPTEMBER 2018
The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.
Prayers.
Business Statement
Business Statement
Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Deputy Leader of the House): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Next week, legislation to be considered by the House will include the America’s Cup Road Stopping Bill, the Building Amendment Bill, the Conservation (Indigenous Freshwater Fish) Amendment Bill, the Education Amendment Bill, the Education (Teaching Council of Aotearoa New Zealand) Amendment Bill, the Family and Whānau Violence Legislation Bill, and the State Sector and Crown Entities Reform Bill. There will be an extended sitting of the House on the morning of Wednesday, 12 September.
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): Does he consider it good parliamentary practice for the Government to be calling for an extended-hours sitting to consider education bills while the Education and Workforce Committee is scheduled to be sitting in Auckland?
Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Deputy Leader of the House): The business of the committee is a matter for the committee to consider.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.
SPEAKER: A point of order—the Hon Gerry Brownlee. I know it’s not question time, but I think it is reasonable that a better answer is given.
Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: The question was, “Is it good practice?” My understanding is that the bills being considered by that committee at that time are all bills that the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety, and Minister of Immigration, is responsible for. I suggest to the member that he ensure that he has education spokespeople here in the House and addresses the matters to do with workforce relations and immigration.
SPEAKER: I’m going to indicate that I do not think it is good practice for that to occur.
Oral Questions
Questions to Ministers
KiwiBuild—Progress
1. PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai) to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: What progress has he made towards the Government’s target of building 1,000 affordable KiwiBuild homes in 2018/19, 5,000 in 2019/20, and 10,000 in 2020/21?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Housing and Urban Development): Malo e laumalie. On Sunday, I announced that the first KiwiBuild homes have been completed. [Applause]
SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. Can I just make it clear to members on both sides that we’re here to listen to answers and not to act like a performing seals circus.
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The 18 warm, modern, and architecturally designed stand-alone homes made up of 12 three-bedroom homes selling for $579,000 and six four-bedroom homes selling for $649,000 will go on sale next week. A generation of young Kiwis with good jobs are priced out of homeownership. They made good choices, but they still cannot afford the security of their own home. KiwiBuild is providing—
SPEAKER: Order! The member has completed his answer.
Paul Eagle: What other announcements did the Government make about the McLennan development?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, I also announced that a further 12 properties are under construction at the McLennan development and will be completed before Christmas, including seven terraced two-bedroom homes and five four-bedroom homes, and next year another 58 KiwiBuild homes will be built at McLennan, the majority of which will be three-bedroom homes.
Paul Eagle: How will an interested family purchase a KiwiBuild home at McLennan?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, a ballot opens next week, and families will have four weeks to decide whether they want to enter into the ballot. Families can come and have a look, and when the show home opens on Saturday, this weekend, they can talk to the agents and get an idea of whether it would work for them and their family.
Paul Eagle: What other KiwiBuild developments are getting under way?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The buying off the plans initiative, which will provide the majority of houses in the first few years of KiwiBuild, is making great progress, and I’ll be making more announcements on houses to be built under this scheme this year very soon. We’re also preparing to ramp up building with large-scale developments, including Unitec, Northcote, and Māngere, and today the KiwiBuild unit has called for expressions of interest on the establishment of a large-scale offsite manufacturing industry in New Zealand.
Prime Minister—Confidence in Ministers
2. Hon PAULA BENNETT (Deputy Leader—National) to the Prime Minister: Does she have confidence in all her Ministers?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Undoubtedly, particularly in their efforts to save taxpayer money on unnecessary VIP travel and accommodation, in contrast to their predecessors.
Hon Paula Bennett: Is Clare Curran the benchmark standard that she expects her Ministers to perform to?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The Prime Minister has made it very public that she did not think that a certain standard had been met, and that’s why she took action. That’s been known for some considerable time.
Hon Paula Bennett: So does the quality of answers by Clare Curran in the House yesterday meet the standard that she expects from a Minister of communications?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Again, the Prime Minister has to confess that she wasn’t in the House yesterday. But we all have an off-day—and no one would understand that better than the member asking the question.
Hon PAULA BENNETT: Did she take the time on the flight back from Nauru with Winston Peters to write a list of what he wants so she can try and avoid future embarrassments, like the recent “number of refugees” fiasco?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The Prime Minister, in a press conference in Nauru yesterday, was at pains to point out that the statement from various Ministers and herself and Winston Peters were all on the same page. For example, when a media airhead puts it to the Deputy Prime Minister that the refugee quota is 1,500, and he says, “No it’s not; that has not gone through Cabinet yet.”, then he might have been right. But no, no, that member and the Opposition keep on thinking that this is wedge politics. The reality is that we’re a coalition that gets on with consultation and ensures that on the big economic and social issues of the day, we make progress.
Hon Paula Bennett: Why didn’t she know before the media and the public did that Winston Peters didn’t support her or her party’s policy on refugees?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Because we have had, since a referendum in 1993, the beginnings, in 1996, of an MMP environment. Parties have their own manifestos, but the beauty of a coalition is that you agree on what parts of your collective manifesto’s going to be progressed, and this is a work in progress.
Hon Paula Bennett: Does she have confidence in her Minister of Foreign Affairs, when he doesn’t seem to respect her enough to give her a heads-up before he publicly challenges what was an important policy to her?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, I am far too clever to be misled by a stupid, false media question, which went like this: “The Government’s refugee quota is 1,500.”, to which I said, “Well, no, it’s not.” That wasn’t starting an argument; it was putting the facts out there. And the member should know, after all this time, the big difference: words matter.
Hon Paula Bennett: Does she think it’s helpful that her Minister of Foreign Affairs treats the media and the public like they’re stupid?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, I know full well the admiration that the Minister of Foreign Affairs has for the media—particularly, some of them—and he’s made no conceit or deceit about that. He’s always said that they could perform far better if their ownership gave them greater resources and greater time to do their job properly.
Hon Shane Jones: To the Prime Minister, on the matter of standards, what does it mean by “comparable ministerial costs”?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, curiously—and that’s a very good question, actually, for which we are thoroughly prepared. In the second quarter of 2015, under the previous administration, costs were $2.33 million. In 2016, in the second quarter, under the previous administration, costs were $2.25 million. In the second quarter of 2017, $2.2 million, and in 2018, the quarter for which this Government is responsible, $1.49 million.
Hon Paula Bennett: Does she have confidence in her ability to manage her Government when she has Clare Curran twice misleading the House, allegations swirling in regard to Meka Whaitiri, and she can’t even tell us what policy her Government will be implementing without first asking the permission of Winston Peters?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Can I just say that, on behalf of the Prime Minister, being the epitome of consultation and wise Government, I consult with all of my colleagues in Cabinet and outside, and amongst the three caucuses involved. That’s what MMP looks like under reformed, visionary Government.
Economy—Outlook
3. Hon AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) to the Minister of Finance: Can he confirm the results of the latest ANZ business outlook survey show employment and investment intentions are at their lowest levels since 2009; if so, what effect does he think this will have on the New Zealand economy?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I can confirm I have seen reports about the survey that indicate that is what it says. The reports I am seeing about actual business activity give me confidence that there are more people being hired and more investment in productive assets taking place and that that will have a greater effect on the economy than any particular survey.
Hon Amy Adams: Well, is he aware that economists at the ANZ have stated that actually “investment intentions from the survey provide a very good … directional signal for GDP growth”?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: There are different views from different economists on the merits of the survey. What I am working on is the actual facts of what is happening in New Zealand. We saw, for example, in the terms of trade data, that capital goods import volumes were up 13 percent. That means people are importing machinery and equipment that they are investing in to improve productivity. That’s what is actually happening in the economy.
Hon Amy Adams: Well, is he aware that there has been a halving of new job growth, a halving of job ads, since he became the Minister of Finance, and also now a sharp drop in employment intentions of New Zealand businesses?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On the matter of job ads, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment’s latest job ads data shows that over the past year online vacancies in fact increased by 7.1 percent—7.1 percent.
Hon Amy Adams: Will he acknowledge that Government policies such as a 27 percent increase in the minimum wage, stronger union powers, and new and increased taxes are all contributing to an environment that makes businesses less likely to invest or to hire new staff?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I reject the premises in that question from the member. What we’re doing with increasing the minimum wage is making sure that the lowest-paid people in New Zealand finally get a fair go after nine years of being neglected by that former Government.
Hon Amy Adams: Does he know enough about actually running a business to understand that the more than doubling of costs for businesses under this Government, compared to the last one, is part of the reason the businesses are now saying they are less likely to hire staff and less likely to invest?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I reject virtually all of the premises in that question. What this Government is focused on is making sure that right across New Zealand, in the cities and the regions of New Zealand, there are opportunities for people to have good jobs that pay good wages, so they can look after their families. I would hope the member would support that.
Hon Amy Adams: I seek leave to table a document compiled by my office that pulls together all of the producer cost index data from quarter four 2008 to quarter two 2018, that has been compiled and analysed by my office.
SPEAKER: It’s not been the practice of my recent predecessors to allow documents produced by members or their offices to be put for tabling and I’m going to continue with that precedent.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is the finance Minister aware that the first two quarters of 2017 were down, and that before the last election the ANZ economist was saying that forecast GDP growth would be 2.6 percent—way below what it is now?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Indeed, the trends that we’re seeing now did indeed begin at the beginning of 2017. I can reassure the member though, however, that the forecasters continue to tell us that over the next three years we will have, on average, 3 percent growth in advance of what we inherited and in advance of where we are now.
Auckland District Health Board—Infrastructure Investment
4. ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI (Labour) to the Minister of Health: What recent announcements has he made about investing in Auckland District Health Board’s hospital infrastructure?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): On Thursday, 23 August, I accompanied the Prime Minister on a visit to Auckland City Hospital, where we announced a $305 million investment in the district health board’s (DHB’s) essential infrastructure. The funding will be used to repair, replace, and upgrade everything from lifts, water systems, ICT cabling, to new fire protection systems and new electrical substations. The project will also improve energy efficiency and help reduce operating costs.
Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki: What difference will patients at Auckland City Hospital, Starship, and Greenlane see as a result of this work?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: In the short term, patients, whānau, and staff will not see a lot of difference, and everything will be done to minimise disruption to ongoing work. Ultimately, they will experience fewer operational failures, greater efficiency and responsiveness, and improved safety and resilience. This work will also provide a solid foundation for the DHB to plan for the future healthcare needs of its communities, and it’s necessary as a precursor for any future development of the Auckland City Hospital and Greenlane Clinical Centre sites.
Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki: Why was such a large investment needed?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: We have great staff in our public hospitals. We deliver great care that people expect and indeed deserve in facilities they can rely on. Unfortunately, a lot of the infrastructure at Auckland City Hospital and Greenlane is approaching the end of its life or is at capacity. We’re addressing a legacy of deferred maintenance and an ageing infrastructure after nine long years of under-investment.
Housing New Zealand—Vacant State Houses
5. Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura) to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: How many houses owned or managed by Housing New Zealand were vacant on 31 August 2018?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Housing and Urban Development): There were 722 long-term vacant State houses in August. Of these, 285 are undergoing major repairs or upgrades, and 215 homes are being redeveloped as part of the Government’s build programme. Additionally, there are 382 State houses vacant because they are in between tenancies or being repaired. There are a further 169 where their leases have expired or they are about to be demolished for redevelopment or are beyond repair. We’re committed to keeping the number of vacant homes as low as possible while we build a net additional 6,400 public houses. The vacancy rate was as high as 3,540 or one in 20 homes under the previous Government. It’s now down to one in 50.
Hon Judith Collins: How many families are on the Housing New Zealand waiting list for those houses?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: There are approximately 8,500 people currently on the waiting list, but the turnaround time to get families into State houses has been steadily decreasing. At the end of June 2016, the average turnaround time was 38 days, at the end of June 2017, it was 34 days, and at the end of June 2018, it was down to 19 days.
Hon Judith Collins: How many of those families on the waiting list of around 8,500 families for a vacant Housing New Zealand house are living in temporary housing such as motels?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: If the member wants to put that question down in writing, I’d be happy to answer it. I don’t have the numbers in front of me.
Hon Judith Collins: Why are there around 1,400 empty State houses when there is a waiting list of, he says, 8,500 Kiwi families for those houses?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, after inheriting a housing crisis after nine years of neglect and the sell-off of 5,000 State houses, we’ve got a lot of ground to make up. But I’ll say this: our Government will not sit around and leave as many as 400 State houses boarded up and lying vacant due to bogus methamphetamine standards.
Hon Judith Collins: Why, since he has been the Minister for around a year, are there people still having to sleep in cars when there are 1,400 empty State houses?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, we are investing $4 billion in building 6,400 extra State houses. We stopped the mass sell-off of State houses. We’ve actually funded and built nearly 2,400 emergency housing places around this country, and rolled out Housing First to half a dozen new centres. It took nine years of neglect to allow the housing crisis to spin out of control; after nine months, I think we’ve done pretty well. [Applause]
SPEAKER: Order! Can I just remind people in the gallery that you’ve got to stay out of it.
Hon Judith Collins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I don’t believe that the Minister addressed the question, which is: why, when he’s been the Minister for almost a year, there are still 1,400 empty State houses and people having to sleep in cars rather than those State houses? We got a long diatribe.
SPEAKER: Well, I think that the answer certainly addressed and probably came close to answering the question.
Hon Judith Collins: Why are there 1,400 empty State houses when he says that there were empty State houses under National and he has stated previously they should not have been empty, and why is it OK for them to be empty now?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, not only do we have a lot to catch up on after nine years of neglect, but we have reduced the number of vacant State houses from one in 20 under that Government to one in 50 in nine months.
Unemployment Rate—Statistics
6. Hon PAULA BENNETT (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Employment: Does he stand by all of his statements and actions?
Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister of Employment): Yes, in the context, of course, in which they were made.
Hon Paula Bennett: Was the unemployment rate, as it stood when he was sworn in on 26 October 2017, 4.6 percent?
Hon WILLIE JACKSON: As I said on Tuesday, when I was sworn in as Minister of Employment the official annual rate of unemployment was 5 percent. That changed in June of this year to 4.5 percent. For the assistance of the member who’s asking the question, 26 October is correct—when I was sworn in. On 1 November, a new household labour force survey was released, at which point the quarterly figure became 4.6 percent. Now, if the member is trying to assert that when I was sworn in the rate of unemployment was 4.6 percent, based on quarterly figures, she’s also incorrect: it was 4.8 percent on 26 October.
Hon Paula Bennett: Thank you, sir. I seek leave to table a document prepared by the Parliamentary Library outlining the unemployment rates for October 2017.
SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that document being tabled? There is.
Hon Paula Bennett: Was the unemployment rate in October last year 4.9 percent, as he said on Newshub Nation; 5 percent, as he said yesterday; 4.6 percent, according to Statistics New Zealand; or 4.8 percent, as he just told the House?
Hon WILLIE JACKSON: As I said on Tuesday, the annual unemployment rate was 5 percent. However, the quarterly rate at that particular time, when the member was asking, was 4.8 percent. So the member is wrong on both counts.
Hon Paula Bennett: So from here on, will he be using annualised employment figures, as he did on Newshub Nation, or quarterly employment figures, as he does in his press releases; or doesn’t it matter, because, as the members says, “there’s statistics, and then there’s statistics.”
Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I think the member is accusing me of cherry-picking, in terms of statistics. We can talk about statistics until we’re blue in the face. Make no mistake, though: my focus is on the people. I’ve been clear on this since accepting the employment portfolio, which is why I’ve been out across the country, rolling out programmes, concentrating on the people and communities at the very core. We can go on about “4.6 percent”, “4.5 percent”, and the 0.1 percent difference, but the 0.1 percent difference equates to 4,000 more people who are now in paid employment.
Hon Paula Bennett: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Actually, with my question, it was whether he is going to use annualised or quarterly, because it will determine other questions I can ask, sir, and I’d really like him to address it. It’s quite a serious question: is he going to be using annualised or is he going to be using quarterly?
SPEAKER: The member’s been here for quite a long time, and she knows that she can’t get, effectively, a yes/no or a binary answer to a question. That’s a longstanding Speakers’ ruling.
Jo Luxton: What other statement does the Minister of Employment also stand by?
Hon WILLIE JACKSON: What an excellent question. I stated on Newshub Nation on Saturday, 1 September that my desire as the Minister of Employment was to continue to have high aspirations for Māori and Pasifika communities and our disabled community. Our goal should absolutely be to reduce the constant deficit between the unemployment rate of the general population to that experienced particularly by Māori and Pasifika. I listed programmes like He Poutama Rangatahi – Youth Employment Pathways that are successfully targeting the regions where the need exists, and, already, positive change is happening—2,300 people being transitioned into employment or training. I clearly have higher aspirations for our people than some of the members opposite, who have the audacity—
SPEAKER: Right, thank you. The member probably finished answering the question about a minute ago.
Hon Paula Bennett: What is the employment rate for students that leave charter schools?
Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Put that question to my office and I’ll come back to you.
Primary Sector Development—Sustainable Food and Fibre Futures and Extension Service Model
7. KIERAN McANULTY (Labour) to the Minister of Agriculture: How is this Government helping our vital primary sectors get more value for the products they produce?
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture): I recently launched the Sustainable Food and Fibre Futures (SFFF) programme. The SFFF fund will make $40 million a year available for funding requests to help our vital food and fibre industries. The primary sector is the backbone of the New Zealand economy, delivering more than $42 billion in export revenue last year, and we are committed as a Government to getting more sustainable value for the great products our farmers and our growers produce.
Kieran McAnulty: What are the key goals of the Sustainable Food and Fibre Futures fund?
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: The new SFFF fund will provide greater strategic focus for research, and move away from just focusing on volume to achieving higher sustainable value for our primary exporters. The SFFF fund provides a single gateway for farmers and growers to apply for investment in a greater range of products that deliver economic, environmental, and social benefits that flow through to all Kiwis.
Kieran McAnulty: What programmes alongside the SFFF will help farmers get the most from their hard work?
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: I recently also launched the Extension Service Model, which will be rolled out over four years by the Ministry for Primary Industries, with $3 million of funding. We’re not starting from zero. There are a range of good extension programmes under way, but there is opportunity for us to play a stronger role in partnering with industry to support better coordination and targeting of services that focus on sustainable and profitable farming. The extension service programme sits alongside our investment in tools like OVERSEER that will help farmers make good on-farm decisions.
Hon Nathan Guy: Does he agree with his $100,000 review that has confirmed National’s Primary Growth Partnership (PGP) is delivering new jobs, increased exports, higher-value products, and higher on-farm incomes?
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: One would hope that the expenditure of $350 million of taxpayer funding would deliver some benefits for the country. However, the review found three things. Firstly, the report noted that since 2009, the PGP fund was underspent by $150 million, as the last Government raided it for other things. Secondly, the independent report said that PGP did not have a clear and agreed long-term strategy. And, thirdly, the report noted that PGP needed to focus on becoming more transformational.
Refugees—Quota
8. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister of Immigration: When he said of the refugee quota, “We are very firm in our commitment to increase that quota and our commitment before the election was to do that during the first term in Government, and that is still my plan”, was he speaking in his ministerial capacity or as an individual with “a personal commitment to increasing the refugee quota,” as described by the Prime Minister?
Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister of Immigration): Both.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: OK. In that case, when he advised officials on 15 November 2017 that he “would like a plan for increasing the annual refugee quota to 1,500 places to be developed by the middle of 2018”, was he speaking as Minister of Immigration or as an individual with “a personal commitment to increasing the refugee quota,”?
Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: As Minister of Immigration, I am continuing to advocate for an increase in the quota to 1,500, and I am preparing myself so that I can seek the agreement of my Cabinet colleagues through the usual Cabinet processes.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: When, following a 29 March briefing to him entitled “Options for staging the increase in the refugee quota”, he directed officials to draft a paper to be taken to Cabinet in June “seeking agreement to permanently increase the annual refugee quota to 1,500 places”, did he do so as Minister of Immigration or as an individual with “a personal commitment to increasing the refugee quota,”?
Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: I did so as Minister of Immigration. And as a sensible Minister of Immigration, I have looked at some of the capacity issues that we inherited from the previous Government—not least the appalling housing crisis that the country is facing—and I know that before we increase the quota, the sensible thing to do is to address those capacity issues.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: When he received a document titled “Increasing the refugee quota: options for staging the increase to 1,500 places annually by June 2020”, did he do so as Minister of Immigration or as an individual with “a personal commitment to increasing the refugee quota,”?
Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: I did it as a Minister with a personal commitment to increasing the refugee quota.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Does he agree with Newshub that the Prime Minister has thrown him under a bus on this issue by backing down on the Government’s plan to increase the number of refugees after the policy already received funding in the latest Budget?
Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: In relation to the last part of that question, the funding that the member refers to was funding for the expansion of the Māngere Refugee Resettlement Centre, which, as I said yesterday, is necessary regardless of whether there is an increase to the quota or not. In regards to any bus, I haven’t seen a bus, and I think an articulation of normal Government processes, which I would’ve thought that member would be aware of, doesn’t constitute any form of bus.
Hon James Shaw: Given the renewed level of concern about the plight of refugees on Nauru and around the world, would the Minister be prepared to test whether there is now a parliamentary majority in favour of increasing the refugee quota to 1,500?
Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Were there an opportunity to do so I’d certainly be interested to see how the Opposition would vote on that.
Police—Deputy Commissioner of Police, Allegations Against
9. CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South) to the Minister of Police: Has a formal complaint of alleged bullying been made against Deputy Police Commissioner Wally Haumaha, and has an employment investigation commenced?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice) on behalf of the Minister of Police: The police advise that they have received two formal complaints in relation to bullying allegations against Deputy Police Commissioner Wally Haumaha. These have been notified to the Independent Police Conduct Authority in accordance with the usual process for these complaints.
Chris Bishop: What does the Minister’s diary indicate he is doing between 2 and 3 o’clock on Thursday, 6 September?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: On behalf of the Minister, I cannot answer that question because I do not have that detail in front of me.
Health, Ministry—Audit New Zealand Report into Deloitte Engagement
10. Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by all his statements and actions around the National Oracle Solution and the Audit New Zealand report on Deloitte’s appointment as reviewers?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Yes, in the context they were made and taken. In particular, I stand by my statement that it was the ministry that commissioned the Deloitte report—using the same all-of-Government processes used by the previous Government—and not me that commissioned the report, as Dr Reti continues to incorrectly assert in the media.
Dr Shane Reti: Will he then take any responsibility for the Audit New Zealand report showing that Deloitte’s conflict of interest was not fully considered, was poorly managed, and that there was significant failure in the engagement process?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The Ministry of Health invited Audit New Zealand to review their processes, and they have received a number of recommendations, and I’m pleased to see that they are implementing them.
Dr Shane Reti: Is he aware of evidence that the ministry did not pursue Deloitte’s conflict of interest after Deloitte warned them that they did not want their conflicts made public?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I have seen evidence in the Audit New Zealand report that the conflicts of interests—perceived, real, or otherwise—were declared in accordance with the all-of-Government processes set in place by the previous Government, and, also, commentary from Audit New Zealand that they could have been more thoroughly examined consequently, and that they recommend putting processes in place that make the contracting process in future better than the one that was operating under the previous Government.
Dr Shane Reti: How does he respond to allegations that he and his team tried to bury the report, when the Auditor General’s office this Monday said that if Clark didn’t release the report by noon that day, they would release it, which they proceeded to do at 1.28 p.m.?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Far from burying any reports on the previous National Government’s failures in respect of the National Oracle Solution, I, in fact, issued a press statement welcoming the release.
Dr Shane Reti: How will he explain to taxpayers the spending of $150,000 on a report which, through his incompetence, is no longer credible?
SPEAKER: Order! No.
Hon Grant Robertson: Supplementary question?
SPEAKER: No, well, I’m just going to indicate to the member that there’s a degree of judgment in that question—a degree of assertion which goes beyond what’s allowed in a question.
Hon Grant Robertson: What does the Minister consider worse: issues relating to an Audit New Zealand report on a review of a programme, or the programme itself blowing out to a $90 million cost for which New Zealanders get virtually no benefit?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: That is actually the relevant question here. I think it is shameful that people are prosecuting a small report which found grievous failures between 2012 and 2017, when $90 million of taxpayer money was wasted, with very little to show for it. That side of the House needs to look themselves in the mirror on this one.
Crown/Māori Relations—Scope of Portfolio
11. Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) to the Minister for Crown/Māori Relations: Does he stand by all his statements and actions?
Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister for Crown/Māori Relations): Yes, in the context they were made and taken.
Hon Christopher Finlayson: What specific steps has he taken to ensure that State-owned enterprises, Crown research institutes, and Crown entities are aware of their obligation to foster a positive Crown-Māori relationship, given that he said to Cabinet in his paper entitled Initial Scope of Crown/Māori Relations portfolio that the quality of Crown-Māori engagement “varies across public sector agencies”?
Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Crown/Māori relations is a new way of thinking, working, and behaving as a Government. We are encouraging everyone to work with Māori in partnership rather than doing what the previous Government did and seeing Māori as a handbrake when they are, in fact, the accelerator.
Hon Christopher Finlayson: What specific steps has he taken to progress the development of the central register of commitments, given that he said in this Cabinet paper entitled Initial Scope of Crown/Māori Relations portfolio that one of his responsibilities is to “ensure Treaty … commitments are met to maintain trust and confidence;”?
Hon KELVIN DAVIS: There are some 7,000 Treaty settlement commitments. Funding for this was secured in Budget 2018. Work is under way for a settlement portal to go live in June 2019.
Hon Christopher Finlayson: Has he finished work and reported to Cabinet on the scope of his portfolio, given that he said in his Cabinet paper entitled Initial Scope of Crown/Māori Relations portfolio that he would return to Cabinet in July 2018 to seek agreement on the final scope of the portfolio?
Hon KELVIN DAVIS: When I became the Minister, I didn’t want to repeat the mistakes of the past, when Governments decided that they knew what was best for Māori. They sat here in Wellington, and they wrote up a strategy and then went out to iwi and hapū and whānau and told them what the Government has decided will be in their best interests. That approach has never worked. Instead, I wanted to take my time to go around the country and ask Māori what they thought we needed to do to strengthen the relationship and what they wanted my priorities as a Minister to be, and that is what I did. The process has shaped the proposals that will be considered by Cabinet very shortly.
Hon Christopher Finlayson: Didn’t he say in his Cabinet paper entitled Initial Scope of Crown/Māori Relations portfolio that hui were to be one part of his work in 2018, and, if so, apart from hui what else has he been doing in the 10 months since he’s held the portfolio?
Hon KELVIN DAVIS: I answered this yesterday. There have been a number of things that were done. First and foremost is we’ve been fixing up the stuff-ups of the previous Government.
Hon Christopher Finlayson: What exactly did he mean when he said in his Cabinet paper entitled Initial Scope of Crown/Māori Relations portfolio that one of his priorities was to take the lead on resetting Crown-Māori relationships on hard issues?
Hon KELVIN DAVIS: There are a number of hard issues that the previous Government failed to make any progress on. Kōhanga reo is one. The freshwater issues is another one. So they’re just a couple of examples of the issues that we need to reset the relationship with, and we to progress them because the previous Government failed to do that.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is the Minister saying that he doesn’t want to have a reproduction of the glacial speed made by the previous Government on, for example, the Ngāpuhi settlement?
SPEAKER: Order! No. That is a responsibility of another Minister.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am not saying that the Ngāpuhi settlement is not the province of another Minister. I am talking about the rate of progress of this Minister on issues associated with Māori, that being one of them—that’s the distinction.
SPEAKER: I can understand the distinction, but the Minister has responsibility neither for the settlement now nor for—and I’m not going to repeat the phrase the member used—actions of the previous Government.
Broadcasting, Communications and Digital Media, Minister—Email Accounts
MELISSA LEE (National): I seek leave to have this question held over till the next question time when the Hon Clare Curran is available to answer questions—as an extra question.
SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that? Yes, there is. Does the member want to proceed?
MELISSA LEE (National): I shall try.
SPEAKER: Question No. 12, Melissa Lee.
12. MELISSA LEE (National) to the Minister of Broadcasting, Communications and Digital Media: Does she stand by all her answers to oral and written questions?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources) on behalf of the Minister of Broadcasting, Communications and Digital Media: Yes.
Melissa Lee: What Government business has she conducted via Gmail apart from arranging a meeting with Derek Handley when she was Government digital services Minister?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I don’t have that information to hand. If the member would like to put that question in writing, it will be answered.
Melissa Lee: What is the Minister scheduled to be doing between 2 p.m. and 3 p.m. on Thursday, 6 September 2018?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I don’t have that information to hand. If the member would like to put that question in writing, it will be answered.
Bills
Iwi and Hapū of Te Rohe o Te Wairoa Claims Settlement Bill
In Committee
Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one question.
CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be not.
Parts 1 to 3, schedules 1 to 6, and clauses 1 and 2
Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): Mr Chairman, thank you. For the benefit of those in the gallery and those watching on the live stream, can I just explain what is happening right now. For those of you who are used to sitting on committees, this is a bit like the part of the meeting where we are amending the minutes of the previous meeting. Since the House last considered the bill that includes the Treaty settlement for Iwi and Hapū of Te Rohe o Te Wairoa, we’ve discovered some clerical errors, so we’re now in the process of fixing up the clerical errors. This is a technical exercise. It will take a matter of minutes—or, if we’re lucky, not even one minute—and then we’ll move into the third reading of the bill.
As I said in my second reading speech, the Māori Affairs Committee reported the bill back to the House on 19 December last year, and recommended it be passed without amendment. We have, however, found a requirement for some technical amendments.
The Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that is before the committee will make changes to one clause and one schedule. The amendments are to correct two minor drafting errors to ensure clarity. The first amendment involves clause 88(2) of the bill and it removes confusion around a defined term—actually, the term is defined twice and it only needs to be defined once. The second amendment is to clause 2 of schedule 6, and it updates a reference to reflect the correct Act. I commend this bill to the committee with the two changes proposed in my SOP 92.
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 92 in the name of the Hon Andrew Little be agreed to.
Amendments agreed to.
Parts 1 to 3, schedules 1 to 6, and clauses 1 and 2 as amended agreed to.
House resumed.
Bill reported with amendment.
Report adopted.
Third Reading
Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I move, That the Iwi and Hapū of Te Rohe o Te Wairoa Claims Settlement Bill be now read a third time.
E Te Kaiwhakarite o Te Whare, tēnā koe, e ngā hoa mema, tēnā koutou. Tēnā koutou Tākitimu waka, ngā uri o Rongomaiwahine me Tamatakutai, me Rongomaiwahine ki a Kahungunu, ngā iwi me ngā hapū katoa o te rohe o Te Wairoa; e karanga ana tonu te huia i ō koutou ngākau maha, rau rangatira mā, tēnei taku mihi atu ki a koutou. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.
[Greetings to you, Mr Speaker, and to you my parliamentary colleagues. I salute Tākitimu waka, the progeny of Rongomaiwahine and Tamatakutai, of Rongomaiwahine and Kahungunu, all the tribes and subtribes of the Wairoa district; the huia still calls to you all, distinguished leaders, I pay my respects to you. Greetings, greetings; thrice greetings to one and all.]
I extend a warm welcome to the iwi and hapū of Te Rohe o Te Wairoa who have travelled here by plane and bus and possibly other means from the Wairoa region, Heretaunga, and Ōpōtiki. I particularly want to acknowledge the patience and fortitude that they have shown over the many years that they have waited for their settlement. The enactment of this bill will mark the end of a long-running Treaty settlement process between the Crown and the iwi and hapū of Te Rohe o Te Wairoa that started in the early 1980s. It’s a privilege to stand before you today and commend this bill to my parliamentary colleagues. This is a very significant day for the iwi and hapū of Te Rohe o Te Wairoa, and it’s also a very significant day for the Crown.
I want to acknowledge the driving forces behind the settlement, starting with those who led the way many years ago, but who are no longer with us. I pay tribute to Te Ariki May and Valetta Wairau, who, sadly, passed away and did not see their work come to fruition. To those of you who have worked so hard to make today possible, I offer my most sincere thanks. I would like to acknowledge the hard work of John Whaanga, Te Tira Whakaemi o Te Wairoa lead negotiator, and Tāmati Olsen, Te Tira chair, in reaching agreement on settlement redress. I acknowledge the input of Tātau Tātau o Te Wairoa Trust on the bill and thank the Tātau Tātau chair, Leon Symes, and deputy chair, Pieri Munro, in particular for their leadership and support. I also acknowledge the chief Crown negotiators who have been involved in the settlement, Pat Snedden and John Harbord. Finally I thank local authorities and Government officials for their valuable input into these negotiations.
It’s important that we therefore acknowledge the troubled history that makes this settlement necessary. I would like to outline key aspects of the past relationship between the Crown and the iwi and hapū of Te Rohe o Te Wairoa to be recorded. The history of the Crown’s interactions with the iwi and hapū of Te Rohe o Te Wairoa is marked by land alienation, warfare, and socio-economic deprivation. From the very beginning the relationship was flawed. The Crown did not take Te Tiriti o Waitangi to the Wairoa region, so the iwi and hapū of Te Rohe o Te Wairoa did not have any opportunity to consider whether to sign it.
When it purchased large quantities of land in the 1860s, the Crown failed to adequately survey some of the blocks, failed to fully investigate who had the customary rights to the land, and failed to set aside adequate reserves. The outbreak of war between the Crown and the iwi and hapū of Te Rohe o Te Wairoa began on Christmas Day in 1865, when the Crown attacked the Omaruhakeke kāinga. Some members of the iwi and hapū of Te Rohe o Te Wairoa were captured and executed without trial. Others were imprisoned without trial for over two years on the Chatham Islands. The war created divisions among the iwi and hapū who fought on different sides. As well as creating inter-iwi and hapū division, the war resulted in a loss of property for the iwi and hapū of Te Rohe o Te Wairoa. Under duress, the iwi and hapū of Te Rohe o Te Wairoa agreed to cede more than 42,000 acres of land to the Crown. This sad history continued into the 20th century when the Crown, without consultation with the iwi and hapū of Te Rohe o Te Wairoa, purchased large areas of land in the rohe for the Urewera Consolidation Scheme and to establish Te Urewera National Park. Additionally, more than 500 acres of customary land have been compulsorily purchased by the Crown for public works from as early as the 1870s.
Many of the policies of the Crown have significantly contributed to the migration of members of the iwi and hapū of Te Rohe o Te Wairoa away from their rohe. Those still remaining have suffered socio-economic deprivation, lacking the same opportunities to thrive that many other New Zealanders have enjoyed.
Following the initial lodgment of Treaty of Waitangi claims in the 1980s, in 2002 members of the hapū and iwi of the Wairoa district came together at Rangiāhua Marae to work together in resolving Treaty claims in the district. This was the genesis of what would later become the large natural group known as the iwi and hapū of Te Rohe o Te Wairoa and their mandated negotiators Te Tira Whakaemi o Te Wairoa, commonly referred to as Te Tira. For the three years that followed, the group discussed fully which pathway to take to resolve their claims before, finally, in 2005, deciding on direct negotiations.
The Crown recognised Te Tira’s mandate to negotiate in 2009. In 2012, terms of negotiation were agreed and negotiations began in 2013. An agreement in principle was signed in 2014 and a deed of settlement was initialled in May 2016 and signed on 26 November 2016 at Tākitimu Marae. The Tākitimu Marae has significance as the place where in 2014 the iwi and hapū of Te Rohe o Te Wairoa met to air their grievances with the Crown. Through this settlement and apology, the Crown seeks to restore its honour and to atone for its wrongs to the iwi and hapū of Te Rohe o Te Wairoa by easing the burden of grievance that has been carried for generations. This settlement and apology is key to developing a new relationship based on mutual trust in, and respect for, Te Tiriti o Waitangi and its principles.
While the settlement is substantial, I acknowledge that no redress can ever fully compensate the iwi and hapū of Te Rohe o Te Wairoa for what has been lost and for what they have suffered. However, the settlement given effect by this bill will provide the iwi and hapū of Te Rohe o Te Wairoa with a powerful platform for future growth and development.
One of the distinctive elements of the redress is an emphasis on forming new relationships to benefit the iwi and hapū of Te Rohe o Te Wairoa into the future. In addition to the usual relationship agreements with Crown agencies, the redress also includes agreements to work with local government and Te Urewera Board. The $100 million in financial and commercial redress, which the iwi and hapū of Te Rohe o Te Wairoa will receive through the settlement, places them in a key position to contribute to the economy of Hawke’s Bay and Gisborne.
Today is a significant moment, a historic moment, for both the iwi and hapū of Te Rohe o Te Wairoa and for the Crown. While we should never forget our history, today marks a truly important step in moving together beyond our shared history and beginning a new relationship built on mutual respect, trust, cooperation, and partnership. I wish the iwi and hapū of Te Rohe o Te Wairoa and the Tātau Tātau o Te Wairoa Trust well in the successful continuation of this process. I commend this bill to the House.
NUK KORAKO (National): E Te Mana Whakawā, tēnā rā koutou ngā kōwaitaka o tō tātou matua tīpuna. He kāmeha nui ki te mihi atu ki tō tātou Matua Nui i te Raki, ko Ia te tīmataka me te whakaute kua tao katoa. Nō reira, ka mihi au ki te kaihōmai o kā mea pai katoa.
Ka maumahara mātou ki a rātou kai tu kua wehe ki te taha wairua. Nō reira, āe, e koutou rā o ia marae, o ia iwi, o ia waka, e haere i ruka ki te ara o te whānui a Tāne kua tua o te ārai, haere, haere, haere atu rā.
Nō reira tēnā rā koutou o ngā uri o Tākitimu waka, o te whanauka o Tākitimu waka. Nei rā te mihi hōhonu ki ngā uri o Tākitimu waka—uia mai ki a au, ko wai te tangata e here ai Kahungunu me Tahu Pōtiki, māku e whakahoki ko Tamatea Pōkai Whenua, nāna i piki te maunga, i tū runga i Rāpaki ki te whakakarakia ki tētahi tuhoka ki te hoatu te ahi hei whakamahana ōna iwi.
Nō reira, Ngāti Kahungunu me Rongomaiwahine, nō reira nau mai, haere mai tō Whare Miere. Nau mai, whakatau mai, e mihi atu, e mihi atu, e mihi atu ki a koutou katoa.
[Mr Speaker, I formally greet you all the different strands of our common ancestor. I am honoured to pay tribute to our Heavenly Father, He who is the originator and cares for all things. Therefore, I pay tribute to the giver of all good things.
Let us remember those yonder, who have gone to the gathering place of spirits. Therefore, yes, to those of you from each marae, from each tribe, from each waka, who have travelled the broad path of Tāne to beyond the veil, farewell, farewell, farewell.
I now greet you all who are descended from the Tākitimu waka, who are related to the Tākitimu canoe. I pay my deepest regards to the descendants of the Tākitimu canoe—if you ask me who the person is who is responsible for joining together Kahungunu and Tahu Pōtiki, I will tell you it was Tamatea Pōkai Whenua, he who climbed the mountain, stood on top of Rāpaki and delivered incantations to the priest/gods to give him fire in order to warm his people.
Therefore, Ngāti Kahungunu and Rongomaiwahine, welcome, welcome to the Beehive. So welcome, welcome, I greet you, I greet you, I pay my respects to you all.]
It is indeed my pleasure to be able to stand to speak on the third and final reading of the Iwi and Hapū of Te Rohe o Te Wairoa Claims Settlement Bill. I want to acknowledge the work of the Minister who has just resumed his seat, the Hon Andrew Little, particularly about this journey. It was indeed in the 51st Parliament that this bill actually started its journey, and then the work in the first reading through to the submission process by the Māori Affairs Committee, and then through to the second reading, and then the committee stage and the third reading today.
I think what’s important for the Hansard, for the record, is I want to just to concentrate on a number of very, very important points about this particular settlement and what it is part of, because this is actually the record of Parliament, which will be here for ever. The first one was to acknowledge the iwi and hapū of Te Rohe o Te Wairoa and the history, particularly around the fact that they did not actually sign the Treaty of Waitangi. The reason for that was because it was never sighted by them, and so they couldn’t sign it. The other part of it is that when the war did come, around the colonial wars and the Land Wars, they tried very, very hard to step away from it. I think the important thing, though, that strikes at the heart of everything we hold dear as descendants of those Christian folk, Māori and Pākehā alike, who fought each other at Omaruhakeke kāinga on Christmas Day 1865—and, for the record, that is very much where this tragedy, in a lot of ways, actually begins.
It makes me wonder at the desperation of the Crown that it would abandon values it said it held so dear and it would decide Christmas Day was an appropriate day to kill their fellow New Zealand citizens in 1865, and that it would be willing to command its Māori troops—whanauka to those who stood at the palisades, across from their cousins—to fight on this day held so sacred by both sides. We remember and mourn all those who fell that day, Māori and Pākehā alike, but my heart especially cries for New Zealand citizens, citizens of Māori descent, looking to protect their lands from greedy hands of unscrupulous land dealers and a compliant Government—that the price they would pay would be death. Why was the Māori price of citizenship death for protecting the lawful property rights? Why were the people of Ngāti Kahungunu required to take sides against each other when both were seeking the same recognition of their inherent rights as New Zealand citizens?
Fighting for the Crown didn’t protect Māori from the greedy hands of those that sought to take their whenua, and fighting against the Crown saw Māori labelled rebels on their own land when not 25 years earlier they had owned most of the country outright. Had the people of Te Rohe o Te Wairoa been allowed to take the role that they thought they would have had, had they been able to sight the Treaty of Waitangi and sign it, had they been left to their article 2 rights to retain their land, had they been treated as equal British citizens, with all the legal rights to protection of their lands that that entailed—if this had happened, the only rebels would have been the Crown and the attendant land-grabbers themselves.
It looks like their land-grabs is this particular record: in 1867, under duress, Wairoa Māori were required to cede 42,000 acres to the Crown despite protests from many of the iwi living in the rohe. In 1867 and 1868, the Native Land Court continued its destructive practice of awarding Wairoa land blocks to 10 individual landowners, trusting that these individuals would act as trustees. But let’s be clear: the courts knew full well that this would not occur, and that 10 owners would be tempted to alienate land they owned at the expense of their own whanauka.
In the 1870s, taking land for public works purposes from the iwi and hapū of Te Rohe o Te Wairoa—Te Ōpoutama, the compulsory taking of land from Māori while leasing land from their Pākehā neighbours, as well. In 1875, the Crown acquired 178,000 acres of land near Waikaremoana by exploiting confusion about the legal status of the blocks and by paying off some iwi over others. In the 20th century, the Crown misused its monopoly powers by purchasing property from individual owners, after the owners had collectively decided against selling. We arrive at this point, where 90 percent of the iwi and hapū live outside of Te Rohe o Te Wairoa, and for those who remain trying to maintain their ahikā, for all their whānau have suffered serious socio-economic deprivation.
So it’s only right in this House that today the Crown acknowledges all of the wrongs that have actually been done to this proud iwi and hapū and, looking at Te Rohe o Te Wairoa, the acknowledgment of that fateful 1865 Christmas Day attack on what was very much a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi. Just to acknowledge the fact that in this settlement the vesting of the important five, first, which are the Kumi Pakarae Conservation Area, the Mahia Peninsula Local Purpose (Esplanade) Reserve, Morere Springs Scenic Reserve, Otoki Government Purpose (Wildlife Management) Reserve, and Te Reinga Scenic Reserve property B.
The important thing is that those particular properties, which are in this settlement, are actually going to be part of this settlement, but, also, this iwi and the hapū have actually required that they are also going to be shared by all New Zealanders as well—all New Zealanders—and that is mana, that is real mana.
So this settlement, even though the quantum has been talked about, nothing can actually, I think, right the wrong, but at least this is a very, very important step forward for this iwi and to continue now once this bill has been passed today. Ngāti Kahungunu, ngā hapū o Te Rohe o Wairoa, you are now here to complete the final step of your journey in this House before your settlement bill is sent to Government House for Royal assent, and then your bill will become an Act of Parliament. Many have passed on since the beginning of your hīkoi to this place today, and we remember them. Relationships have been forged, and relationships have been broken, but now is the time, I think, for reparation of those particular relationships.
I’d like to acknowledge all of the officials, negotiators, and there are also people that have started but did not actually live to see this final day, and we remember them also. The final part of that is that I’d like to acknowledge one person who I know worked hard on this settlement. I know the work that she did during my tenure as chair of the Māori Affairs Committee and know that she worked very, very hard for her people on this bill. I do want to acknowledge the work of my parliamentary colleague, whanauka, tuahine, the Hon Meka Whaitiri.
Finally, āpiti hono tātai hono, rātou ki te hunga mate, ki te hunga mate ki a rātou; āpiti hono tātai hono, tātou ki te hunga ora, ki te hunga ora ki a tātou. Ko te iwi o te rohe o Te Wairoa, Ngāti Kahungunu, Rongomaiwahine, go well. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, e mihi, e mihi atu ki a koutou katoa.
[Finally, let the dead be the dead and the living be the living. To the tribe of the Wairoa district, Ngāti Kahungunu, Rongomaiwahine, go well. I pay you my earnest and ongoing respects.]
Kia ora.
RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Kororia, hareruia ki a Ihoa o ngā mano. Matua, Tama, Wairua Tapu me whakahōnore ki ngā Anahera pono me Te Māngai hei tautoko mai āianei, ake nei, āe.
Tēnā koutou ōku rangatira. Tēnā koutou ngā iwi, ngā hapū o te rohe o Te Wairoa. Tēnā koutou Tākitimu waka, Rongomaiwahine, tēnā koutou Ngāti Kahungunu, aku whanaunga o Ngāti Pāhauwera; tēnei e tū atu nei e mihi atu ki a koutou. Nau mai, whakatau mai ki Te Whare Pāremata i whakatū nei. Nau mai, whakatau mai ki tēnei rā whakahirahira, i tēnei rā te pānuitanga tuatoru o tēnei pire.
Āe, ka huri, me mihi atu ki a rātou kua whetūrangitia. He mihi maumahara ki a rātou. Āe. Ngā mate huhua o te wā, haere e ngā mate, āpiti hono tātai hono, ko te hunga wairua ki te hunga wairua; āpiti hono tātai hono, ko tātou te kanohi ora e tau nei ki a tātou tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.
[Glory and praise to Jehovah of the multitudes; Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and honour to the faithful angels and the Prophet to help us, now and for ever, amen.
Greetings to you, my chiefs. Greetings to the tribes and the subtribes of the Wairoa district. Greetings to you Tākitimu canoe, to Rongomaiwahine, to Ngāti Kahungunu, to my relations from Ngāti Pāhauwera; I stand here to pay my respects to you all. Welcome, welcome me to Parliament House which stands here. Welcome, welcome me to this important day, the day of the third reading of this bill.
Yes, I must now pay my respects to those who have passed on. Let us remember them. Yes. To the various ones who have recently passed, I say farewell. The genealogical lines which connect us have been recognised; let the spirits remain with the spirits. The genealogical lines which connect us have been acknowledged; let the living remain with the living. Greetings, greetings, to one and all.]
It is a great honour for me to stand in tautoko, in support, of this bill for our manuhiri, our illustrious manuhiri who have travelled from far and wide to be here on this auspicious occasion—the iwi and hapū of Te Rohe o Te Wairoa.
In the language of settlements these days, they use the term large natural groupings, and this is a very large natural grouping that we have here assembled in our Whare today. I don’t have the time to actually acknowledge all of the whakapapa, the hapū that comprise this wonderful group of our manuhiri and our honoured guests today. Suffice to say that the kāhui that make up ngā iwi and ngā hapū o Te Rohe o Te Wairoa are all here today, and I want to just acknowledge them all. So I will acknowledge and I mihi to Ngāti Rākaipaaka, I mihi to and I acknowledge Ngā Tokorima a Hinemanuhiri. I want to acknowledge and mihi to Rongomaiwahine Iwi/Ngāi Te Rākatō. I also want to do a double mihi to Te Wairoa.
Taku mihi ki Te Wairoa Kapo Kōrau.
[I pay my respects to Wairoa, known for picking kōrau.]
I want to mihi to the Wairoa Waikaremoana Māori Trust Board, and I want to mihi to Whakakī Nui-a-Rua.
Now, those kāhui clusters comprise ngā iwi me ngā hapū o Te Rohe o Te Wairoa, and I do know that behind, and making up, all of those clusters are the very many hapū and whānau that are all represented here by the descendants of all those illustrious ancestors. Can I acknowledge our matua that gave a beautiful whaikōrero in the mihi whakatau this morning. It is all about those connections, the connections that we have. That’s what makes us Māori, is our whakapapa, and I do want to acknowledge not only the whakapapa of our manuhiri today but also the connections that were made from all of us right throughout this House, right across the motu, as acknowledged by my whanaunga Tutehounuku. We’re Tākitimu waka down in the South—we believe there’s a waka down there in the deep Tākitimus. So there are a lot of connections that we do have, and so I do want to just acknowledge that all today.
This is such a special day. We are at the end of this very long journey. Can I acknowledge the negotiators and all of those rangatira that have worked so hard over the years to get us to this point, from tūtira through to now, tātou tātou.
So I want to acknowledge all the work that they did, and also from all sides that were involved in this work. It is not easy. It’s a long, arduous task, but I think they can be very proud of their efforts, because especially with such a large natural group, to have such a large group together in the way that they have been able to forge together through this process is quite remarkable. So I want to acknowledge the former Minister, the Hon Chris Finlayson, and the Hon Andrew Little for their work as well in holding up the Crown side on these very special matters.
We’ve heard both the Minister and Mr Korako talk about the history, and we must never forget. That’s why we do have the historical record and the acknowledgments from the Crown and their apologies for the breaches—the breaches of Te Tiriti o Waitangi—that were inflicted upon our manuhiri, ngā iwi me ngā hapū o Te Rohe o Te Wairoa. As has been spoken of, it’s all about—and it is—the core of every Treaty settlement in this House: it is the loss of land and the resulting loss of mana and all of the resulting impacts that it has on the whānau and the hapū. That was no more evident than, as has been mentioned, through the 1860s, when we hear terms of just the dubious purchases, acquisitions, transactions, surveys, surveyors—all of those actions that took place during those times ultimately led to a tremendous loss of land, tremendous loss of ancestral lands, and huge impacts on our manuhiri today. So we must acknowledge that, and I’m pleased that every Treaty settlement maintains the historical record up front.
I want to just, lastly—again, I want to acknowledge the manuhiri, because today I saw a gentlemen, Mr Ēnoka Munro, from Whakakī. He’s an inspiration to me, and I pay acknowledgment to him and his late wife, Auntie Dorie, nō Ngāi Tahu. I remember a discussion that I had when I was running for this House down in Blenheim, where Uncle and Auntie were living. He was talking to me about these great eels that they have in Whakakī, and I know I said in my second reading that when “Matua Shane” reopens that railway line from Wairoa to Gisborne, we’re going to bring out the Rātana band and we’re going to have a feed of eels. I was delighted to be able to see Matua Enoka here today to witness this occasion, So mihi tonu atu ki a koe e te rangatira.
[So I continue to acknowledge you as the leader.]
So that’s what these settlements are all about. It’s about reaffirming—not only reaffirming—the indigeneity that we have to our ancestral landscapes, which will be through all the different settlement measures and redress mechanisms that are in place in these bills. That’s what it’s all about: it’s about our mahinga kai, it’s about te taiao—the environment, our landmarks, the associations that historical names—all of those things. That’s what these settlements are all about, and I know that there’s going to be a big feed of eels for me one day when I get up to Whakakī, and I certainly hope I can enjoy some with Matua Enoka there.
So with those remarks, can I just once again acknowledge our manuhiri on this very auspicious occasion. Congratulations, and I wish them all the very best. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātou katoa.
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National): It’s always good to follow Mr Tirikatene in this House. I acknowledge him, and can I also acknowledge his late Auntie Whetū, because, I think, in the old days when there were four Māori seats, her seat of Southern Maori started around Māhia Peninsula and went all the way down the west coast and then took in all the South Island. So when her nephew complains about all the work that he has to do, all I say to him is, “Get real! Auntie had far more territory to cover.” But Whetū was a great woman, and I thoroughly enjoyed her company as I got to know her in later years.
This is the final stage of the legislative process for this legislation. It was introduced on 20 December 2016, and Mr Korako was then the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee and steered it through the committee stages after it was referred to the select committee on 14 March 2017, and now it’s back in the House for its third reading.
Can I begin by also acknowledging the negotiators over the years for Te Tira Whakaemi o Te Wairoa, John Whaanga and Tāmati Olsen. They always had a very commercial approach to matters, but, at the same time, were adamant that the cultural component of the settlement had to, in some way, acknowledge the degree of land loss. It’s very easy with Treaty settlements simply to talk about the money or the commercial opportunities; there’s so much more to a Treaty settlement than that. I’ve said on many occasions that Treaty settlements are not mere commercial deals; they are a lot more important than that. John and Tāmati did a great job, especially with the difficult negotiations over Te Urewera, and I acknowledge them and thank them for their service to their iwi.
I also acknowledge the Crown representatives—my old friend Pat Snedden. I’m sure Pat won’t mind my saying this—he’s an old lefty. He phoned me shortly after I became the Minister, because he’d been involved with Te Tira over the years, and also with the iwi of the Far North. He said, “I suppose you want my resignation.”, and I said, “Oh no, Pat. Just carry on.” He did a great job for me over the years as a Crown negotiator, and I greatly appreciated getting to know him and working with him. He certainly has a heart as big as the rohe of Te Tira, and I acknowledge him and what he’s done for his country over the years. I also acknowledge John Harbord for his work as the Crown negotiator. I think the Deputy Prime Minister once said that I only appointed “my mates” as Crown negotiators. Well, Pat Snedden’s many things, but he ain’t my mate. But that having been said—well, he ended up my mate, I suppose. He’s a very nice guy. Like so many of the statements that Mr Peters made, that was scrambled and off the mark.
It’s been a tremendous pleasure to work with the various large natural groupings (LNGs) of Ngāti Kahungunu over the years. They’re a magnificent iwi that are going to play their part not only on the East Coast of New Zealand but throughout the country in the years to come. So on 17 December 2010, I signed a deed of settlement with Ngāti Pāhauwera—a wonderful group of people in the northern part of the bay—and, of course, I’ve been dealing with them over their foreshore and seabed arrangements. Then, on 25 May 2013, I signed a deed of settlement on behalf of the Crown with Maungaharuru-Tangitū. They too—and I think of Bevan Taylor and all the wonderful people there—have contributed so much to the region.
Mana Ahuriri hapū and the Crown signed a deed of settlement on 13 June 2017, and I very much look forward to when their legislation can be introduced to the House. I’m sure Mr Nash won’t mind my saying so: he and I have been anxious about that. I’d like to see that legislation introduced. Their leadership has compromised, to great extent, and has been dealing with some pretty strong opposition. Financially, they’ve suffered as a result of delays, and I think it would be good if the Crown could recognise that. Heretaunga Tamatea and I signed a deed of settlement on 26 September 2015, and, of course, their legislation only recently had its third reading. They are a fantastic bunch of people, as well. This deed of settlement, as has been said, was signed at Tākitimu Marae on 26 November 2016.
So all that leaves is Wairarapa, and I’m surprised that they haven’t got there, because Ron Mark’s in Cabinet and should be jollying them along. They signed an agreement in principle with me on 7 May 2016, and I think they’re going through the ratification work now.
So when you add up the cumulative total of the various LNGs of Ngāti Kahungunu, normally two sets of comments are made to me. The first, from many mean-spirited people, is, “Why have they got over $350 million all up?”, and I have to say to them, “Well, just look around you. Look at the extent of the land loss. Look at the history.” The extent of the land loss in Wairoa alone is massive, and that is why they have a Treaty settlement of that order. The other comment that’s made—best exemplified by our old friend Hekia Parata, who is a Ngati Porou person to her fingertips—is, “Why did they get so much? We never got that.” I have to say, “Well, bad luck. Their land loss was greater.”
So I acknowledge all the LNGs of Ngāti Kahungunu, and this is an appropriate time to congratulate each and every one of them for their huge contribution, as I say, not only to the East Coast of the North Island but to New Zealand. I truly do believe that their very best days are ahead of them.
In question time, there was a scrambled question that I think came from Mr Peters, related to Ngāpuhi—why can’t they settle, and the “glacial” pace. Well, I think probably part of the problem with Ngāpuhi is that so many of the Ngāpuhis are related to him, which explains the problems. But I think the reality of the matter is that they simply haven’t had the leadership that one would see in great iwi like Ngāti Kahungunu. I would say to Mr Peters and one of his henchmen sitting there, Mr Jones, who, along with Mr Peters, wants to abolish the Māori seats—I tell that to Ngāti Kahungunu: they want to abolish the Māori seats. I would say to them that if they look at the leadership—the outstanding leadership—of Ngāti Kahungunu and all the great people who have come up through the LNGs when the moment was needed to show that leadership, then I suggest that they could look to Ngāti Kahungunu and learn a thing or two from them.
Finally, I want to wish Ngāti Kahungunu and all the LNGs that make it up all the very best for the future. Can I say, I’ll be keeping a very close look on the relationship with Tūhoe. Wira Gardiner did a tremendous amount of work to bring the various groups together over the arrangements for Te Urewera. If there’s anything that simply has to succeed in the years to come, it’s Te Urewera. I know that there’s tremendous goodwill on the part of Tūhoe and Ngāti Kahungunu to make sure that that happens. With goodwill and with the kind of leadership that we’ve seen over the years with negotiations, I have no doubt at all that that will happen.
So congratulations to Ngāti Kahungunu. It’s wonderful to have you in this House. I very much look forward to seeing you in the years to come as this great iwi grows and continues to contribute to New Zealand.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just before I call the Hon Shane Jones, I just point out to the House that we have turned out the lights at the end there. There was one that was flickering, and we know how that drives people crazy. It’s not that we’re turning out the lights on you.
Hon SHANE JONES (Minister of Forestry): Before I speak in Māori, as the former Minister, Christopher Finlayson, leaves the House and gives that speech, dimness arrives in the Whare Pāremata.
Me reo Māori e Te Māngai o te Whare. Ngāti Kahungunu, tēnā koutou katoa. Ko au ko Muriwhenua e mihi atu tēnei ki ā koutou, tō koutou pā i waenga tonu i a mātou o Tinotino te wāhi i whānau mai ai tō tāua tupuna a Kahungunu—i roto i ahau ko Kahu-hunu—me tana tuahine a Hinetapu. I heke mai ai mātou o Muriwhenua erangi rawa tō koutou hoa tōku matua a Hekenukumai Busby, he uri tūturu o taua kuia a Hinetapu.
Tēnā rawa atu koutou tā te mea he mōhio nōku i waenga tonu i ā koutou, he kōhine e hia rānei ōna tau ināianei—kei te 40 pea, tēnā kōtiro ka whānau mai i te wā i tū ai te hui-ā-tau mō ngā Wāhine Toko i Te Ora ki Kaitaia, ka noho a Kahungunu me ō koutou mātua te Okenga Paraire mā i runga i tōku marae. Nō tērā wā i whānau mai ai te pēpi nei, a tētahi o ā koutou kōhine ka huangia tēnā pēpi ki te ingoa o tōku marae ake, ko Māhimaru. Nā me ngā pānga i honohono nei tētahi pito ki tētahi kē atu nā reira e Te Wairoa—Te Wairoa Hōpūpū Hōnengenenge Mātangi Rau papaki pai nōku te whakahuhua i tēnā ingoa, engari te ingoa rangatira o tō koutou awa, tō koutou rohe, tēnei te mihi i roto i tō tātou Reo Māori ki ā koutou katoa; me te hīkoinga ka hia rānei te roa kia tatū mai ai koutou ā-tinana me ō koutou moemoeā ki konei i tēnei rā.
Hei wāhanga whakamutunga māku i roto i Te Reo Māori, me mihi ahau ki tā koutou kōhine, ki a Meka—tana manawaroa kia tatū mai i te aroaro o tōna iwi i tēnei rā i waenga tonu i ōna hoa ngā kaitōrangapū i roto tonu i te ana o te raiona. Koia tēnei tētahi ao pakeke rawa atu—whiua tētahi whakapae kārawarawa pai kī ana te tangata; engari māku te kī atu ki a koutou e hia rānei ka whakawhiua ka utaina mai ki runga ki ahau, ko tāku ki tā koutou kōhine ki a Meka, kia manawaroa, kia mōhio koe nā Te Tai Rāwhiti koe i whakatū ki tēnei Whare ki tērā tūranga—ehara nā tō rōpū, ehara nā mātou ngā kaitōrangapū, engari nā te marea i ngākaunui ki a koe kia tū ai koe hei Mema Māori. Ko koe e whai ana i ngā tapuwae a Timi Kara. Ko koe e whai ana i ngā tapuwae a Ngata, ko koe e whai ana i ngā tapuwae a Tiaki Omana, e whai ana koe i ngā tapuwae o ērā o ā tātou mātua a Takamoana, a Karaipiana, ō mātua ake o roto i a Kahungunu. Kia ū, kia manawaroa.
[I shall speak Māori, Madam Deputy Speaker. Ngāti Kahungunu, greetings to all of you. I Muriwhenua stand to pay our respects to you all and the relationship that we share, given that Tinotino is the place where our ancestor Kahungunu was born—where I’m from, we say Kahu-hunu—and his wife Hinetapu. We from Muriwhenua are descendants, but your friend and my elder Hekenukumai Busby, he is a direct descendant of that ancestress Hinetapu.
I particularly greet you knowing that among you is a young woman, aged how many years now? Forty, perhaps. That girl was born during the Women’s Health League annual conference held in Kaitaia, when Ngāti Kahungunu elders including Okenga Paraire and others stayed at my marae. This baby was born at that time and one of your young women named that baby after my own marae, Māhimaru. It is these kinds of relationships which connect one side to another, therefore Te Wairoa Hōpūpū Hōnengenenge Mātangi Rau—what a job to pronounce that name, albeit it is a noble chiefly name that you have for your river, your district. This is me paying respects to you all in our Māori language; you have been on this journey for how many long years now, and you have finally come here today in person bringing with you your hopes and dreams.
My final point to make while I am in Māori, is to give respect to your kinswoman, to Meka. It is very courageous of her to front up to her people today in the midst of her parliamentary colleagues in the lion’s den. This can be a really harsh environment—vicious accusations levelled against people occur often. I say to you as someone who has had his fair share of being on the receiving end, I say to your daughter, to Meka, be staunch safe in the knowledge that it was Te Tai Rāwhiti who put you in this House in that position—not your party, not us politicians, but the public who wanted you to be their Māori member of Parliament. You are following in the footsteps of James Carroll. You are following in the footsteps of Ngata, you are following in the footsteps of Tiaki Omana, you are following in the footsteps of those of our elders such as Takamoana, Karaitiana, indeed of your own elders from within Kahungunu. Do not flinch, be staunch.]
The points that I have made in our Māori language really are an affirmation of not only the work that’s taken place but the longstanding lengths, because, if I’m not mistaken, after the Ngāpuhi tribe, Ngāti Kahungunu and Ngati Porou are probably the most numerous of the iwi. But Kahungunu’s story, which is partly told in this settlement, is the story not only of Donald McLean but of the Māori Land Wars, to borrow a hackneyed expression. Indeed, Te Wairoa was, in its time, a garrison town, and you, hailing from that part of the country politically, Madam Deputy Speaker, would appreciate the significance of this day.
This particular settlement, whilst it endows capital on behalf of the taxpayers—via Mr Finlayson, via Mr Little, and via this Parliament—into the ownership of this part of Kahungunu, the sad reality is that now is the challenge, in an area where mainstream New Zealand services are infrequently seen in our more distant provincial areas. So it’s a doubly challenging task, in both an economic sense and a social sense, to bring back vitality when mainstream investment is hurtling off in a different direction.
The assets that are represented in this settlement are not only cultural, because that’s important. They give strength to identity, and identity for iwi is going to grow in importance as the multiracial and multicultural nature of our society changes. That’s just the reality of globalisation. But there’s one reality that this settlement does build on, and that’s the fact that the Māori tribes who signed up to the Treaty of Waitangi had a set of expectations not fully realised in any manner or form, but today we are trying to restore honour to the Crown and opportunity to Kahungunu.
So celebrate your leaders who led what was undoubtedly a challenging and, in some respects, unrewarding experience—having been one of those figures myself back in the days of Māori fisheries. These kinds of things are not careers; they are a mission. So for those of you who mandated your leaders, for those of you who have come today—as I said in our Māori language—guard the interests of your member, Meka Whaitiri. You are the people that send the Māori members in Māori seats to this House, and whilst she is wading her way through a process—having suffered several of those processes, unfortunately, my good self—they do require the backbone of iwi and whānau. It’s only appropriate that I should acknowledge her, given that you’ve done a great deal of work in an earlier phase, Minister Meka Whaitiri.
The opportunities going forward are that the settlements, this settlement in particular, now need to join with other forces and stakeholders and pots of capital so that it can turn around the fortunes of these parts of Aotearoa where we need to think very differently as to how we extract value. But the opportunity is there, and, in the event that you feel that your bank is not looking after you, I’m your man. Kia ora tātou.
Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Tēnā koe e Te Whare. Rau rangatira mā, kia ora mai tātou.
[Greetings to the House. Distinguished chiefs, good evening.]
It’s a pleasure to take a call on this bill, which I had the good fortune to speak to at the first reading on 14 March last year. The parliamentary process over that time has been timely when one considers the whole settlement process has journeyed over eight or nine years. Guiding that journey I want to acknowledge Minister Finlayson and Minister Little, Office of Treaty Settlements officials, the Māori Affairs Committee chairs—my colleagues Nuk Korako and Rino Tirikatene-Sullivan—and iwi and hapū negotiators.
On 12 May last year, I had the pleasure of accompanying the Māori Affairs Committee to Wairoa, to the Wairoa Community Centre. I travelled by car with the chairperson, Nuk Korako, and that day we heard claimants express the importance of the settlement to their community. We heard claimants express their whakapapa to the land from the past to the present and now into the future. We heard that the non-financial elements of historical and cultural acknowledgment are just as important for the mana and integrity of the iwi and the hapū as the dollar sum being discussed.
As the chairperson, Nuk, and I drove away later that day we were reflecting on the day. The fact is, I recall I was the one reflecting because Nuk had taken the advice of locals and was devouring a pie from Osler’s Bakery by himself, and as the pastry settled in the car we reflected on how we could best advance the cause and settlement of this iwi and this hapū—what was our role as parliamentarians? Everything we heard resonated, everything we believed, everything was true—what was our role going forward? And I think the conclusion we came to was to substantiate the process of the select committee, to not have any hindrance, to collaborate and work with others across the House and make sure for this iwi and their hapū that their aspirations were realised. Today is that day. Today, we join the hope of generations to commitments from the Crown, and today we all wish the hapū and the iwi great wisdom and peace in their way forward with this settlement. Kia ora mai tātou.
JAN LOGIE (Green): Tēnā koe, Madam Deputy Speaker. He mihi kau ana tēnei ki ngā uri o ngā hapū o te rohe o Te Wairoa. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.
[May I certainly add my respects to the descendants of the subtribes of the Wairoa district. Greetings, greetings, thrice greetings to one and all.]
On behalf of the Green Party, I want to join other members in this House in welcoming the people and the leaders from the iwi and hapū o Te Rohe o Te Wairoa. It’s been 30 years since Te Rohe o Te Wairoa lodged their claim, and 16 years since members of that hapū and iwi of the Wairoa district came together at Rangiahua Marae to plan for the resolution of their claim—30 years. There are members in this Parliament and in our party who were not born yet at that time. And that was the start of a process that concludes here today.
Of course, the original and ongoing harm that we acknowledge today has compounded across many generations from the 1840s. Today, in this House, we stand unified in acknowledging the wrong. I want to acknowledge all of those who have exercised such incredible persistence over those decades and over those generations to get this bill to this stage today. I understand that we have particular acknowledgments to make to John Whaanga, Te Tira lead negotiator; Tamati Olsen, Te Tira chair; and Tātau Tātau o Te Wairoa Trust, especially the chair, Leon Symes, and deputy chair, Pieri Munro.
But, of course, I suspect all the work is founded on the resistance and faith of kaumātua and kuia, many of whom have passed already. So I too would like to add to the Green Party’s voice in remembrance for the efforts of all those who have passed before we saw this day.
This can only ever be a partial acknowledgment of what happened. So much has gone on in recounting the history. But, again, it is important to put at least some of it from each of our parties on the record again in this House today. So, as has been acknowledged by others, I too want to acknowledge that one of the first breaches was of the Treaty not even getting to your area, and then you being bound to this document and this agreement that the Crown put in place that you didn’t sign up to, and then you were forced into this arrangement that you had no say in. I want to acknowledge, too, the trust and reconciliation process that has occurred as a part of the reconciliation, and that that is about healing—healing the hurts that have occurred across the generations. But it is still within the frame of the Crown, as is the financial settlement in particular.
I think we should acknowledge this. It’s not really about reparation. It’s a deed of settlement and it is an agreed and sanitised historical account, but it is not full compensation. My back-of-the-envelope calculations suggest that over 300,000 acres of land were scammed and stolen by settlers and the Crown. The Greens will say this at every reading: we do not actually recognise that this is full and final settlement, even though that is what is written into legislation, because it is not full by any stretch of the imagination. And we do not believe that it can be final, because there is no way of telling at this stage what the impact of those historical breaches will be on future generations. But we recognise that to get this bill to the House and to go through the processes that iwi and hapū have gone through is a huge achievement.
Te Wairoa Tāpokorau submission from the cluster number one estimated the economic loss of hapū o Te Rohe o Te Wairoa from the loss of rates and values of the land that was “alienated”. The total of both accountings came, by their reckoning, to $1,646,373,650, not even counting for the commercial loss or the loss of rental or GST or any of those other factors. The settlement that the Crown currently considers and describes as full provides $100 million in redress.
The Green Party does not consider this full or final. This is an exceptionally generous gift from Te Rohe of Te Wairoa. I can imagine there may be—and I’ve heard, certainly, from many Pākehā in this country who might think that $100 million is really generous of the Crown, and that of course the country could never afford that $1.6 billion, as if the iwi and hapū of Te Rohe o Te Wairoa could afford this loss.
Of course, the Crown did pay out $1.6 billion in 2010 to people affected by the collapse of South Canterbury Finance, which the Prime Minister at the time, John Key, described as a relatively small payment. I want to put that on record, from the Green Party to New Zealanders—not as a message to the iwi and hapū listening today. Anytime anyone feels the urge to suggest that Māori are getting something from the Crown, just remember that this was land taken by the Crown and this cannot even touch upon true reparation in a financial sense.
But I do want to also be clear that this settlement is the fifth largest in our country’s history for iwi, and the negotiators have done their people proud. But if we are all to move forward with integrity, the Green Party believes we need to be honest about the limitations of the Crown’s general approach to settlements and acknowledge our collective moral and financial debt to hapū and iwi.
To touch briefly on some of those breaches—going right back to the non-arrival of the Treaty, and the binding to that agreement, and the dodgy practices around surveying, and not investigating customary rights, and the Crown putting Māori under extreme duress; using confusion over the legal status of the land to take thousands and thousands of acres; the breaking up of customary and collectively owned land into individual ownership to then be able to effectively steal it; and taking more land through the Public Works Act. This Crown has been responsible for all of those acts of theft.
As we heard, and I spoke on the second reading of this bill on the last sitting day before Christmas last year, we remembered the invasion of the Crown of Omaruhakeke kāinga, where Māori who were defending the land—peaceful occupation of their own land—were summarily executed by the Crown and others taken and detained without trial on the Chathams. These were acts of deep shame for this Crown that we need to acknowledge as a country to have a hope of healing and moving forward.
It speaks too that this is about more than money and this is about more than land; this is about the heart and well-being of people and us as a country, and, if we cannot acknowledge the crimes and the wrongs, then we have no hope to move forward on a different basis. So, finally, I hope at the end of today that we can move forward together as a people to a future beyond the past.
LAWRENCE YULE (National—Tukituki): Kia ora, everybody, and welcome to the people of Te Rohe o Te Wairoa. It’s my pleasure as a member of Parliament for Heretaunga and Ngāti Kahungunu to greet you in your House. It’s my pleasure to acknowledge the Hon Meka Whaitiri in this House today for this significant achievement. Thank you for coming.
Can I acknowledge the people responsible for the settlement of this claim—the people that were brave, that elected leaders, and that actually formed a large natural grouping so we could end up in this place today. I’m not sure if your mayor is with you today, but I was with him last evening at the Hawke’s Bay Tourism Awards, where he stole the show with laughter and humour. Because I was in Hawke’s Bay last evening, I know how wet it was. He tried to tell us that the only way he got to the tourism awards was—when he got down to Tūtira, the road was flooded, so he had to swim. Of course, we didn’t believe him, but if any of you have had that journey today to get here, you’re looking remarkably dry and well.
It is great to have so many people from northern Hawke’s Bay in this, your Chamber, to signify this most significant event. This is one of the six large natural groupings of Ngāti Kahungunu and will make a significant impact to the people of northern Hawke’s Bay, Wairoa, and what I call southern Gisborne. I’m not sure I’m allowed to say that, but that’s what I call it.
In doing so, I wish to look forward, but I also wish to personally acknowledge, as my fellow colleagues right around the Parliament have done, that the deed of settlement includes a Crown apology for the actions and omissions and, specifically, for the war fought against those members of this iwi and hapū of Te Rohe o Te Wairoa. They were people it deemed as rebels who, in an unjust attack in 1865, were the subject of a summary execution of prisoners and the detention without trial of some of the members of the iwi and hapū on the Chatham Islands from 1866 to 1868—a horrendous act that was actually replicated in other parts of Kahungunu and other parts of Hawke’s Bay.
I have spoken in a number of these settlements’ readings, and my journey of discovery in this place and my journey of discovery when I was the Mayor of Hastings was to understand the significant loss, hurt, and harm that was caused and that is now being redressed. I specifically want to acknowledge the Hon Christopher Finlayson for the work he has done in Kahungunu—and that has been followed by the Hon Andrew Little—to do what can be done to make these wrongs right. I specifically acknowledge the generosity of spirit that is shown by all the people that are sitting in the gallery today in the cultural redress, because the sites are to be vested in Tātau Tātau o Te Wairoa Trust and, importantly, they will then be vested back to the Crown for the people of New Zealand. So, despite all this loss and despite all the hurt to this day, there is a massive generosity of spirit, and this House needs to acknowledge that for the people that are represented today and the people that have negotiated this.
I want to touch on two factors that I think are unfinished business: Hereheretau Station is still something, like the Glasgow leases at Te Aute College, that is unresolved. They are a challenge for this Parliament, actually, outside of the Treaty settlements themselves, to resolve, and in the same kindness of spirit that we’ve seen in the gifting back of land to the Crown, I hope there is a generosity of spirit in this Parliament and in the people of New Zealand to make those types of issues be resolved outside of the Treaty settlement claims.
I specifically acknowledge the generosity given around the Mōrere Springs Reserve. Morere is a significant cultural part of northern Hawke’s Bay and a wonder of nature that has actually been gifted back to the people of New Zealand as part of this process. Once again, that is a massive generosity of spirit.
So, as the Hon Christopher Finlayson said, Ngāti Kahungunu will be the recipient of around $350 million of Treaty settlement money, and $100 million will go to this claim. It has been a long time in the waiting and a long time in the preparation, and when one considers that over 50 percent of the population of the Wairoa District are Māori, one understands the significance of this settlement. I believe that $100 million—while previous speakers may have said it’s not enough, I believe it is an opportunity for the people of Wairoa to transform the Wairoa District and transform the opportunities for their people, and I acknowledge courageous leaders like Craig Little and Rex Graham, who are trying to make a difference in Wairoa. They are both friends of mine who have supported this Treaty settlement and the opportunities that come from it.
It’s a tremendous honour to stand in this House and support the people of Wairoa. In my farming days, I used to go to the Wairoa saleyards and buy cattle, and they shifted incredibly well down to Heretaunga. The last time I was up there for a big public event—and I see Bill Blake in the audience—was for the Ross Shield, I think was the last time. There was another time when I tried to do an amalgamation up there and I was run out of town, you know. But I have a tremendous respect and a tremendous, tremendous love for Wairoa, its people, and its district as an integral part of Hawke’s Bay and Kahungunu.
This is a very, very special day. The redress is what this Government and parties across this Parliament have agreed. I wish you and your people every success and I hope that this redress will not only quench and deal with some of the harm that has been caused but will offer significant economic opportunity for the people of Wairoa. Thank you.
Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister of Employment): Tēnei te mihi ki ā koutou, Ngāti Kahungunu kua tae mai nei i tēnei wā, e whakarangatira nei i a mātou, tēnei te tino mihi ki a koutou. He hōnore nui ki te tū i waenganui i a koutou i tēnei wā, ki te tautoko i te kaupapa me hoki ki te tautoko i tō tātou tuahine, tō tātou toa, Meka Whaitiri, tēnei te mihi ki a koutou. Ahakoa tino taumaha i tēnei wā mō tō tātou tuahine kei te mōhio ia ko te kaupapa i tēnei rā, koia rā te mea nui, he tika kia mihi ki a ia, ki a koutou hoki mō ō koutou tautoko i tēnei wā. Tēnā koutou.
[I pay my respects to you Ngāti Kahungunu; by coming here today, you honour us; thank you. I am privileged to stand among you today to support the occasion, as well as to support our sister, our champion, Meka Whaitiri; I acknowledge your presence. Despite this being a trying time for our sister, she realises that the most important thing today is this occasion, therefore it is fitting that she is acknowledged, as you are for your support today. Greetings to you all.]
It’s a privilege to stand in front of this grouping today, Ngāti Kahungunu. All the mihis and history have been done, so I offer a special mihi to Andrew Little.
I want to follow up on the mihis to our MP for the electorate, whose whānau is here today, and particularly her mum, May Whaitiri—lovely to see you, Auntie May—who went to school with my mother at Hukarere Girls’ College all those years ago. So we mihi to the mother of Meka, Pānia of the Reef. Homai te pakipaki.
[Let’s give her a round of applause.]
A wahine toa, Auntie May, just like your daughter, who’s been very brave and courageous in coming down to tautoko the kaupapa today. Tēnei te mihi ki a koe, e kui.
[I acknowledge you, madam.]
So much has already been said about the history and what’s happened in the past. And I do acknowledge the kōrero from the Greens, particularly. I’ve always said what they’ve said today, that we can never get true and full compensation—an undeniable fact. Great kōrero from our Rōpū Greens today.
However, we have an opportunity now. The tribes have an opportunity now, going forward. And so I suppose my question today for our group, Tātau Tātau o Te Wairoa, is: what is the future? What have we learnt from past Treaty settlements? The tribe would’ve watched the investments from different tribes, and we have to be very, very careful going forward. So I’m really interested in how urban Māori are going to be factored in, in the $100 million settlement. I’m really interested in what the investments will be.
Sadly, myself and Shane Jones have been a little bit critical, as we all know, of different iwi investments and decisions through the years. That’s because the future of our people is so important. And I have to say, I get tired of excuses from iwi leaders who refuse to invest in their people—who refuse to invest in their people. We’ve got to get past that.
I understand Government obligations, and of course the Government—whether it’s National or Labour—have to support all the health needs, the education needs, all the needs right across society. Both parties have done that through the years, but we as iwi and we as Māori have to make our contributions, too. When you have your people sleeping in cars, when you have Third-World housing in the North, in the Tainui, on the East Coast, when do we as an iwi put our hands in our pockets? Or is it all about property development, investments? When do the people see the fruits of the settlement?
So that’s a challenge, I suppose, I want to put to our rōpū Tātau Tātau o Te Wairoa in this short contribution today: when will the people see the fruits of the settlement? Tainui constituents waited 18 years. Myself and Tamihere challenged them constantly. Is everything going to be left to the Government? That’s not what Doug Graham signed up for. That’s not what he signed up for with Tainui and Bob Māhuta. There’s got to be a partnership. I’m not saying to use the full Treaty settlements in terms of investments—not at all. I’m saying, come on. Let’s allocate a percentage so that we can tautoko our iwi. And that’s got to be the end result. So I put that whakaaro to you today, and I thank you for coming down to support the kaupapa.
Hōnore nui tēnei. Tēnei te mihi ki a koutou. Tēnā koutou, tēnā anō tātou katoa.
[This is a great honour. I acknowledge you all. Greetings, greetings one and all.]
HARETE HIPANGO (National—Whanganui): E Te Māngai, e mihi ana ki ngā uri o te iwi me ngā hapū o te rohe o Te Wairoa. Nau mai, haere mai i tēnei wā i roto i Te Whare. Tēnei te wā o te ao hou.
[Madam Assistant Speaker, let me pay my respects to the descendants of the tribes and subtribes of the Wairoa district. Welcome, welcome at this time into the House. It is now the new world.]
I stand to speak as a new member of Parliament, the elected member for W’anganui, and, importantly, I am uri of W’anganui. My marae, Pūtiki W’arenui a Tamatea Pōkai W’enua, is my connection and my association to Ngāti Kahungunu. I am also of Ngāti Apa, Nga Rauru, and Ngāti Rangi. So I stand here today as a new member of Parliament but also as a member of the Māori Affairs Committee, and tasked with the duty and responsibility now as an agent of the Crown to acknowledge within your bill—soon to be passed into law—the history, the acknowledgments, the apology, and, importantly, the way forward: the future.
I have limited time with this call this afternoon. However, as I look upon those of our people of Ngāti Kahungunu, te iwi and ngā hapū o Te Rohe o Te Wairoa gathered here today, I’m heartened because I see the generations—those of us who have come from a time that has been carried through, with your young here today. I am heartened by that and the hope in moving forward that this bill, once it is passed into law, will provide as a vehicle.
It is a piece of law that acknowledges reprehension, the wrongness, the injustice, of the history. That is outlined in sections 8 and 9 within the historical context and the acknowledgments of this bill—clauses 8 and 9; soon to be sections—the reprobation. It outlines also reparation, restoration, the redress, relationships—the relationships that have been identified in under the cultural redress component of the bill—and then, importantly, revitalisation. This encompasses all of those things.
I refer to clause 10, the apology, at paragraph (f), and it states that the Crown seeks to restore its tarnished honour and to atone for its past failures to uphold the principles of the Treaty, and, with this, apologises and acknowledges this in the settlement, hoping to build a new relationship that will endure for current and future generations.
Now is the time to focus on that future, not forgetting the past, not forgetting the journey that has been traversed to get here. Now is that te ao hou [new world]—a new chapter, a new beginning.
As said, it is promising and it is heartening to see the multigenerational gathering of Ngāti Kahungunu here today. It acknowledges the efforts of all those who have gone before, their aspirations to be carried through into the future with the young ones here.
So I am humbled and I’m immensely privileged—and that is one of the absolute bonuses of this role as a member, or MP—to be able to address the House and those who have gathered and seeing the final passage of these wrongdoings, moving forward with hope into the future. I conclude by commending this bill into its final passage to be made law. Tēnā tātou katoa.
Hon PEENI HENARE (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector): E Te Māngai o Te Whare, ka noho tonu au ki Te Reo Māori mō te roanga o taku kōrero i te rā nei.
Tuku mauriora ki te wheiao, ki te ao mārama. tihewa mauriora!
E haere tonu ana ngā mihi me ngā whakatau ki te hunga e noho mai nei ki runga i a mātou, otirā tātou o Te Whare nei, ngā uri o Te Wairoa, ngā uri o Ngāti Kahungunu, ngā whakapapa katoa ka whakairihia mai nei ki runga i ngā pātū o tēnei Whare. He aha ai? Kia kīhai ai tēnei Whare e wareware; kia mōhio mārika ai tēnei Whare ki ngā whakapapa, ki ngā kanohi e noho mai nei ki runga.
Ka whakairihia ake rā i ngā whakapapa, i ngā hītori, i ngā mamaetanga i kawea nei e Ngāti Kahungunu, e ngā iwi o Te Wairoa ki roto i tēnei Whare i te rā nei.
Nō reira ka kī atu ahau ki a koutou, e ōku tini whanaunga—haere mai e te whakapapa.
Ka kī atu ahau ki ōku whanaunga haere mai e ngā roimata, haere mai e waikamo, haere mai, ka horomi, ka waikinohia nei i te hunga ka noho mai ki roto ki tēnei Whare. Ko ngā roimata o Te Wairoa kua tau mai ki roto i Te Whare i te rā nei, ka pōkaitia nuitia i te mata o te whenua, mai i tō rātou wā kāinga tae noa mai ki Te Whare Pāremata i te rā nei.
Ka kī atu ahau ki ngā uri o Te Wairoa, haere mai e ngā taringa haere mai e ngā kanohi—he aha ai? Kia kite atu, kia whakapono.
Ko ngā mahi i oti i a rātou ki roto i ngā 30 tau kua pahure ake nei, kua tutukihia ki roto i te pānuitanga whakamutunga o tēnei pire i roto i Te Whare i te rā nei.
Ka kī atu ahau ki ngā uri o Te Wairoa, haere mai e Moemoeā, haere mai e Wawata. Haere mai ki roto i tēnei Whare. Ko tēnei kōrero, te kiko kei roto i tēnei pire, he tūāpapa mō Moemoeā, mō Wawata ki roto i ngā tau kei mua i a tātou. Nō reira ka kī atu ahau ki te hunga kua tae mai i te rā nei—haere mai Moemoeā, haere mai Wawata.
Ka kī atu ahau ki ngā hunga nō Te Wairoa, haere mai e Tai Tāngata, haere mai e Tai Tuarā. Haere mai e Tai Tuarā o Te Mema Pāremata o Te Ikaroa-Rāwhiti. Ka kī atu ahau ki tōku tuahine, ko tō manawa ki tōku manawa, ko tō whakapapa ki tōku whakapapa, ahakoa ngā raweke, ahakoa ngā mahi māminga a te hunga pāpāho, a ētahi atu kei roto i te ao tōrangapū, ka kī atu ahau ki a ia, turuturu o whitiwhiti, whakamaua kia tina, haumi e, hui e, tāiki e!
Ka kōrero mai te nuinga o ngā kaikōrero o Te Whare nei, i te āhuatanga, me te kiko o tēnei pire. Kua rongo mātou, otirā tātou, i te rahi o te pūtea ka whakamauria ki runga i te pākau i Te Tai Rāwhiti o Te Ika a Māui, arā ko Ngāti Kahungunu, me ōna peka katoa, me tōna rahi, me tōna nui. Kua kī atu e hia nei ngā miriona taara ka whakapauria ki runga i tēnei take kerēme e pā ana ki ngā take e whakapā nei ki Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Ko te wāhanga ki Te Wairoa, āe e tika ana ko te kotahi rau miriona taara. Kua kōrero mai Te Whare, e hoa, he torutoru noa iho, he puna iti nei i whakahokia atu ki ngā mana nui o Te Wairoa kua tae mai i te rā nei. Engari koinā te take ka karanga atu ahau ki a Moemoeā, ki a Wawata kia whakatupu ake ai i te rahi o te pūtea, kia hāngai pū ki ngā moemoeā a Kui mā, a Koro mā kua ngaro atu ki te pō. Nō reira e tika ana ka mihi atu ahau ki te āhuatanga o ngā tatūnga ki roto i tēnei pire.
Kua kōrero ētahi mō te poraka whenua e kīia nei ko Hereheretau. Āe. Kotahi rau tau ki muri ki roto i te marama o Noema, i mutu ai Te Pakanga Tuatahi o Te Ao. Kotahi rau tau ka pahure ake nei, ka tae mai ki tēnei tāima, e hoa, kore kau he aha whakahokia atu ki ngā kaumātua me ngā kuia o Whakakī i tukuna atu tēnei whenua hei tohu maumahara, hei tohu ora mō te hunga i haere atu ki Te Pakanga Tuatahi o Te Ao kātahi ka hoki mai ki te kore noa iho. Kei runga tonu i te tēpu tērā āwangawanga a te iwi, a ngā hapū, mō te wāhi a Whakakī. Hāunga rā ko tērā ko te hiahia me te manako ahakoa kua whakakōhatungia ki roto i tēnei pire, haere tonu te kōrero o te kaupapa o Hereheretau ki roto i ngā tau kei mua i a tātou.
Ko ngā poraka whenua i whakahokia atu me te mana o ngā ingoa ka tapaia ki runga o aua poraka whenua, ka mihi atu ahau ki tērā tū āhuatanga, kei roto i tēnei pire. E tika ana ka whakamanahia i ngā ingoa tūpuna, a rātou mā, ngā ingoa e mōhiotia nei e te hunga e noho mai nei ki runga o ā rātou ingoa e pā ana ki ngā whenua kei a rātou, nō reira e mihi atu ana ahau ki tērā atu āhuatanga.
I a au e noho mai nei e ngā uri o Te Wairoa i rongo atu ahau i ngā kōrero a tōku matua nei a Hon Wiri Hakihana—hei tāna, he aha nei nā tā koutou mahi ki te whakararata mai i ngā hunga kei roto i ngā taone mō tō koutou kaupapa me ngā moemoeā a Ngāti Kahungunu i roto i ngā tau kei mua i a tātou? Heoi anō ko tāku e whakautu nei ki a ia, e ki ngā hunga o Te Wairoa ka noho mai ki roto i tōku rohe pōti a Tāmaki Makaurau—tēnā, tirohia ki tō whakapapa, ka kite atu i hīkoi tō koutou tupuna a Tamatea i te mata o te whenua ki te hoki atu ki te kāinga, koia rā tāku ki a rātou—hoki atu ki te kāinga.
Nā runga i te tono o tēnei o ngā Māngai o Tāmaki Makaurau ki te hunga o Te Wairoa ka noho mai ki roto i taku rohe pōti, ka kī atu ahau, āe, whakahokia atu wā koutou tamariki mokopuna ki te kāinga; ahakoa kei te taone e noho ana, e mōhio ana ahau he mokopuna, he tamaiti, ngā tamariki e tū ana ki runga i te marae, tau ana; ngā tamariki mokopuna ka tupu mai ki roto i ngā otaota o te kāinga, tau ana; ko ngā tamariki mokopuna e tupu mai nei ki raro i te maru, ki runga anō hoki i ngā rekereke o ngā matua, o ngā tūpuna, tau ana.
Nō reira e ōku rangatira, heoi anō ko te wāhanga whakamutunga o taku kōrero i te rā nei e kī atu nei ki ā koutou e ngā uri o Te Wairoa, mā Te Atua koutou e manaaki, e tiaki ki roto i ngā tau kei mua i ā koutou. Ko te manako ko ngā moemoeā o rātou mā ka kore e mutu ki konei. E mōhio ana au i ngā tū āhuatanga me ngā raruraru ka pā ki a Ngā Puhi ki roto i ngā tau, kei roto tonu i ngā mahi o tēnei rā. Mō ngā wawata o tōku tupuna a Tā Hemi, ehara mō te whakatutukitanga o ngā nawe me ngā kerēme e pā ana ki Te Tiriti o Waitangi, kāhore; engari mō tētahi āhua tupu pai mai wana mokopuna maha, kia tū rangatira, kia tū toa ki roto i tēnei ao hurihuri. Koia rā te wero nui kei mua i ā koutou e ōku rangatira, e ōku tini whanaunga—kia whakaritea mai te huarahi, kia pai ai te tupu, kia pai ai te māhuri o te tōtara i roto i a koutou ā taihoa ake nei.
Koutou, e ngā mana nui, e ōku tini whanaunga, ka tautoko mātou o tēnei taha o Te Whare, te pire kei mua i te aroaro. Ki a koe, otirā ki a tātou i te rā nei, me te hiahia ka tere atu ki mua i te aroaro o Te Kāwana Tianara, nā reira whakamanahia ka mutu ka kite anō tātou i a tātou i runga i Te Marae o Pipitea nā reira tātou hākari ai.
E ōku rangatira, rau rangatira mā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.
[Madam Assistant Speaker, I will remain in the Māori language for the duration of my speech today.
Let there be life in the world of light, in the world of enlightenment, behold there is life!
May I continue the ritual of paying respect and offering words of welcome to these good people who have descended upon us and this House, to the progeny of Te Wairoa, to the issue of Ngāti Kahungunu, to their genealogical connections which now grace the walls of this House. Why? So that this House will never forget; so that the genealogy and the faces sitting here will remain etched in the consciousness of this House.
The genealogies, the history, and the hurt which are all borne by Ngāti Kahungunu, by the people of Te Wairoa, will be laid bare in this House today. I therefore say to you, my many brethren, I welcome your genealogy.
I further say to my kinsmen, I welcome your tears, I welcome your grief; welcome so that it may wash over the people who sit in this House. The tears of Te Wairoa which have finally arrived at this House have had a long and arduous journey from their homeland to Parliament today.
I say to the descendants of Te Wairoa, I welcome your ears, I welcome your eyes. Why? So they may see, they may believe.
The work that has been accomplished these 30 years past will reach some conclusion in the third reading of this bill in the House today.
I also say to the descendants of Te Wairoa, I welcome vision, I welcome aspiration. Welcome into this House. These speeches, the contents of this bill, form the foundation for vision and aspiration to thrive in the years ahead. Therefore, I say to those who have come here today, welcome vision, welcome aspiration.
I further say to the people of Te Wairoa, I welcome your humanity, I welcome your backbone. I welcome you as the backbone of the member for Te Ikaroa-Rāwhiti. I have said to my sister, from your heart to my heart; from your genealogy to my genealogy, whatever the machinations, whatever the mischief generated by the media or others in the political sphere, I told her: brace yourself, gather your strength which is formidable; take heart!
Most of the speakers in this House have talked about the outcomes of this bill. We have all heard about the size of the financial redress that will accrue to that part of the East Coast of the North Island—that is to say, Ngāti Kahungunu and all its subsidiaries. It has already been stated how many millions of dollars will be allocated to settle the Treaty of Waitangi claims. As far as Te Wairoa is concerned, yes, we are talking a hundred million dollars. The House has said, “Goodness, what is being offered is only peanuts to the good people of Te Wairoa who have come here today.” But that is the reason that I have especially called upon vision and aspiration, that they might be applied to grow the size of the financial settlement in order to achieve all that was dreamt of by those ancestors who are no longer with us. It is therefore only right that I should acknowledge the matters that have been settled in this bill.
Some have talked about the Hereheretau land block. Yes. The First World War ended a hundred years ago in the month of November. One hundred years have passed and until this time there has been no return whatsoever to the elders of Whakakī who provided this land as a memorial and a means of support for those who went to World War I but then came home to nothing. Whakakī is still a bone of contention for the tribal entities and is still on the table. Other than that, it is an earnest wish that notwithstanding the agreements cemented in this bill, talks around the subject of Hereheretau will continue in the coming years.
I am delighted at the return of blocks of land and the authority over the names of those land blocks which is in this bill. It is only right that the ancestral names should be recognised, names that were known by the people who used and lived on the land, and I acknowledge that provision.
Ladies and gentlemen of Te Wairoa, as I sat here I listened to what my senior colleague the Hon Willie Jackson had to say—he asks what you will do to engage your people who live in an urban setting. What are the dreams of Ngāti Kahungunu for the future of these people? My answer to him is what I would say to people from Te Wairoa who live in my electorate of Tāmaki Makaurau—look at your family history and you will see that your ancestor Tamatea explored the length and breadth of this land and then went home. That is what I would say to them—return home.
If this member for Tāmaki Makaurau was asked by people from Te Wairoa living in my electorate, I would say yes, take your children and your grandchildren home; even though they live in the city, I know that the grandchild, the child, the children who experience their marae first-hand are grounded and confident; children and grandchildren who run amongst the grasses of their homeland are grounded and confident; children and grandchildren who grow up under the protection of, and at the feet of their elders, are grounded and confident.
Therefore, esteemed chiefs, as I conclude my speech today I beseech the blessings and protection of God upon you the descendants of Te Wairoa for the years to come. The hopes and dreams of those who have passed on do not end here. I am well aware of the trials and tribulations that have beset Ngāpuhi over the years and which continue. My grandfather Sir James impressed upon us that the aspiration was not about settling grievances that arose from Treaty of Waitangi breaches. No; it was more about improving the world of his many grandchildren that they may stand proudly and confidently in this modern world. That is the real challenge before you my chiefs, my relations—to prepare the way for strong growth, that the young leaders among you may emerge in due course.
Illustrious guests, to my many brethren, we on this side of the House support the bill before us. With the hope of an expeditious delivery to the Governor-General for formal ratification, I trust we will see you all at Pipitea Marae to eat together in celebration.
Assembled chiefs, I offer greetings, greetings, greetings one and all.]
Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā; tēnā koe e Te Whare. Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā. Tēnā koe te Whare. Rau rangatira mā, tēnei te mihi ki a koutou i runga i te kaupapa o te rā. Tēnā koutou ngā iwi rangatira o te rohe o Te Wairoa. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.
[Greetings, Madam Assistant Speaker; greetings to the House. Esteemed elders and others, I greet you in light of today’s purpose. Greetings to the proud tribes of the region of Te Wairoa. Greetings, greetings, once more greetings to you all.]
I’m honoured to rise and speak in this House on the third reading of your bill. This is our House, and in the third reading of Treaty settlement legislation we create a new future. That’s why it’s always a real honour and a privilege for me to rise and speak in a third reading. Although I haven’t walked the journey of your Treaty settlement, as the MP for Taupō I’ve been enormously privileged to walk the journey from beginning to end with Ngāti Raukawa. I’ve also been involved with parts of the Treaty settlements with other iwi in the Taupō rohe: Ngāti Tūwharetoa, Ngāti Koroki Kahukura, and Ngāti Hauā.
I want to just reflect because I can imagine that your journey has been similar. Too often I think of the debates we have in this House and at times the words that we speak are incredibly damaging, and they’re damaging for so many reasons. So I think the third reading speech is a critically important time not to speak politics but instead to focus on the future. If I think back to every step of the way in the Ngāti Raukawa settlement, the memories of what I witnessed will be etched for ever in my heart.
I have one wish in this House, and that is every New Zealander has the opportunity to experience the incredible generosity and the incredible forgiveness from iwi like yours from those past wrongs. While other speakers in this House have put your stories in the Hansard and on the record, I want to reiterate my clear hope that every New Zealander has at least some understanding of the trauma, of just the unimaginable—I can’t even find a word that actually describes it. When I listened to the stories from Ngāti Raukawa, as I say, they were burnt in my memory and etched in my heart. As a New Zealander, a fourth generation New Zealander, I was ashamed to say I had no idea of the extent of what occurred in those days. As a proud New Zealander standing in this House of Parliament, I think it is a duty and a responsibility of every New Zealander to know and attempt to understand.
So I stand in this House to celebrate with you, to thank you for walking the journey with the Crown and for your commitment, and to celebrate this point in our collective history and, more importantly, our collective future. I want to honour the ancestors passed, but, more importantly, I want to honour the children that are not yet born from your Rohe o Te Wairoa. Kia ora koutou, and thank you for the opportunity to share in this very special day with you.
Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Madam Assistant Speaker, tēnā koe. E ngā mema o Te Whare, tēnā tātou katoa. It is a privilege to be able to speak on the Iwi and Hapū of Te Rohe o Te Wairoa Claims Settlement Bill—a very historic bill that is before us in this House. Madam Assistant Speaker, with your indulgence, I’d like to greet the iwi of Ngāti Kahungungu in an appropriate manner.
Rau rangatira mā e kui mā e koro mā, anei ngā mihi ki a koutou katoa kua tae mai i runga i te kaupapa, te kaupapa whakanui, te kaupapa whakahirahira, te kaupapa tika. Nō reira, e ngā mana, e ngā reo, ōku rau rangatira mā, tēnā koutou nau mai, tēnā koutou, nau mai, tēnā koutou katoa.
[Distinguished chiefs, elders, allow me to pay my respects to you all who have come here on this mission, a mission of celebration, an important mission, a just mission. Therefore, to those from diverse backgrounds and cultures, my distinguished chiefs, greetings and welcome, greetings and welcome, greetings to one and all.]
Getting to the House has been a journey for some today, but nothing compares to the journey of ngā hapū me ngā iwi o Te Rohe o Te Wairoa. I want to firstly acknowledge the kind words that colleagues have shared in this House, but may I make it very clear that there is only one kōpapa here, and this is the third and final reading of the Iwi and Hapū of Te Rohe o Te Wairoa Claims Settlement Bill. I am so privileged and honoured, as the current member for Ikaroa-Rāwhiti, to join in with the people that have joined us here in acknowledging the passage of this bill.
It is pleasing to be the final speaker on this bill. Madam Assistant Speaker, may I make some acknowledgments? First and foremost, can I acknowledge the tīpuna who suffered at the hands of the Crown, who lost lives, who lost land, and who, without trial, were imprisoned in Te Wharekauri. There was a pattern happening on the East Coast of the North Island. Before the Treaty was signed, Wairoa Māori, Tūranga Māori lived an autonomous life. They lived under their tikanga, under their whakapapa, and managed their lands as they saw fit. In Te Wairoa, despite the Musket Wars in 1820, we had whalers that settled in places like Te Māhia in 1830.
The Treaty was signed—as we all know—on 6 February 1840. It was never ever taken to the people of Te Wairoa. There was no debate. There was no consultation for the people of Te Wairoa. In the Treaty, there are three articles. The first article—depending on which version you read: the Pākehā version talked about sovereignty; the Māori one talked about kāwanatanga, governance. The second part of the article promised Māori the undisturbed possession of their lands and their waterways. The third part of the article gave the rights and protection of Māori as British subjects.
In speaking to this bill, the Crown breached article 2 and it breached article 3. At no time did they talk to the Māori of Te Wairoa around whether they wanted to enter into this partnership. Let me be very, very clear: the Treaty was not taken to Te Wairoa. After 1840, when the Treaty was signed, you will see a pattern: in the 1860s, as the wars went around the country—it started in Taranaki, went to Waikato—Wairoa Māori, like Tūranga Māori, wanted to just remain peaceful and carry on their business.
But it was the war at Āmuruhākeke kāinga in September 1865—a month after the Waerenga a Hika siege, just up the road in Tūranga in November 1865. Those wars then enabled the Crown to move in to Te Wairoa, as they did in Tūranga, and confiscate and put magistrates in these areas to ensure that the land that was obtained was obtained under duress. These generous people, who, above us, have paid enormously in the land that was taken, in the loss of life, and, like I mentioned earlier, in those that were sent to Wharekauri without trial.
I want to acknowledge those that filed the claims in the 1980s and who are no longer here. I want to acknowledge the negotiators who have been mentioned here. I want to acknowledge Johnny Whaanga. I want to acknowledge Tāmati Olsen and all the negotiators that have worked really hard on bringing the deed of settlement to fruition. I want to acknowledge the Ministers: the Hon Chris Finlayson; I want to acknowledge the Hon Andrew Little. I want to also acknowledge Office of Treaty Settlements officials, and, of course, I want to acknowledge the work of the Māori Affairs Committee, who did a wonderful job in seeing and having submissions on this particular bill.
But, in the time I’ve got left, as we heard in the pō’hiri in the hall across from the debating chambers, this is about the future. This is about Tātau Tātau o Te Wairoa Trust. I want to acknowledge the initial trustees that are gathered here today for your stewardship since the deed of settlement was signed until the final reading of this bill. I want to particularly acknowledge the four ohu—the pillars that these people have worked so tirelessly around: the work plan, the engagement plan, and then the settlement matters, and, of course, the operational services.
This settlement bill and the people that it is being read for have prepared themselves well to receive all the assets that are coming to them. I want to respond to my colleague the Hon Willie Jackson, when he asked the question, “Where shall we be investing in?”—where shall we be investing? Can I respond to my colleague that the responsibility of health, housing, and education rests with the Crown. It is the role and the responsibility of the Crown to address not just the social but the cultural and the economic and the environmental needs of the people of Te Wairoa. So I love my colleague here, but I think he’s off cue when he thinks that the $100 million should be invested in that. I have every faith that the leadership of ngā hapū me ngā iwi o Te Rohe o Te Wairoa will make the wise decision.
Can I acknowledge our rangatahi, our tamariki who have joined us here today, because if we’re talking about the future, they are our leaders for tomorrow. I want to acknowledge those that are here with us in witnessing an event that is going to open up so many opportunities for themselves, for the wider Wairoa district, and for Aotearoa New Zealand. I am very proud to stand here in support of the people of ngā hapū me ngā iwi o Te Rohe o Te Wairoa. I wish them well, I wish them speedy returns to their homes, and I look forward to working as we continue this journey on the East Coast—this East Coast, the jewel of Aotearoa New Zealand, the place that people need to come to to see.
This settlement is going to aid and abet the opportunities for the people of Te Wairoa. I can’t wait for that to happen. I can’t wait to work alongside them. This coalition Government is ready—Mr Jones is ready to come into Wairoa. He made commitments about opening the railway line from Napier to Wairoa. It is indeed an honour—it is indeed an honour to stand in this House, to commend this bill at the third and final reading of ngā hapū me ngā iwi o Te Rohe o Te Wairoa settlement bill. I commend it to the House. Kia ora tātou.
Bill read a third time.
Waiata
Bills
Tariff (PACER Plus) Amendment Bill
Third Reading
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Trade and Export Growth): I move, That the Tariff (PACER Plus) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.
Madam Assistant Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak in support of this motion. Passage of this amendment to the tariff is one of the last steps New Zealand needs to take to be in a position to ratify PACER-Plus. [Interruption]
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! I apologise to the Minister. Could I ask members of the gallery, please when they’re leaving—could you leave quietly please? We’re continuing with the business of the House. Thank you. Thank you for your indulgence.
Hon DAVID PARKER: I understand the emotions running high and the celebrations after the long journey that has led to this point, so I’m not at all perturbed by that.
Passage of this amendment to the tariff is one of the last steps that New Zealand needs to take to be in a position to ratify PACER-Plus. It makes the minor amendments needed to enable ratification. Most of the obligations in PACER-Plus can already be met—or are already met—by New Zealand’s existing domestic, legal, and policy regime, and there are only a small number of legislative and regulatory amendments required to the Tariff Act to align New Zealand’s domestic legal regime with the rights and obligations created under PACER-Plus.
In the very week and on the very day that New Zealand and other Pacific countries conclude the annual Pacific Islands Forum leaders meeting in Nauru, it’s heartening that the majority of this House has shown its support for PACER-Plus, and through that it’s support for regional economic integration in our neighbourhood, the Pacific, because, as we have all heard before—and there is no doubt that we see it in our own communities and constituencies—New Zealand is intrinsically part of the Pacific through the fact of geography and through our shared DNA.
The passage of this bill and the consequential early ratification by New Zealand of the agreement reflect the importance that we in New Zealand place on this agreement and the positive impact our development assistance is having and will have on our Pacific neighbours. New Zealand, together with Australia, is providing significant development assistance to Pacific signatories of PACER-Plus to support their efforts also to be able to ratify PACER-Plus in the coming months.
Pacific Island countries who attended the first meeting of PACER-Plus signatories recently in Apia, Samoa, reaffirmed their commitment to agreement and to ratification. Like New Zealand and Australia, other Pacific signatories are keen to see PACER-Plus enter into force. This reflects their national interest in being part of PACER-Plus. It reflects the benefits countries have already received and will continue to receive as part of the implementation phase after entry into force. It also illustrates that Pacific signatories are sovereign countries, and they have made their own considered decision to join PACER-Plus.
Eight signatories need to ratify the agreement before it enters into force, some 60 days after that milestone. As part of the preparations for entry into force, work is already under way to establish a PACER-Plus implementation unit, which is expected to be hosted by a Pacific country, not New Zealand. So the sooner PACER-Plus enters into force, the sooner PACER-Plus can be implemented in a way that realises its potential as a catalyst for sustainable economic growth in the Pacific. There remain 11 signatories at this point. Discussions are continuing with three compact States—the Federated States of Micronesia, Palau, and Republic of Marshall Islands—on when they intend to sign, in order to have the interests of our northern Pacific neighbours reflected in the implementation phase.
Dialogue is also continuing with the larger economies of Fiji and Papua New Guinea, as they are with new forum members New Caledonia and French Polynesia. New Zealand would like to see all Pacific Islands Forum members join PACER-Plus, but, again, acknowledge that is a decision for each country to make. In New Zealand, we celebrate that the majority of the forum membership has already decided that PACER-Plus is in their national interests and will build the economic resilience and self-reliance that they seek. The Pacific Islands Forum leaders meeting is providing further opportunities to discuss PACER-Plus at the higher levels.
PACER-Plus is part of New Zealand’s wider interest to ensure settled security arrangements in the Pacific. We know that a stable and prosperous Pacific is a secure Pacific. With the global trading environment becoming ever more challenging for small countries like ours, and ever more challenging for even smaller economies in the Pacific, we believe that PACER-Plus is a welcome addition to the region’s tool box to bolster all of our collective interests.
Through the vehicle of PACER-Plus, New Zealand is already having conversations with the Pacific about what can be done to boost Pacific exports to New Zealand. This is of key importance to the signatories, who are keen to utilise the opportunities provided by PACER-Plus to go beyond simply exporting more of the limited range of commodities currently exported. This is an opportunity to create higher value - added products that are cheaper to transport and less likely to need the biosecurity screening that is sometimes an impediment.
Concluding PACER-Plus last year was a long time in the making. Can I acknowledge the last two Ministers of Trade, at least, who put so much work into that. The Hon Todd McClay and his predecessor did more to bring this to fruition than I or my Government have, and I acknowledge that. Support for this bill today means that New Zealand and the Pacific are one important step further on the road to the entry into force of this milestone trade and development agreement.
Finally, I note once again that there are provisions in this agreement that New Zealand does not normally agree to, in respect of our free-trade agreements which have a development focus, recognise the special status of the small developing economies, especially in the Pacific region, and enable them to have protection and industry development initiatives that we would normally see as anti-competitive in an international trade context. But we agree because, in the case of these economies, we want to help them develop so as to maximise their potential, the prosperity of the Pacific, and, through that, the security and peace of our region.
Hon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): I take great pleasure in rising to speak in the final reading of this bill, which will allow, as far as New Zealand’s concerned, one step closer to the entry into force of the PACER-Plus trade and development agreement. I say “trade and development agreement” because when we were negotiating in the final days with our Pacific friends and neighbours and equals, we stressed to the strongest degree possible that this agreement was about development as much if not more than it was about trade.
As New Zealand trades with the rest of the world or we go and negotiate with countries around the world, we often find ourselves at a great disadvantage because we’re far away and we’re very, very small. Bigger countries often can ask more of us than we get to offer them, and therefore we, with our negotiators, must work very, very hard to keep those agreements high-quality and balanced for the benefit of New Zealand exporters. Indeed, when I was trade Minister—and I would believe, hope, and assume, with the new trade Minister—when we go out on the world stage, we go overseas to get the best deal possible for New Zealanders and New Zealand exporters, without consideration for, necessarily, what happens in the countries we’re negotiating with. It’s for their negotiators to make the case for a better deal for their people and their exporters. But when it comes to the PACER-Plus trade and development agreement, we actually set aside our desire to get a great deal or good deal for just New Zealand exporters, and we take a development approach, which means we look at what also is good for our Pacific Island friends.
If we think that we have challenges being small and remote to the rest of the world, as far as the Pacific is concerned, those challenges for them are so much greater to their relative size than we experience. That’s why this agreement is very much as much about development as it is trade. In fact, we should call it the PACER-Plus development and trade agreement because wherever we came to an obstacle in the negotiation that was difficult, rather than what normally happens in a negotiation, where one party says no, we took the time to understand that challenge that our Pacific friends had and to find a solution for it.
With a few exceptions, we were able to find solutions. There were some where we just couldn’t get there because it actually would’ve harmed New Zealand exporters in as far as our relationship with others in the world were concerned, or, more concerningly, would’ve meant that as the Pacific entered into agreements with other countries in the world, their exporters could have a better deal than we had, and we believed that wasn’t reasonable or fair. But in all cases, we worked very hard to understand and find a solution.
That’s why I’m so pleased that in Tonga last year, a cross-party group from this Parliament travelled with me to be able to sign this agreement. The Hon Annette King was there, Fletcher Tabuteau, and a firm former member of Parliament from the Green Party, to show our solidarity with the Pacific and to show our intention, as a Parliament, to work with them and to support them to have a better future. That’s why I’m very pleased that the majority of this House will support this. I am sorry that the Green Party won’t. I think that in a third reading of a trade and development bill, we shouldn’t make it political, but I would ask them to go and look more deeply at, actually, not those few in the Pacific that say, “This isn’t a perfect deal.”, but the many others who have spent a lot of time understanding it and believe they are doing what’s right for their countries.
It’s not for the New Zealand or Australian Governments or our parliaments to tell those small Pacific Island nations what is best for them; it’s for them to make the decisions themselves. Every single country willingly decided to sign, and I took the principled position that if some weren’t ready, we wouldn’t do what often happens in negotiations, which is that you force them, but we left the door open to them. For those that had worked hard and saw that there was opportunity and wanted to make the most of that, and to build their economies and invest in their people and share in the significant resource that New Zealand and Australia are providing them to get ready to be able to trade more with us and to trade more with the rest of the world, we welcomed them and they put pen to paper. But for some countries, they weren’t ready—the Compact of Free Association countries in the north—and that was merely because they wanted to fully understand what that might mean with another important relationship they have with the US. I think they will work through that and can sign today, but it is for them to decide, not for us to put pressure on them.
As far as Fiji and Papua New Guinea (PNG) are concerned, we, with Australia, must make every effort we can to help them understand and bring them to the table when they are ready. I think there is good progress there with PNG. I am less hopeful with Fiji, because they said they were pulling out, and I think there are political reasons for that. I would make a plea to their Government to actually be as understanding as they can, because we moved further in this agreement than we have ever done before and we will ever be able to. All we really were asking of Fiji was a clause in the agreement that said if they do a future agreement on better terms in some areas with another country in the world—China—then that, too, would be offered to New Zealand exporters, but until that date they didn’t need to open up their markets as much as some would suggest, and, actually, they could keep the protections that they asked for in place until then. Unfortunately, the Fijian Government wasn’t willing to do that, and, therefore, we would’ve put New Zealanders—who, in this case, are committing considerable resource and aid money to support these countries, and we are opening our markets up and helping them trade here much more—at a disadvantage with other countries who might not sign a trade and development agreement; they might just sign a trade agreement only.
There are two components I want to mention here that I think show the degree and extent to which we went to to understand and help the Pacific. There was a lot of talk about labour mobility, the desire for Pacific Islanders to have open access to come and live and work in the New Zealand market. We couldn’t do that, for many reasons, including the precedent it would set, but, actually, as we have seen a drain of bright, intelligent young people with skills from New Zealand to other parts of the world, so too Pacific Island countries see a drain of some of their best people towards our economy. It doesn’t help them grow when some of the best exports they have actually are their people.
But what we found was a solution to this, when we understood it better: young Pacific Islanders can come here and can train, they can get experience and earn money in areas of fisheries and construction, and then take those skills back to help grow their own economies. I know that the fisheries are taking a little bit more time than we would want. I hope we can find a solution and a way forward on that. We should do the same for tourism for them: bring people from the Pacific Islands here and allow them to learn and to train and gain experience and earn a bit of money and take those skills home. That was a solution, a commitment we made to them, that would benefit them more than just exporting people who would send remittances back.
The final thing I want to say is to our very good friends in the European Union. Many years ago, before I came to this Parliament, I worked for the Cook Islands and Niue as their ambassador as they and the other Pacific Island nations negotiated a trade and development agreement with the European Union. We failed to deliver that because it was more about trade and it was less about development, and the understanding was wrong. I say to the European Union, which have almost done something with the Pacific, that they are missing an opportunity to help build one of the most beautiful areas of the world that deserves our support and our protection. They can take the PACER-Plus agreement. It is gold standard. They don’t need to change anything but swap out Australia and New Zealand’s names and put their name in it, and they should sign it. China should do the same, and the US should do the same as well.
If we want to support these countries, we should be more understanding. We should think more about development than trade. There is a way through. I commend this agreement and this legislation to the House. I’m very pleased we will be one of the first countries to ratify it. The European Union and China and America can step up and show leadership, as New Zealand is today in this Parliament, and do the same thing for the Pacific. Thank you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is someone taking a call?
Simon O’Connor: Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call Simon O’Connor.
SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Sorry, I was anticipating more wild enthusiasm to come from the Labour Party, who has finally kicked in behind free-trade agreements now, in Government, which is a tremendous, tremendous thing. So I’m very pleased, as the chair of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, to speak in support of this Tariff (PACER Plus) Amendment Bill. I might start with the basics and develop from there. I will, though, be speaking, in a sense, with two hats on—both, I suppose, my political hat, as a National MP, and as the chair. Look, PACER stands for the Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations, but, importantly, we heard from the member who just sat down, Todd McClay, that this agreement is fairly unique in so far as it is also about development.
I might just say, to acknowledge the Minister, who has taken this through, for the work that he has done, and to acknowledge Todd McClay, who is also in the House, for the work that he did leading the majority of this work. I think this free-trade agreement is a good example of where cross-party cooperation works best, and I’m particularly relieved to see that that bipartisan—at least Labour-National—approach has returned to free trade. It’s how we as New Zealand are going to continue to grow and become wealthy, and it’s also, I believe, how we’re going to continue that, I suppose, multilateral approach towards peace, security, and stability across the world, because it’s actually through trade that we end up having conversations and dialogue. I can think, just in recent months—with the chairmanship hat on—of the number of groups that come in that you sit down and have meetings with, often around trade, that turn into much wider, wider discussions.
I will touch briefly on the disappointment that one party in the House is not supporting this. Obviously, it’s their prerogative—we are a democracy after all—though I am disappointed. As I say, this is an agreement where currently 11 countries are signed up, and for the interests, perhaps, of the House, that obviously includes New Zealand, Australia, Kiribati, Nauru—which is obviously very topical at the moment—Niue, Samoa, the Solomons, Tonga, Tuvalu, and, of course, Vanuatu. Three other countries at this point in time have not agreed to sign up: Papua New Guinea, the Federated States of Micronesia, and Fiji. Like Todd McClay, I would certainly encourage—as far one country can to another—them to consider signing up. I’m optimistic that we may find agreement with—or rather that Papua New Guinea may find its way forward. The Federated States—I suppose the nature of being a federation adds complexity. Fiji—having lived there for a while—is a wonderful country and set of islands, but there’s a political complexity that occurs there, probably more internally than externally, but it’s having an effect here.
Look, the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee well considered this treaty and then the bill to make this come into effect. As I’ve noted before, and it was actually topical today, the committee’s also been looking at the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). What we’re doing here today is bringing about the small but significant piece of domestic legislation to make the larger treaty take effect within New Zealand. Treaties are the prerogative of the executive. Ministers and their teams—their officials—negotiate said treaty; they present it to the House; we go through it, have a good look over it, make sure we listen, hear, and report back on what the public say; and then, once we’re though that part of the process, rightly we put a bill before the Parliament.
The second thing I’d say is acknowledging actually the members of the select committee and those officials who worked on it. Why I want to do that—if I could start with the officials—is they brought great expertise. I’d like, once again, to put on the record my thanks to them, particularly those within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade for their expertise and professionalism. But also what was evident was their commitment not only to the Realm of New Zealand but also to the good of their neighbours in the Pacific Islands. But can I thank members of the committee, too. We were very conscious that we wanted to get this bill through the Parliament relatively quickly. When I say it was an expedited process, we didn’t leave any stones unturned. We heard all that we needed to hear from all those who wished to be heard, but the committee was keen to make sure that no other obstacles were put in the way, and the fact that there was the opportunity therefore in this sitting block for the bill to pass—most likely, without presuming the final result—is a positive thing.
I’d say that New Zealand is often very keen on, in a sense, trading statements. In other words, we want to be one of the first parties to sign, to send a very strong signal about our enthusiasm to those that we’re trading with. That’s obviously something in mind around the TPP. I know that New Zealand is keen to be an early signatory in that, and it’s no different—in fact, it may be even more so—when we are dealing with PACER-Plus; that New Zealand, probably along with Australia, are the two major players, and want to show their commitment by having this bill done early. Of course, the treaty has been ratified—that’s already been done—but actually the signing of this legislation helps us progress forward.
Look, really importantly, this is more than simply about free trade and the removal of customs and duties and other non-tariff barriers; it’s also about a redirection of New Zealand and Australian aid—I think about $55 million into the Pacific to help our Pacific friends and neighbours develop not just their economies but the systems in the background, in order to allow that economy to work efficiently, particularly in the trade space. So a very simple example is working with the likes of say, Vanuatu, the Solomons, or the Cook Islands to help them with their customs brokering systems so that they benefit from a more efficient system. That makes a lot of sense to me, and the great thing is it makes a lot of sense to them as well, because they’re happily signing up to this agreement. Over time, I think we will see it—obviously that initial relationship where we are helping them—becoming far more organic. In other words, as their economies grow, become stronger, and develop, they’ll be able to trade more with us, which is absolutely fantastic. We’ll be pleased about that, but similarly, we’ll be able to trade more with them.
So I think it’s probably important to say—because I think it’s true—this is not a purely altruistic treaty or bill. I suppose no trade agreement ever is out of pure altruism, but there is an altruistic element to this: that New Zealand and Australia are keen to focus their trade, to focus their aid, to help our neighbours develop, and that’s a really positive thing for the region.
One of the other elements—look, it’s obviously like anything and is a fairly comprehensive agreement—is there’s a lot of work around labour exchange. New Zealand obviously depends on skilled workers coming in at set times of the year. One just thinks of the wine industry—for example, we get a large number of people, actually from Vanuatu, who come over. It’s a great opportunity to practise one’s French, or in my case to practise French and become quite embarrassed. But it’s an opportunity to continue those positive relationships, and the PACER-Plus agreement allows an easier movement of the nationals from across these 11 countries that are coming on board to flit through New Zealand.
As I said earlier, I’m a little disappointed that the Greens are not supporting this. As always, I reiterate it’s their prerogative to do so. They are concerned, according to their minority view, that it may undermine efforts to promote Pacific regionalism and that it’s going to create problems like aid for trade and burdens for States. I don’t agree with that. I think the opposite is true, actually: by New Zealand and Australia strongly committing through its trade and aid to our Pacific neighbours, we are affirming that we want to be part of the region. But, importantly, we want to take a regional role. Not all countries are, in a sense, the same or completely equal. We are a larger economy, we have a larger population, and, I would argue, we have a larger moral duty to work, help, and trade with those nations.
I think we’ve seen not so much a reset of Pacific aid—the amount of money that New Zealand puts into the Pacific is substantial—it’s been, certainly, a reset of nomenclature: a reset in name; a branding exercise. New Zealand’s existing aid to the Pacific is large. I think that’s been well noted, particularly as other countries try to expand their influence into the Pacific. I think it’s particularly good that New Zealand continues to stand up along with Australia and other allies to support those in the Pacific there.
It’s an excellent agreement. Again, my thanks go to the Ministers, including, of course, Todd McClay, who worked particularly hard to get this agreement to where it is, and to Minister Parker, who has brought it through to the end, and to all those on the committee and all the officials—in particular, those who negotiated this treaty. We’re almost at the end. I look forward to it being finally conclude and commend it to the House.
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister of State for Trade and Export Growth): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. On the odd occasion, the O’Connors on this side of the House agree; on the rare occasion, O’Connors on both sides of the House agree, and, following on from Simon O’Connor, I have to say that I agree almost entirely with everything he said. I’d like to acknowledge Todd McClay and the previous Government for getting PACER-Plus to a position of signing and, I guess, for doing the work—the Pacific reset and committing to build stronger relationships across the Pacific. So we’re passing a piece of legislation here that brings this into effect.
I have to say that in the signing of the agreement, alongside that was the labour mobility arrangement, which is probably just as important for many people in the Pacific and in New Zealand, and certainly in the primary sectors with the Recognised Seasonal Employer arrangements. It’s a scheme set up by the previous Labour Government, continued on by National, and acknowledged once again as being a core component of Pacific development. I have to say that these are not just our neighbours but, in fact, in some cases—of course, in Rarotonga—part of New Zealand, part of the realm.
Passing this piece of legislation that allows freer trade and better relationships, in fact, offers an opportunity for us to provide better support in an area that is of more interest internationally. I have to say, the Pacific was a quiet little backwater for many, many years, connected to New Zealand and Australia. Now it’s a part of an international focus, actually, for a number of geopolitical reasons, and so it’s even more important that we build relationships with all the Pacific nations. Trading with them is a good place to start. Allowing access to New Zealand for people who want work, people whose skills we require, is another very, very good way of developing that.
So I’m not going to speak for long, other than to say I applaud the efforts of my colleague David Parker as trade Minister—
Hon David Parker: And his predecessors from National.
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: —and Todd McClay—I’ve acknowledged him, and he just came in. Todd’s done a great deal of work, and I think that, in fact, across this House, on almost all issues related to the Pacific, we agree. There’s no politics here. I think we have a passion and a commitment to support our Pacific neighbours.
I acknowledge and support the passage of this legislation. It’s almost seen as bilateral, but it’s a multilateral agreement that, in fact, gives dignity to Pacific neighbours, allows them to trade with our country, and provides opportunities for them to build their economies, and, indeed, it’s a wonderful piece of legislation. Kia ora.
MARK PATTERSON (NZ First): It’s a pleasure to rise on behalf of New Zealand First and endorse and support this Tariff (Pacer Plus) Amendment Bill, essentially, of course, enabling legislation the technical details to allow the groundwork for the adoption of this trade deal—this Pacific trade deal. Of course, in doing so, we are embracing—it embodies the very principles of the Pacific reset that this Government has embarked upon under foreign Minister Peters. I also acknowledge defence Minister Mark here, as well, who has been pretty active in pushing New Zealand’s geopolitical interests in this space.
This is a mutually beneficial deal, and, of course, as we’ve heard, there’re 11 nations that are represented so far within this pending agreement. We have these three nations that are outstanding so far, and we do hope that Papua New Guinea, Fiji, and the Federated States of Micronesia will see the merit in joining later, because there is genuine interest, I think, on our behalf and from the Australians and the other members of this deal to make this an all-encompassing, all-embracing trade deal. It lowers the barriers to trade, and there is a focus—as has been said—on development.
One of the issues, of course, that’s very topical at the moment in New Zealand is biosecurity, and I do note the emphasis on biosecurity within this bill—the $7.7 million over two years that New Zealand is putting in to help support the development of customs services in the Pacific and customs training. There’re things also like helping to expand the trade under that scheme through online portals, helping to make the products from Pacific Island nations more accessible here in New Zealand. There are efforts to lift the domestic productivity of Pacific Island nations to offset some of the difficulties they may have. They’re also opening their borders to our products, and so we are recognising that that is a legitimate concern for them, and we’re helping them work their way through that process.
There’s also the $25.5 million over five years for a development fund. So, as we can see, this is a deal where New Zealand is looking to help develop. It’s not just a straight trade deal. It’s not just a straight monetary exchange, and I think we’ve found ourselves on the other foot, actually. In most of these deals that we’re negotiating, we are the smaller economy within the deal, so we kind of know what it looks like from their end, I guess, and we’re looking to bring that experience into helping make this a really top-notch trade deal for the Pacific. It does advance economic union, and it will grow prosperity for all.
I note in the submitters’ comments in the select committee that there was some concern about promoting gender equality—for example, making sure that women benefited from this deal as much as men. This is sort the of theme of this deal. It’s not just an economic exchange that we are looking to develop with our smaller Pacific neighbours. This is a generous agreement, and New Zealand has offered these concessionary terms over and above what we would normally do in the normal course of a trade deal. It does go with the theme that we like to see ourselves as good international citizens, and certainly in this deal, we are doing that.
It is the catalyst, I guess, for wider international involvement by New Zealand. Just recently, we have had $10 million going into Pacific broadcasting, including seeking to establish a Pacific Island TV channel. The Australians—the Australian Broadcasting Corporation—have pulled out of the Pacific, and we are elevating our interests in this area.
I noted, actually, in a recent Q+A interview that the US Ambassador Scott Brown was lauding New Zealand and this Pacific reset and the leadership we are showing. He pointed out that in doing so, there’s a leveraging effect. We have dragged the Australians back into the Pacific. We have got the focus of the UK back into the Pacific, and there are those three embassies that they are looking at opening in the Pacific, which is great news. He did acknowledge our growing leadership role here, and we need to have that.
There are wider geopolitical forces at play and the emergence of some big superpower interests in the Pacific strategically—Minister Mark mentioned China specifically in his defence report, and this Government is being open about those things. We do know that the Chinese have looked to leverage their influence in the Pacific and they’re spending a lot of money up there. So we just can’t afford to sit back and expect those old loyalties to play out. We actually have to be proactive in this space, and this bill and this legislation allows us to do that.
Our trade with the wider Pacific is actually $1.3 billion per annum in the latest figures I have, which go back to 2013. We import $100 million worth of direct imports, but Australia and New Zealand are also 30 percent of the exports for the Pacific nations, so we are an incredibly important source economically for them. There’s $41 million of remittances that go back from the Recognised Seasonal Employer scheme that Minister Damien O’Connor just referenced before, and what a valuable scheme that is to our primary industries. Of course, we are also the largest source of tourists going into the Pacific for holidays, so we are hugely interconnected.
However, we’re not only neighbours; there is a huge contribution that Pasifika people make to New Zealand—300,000 people of Pacific Island origin make New Zealand home, and what contributors they are. I believe that in this Parliament there are seven MPs that give Pacific heritage as their primary background, and that probably understates it. I know that it wouldn’t be widely known, but my colleague Darroch Ball actually has Tongan and Kiribati heritage, so I’m sure that influence is far greater than that.
Of course, I don’t want to be too clichéd about this, but the incredible contribution to New Zealand sport that the Pasifika community play—you know, some of the absolute greats. Actually, they are not only New Zealand greats but international greats: the Jonah Lomus; the Adams siblings, Dame Valerie and Steven; the great Michael Jones—you know, I could go on with that list. So the Pacific community make an incredible contribution to our society.
I would like to conclude by saying that this is a modern free-trade agreement and it does focus on social issues. The female influence, and looking to grow female equality—that sort of thing is part of this bill, and I think this is a modern trade deal. That’s why New Zealand First are behind it. This is not about big corporations playing off against each other. This improves business. It improves our geopolitical position. It is the right thing to do morally, given our history in this area and the huge influence that the Pasifika community have made here.
So, without further ado, I’d like to commend this bill to the House. I’d like to congratulate the Ministers that have been involved in bringing this forward—the former Minister, the Hon Todd McClay, and the current Minister, the Hon David Parker—for their shepherding of this bill through, which will be hugely positive for New Zealand and for our region. So New Zealand First has absolute pleasure in commending this bill to the House. Thank you.
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. It is quite something to be able to follow a New Zealand First speaker in favour of a trade agreement. It’s wonderful that that party is seeing the value of trade and of having the ability to gather greater prosperity for all countries through the benefit of trade.
So the National Party, of course, stands to support this trade bill, which was, of course, started off by the Hon Todd McClay as Minister of Trade back in 2017. The purpose of it, as we know, is to legislate for a trade agreement signed between these 11 Pacific Island countries, including Australia and New Zealand, in the hope of lowering barriers, not just in the tariff level but also by reducing bureaucratic instruments and rules covering goods and services that get in the way of the free flow of trade. And it’s important for New Zealand in the broader Trans-Pacific Partnership right across the world, but it’s also important in our local region here in the Pacific. That’s why we stand fair and square behind reducing barriers to trade and doing it in an effective way.
But, of course, our commitment on the National Party side to expanding our access to export markets and reducing barriers to trade has been part of a broader economic development strategy that we worked on consistently throughout nine years in power—the Business Growth Agenda, it was. Expanding export markets was one of the steps that we took in order to deliver a more competitive and productive economy. And there were other planks to that that we focused on: increasing the flow of investment, access to natural resources, access to good quality infrastructure such as ultra-fast broadband, access for businesses to trade in skilled environments, and also access to a knowledge and innovation framework. That was our broader economic development and where our trade policy fitted into.
One of the criticisms that I’ve been making against this administration, which has now been in power for getting close to a year, is that we haven’t had much clarity at all about the broader economic development strategy that’s guiding this Government. We haven’t seen anything, really, at all, to replace the Business Growth Agenda—
Hon David Parker: The laundry list.
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: —other than flummery from the Minister who has chipped in—in regard to the Provincial Growth Fund and R & D tax credits and the most important factor of all, which is the solution to every problem: the capital gains tax. And time will tell.
But we did see last week the announcement of the Government’s economic development strategy, which the Prime Minister announced, and that was to take the “growth” out of the Business Growth Agenda and call it the business transformation agenda. I suppose the point that I would make in relation to that was the absence of any great detail about how this Government is going to go about improving our productivity.
One area where there is strong overlap on both sides of the House is agreement around the importance of trade deals and expanding our export markets through the development of rigorous trade relationships. And that’s why, when people say “Oh, politicians, why can’t you all get along and work together constructively for the benefit of New Zealand?”, well, this is one of the areas where, indeed, we do. And that’s why we stand here—
Tim van de Molen: Except for the Greens.
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, aside from the Greens. But, yes, they’re an interesting case. But we do that because most of us understand the importance for a small trading nation such as New Zealand, that only makes its living in a world by exporting its goods—and the extent to which we can reduce barriers so that we can trade more effectively has got to be good for this country. There’s been disagreements about all sorts of things over the years, and New Zealand First has waxed and waned like the horses and the hounds—and the very nature of Shane Jones’s oratory is all over the place, so you would expect that party to be a little bit inconsistent in its support for free trade. But it’s nice today to see them in support of this particular bill. But, traditionally, both National and the Labour Party have seen the value of these trades.
So when we just get down to some of the details of this legislation, I should note that it includes our good friends across the Tasman but also the Cook Islands, Kiribati, Nauru, Niue, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu, and the door remains open for other Pacific Island countries who could join this agreement. It will enter into force once all the negotiating parties have passed the legislation. It is worth noting—and it may be a surprise to some people tuning in, listening to this broadcast—that New Zealand exports around $376 million of goods a year to the countries, excluding Australia, which, of course, we export many billions of dollars to on average.
The tariffs on New Zealand exports will be reduced over extended time frames between 25 and 35 years, but on average we face tariffs of about 7 percent. So there’s an opportunity for New Zealand to export more to the region but also equally very much the opportunity for those countries to continue to gain great access to the New Zealand environment. It’s not so much, because we have very low tariffs in this country in very few areas—so that’s not the real issue. It’s about getting consistency around the trading rules in relation to goods, services, and investment that will make the real difference here.
So, overall, I have no doubt that this is a small but not at all insignificant piece in the jigsaw of what we hope will be a successful South Pacific region, because it is fair to say that this is a region that isn’t really going as well as it could economically. Many of these countries who are listed here haven’t been able to provide a strong economy so far for their citizens. From a New Zealand perspective, given our close relationships not just economically but socially and culturally, we all want to see places like Tonga and Samoa and Niue prosper and do well and to provide opportunities for them and their families and their people. There is no magic to it. It’s about generating goods that the rest of the world wants to buy at a good price so that they can make an honest living.
As small countries—as New Zealanders experience, but they experience even more—with that lack of scale, it is very easy for the rest of the world. It is hard to compete internationally, and any barriers, whether it be tariffs or just rules and regulations that make it difficult for trading to go ahead, compound the difficulty of having such a small base with which to start. So exporters coming out of Tonga or Vanuatu, for example—and I think of the magnificent coffee that comes out of Vanuatu, which I have enjoyed on many occasions, for example—their lack of scale in the domestic market means that if they want to get any size, they have to export very quickly and face all the difficulties that go with exporting.
So, in conclusion, I suppose the point I would make is it’s wonderful to see support across the House, with the exception of the Greens—is it?—who are deeply ambivalent to the nature of growth. I suppose, just looking at our two friends from that party across the House, I would encourage them to reconsider their position and to give serious thought to whether or not they are genuine in their desire for this region to get ahead economically and to create opportunities for the next generation. I suppose the question is if you’re not in favour of this, are you ever in favour of any sort of trade liberalisation, and, clearly, they’re not. But, putting the Greens to one side—and maybe there is time for reflection on their part, but putting them to one side—I welcome the New Zealand First entrance into the fold in favour of trade, where they are a little bit higgledy-piggledy in their thinking, but between the major parties of this Parliament I think this is a good day and a real opportunity for us—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! The member’s time has expired.
GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise in response to my esteemed former colleague from the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee the Hon Mark Mitchell. I rise not to change our position but to maintain the Green Party’s principled position in opposition to this trade deal. I begin by noting that NGOs all over the Pacific—and, in particular, the Pacific Network on Globalisation, who commissioned an independent impact analysis of this trade deal—have called this the Pacific’s Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement (TPPA).
Hon David Parker: Not all NGOs.
GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: So they are standing opposed—not all NGOs, that is true, but at least in terms of the Pacific Network on Globalisation and their impact assessment that they commissioned independently, and it was put together by Australian, New Zealand, and Pacific academics who are experts in trade.
They raised the same kinds of concerns that New Zealanders raised over and over again about the TPPA, which were the lack of transparency in its negotiations, the lack of transparency in the text, the lack of safeguards for human rights, for environmental protections, the erosion of democracy, and the threat of deregulation, privatisation—all of the same types of dangers that came with what we now know is an archaic economic model that led to every global economic disaster, but particularly the last one, which we can all remember. We, hopefully, would have thought we would have learnt some of those lessons: trade should, in fact, be for the good of the people and our environment, rather than to benefit very few elite corporations at the very top. We know that that money is not going to trickle down. We know that their interests are not in protecting the greater good, and, in fact, we know that this trade agreement—and we can see in its text—does aim to deregulate, and it does leave our Pacific neighbours very much vulnerable to things like privatisation of their core State services, which is something that the Greens do maintain a principled opposition to, as did a vast number of New Zealanders when the TPPA was brought up on to our shores, and we know what happened there.
So this is a trade deal that’s been 16 years in the making. It was signed in 2017, and the Green Party opposed it then. This bill is aiming to bring that into effect and, in particular, to impose the preferential tariffs. The small benefit that we get in our markets, while we take away that incredibly important source of income to Governments who are already, in most cases, struggling to provide healthcare and education and other services to their people—while we get that small benefit and while we get an opening up of their markets and whatever benefit comes from deregulating them, they get really no new access to ours at all. In fact, our protectionist mechanisms—Australia’s and New Zealand’s, being the big powerful trading partners here—are maintained. Our fruit and vegetable markets aren’t being opened up in the same way that we are opening up their markets.
So we get that, and the benefit is 20 percent of our aid budget moving into trade. Already allocated money that was going to expertly delivered humanitarian and development aid programmes for promoting gender equity, programmes promoting environmental sustainability, rule of law programmes—that money was already there, going to expertly deliver those types of benefits. Now that’s going to be moving into trade—with some lip service paid to those values, of course—but trade doesn’t deliver those things, not like actual development programmes do, or not like actual humanitarian aid would.
That’s what we heard from the submitters that came, actually, specifically to talk about women’s issues. They said that most women in the Pacific are not in a position to be trading internationally. They’re not big international traders, and so the money being taken away from gender equity programmes, taken out of the local market, was actually going to hurt women’s empowerment in the Pacific. That was what the submission said. So they were not at all confident that a mention of how trade is supposed to now have some benefits for women’s empowerment was actually going to uphold that, given that this is an international trade agreement and that only elite urban traders are going to benefit. That’s not the majority of the Pacific, and it’s certainly not women.
This trade-for-aid model is spreading in the Pacific. The UK will be imposing it. We’ve already criticised China for being there; they engage in it. The EU is coming in to do the same. Why are we contributing? As a good neighbour, as a leader in this region, why are we contributing to this old-world economic order creeping into the Pacific—the most unique and beautiful island nations that are also some of the most vulnerable in the world? That encapsulates the Green Party’s opposition to this deal.
We need progressive trade. We’ve already had that promise from the Government, and we know that we are going to deliver that in future for New Zealanders. We hope that nothing like the damaging, the undemocratic trade that will come to us through the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement will ever be incorporated into New Zealand law and our trade model again, but why are we imposing it on the Pacific, where we have the power to actually change that paradigm?
The Green Party doesn’t support this trade deal. We never have, and we don’t support the bill. We support progress. We support trade. New Zealand is itself a small island nation, in many ways, and we need trade, but we need it to serve the good of our people, of the environment, and we need it most of all to not undermine democracy. It is in the good of the people and our environment to regulate trade. Unfettered growth on a finite planet is not sustainable, and for that reason I don’t commend this bill to the House.
Hon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Thank you, sir, and I thank Ms Ghahraman for outlining the Greens’ position. I’ll come back to it in a little bit more detail shortly, but I’ll just make the point that when she claims that the Green Party stands for progressive trade, she hasn’t yet—and nor have any of her colleagues—ever been able to find a trade agreement that seems to fall within that description, and so they do seem to have a very consistent position in opposing trade deals which are clearly in our best interests, and, in this case, I would still maintain are in the best interest of the signatories to it.
As we are in the third reading of this Tariff (PACER-Plus) Amendment Bill, I think it is appropriate to acknowledge the current and former trade Ministers who have brought it to this point, the Hon David Parker and, in particular, the Hon Todd McClay, who did much of the work in New Zealand’s interests leading up to June of last year when the agreement was reached. I think it is also appropriate in this third reading to acknowledge our Pacific partners from the other 10 countries. They are Australia, the Cook Islands, Kiribati, Nauru, Niue, Samoa, the Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu, who are all, with New Zealand, signatories to the PACER-Plus agreement. As the Minister for Trade and Export Growth noted earlier this afternoon when he moved the third reading of this bill—and I completely agree with him—in time he very much hopes that the other Pacific nations that are not currently in a position to sign up will find it in their advantage to do so, and I’m sure that they will be warmly welcomed.
I’d also like to acknowledge, warmly, all the trade envoys and officials who have worked so hard to bring this agreement into being. This is the culmination for them of almost a decade of hard work and negotiation, and so I think it’s valid to put on the record that the negotiation of PACER-Plus was led for New Zealand by an inter-agency team from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. This team included officials from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment and also from the New Zealand Customs Service. As this time last year I had the privilege of being the Minister of Customs, I’m delighted, in particular, to acknowledge their contribution. I have the highest regard for the service of our customs officials. They make a huge contribution in a way that isn’t so often seen. They are well known for the work they do in protecting our borders, but they also make a huge contribution to our economy, and so I thank them and note that other relevant agencies were also regularly consulted during the negotiations. It was very much a team effort, and this is their day, so let us acknowledge all the trade envoys and officials who have been so intimately involved.
The Hon Todd McClay noted when he spoke earlier in this debate that New Zealand often finds ourselves at a disadvantage in trade negotiations, both because we’re a small nation and because of our geographical isolation. We’re a long way from many of the markets with whom we wish to conclude trade deals. But in this particular instance, as Mr McClay noted, those challenges are even greater for the very small Pacific Island nations that are part of this agreement, and for once New Zealand is actually a very large party in the scheme of things. So I want to repeat Mr McClay’s observation that this should rightly be seen as the “PACER-Plus Trade and Development agreement”, because the development aspect of it is a huge part of the commitment that we’ve entered into.
As New Zealanders, we all feel very strong ties to the Pacific. So many people living here in this country are of Pacific origin. I understand approximately 296,000—nearly 300,000—people currently in New Zealand are of Pacific origin. So our commitment to them is one that we take very seriously and we enter into the PACER-Plus agreement honourably and generously, and I think it’s important to put that on record. Our Pacific neighbours are family. I truly believe that PACER-Plus will be in their best interests and will enhance their development and prosperity. I’m sure that all members in this House, even the Green members who are opposed to it, would agree with me in hoping that that will be so.
Let me just go back for a moment to the Green viewpoint. As a member of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, I’ve naturally had the opportunity to study their minority view and I’ll just quote from it. In expressing their opposition, they make the point that in their view “the PACER Plus agreement undermines efforts to promote Pacific regionalism, reprioritises New Zealand’s existing aid budget into problematic ‘aid for trade initiatives’, and burdens Pacific states with unfair export rules.” That, obviously, was part of what Ms Ghahraman was trying to identify today.
So let us just look for a moment, in order to balance the record there, at what the intended benefits of the PACER-Plus agreement actually are. If I could just read from a list here, because I think it’s important that these are clearly understood, the intended benefits of PACER-Plus include: “a more predictable trading environment;”—and being able to predict with a degree of certainty is important—“more consistent and transparent rules throughout our region on sanitary and phytosanitary measures, technical barriers to trade, and customs procedures; more liberal and product-specific rules of origin; increased investment in the region, in particular by New Zealand and Australian investors into Pacific Island countries;”—and our ability to invest in those nations is of huge importance to some of those very small island States—“greater certainty around tariffs for exporters; more opportunities for trade-related development assistance for Pacific Island countries;” and “a more mobile labour force in the region.” So, as I say, those are some of the intended main benefits.
And if I could just find where I was going with my notes, we might carry on. As I say, those are the overall objectives, but since this is the third reading of the Tariff (PACER Plus) Amendment Bill, I think it’s also important to dig down into some of the detail. So I’d like to just quote from this much weightier tome—the national interest analysis of the PACER Plus Agreement—and look at some of its key features. Again, if I could just write this into the record, particularly for the benefit for those who are listening, according to the national interest analysis, which was concluded in June 2017, “The Agreement will be the first reciprocal trade agreement governing New Zealand’s … NZD$654 million [worth] of goods and services exports to the Parties [to the agreement]”. It will “assist New Zealand in [the Pacific] region where”—and this is a key point—“the majority of countries are not [World Trade Organization] members, and therefore are not [subject] to any WTO limits on the maximum tariff rate that they can apply.”
So, on average, New Zealand exported around $376 million worth of goods per year to PACER-Plus parties—excluding Australia, of course—between the years 2013 and 2015. Tariffs on New Zealand exports will be eliminated under this agreement over extended time frames of 25 to 35 years. But “At present New Zealand exports face an average ad valorem tariff of 6.8 percent and attract duties estimated at NZD$24 million annually …”. Well, “ad valorem” literally means “according to value”, so it’s a tariff imposed on the monetary value of the item.
So the national interest analysis states that “PACER Plus will have negligible … revenue implications for New Zealand [importers]”. According to the briefing that we on the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee received earlier this year from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, PACER-Plus differs from other trade agreements in that it has specific and significant development components. I’m running out of time, but these include—well, actually, as I say, because I’m running out of time, I might leave it to other speakers to do this. The detail there is really important. This is an agreement—and I’ll conclude with this point—that has been negotiated very carefully, looking at the best interests of the Pacific Island nations. It’s part of our commitment to them.
As I mentioned at the outset, it’s very much my hope that those nations that haven’t yet indicated that they wish to be a partner to it will in time feel that they can see the benefits as this comes into effect with others, that they can see those benefits, and that they’ll realise that they would be better in than out. I firmly believe that that will happen. As I say, I think that this is an important day for the Pacific, a good day for those Pacific nations that are a part of it, and I’m very proud of the fact that New Zealand has made its significant commitment here. I firmly hope that my comments will be borne out in time. I believe that they will be. I thank everybody who’s been associated in concluding this important work, and as today we conclude this third reading, which is another important step in the journey, I wish all the parties all the very best. I hope that we will see that in years to come, it leads to everybody’s improved prosperity and development.
JAMIE STRANGE (Labour): Mr Assistant Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to take a brief but passionate call on this bill. Hopefully, some of the members opposite will wake up and focus. Global protectionism is rising, and this is a concern. There’s been a 30 percent increase in tariffs over the past two years, which is the sharpest increase since 1995. Now, we have talked a lot about challenges taking place around the US, but also the EU and other developed countries are moving a little bit more towards protectionism. That’s why it’s so important that we take a lead as a country around open, free markets.
New Zealand is reliant on trade, and a number of speakers have touched on that before. It’s the lifeblood of our economy and it’s absolutely important that we continue to trade in a free and open way. That’s why I am very passionate about this bill, the Tariff (PACER Plus) Amendment Bill. I’d like to acknowledge the Ministers: Todd McClay, who’s worked on this in the past, and the Hon David Parker, who has picked it up and followed it through to its completion.
New Zealand provides leadership for the Pacific nations, and a trade agreement like this works to lift incomes right across that region, to lift the wealth of all Pacific peoples. It’s about investing in our neighbours. It’s about—as the Beatles once said, “Come Together”. That’s absolutely what it is. It’s about coming together, and it’s about—
Hon Tim Macindoe: “Let It Be”, Jamie.
JAMIE STRANGE: Ha, ha! That member opposite just said, “Let It Be”. Well done. Look, it’s about businesses. It’s about businesses in the small Island nations who find it challenging to achieve the economies of scale needed to compete in an international market, and it’s about us working with them, showing leadership as a country. So, I’m very excited to commend this bill to the House.
Hon NICKY WAGNER (National): Thank you very much, Mr Assistant Speaker. I too take great pleasure in speaking on the Tariff (PACER Plus) Amendment Bill at its third reading. I’m really pleased to see that this trade bill is finally coming to the House, because it’s been a long time in the making. The original concept for this bill was part of a previous trade agreement back as early as the 1980s. In 2001, the Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations was signed, and negotiations began in 2009 and were finally concluded in 2017.
This bill is significant, and it’s all about creating jobs and wealth right across the Pacific region. It’s about making it easier for countries in the region to trade together, and it aims to make trade transactions across borders easier, and to attract investment. I, too, like the Hon Tim Macindoe, have been a Minister of Customs, and the New Zealand Customs Service was working on this bill when I was a Minister. They were deeply involved, particularly in the transactions across borders, and so it’s pleasing to see their work coming to fruition.
The bill is designed to lower barriers for trade and to provide greater certainty for New Zealand businesses on one hand, and on the other hand to try and help raise living standards through creating jobs, through increasing exports, and stimulating investment in Pacific Island nations. These are Pacific Island nations who want to trade to improve their quality of life and their standard of living. These are Pacific Island nations who are aspirational for their communities and who want to move beyond being mere subsistence economies. It’s important to New Zealanders because, of course, the Pacific Islands are our closest neighbours and we have strong personal ties there. And, of course, it’s equally as important to those Pacific people who live in the Pacific Islands.
I think we all, in this House, across the nation, and across the Pacific, understand the value of a prosperous and a sustainable Pacific region, and that is the underlying purpose of this bill. The agreement sets a common range of trading rules covering goods, services, and investment, and it will also support economic development and growth. It will reduce tariffs, it will reduce red tape for exporters and investors, and it really will increase the attractiveness of the region for trade.
But it is of special benefit to Pacific people, because this agreement is a little bit different from a normal, standard free-trade agreement. It has specific and, actually, significant development components. The first is a $25 million fund provided by Australia and New Zealand to help build the capacity of forum islands—things like their customs services, their biosecurity management—and to promote their exports and investment. The second is an agreement by New Zealand to commit to spending 20 percent of the total Official Development Assistance—trade for aid—in the Pacific Islands for the first five years after this comes into force, and that could be up to $340 million. In addition, there is a stand-alone labour mobility arrangement. This is about helping Pacific workers access temporary work and employment in industries in New Zealand and Australia—places where we have labour shortages; places where they can increase their skills, where they can be involved in New Zealand and Australia. They can get qualifications and they can take that funding back to their homes.
It’s an important piece of legislation in terms of lowering barriers to trade, supporting New Zealand businesses, and it is also about supporting Pacific people and raising their standards of living. I commend this bill to the House.
PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise to take a very short call on this bill. Much has already been said by members from both sides of the House about how this bill, the PACER-Plus agreement, will benefit countries across the Pacific region, including New Zealand. I just want to make two quick points.
One is that members here in this House have emphasised the development aspect of this agreement, because New Zealand will only benefit from PACER-Plus if the Pacific benefits from it, and that’s why we’ve made a big deal about the fact that this is not just a trade agreement but it has a development focus as well. A safer, secure Pacific is beneficial to us all.
The second point I’ll make is that PACER-Plus contributes also to this Government’s Trade for All Agenda, which is actually out for consultation now. If anyone watching is interested to make their viewpoint heard, it will be open till 14 October. It is exciting because it’s about making trade inclusive to women, to Māori, to small to medium sized enterprises in New Zealand, and it’s about a focus on improving our environmental standards, labour standards, and gender equality through trade.
So, it’s with pleasure that I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.
Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. It’s a pleasure for me to take what’s going to be a relatively short call, because we want to see the bill pass today. Can I acknowledge the Minister, the Hon David Parker, because I’ve been having trade discussions with the Hon David Parker for the last six years, and we didn’t always agree with the passage of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, but it was very pleasing to see that in coming into Government all the work that had been done by the Hon Todd McClay and, before him, the Hon Tim Groser, was carried on, and we now have a very good free-trade agreement.
I know that my colleague Paul Goldsmith made a valiant effort to try and get the Green Party, at the last minute, to reconsider their position on this. I think I agree with him: it’s unlikely to happen. But the only observation I’ll make in relation to free-trade agreements, because all of the countries that have signed this in the Pacific—we’re all small trading nations, and, actually, without good, comprehensive, well-written free-trade agreements, we wouldn’t be doing very well. We’re not big enough to trade amongst ourselves, so trading with the rest of the world is actually very important.
In the six years that I’ve been involved in this Parliament, I’ve not had one constituent, I’ve not had one business, I’ve not had one person come up to me and say, “I hate these free-trade agreements that we’ve got. They’re really bad for us. They’re not creating any opportunities.” It’s normally quite the opposite—that we see opportunities, we see new export growth. The great thing about the PACER-Plus is that it’s with our South Pacific cousins, who we are heavily invested in—all of us have got a mutual investment in the success and our futures together. On that note, I just want to acknowledge the other countries that have signed up to this agreement: Australia, the Cook Islands, Kiribati, Nauru, Niue, Samoa, the Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu.
I want to come back to the Solomon Islands. I mean, I’m really pleased to see the Solomon Islands there, because I was lucky enough to go out there and be an observer for their general elections. Of course, they’ve come through a difficult part of their history with the tensions, and then having the Regional Assistance Mission to the Solomon Islands (RAMSI) and the RAMSI draw-down. There’s quite a bit of energy and excitement there in terms of trying to get their economy going, and it’s a complicated one because they’re made up of a whole lot—hundreds—of islands. But when I was there, there was the microeconomics going on. There were people that were just making good products, and they wanted to find markets to sell them in—local markets. But now, with an agreement like PACER-Plus, I hope that we’ll start to see some of those products imported and appear in our stores in New Zealand.
Trade is incredibly important, and I’m very proud of the fact that—there’s three things, actually, that this Parliament should always work together to try to have bipartisan agreement on. These are my own personal beliefs. One is national security. We should always be working across parties to try and do the best in terms of our own national security. The other one is defence policy. We should try to have as much agreement on defence policy as we can across the House. I acknowledge the Minister of Defence in the House now. The third one is trade. Fundamentally, getting good trade agreements is critically important. I think the country has got an expectation that we as parliamentarians will come here with a view to working and delivering the best possible trade agreements that we can for our nation. That’s why it’s nice to be able to acknowledge not only the Hon David Parker but also the Hon Todd McClay, who have worked very hard as our respective trade Ministers with our Pacific Island partners in putting together what’s a very good trade agreement in the Tariff (PACER Plus) Amendment Bill. I’m very happy to recommend this bill to the House. Thank you.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the Tariff (PACER Plus) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.
Ayes 112
New Zealand National 56; New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; ACT New Zealand 1.
Noes 8
Green Party 8.
Bill read a third time.
Sittings of the House
Sittings of the House
KIRITAPU ALLAN (Assistant Whip—Labour): Given the fantastic progress that we’ve made in the House this afternoon, sir, I seek leave for the House to now adjourn.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.
The House adjourned at 5.56 p.m.