Thursday, 6 December 2018

Volume 735

Sitting date: 6 December 2018

THURSDAY, 6 DECEMBER 2018

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Business Statement

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Next week, legislation to be considered in the House will include the Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill, the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Monetary Policy) Amendment Bill, the Conservation (Infringement System) Bill, and the Subordinate Legislation Confirmation Bill (No 2). The Taxation (Annual Rates for 2019-20, GST Offshore Supplier Registration, and Remedial Matters) Bill will receive its first reading. On Thursday, 13 December, the Ngāti Tūwharetoa Claims Settlement Bill will complete its remaining stages. As previously notified to the Business Committee, there will be an extended sitting on Wednesday morning. Wednesday afternoon and evening will be a member’s day.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Prime Minister

1. Hon PAULA BENNETT (Deputy Leader—National) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all her answers to oral questions in the last two weeks in relation to Karel Sroubek?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: On behalf of the Prime Minister, yes.

Hon Paula Bennett: Does she still say, “There’s no way that I can answer that question.” regarding who made representations on Karel Sroubek’s behalf; and, if so, has she asked who made those representations?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, when the Deputy Prime Minister was answering for me, the National Party then admitted in the House on multiple occasions who the leak was.

Hon Paula Bennett: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: I don’t think I need it. I will ask Ms Bennett to repeat her question.

Hon Paula Bennett: Thank you. Does she still say that “There’s no way that I can answer that question.” regarding who made representations on Karel Sroubek’s behalf; and, if so, has she asked who made those representations?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. As much as one wants to, with integrity and sincerity, stand in for another member of Parliament, or Prime Minister in this case, when that person, the substitute, is asked what was in the mind of the primary person—in this case, the Prime Minister—one just cannot possibly answer the question because I just don’t know. That’s what I said. It wasn’t the Prime Minister that made that statement; it was me on her behalf.

SPEAKER: No, I think there is slight misunderstanding occurring here, and I think people have put two statements together: one made by the right honourable gentleman on behalf of the Prime Minister in regard to the identity of the leak; the other relating to an answer to a supplementary question yesterday, where the Prime Minister indicated that she was not aware or could not be aware, hadn’t been made aware, or something similar, about who had made submissions. So the question is, in light of that: does she stand by it and has she asked the Minister or asked someone for a list of the submitters?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, the answer is we don’t know, other than of the ones that did go public, such as Mr Sweeney—and there may be others, but we’re not aware of them.

Hon Paula Bennett: Is she concerned that there might be Cabinet Ministers who have links to people who have made representations on behalf of Karel Sroubek?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: We’re not in the business of engaging in the permission of this House to allow someone to enter a fishing competition in the hope that somehow they might catch something. Here is the reality: I made a very clear statement, on behalf of the Prime Minister, that there are hundreds of people who would have been associated for a number of reasons with Mr Sroubek. To incriminate them all on the basis of their innocent association is just so wrong.

Hon Paula Bennett: Has she asked whether her Ministers have links to any of the people who made representations on behalf of Karel Sroubek?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The answer to that question is, on behalf of the Prime Minister, there will be a number of members of Parliament who, if they go through their recent decade-old associations, would quite possibly, because of their sporting engagement and interest, have been associated. But that in no way means that they are responsible for the criminality for which Mr Sroubek’s in prison at the moment.

Hon Paula Bennett: When she said yesterday that an issue of concern around the estranged wife’s safety had been raised with her, when was it raised with her?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, despite the police offering safe house protection, on more than one occasion, the issue of that matter of safety was raised most profoundly in this House in 56 public statements by the National Party and 23 oral questions by the National Party.

SPEAKER: Although it might be repetition from yesterday—I think the question was, in fact, answered yesterday by the Prime Minister. It was more “how” than “when”, but “It was raised publicly by the media.” was the statement that the Prime Minister made yesterday, I think.

Hon Paula Bennett: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Certainly, sir; yesterday the Prime Minister made an answer to a question in this House. She said, “When the issue was first raised with me, I told the Minister directly about that issue,” and I’m asking when that was first raised with her.

SPEAKER: Yes, and I think we’ve struck one of those situations which occur where someone’s been asked for an exact date without a primary question heading in that direction, so it does becomes very hard to answer if the Minister acting on behalf of the Prime Minister indicated that he’s not fixed with that knowledge. On behalf of the Prime Minister, that would probably suffice.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, if the member’s asking the question and if the answer is “recently”—but as to the exact time and date, the Prime Minister wishes to check her diary.

Hon Paula Bennett: When she said yesterday that an issue of concern around the estranged wife’s safety had been raised with her, who raised it with her?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister—the National Party, in this House: 56 times in public statements outside the House and 23 times in oral questions inside the House. In short, you’ve got someone who, for political purposes—and for venal political purposes, at that—is being used as a trump by the Opposition members. That’s how this matter has got so much publicity. So if protection and secrecy and privacy are core to this issue, then the National Party has been a major offender.

Hon Paula Bennett: When she said yesterday that she told the Minister directly about the safety issue that was of concern—so she indicated it was her yesterday that actually told the Minister directly about the safety that was of concern—which Minister did she talk to?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister and answering for her, the reality is that the Prime Minister discussed this matter—as you would expect her to—with the Minister of Immigration and, no doubt, the Minister of Police. The problem was she received advice that though the offer of safe protection had been made by the police on numerous occasions—a practice that Mr Mitchell would be well aware of because of his past career—she did not, the person in question, avail herself of that offer.

Hon Paula Bennett: When she said yesterday that the Minister followed up this safety issue, what was that follow-up?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Answering on behalf of the Prime Minister, and to the best of the Prime Minister’s knowledge, the Minister of Police would have appraised her of the fact that the police, on three occasions, had tried to ensure that there was protection if that was a concern, and the woman in question said that she did not want protection; she just wanted to speak to a lawyer. So they couldn’t get to even offer the protection that seems so much central to this case right now from the Opposition.

Hon Paula Bennett: Was the estranged wife under the protection of police when an immigration officer visited with the police?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: It would be very axiomatic that if on three occasions the police had offered protection and she hadn’t availed herself of it, then maybe when the police came with the immigration officer, she wasn’t under protection. It sort of follows like night follows day.

Hon Paula Bennett: Does she still believe the Deputy Prime Minister and Iain Lees-Galloway are the victims in all of this, as she said last week?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, when one is seeking to arbitrate or decide on a process and critical information is denied to that referee, arbitrator, or in this case judge, or in this case Minister, then, yes, they do become a victim, because the system that we would have expected and had a right to expect was in place when we became the Government was a system that would work, not one that was shot full of holes and inadequacy.

Question No. 2—Immigration

2. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister of Immigration: Does he stand by all his statements and actions in relation to the deportation liability of Karel Sroubek?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education) on behalf of the Minister of Immigration: Yes, based on the information and advice that was available at the time.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Has any staff from his office had any communications—whether a phone call, text message, email, or face-to-face conversation—with staff from the Minister of Police’s office, the Minister himself, or New Zealand Police employees regarding Karel Sroubek?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I can’t answer that in any great detail. I imagine there would have been conversations, certainly in the last 24 hours.

SPEAKER: On behalf of the Minister of Immigration.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: On behalf of the Minister, I have been advised in preparation for this question that the address of Mr Sroubek’s estranged wife was already known to immigration officials.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Would it be appropriate for his staff to have had conversations with any other ministerial offices or agencies about locating the estranged wife of Karel Sroubek?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: As I indicated in my answer to the previous question, they already had that information.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Does he agree with the comments of the police Minister in respect of Mr Sroubek’s estranged wife: “There are some people who just need to be kept safe, and there is no way that anyone apart from police should know where that is.”?

SPEAKER: I’m going to give the member another chance to sheet it home to the responsibility of the Minister of Immigration. Currently, that question would be fine for the Minister of Police or the Prime Minister, but not this Minister.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Speaking to that point, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: No—I’ve offered the member a chance to re-do the question.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Among his actions, is there agreement with the Minister of Police on his comments: “There are some people who just need to be kept safe, and there is no way that anyone apart from police should know where that is.”?

SPEAKER: Now, the member’s going to have a third chance to get the question right. An agreement is not an action.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Has he seen any reports of the Minister of Police saying, “There are some people who just need to be kept safe, but there is no way that anyone apart from police should know where that is.”, and does he agree with that statement?

SPEAKER: Well, I’ll let the Minister answer it. In my view it still didn’t get there.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: On behalf of the Minister, yes, he has seen those reports, and I reiterate what I said in my answer to the last two questions: immigration already had that information.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Why did he think Immigration New Zealand officials requested two police detectives to accompany the immigration officials to the home of the estranged wife of Karel Sroubek?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: That’s an operational matter for those immigration officials.

Question No. 3—Finance

3. Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): An excellent question. Over the past few days, reports of real data have continued to highlight the solid fundamentals of the New Zealand economy. Statistics New Zealand yesterday released data on building work put in place over the September quarter, showing that construction activity had continued to rise on a nationwide basis. The big story was in Auckland residential construction. Westpac economists noted that Auckland residential building levels were up 13 percent from a year ago, and that they expect building activity to remain strong in Auckland for “some time yet”. This is welcome news given the significant amounts of private and Government investment required over the next few years to turn around the shortage in Auckland caused by the national housing crisis.

Dr Duncan Webb: What reports has he seen on the impact on the economy of the strength of the New Zealand jobs market?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The ANZ Job Ads series released this week showed an annual rise in job ads of 6.4 percent in November, compared to 6 percent growth in October. Yesterday’s release from ANZ was a real indicator of the growing economic confidence in the regions. Job ads in the Gisborne region are up 45 percent from a year ago; 39 percent in Taranaki; in Northland and Hawke’s Bay, 25 percent growth; and Southland and the West Coast, 20 percent annual growth in job ads. That is serious momentum.

Dr Duncan Webb: What reports has he seen on how this economic data is being interpreted?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Kiwibank economists this morning said that the strength of the New Zealand labour market confirmed the strong economic growth we’re recording, with the economy growing at trend and likely to grow above trend next year. These economists said New Zealand’s economy was “in a bit of a sweet spot” and that “the fiscal position is strong and interest rates have fallen and will remain low”. They added that wages are finally starting to lift and should pick up further over 2019-20. As always, we’re keeping an eye on international developments and the risks that they pose to the New Zealand economy, but it is good to see further evidence of the serious momentum in the economy.

Question No. 4—Finance

4. Hon AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by all of his statements and actions in relation to his role?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Yes, in so far as my powers as the Minister of Finance can extend—

Hon Shane Jones: Vast—vast!

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: —including my powers of comprehension, Mr Jones.

Hon Amy Adams: Did he agree, as the Minister of Finance, to change the KiwiBuild policy so that buyers will now be immediately entitled to keep 70 percent of the profit they make from the sale of the house?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I was part of that decision-making process that contractually obliges KiwiBuild owners to retain ownership of their home for at least three years.

Hon Amy Adams: Did he consult with the Prime Minister before agreeing to allow KiwiBuild owners to sell the properties immediately and retain 70 percent of any capital gain?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As was stated yesterday by Minister Twyford, delegated powers for that decision were given to Minister Twyford, myself, and Minister Jones.

SPEAKER: No. Please answer the question.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: So consultation was not required.

SPEAKER: And it still doesn’t answer the question. The question was not whether it was required but whether the Minister did consult.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No, because it was not required.

Hon Amy Adams: Why did he, as Minister of Finance, decide that somebody who wins the right to buy a KiwiBuild house from the ballot should be allowed to sell that house for potentially a large profit the next day and still retain 70 percent of that profit?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The decision was made because, in the circumstances that we’re facing at the moment, those people will have signed a covenant saying that they won’t sell it. This was the practical way of dealing with those who would break that covenant. As the Prime Minister said yesterday, that can be revisited if that turns out to be a situation that occurs regularly.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If, as the Opposition has argued, these houses are overpriced, what’s the likelihood of someone making a massive profit the next day?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: That is indeed a very, very good point, that the opportunity here for a giant windfall gain appears to be relatively slim. I’d also say that it is quite interesting hearing what appears now to be a call from the Opposition for a 100 percent capital gains tax.

Hon Amy Adams: Well, if the KiwiBuild properties are properties that were being built anyway and have just been bought off the plan and they’re sold at full market price so that no immediate capital gain is made, then exactly what are taxpayers getting for their $2 billion?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I reject the premise of the first part of the member’s question. In answer to the second part of the member’s question, what New Zealand taxpayers are finally getting are affordable homes for first-home buyers, sadly missing for the last nine years.

Hon Amy Adams: Does the Minister still think he made the right decision to change the policy, when the Prime Minister said yesterday that the Government would be reviewing the policy if even a small number of owners took advantage of the change that he signed off?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As always, I respect and agree with the Prime Minister’s views.

Question No. 5—Housing and Urban Development

SPEAKER: Question No. 6—Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki.

ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI (Labour): Kia ora e Te Mana Whakawā. He pātai ki te Minita o Housing and Urban Development: what interest, if any—

Hon Judith Collins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Oh, I apologise. I have skipped Ms Collins’ question.

Hon Judith Collins: How could you forget me, Mr Speaker?

SPEAKER: I think, like many others, I find it impossible.

5. Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura) to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: What is the total estimated value of the 3,826 houses contracted for build under the KiwiBuild programme and is he confident in the ability to sell them under it?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Housing and Urban Development): The total estimated value is $2 billion. The member should note that the 3,826 homes contracted does not include the KiwiBuild homes in Māngere, Mount Roskill, Unitec, or Porirua, and yes.

Hon Judith Collins: Why has he contracted the building of $2 billion worth of housing when he only has, according to his website, 293 pre-qualified applications?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Because we are very confident that the houses that are being built will be sold.

Hon Judith Collins: Is media reporting correct that five of the 25 Onehunga KiwiBuild apartments remain unsold three months after ballots first opened?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: So at the development in Onehunga, there have been 16 unconditional sales, four conditional sales, and the homes at the Onehunga development are not due to be completed until August or September 2019.

SPEAKER: I think there’s one extra number that was asked for that needs confirmation or denial.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Could you repeat the question?

Hon Judith Collins: With pleasure. Is media reporting correct that five of the 25 Onehunga KiwiBuild apartments remain unsold three months after ballots first opened?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Yes, and approximately 10 months before the homes are due to even be completed.

Hon Judith Collins: Why did he underwrite the sale of 175 homes in Te Kauwhata—a town of fewer than 2,000 residents?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I don’t know if the member’s aware, but Te Kauwhata is in the northern Waikato. It’s one of the parts of the country that’s experiencing extremely strong growth pressures. The net population growth in that district over the last 15 years was 39 percent above the wider Auckland regional average. Te Kauwhata itself has experienced a surge in residential consents over the last two years. It is a major growth area, and, according to the modelling we’ve done, there is significant demand for housing.

Hon Judith Collins: So how many of the first 10 Te Kauwhata houses, where ballots opened in October, remain unsold?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: There are currently no houses sold in Te Kauwhata, but the houses are not due to be completed until June 2020 at the latest.

Question No. 6—Housing and Urban Development

6. ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI (Labour) to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: What interest, if any, has there been in KiwiBuild’s off-site manufacturing invitation to pitch?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Housing and Urban Development): The KiwiBuild unit has received 102 responses to its invitation to pitch (ITP) from off-site manufacturers and investors. KiwiBuild asked companies to propose ways that they could help KiwiBuild boost New Zealand’s housing supply, raise productivity, and build affordable homes for first-home buyers.

Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki: Why is the Government incorporating off-site manufacturing into KiwiBuild?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Because KiwiBuild not only aims to build affordable homes for young families; it’s also about transforming how we build homes to reduce construction costs, deliver consistent high-quality design, increase capacity of the construction sector, and get homes completed faster. Housing New Zealand recently started to use off-site manufacturing as part of this Government’s build programme. Their first cross-laminated timber development was constructed in 4½ months, compared to the 14 to 18 months it would normally take using conventional methods.

Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki: What reports has he seen about KiwiBuild’s off-site manufacturing ITP?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: We’re very pleased to see the calibre of the companies and the entrepreneurs pitching to KiwiBuild—in particular, the New Zealand Herald’s report that the New Zealand Superannuation Fund was interested in being part of off-site manufacturing in New Zealand, and Sir Stephen Tindall’s comment that KiwiBuild could be, and I quote, “a mechanism for innovation that could smash the price of home building in New Zealand.”

Question No. 7—Foreign Affairs

8. Hon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Does he stand by all his statements on the United Nations Global Compact for Migration?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Yes.

Hon Todd McClay: Has Cabinet decided to commit New Zealand to the United Nations global compact for migration, to be signed in Morocco next week?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The answer is no, at this time, because we are dealing with a compact process that was signed up to by the then National Party on 19 December 2016—committed New Zealand to signing the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants and to have the process of time going forward to this time in 2018. This is the document the National Party signed up to in a resolution, and it was signed in New York unanimously—a process that Murray McCully, my predecessor but one, signed this country up to.

Hon Todd McClay: Is he aware that the agreement that has been negotiated by his Government makes no distinction between legal and illegal migration and calls for restrictions on freedom of speech and the media?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The answer is that I’ve studied very carefully those allegations that have been made by some countries around the world and some people in a worldwide campaign. Both those allegations are demonstrably false.

Hon Todd McClay: Does he agree with New Zealand First leader Winston Peters, who said this week that the problem with agreements like this is that non-binding sometimes becomes binding, and, if so, why is his Government still considering signing New Zealand up to this UN agreement?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The answer to that is that the wisdom of sound decision-making is that if there are eight facets to a decision, then each one has to be examined. The then answer by the Minister was to say that all eight aspects would be looked at, and they have been looked at, and what has been alarming, though, is that a process that the National Party was once for, they’re now against.

Clayton Mitchell: Has the Minister seen any statements which say that the UN compact could restrict the ability of future Governments to set immigration and foreign policy?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The answer to that is yes, there are two statements in circulation. The National Party issued a statement which says—to quote them—“the Compact could restrict the ability of future governments to set immigration … policy”, and then there is the text of the compact. I draw the House and the National Party to this text because it’s apparent that they have not read this document.

Hon Todd McClay: Is he aware that Australia, the US, Israel, Austria, Poland, the Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Hungary, and Slovakia have all said that they will not sign the agreement, citing concerns over sovereignty, and, if so, why is the Government still considering giving the UN a say over New Zealand immigration policy?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: It begs the question that if that was the concern of the member and the Opposition, why did they, in September of 2016, sign us up to it?

Hon Todd McClay: Will the Government release all advice it has received on the UN migration compact negotiated by his Government and allow Parliament to vote on this agreement before committing New Zealand to it next week?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Can I say that when the previous Government, in September 2016, at the General Assembly, signed up to a resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 19 September, unanimously, no such requirement for a reference to the House was then made. The second thing, of course, is that because it’s not legally binding, why would such a democratic decision be made in this House, and if it was required, why didn’t they insist upon it back then in 2016?

Hon Todd McClay: When the Minister says that it’s non-binding, is he also aware that the Paris Agreement on climate change is non-binding—an agreement that is having an effect upon New Zealand legislation and decisions made by his Government?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The reality, of course, is that these are two utterly different subjects—utterly different subjects. One is one of the greatest issues of our age, recognised internationally, and it’s an issue that we need to have, surely, if possible, bipartisan support from reasonable, sane, sound politicians. There used to be bipartisanship on foreign policy, and, indeed, on this policy as well. The then Opposition did not protest back in September 2016 about what National was doing, but now that the shoe’s on the other foot, so to speak, they’ve done a double take and they want to get out.

Question No. 8—Education

8. JAN TINETTI (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What announcements has he made about providing classrooms for students in Marlborough?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Yesterday, I announced that work will begin to co-locate Marlborough Girls’ College and Marlborough Boys’ College on the existing Marlborough Girls’ College and Bohally Intermediate school sites, after many years of failing to secure a new site for the co-located colleges. Bohally Intermediate will be relocated and rebuilt on the existing Marlborough Boys’ College site. Both of the secondary schools have facilities that are in very poor condition, and I’m pleased that the Government’s been able to move this decision forward and provide certainty to the community, who have been waiting a very long time.

Jan Tinetti: What was the reason for the delay in securing a site to co-locate the two schools?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The announcement to co-locate the schools was made in 2015, and a budget of $63.5 million was set aside for that. By the time we came into Government, no site had been secured, and negotiations with possible sellers had stalled completely. I was then informed that the costings were too low and that it would cost over $100 million to build the new site. I therefore set a deadline for a new greenfield site to be secured and made it clear that if a new site had not been secured by that time, we would look to alternative options. We have now done so. The alternative option is co-location on one of the existing sites. That decision has now been made, and they can get on with it.

Question No. 9—Defence

9. JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First) to the Minister of Defence: What announcements has he made regarding the security implications of climate change?

Hon RON MARK (Minister of Defence): Thank you for the question. Look, earlier this year, the coalition Government released its Strategic Defence Policy Statement 2018, which recognised the impact climate change will have on defence operations, particularly in the Pacific. Therefore, it stood to reason that we needed to look closer and understand the human security defence implications of climate change. Consequently, today, the Hon James Shaw and I released a document called The Climate Crisis Defence Readiness and Responsibilities. It’s available. This assessment explores the implications of climate change for the New Zealand Defence Force operations, and it identifies climate change as one of the most significant security threats of our time and one that is already having adverse impacts both at home and in New Zealand’s neighbourhood.

Jenny Marcroft: What does climate change mean for defence?

Hon RON MARK: With changing weather patterns we’re seeing an increasing frequency of more extreme and violent weather events at home and overseas, particularly in the Pacific. Our requirement to respond is only going to increase. The assessment released today also identifies that real security impacts may arise over the longer term, including vulnerable populations losing their economic livelihoods, increased food and water scarcity, malnutrition, increased droughts, increasing competition for resources and population displacement leading to land disputes, and changes in the Southern Ocean which will require us to adapt how we are able to operate in that theatre. The Ministry of Defence will need to equip and train and prepare so that it can respond adequately in times of crisis on a far more frequent basis.

Jenny Marcroft: Supplementary?

SPEAKER: Yes—on the basis that we don’t have another thesis.

Jenny Marcroft: What are the next steps following the release of this report?

Hon RON MARK: Defence is working to have an implementation plan in place next year. The Defence Force will also start planning for increasingly concurrent operations in the South Pacific due to the impacts of climate change. Already the report is actively informing a review of the Defence Capability Plan, which I hope to release next year, and following the release of the capability plan, it will continue to influence the capability procurement decisions we take this term.

Question No. 10—Health

10. Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by all his actions and policies around meningococcal disease and the current meningococcal vaccination campaign?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Yes, and in particular the targeted vaccination campaign in Northland, which started yesterday with the vaccination of 1,091 people on the first day. I do note that there have been a total of seven meningococcal W cases in Northland this year. When the clinical test for an outbreak was reached and declared on 8 November, the ministry, Pharmac, and the district health board (DHB) all moved quickly to a response.

Matt King: How will he further resource Northland DHB’s vaccination campaign, following reports yesterday that parents were told not to turn up as the queues were too long?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I’m not clear that people were told not to turn up by authorities, but I am not surprised there was a big demand yesterday for the vaccination centres, and I’d expect similar today. It is understandable that parents want their children to get vaccinated as quickly as possible. The DHB has carefully planned this programme and has started in the biggest population centres first. It will reach smaller communities in the second and third week of the campaign. I’m advised Northland DHB is telling the community it has plenty of vaccine available for the target groups, and the risk of contracting meningococcal disease remains low.

Dr Shane Reti: Did Pharmac’s immunisation subcommittee discuss a vaccination programme incorporating meningitis W in May this year?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: To the best of my knowledge, no, because no community outbreak from meningococcal disease had been triggered in May. I note further for the record that in June of this year, there was not a single case in New Zealand of meningococcal W disease. The member has raised a lot of fear about two isolated cases in Northland in April this year that caused some concern and clinicians to communicate with each other, which is entirely appropriate. There has been a close watch on this because, although there have been only seven cases this year, in Northland, the potential consequences of a case are significant. That’s why they did move quickly following 8 November, when the clinical test for an outbreak was triggered; people moved quickly to make sure the response was in place.

Dr Shane Reti: Which members of Pharmac’s immunisation subcommittee, if any, have lobbied Pharmac for a meningitis W vaccination programme before the community outbreak was decided?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I am not aware of that. If the member has information on a particular lobbying campaign for meningococcal W vaccine before an outbreak was declared, that’s interesting. I’m willing to look into the matter for the member; he can be in touch. But what I would say is that there were conversations around the country. This is a serious disease when it strikes. It’s, as I say, very rare. There were no cases in New Zealand at all in June this year, but when it does hit, it’s a serious disease. That’s why clinicians were talking to each other when they saw even isolated cases earlier this year, and that’s why, when it became apparent that there was something that met the community outbreak definition, a definition long relied upon by Governments of different stripes, when that was triggered—albeit a low bar—they moved swiftly, from 8 November onwards, to a response.

Dr Shane Reti: Is the Minister saying that the monthly surveillance data for April and May did not declare meningitis W cases?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: That’s what I am saying—not an outbreak. I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just want to be clear; I may have misheard the member’s question. Could he repeat the question?

SPEAKER: We’ll ask him to ask it again.

Dr Shane Reti: Is the Minister saying that the Institute of Environmental Science and Research Ltd’s monthly surveillance data from April and May was not declaring meningitis W cases?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I did mishear the member, so I am glad we’re asking the question again. There were cases in April and May, and a community outbreak was not triggered. There were two distinct individual cases in Northland, and that did not reach the clinical definition of an outbreak. I’ll read it again for the House, just so that we can be clear. The definition of a community outbreak of meningococcal disease is three or more confirmed cases of the same strain within a three-month period that are not linked and are within a specific age group or community group and the rate of disease is at least 10 cases per 100,000 people. That clinical definition was not triggered until 8 November, whereupon a swift response ensued. That is the definition that’s been relied upon by previous Governments, by previous Ministers of Health—National Ministers of Health as well. It is, I am convinced, the right threshold. When it was triggered, I am delighted that there was a swift response.

Question No. 11—Disability Issues

11. GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu) to the Minister for Disability Issues: What recent announcements has she made about making information more accessible?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Disability Issues): On Monday, as part of the international day for the rights of persons with disabilities, it was my privilege to be able to launch the Accessibility Guide, entitled Leading the way in accessible information. The Accessibility Guide gives the State sector guidance on how to increase accessibility to information through the use of inclusive language and design, and alternative formats such as New Zealand Sign Language, Easyread, and Braille. Government agencies that are signed up to the Government’s accessibility charter will be able to use these guidelines to help them to make good on their commitments to accessibility.

Greg O’Connor: Why is accessibility important?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Issues around accessibility affect us all. There are currently an estimated 1.1 million disabled people in New Zealand. Moreover, accessibility is not purely a disability issue; it also affects groups such as seniors, carers of young children, and those for whom English is a second language. Having limited opportunities to participate can lead to isolation, poor educational and employment outcomes, and preventable health issues. Accessibility is intimately linked to participation and well-being, and that’s why this Government is taking the issue seriously.

Greg O’Connor: What other steps has she taken to improve accessibility in New Zealand?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: On Monday, Cabinet approved a work programme to explore how we can achieve full accessibility for all New Zealanders. The work programme will involve collaboration with a wide variety of stakeholders, including disability groups, businesses, and families. It will look at how to define full accessibility, the challenges and opportunities of different approaches, and whether legislation is needed for mandatory codes and standards for accessibility. This is a vital step in the right direction for all New Zealanders experiencing barriers to participation, and we are proud, as a Government, to be getting on and doing this important work.

Question No. 12—Transport

12. Hon ALFRED NGARO (National) to the Associate Minister of Transport: How many children in the past year drowned as a result of not wearing lifejackets, and what actions will she take so that more children wear lifejackets this summer?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Associate Minister of Transport): In answer to the first part of the question, Maritime New Zealand advises me that no children under the age of 18 drowned as a result of not wearing lifejackets in recreational boating incidents. Over the summer, Maritime New Zealand will spend $450,000 to fund safe boating education to over 5,000 children and provide 4,000 new lifejackets. I am pleased that Maritime New Zealand reports very high rates of children wearing lifejackets on small recreational boats.

Hon Alfred Ngaro: Will the Minister support my legislation to make lifejackets compulsory for children on vessels less than six metres? When Drowning Prevention Auckland have noted 105 drownings, with nine children who have drowned, and when the Coastguard and the sea scouts, too, and those throughout the sector have indicated that there is a need for wearing lifejackets, will the Minister support my legislation to make lifejackets compulsory for children?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: I believe that the report that the member is referring to does not establish that the drownings would be avoided by lifejackets. Of the drownings under the age of 15, over half of them were in home pools, and there’s no data in the report that establishes that the drownings were on recreational vessels. In fact, the best data we have from Maritime New Zealand—and this is a very comprehensive table, which I’d be happy to table; it’s a detailed table of recreational fatalities from 1 January 2016 to 18 September—shows that there have been zero fatalities for recreational boaters under the age of 18. Of the other fatalities for recreational boaters, all of them have been adults and a certain percentage of them could be avoided through wearing lifejackets. So it is unclear from the data that a single death would be prevented by the member’s bill.

Hon Alfred Ngaro: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I move that the Lifejackets for Children and Young Persons Bill, a member’s bill in my name, be set down as a members’ order of the day—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member can’t move a motion like that. He knows that. He’s been around for a long time. Has the member finished his questions?

Hon Alfred Ngaro: Supplementary?

SPEAKER: I’m very tempted not to continue with the supplementaries. I know it’s a very important issue, and I will allow it. But if members are deliberately disorderly in the way that that member was then, they are tempting me to use the powers given to me by the House not to continue supplementaries on an issue. Because this is an important issue and because the member is generally well behaved, I will let him continue.

Hon Alfred Ngaro: Sorry, Mr Speaker. My wording was incorrect. I do take a point of order. I seek leave of the House to correct and to—

SPEAKER: Well, I’m prepared to put the leave to the House. Is there any objection? Yes, there is. [Interruption] No, I had called Mr Ngaro for a supplementary question before he took his point of order.

Hon Alfred Ngaro: In light of the Minister turning down my legislation and my request, what is her plan to reduce the drownings in New Zealand for those children not wearing lifejackets, when at the AGM it was—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! I’m going to get the member to start his question again in a way which is within the Standing Orders and does not start with something which, in my understanding of listening to the answer—because I did—included something which the Minister didn’t say.

Hon Alfred Ngaro: If the House won’t accept the legislation that I put in my member’s bill, will the Minister then accept the request from those in the sector who have repeatedly endorsed and advocated for the mandatory wearing of lifejackets for all children under the age of 15 so that it is mandatory and clear right throughout the whole of New Zealand?

SPEAKER: OK. So it is a hypothetical question. The member can address it if she wants to.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’ll reiterate for the benefit of that member that no recreational boater under 18 has died in 2016, 2017, or 2018. In 2015, one child died from traumatic injuries from a collision between two craft, and one child on a stand-up paddleboard fell and was pulled under a yacht despite wearing a lifejacket. In 2013, one child and adult, when a kayak capsized, died, but the child was wearing an adult lifejacket. So if the member is serious about addressing preventable deaths, he might want to focus the legislation on the group that’s actually most at risk, which is adult males over the age of 40.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Supplementary question.

SPEAKER: No, before we do that, I just want to indicate to the Minister that she should refer to the member and not me.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Just to get it clear, is it the fact that the Government is not proposing to legislate to make it compulsory for children to wear lifejackets in swimming pools, as the question suggested?

SPEAKER: Order! Order! The Minister can answer the first part of the question, which was really the only question that was there. The additional fact, the additional assertion, is not her responsibility.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Sorry, Mr Speaker. Could the member repeat the question.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Just to make it clear, is the Government proposing to legislate for children to be required to wear lifejackets in swimming pools—yes or no?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: No, it is not.

Hon Alfred Ngaro: Will the Minister then commit here today, in front of the House and in front of the New Zealand public at home, to ask the Minister of Transport to raise an Order in Council in Cabinet to make wearing of lifejackets on boats compulsory for children across New Zealand, as has been advocated by a number in the sector, because of the fact that even one life of a child drowned is one life too many?

SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member finished his question in about two phrases.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I agree with the member that it’s very important that we have safety, that we prevent deaths out on the water, and I note that if the National Party was really serious about doing this, then former Minister of Transport Simon Bridges or previous Minister of Transport Gerry Brownlee could have accelerated this legislation.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Before you conclude, what was that last remark that brought my name into the debate?

SPEAKER: I know that focus had been lost somewhat by a number of members, but what the Associate Minister indicated was that if it was a matter of importance, then it could have been taken up and advanced by previous Ministers of Transport, including that member and one of his colleagues.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Speaking to the point of order.

SPEAKER: Well, it’s the member’s own point of order. It’s probably a new one.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Well, no, it’s not. It’s the same one, because if you look at the Standing Orders, that is a clear inference, which sits outside of the Standing Orders for how questions should be answered. In any event, there is any number of things that the current Government perhaps should not be doing because the previous Government had previously done them. Where do we stop and start in all this stuff? That was a straight out, gratuitous, political flick and there should be some cost to the Green Party for it.

SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. That was, I think, a not outrageous answer to a question which in itself, if I’d been more vigilant and done what the member recommended that I do on Tuesday and be much tighter on questions and answers, I would have ruled out.

Bills

Ngā Rohe Moana o Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Porou Bill (No 2)

Second Reading

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I move, That the Ngā Rohe Moana o Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Porou Bill (No 2) be now read a second time.

Before I begin, I’d like to extend a warm welcome to those members of ngā hapū o Ngāti Porou who have travelled here today to attend the second reading of this bill, and especially Te Rūnanganui o Ngāti Porou chairman, Selwyn Parata. Ngā mihi mahana ki a koutou katoa—I warmly greet you all.

I don’t intend to speak at any great length on this bill. This bill gives effect, in part, to the amended deed of agreement between the Crown and ngā hapū o Ngāti Porou. Its purpose is to contribute to the legal expression, protection, and recognition of the continued exercise of mana by ngā hapū o Ngāti Porou in relation to ngā rohe moana.

The bill also recognises the Crown has a responsibility—

SPEAKER: Order! Very rude, those members down the back.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: —to ensure public access to the common marine and coastal area. I’d like to keep my remarks regarding the second reading short, as I said, and I look forward to describing the bill in further detail when we come to the third reading.

I’d like to acknowledge the work of the Māori Affairs Committee, chaired by Rino Tirikatene, who have progressed this bill in a timely and professional manner. The bill was referred to the committee in May. A total of 215 submissions from interested groups and individuals were considered. The committee heard oral evidence from 18 submitters at hearings in Gisborne and Wellington. Consequently, the committee recommended amendments to the bill that will do three things: firstly, introduce a cut-off date for hapū to provide views on resource consent applications; secondly, ensure consistencies between the deed and customary fishing regulations; and, thirdly, include the location of Eastland Port Ltd property within ngā rohe moana.

The committee also recommended amendments that clarify a number of things: firstly, the relationship between customary and general fisheries regulations; secondly, the Department of Conservation referral processes; thirdly, how the High Court makes their determinations; and, lastly, the boundaries of ngā rohe moana. These recommendations, along with the remaining aspects of the bill, will provide the necessary regime for the recognition of the customary rights of ngā hapū o Ngāti Porou, while also addressing the concerns of others.

This bill comes out of the, kind of, transition between the old legislation towards the end of the last Labour-led Government in 2008 and the arrival of the new legislation under the last National Government, enacted in 2009. If I’m wrong in that, I’m sure the Hon Chris Finlayson will correct me on it. But an agreement was signed up to with Ngāti Porou, commitments were made, and we’ve been working our way through to make sure that both parties act with honour and honour the commitments that were made.

The second reading of this bill brings the Crown closer to honouring its commitment to ngā hapū o Ngāti Porou while also protecting the rights and interests of all New Zealanders in the takutai moana. That’s what was intended under the previous legislation, that’s what’s intended under the current legislation, and that’s what’s intended under this particular bill. I commend the Ngā Rohe Moana o Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Porou Bill (No 2) to the House. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National): The Minister is absolutely correct about the intent of this legislation. Very briefly—and it’s slightly outside the scope of the second reading, but it puts the matter in context—the foreshore and seabed legislation was passed in 2007. After the Key Government assumed office, in 2008, that legislation was reviewed and a decision was made to introduce new legislation restoring the right of people to go to court to seek their rights in relation to uninvestigated customary title. The complication in the matter was that Ngāti Porou, by the time the Parliament of 2005 to 2008 was prorogued—or dissolved, or whatever they do to parliaments these days—had already entered into an agreement. That agreement was the subject of legislation which had been introduced, but there’d been no first reading, and it languished at the bottom of the Order Paper for many years while the review took place, the new legislation was passed, and then the parties needed to work together to work out how one could integrate the existing Crown - Ngāti Porou arrangement into the new legislation. So the Ngā Rohe Moana o Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Porou Bill (No 2) is exactly that: it is the legislation which gives effect to the rights that Ngāti Porou had negotiated with the Crown in their 2008 agreement, subject to the new regime of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act.

I was on the Māori Affairs Committee. There were a number of submissions which were heard, and I agree with the Minister that, under the chairmanship of Mr Tirikatene, the committee did its job very well, and so it’s back to the House in pretty good time. I’m very pleased that, before I exit this place, I’m able to acknowledge Ngāti Porou and their work and also specifically acknowledge Selwyn Parata, who has been a pillar of strength for the iwi since my dear friend Api Mahuika passed away a year or two ago.

There were a number of submissions that concerned me, and I just wanted to clarify, from my point of view, a number of matters. The first relates to clause 13 of the bill, where there is an amendment which seems to have excited a lot of interest on the part of one group of submitters. Essentially, clause 13 provides for the preservation of certain rights and accommodated matters, and, very importantly, subclause (1) says that this legislation does not affect certain rights which are described in the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act. Specifically, certain sections are referred to, and I’ll briefly refer to those: section 18, which deals with the rights of owners of structures; section 21, which provides that certain proprietary rights of individuals or corporations are to continue; that very important section 26, which preserves the right of public access to the foreshore and seabed; section 27, which deals with the rights of navigation within the marine and coastal area; and, finally, section 28, which provides for fishing rights to be preserved.

Then the clause says, “but section 28(1) … applies in respect of [the Ngāti Porou] moana—(a) as if it also stated that nothing in this Act … prevented the exercise of the relevant rights;”. Then, in subclause (1)(b), it says “subpart 5 of Part 2 of this Act”—and then there are those words in parentheses—“(which relates to customary fishing practices) or to any provision of this Act that relates to a wāhi tapu or wāhi tapu area.” I’m sorry if this sounds rather tendentious, but I wanted to particularly refer to those words which are in parentheses, or brackets, because those words were put in by means of clarification, and yet some people are saying that it weakens the protections of commercial fishers within ngā rohe moana, which is not correct. What is simply done there is to reflect the fact that the agreement between Ngāti Porou and the Crown referred to customary fishing practices, and so it was necessary in paragraph (b) to refer not only to a wāhi tapu or wāhi tapu area but also to the issue of customary fishing practices. I still await comments from submitters. I’ve invited them to make further submissions to me, if they like, of what precisely amounts to a weakening by the inclusion of those words, but I do not believe that the inclusion of those words amounts to a weakening of the commercial position at all.

The second issue relates to Part 4, Subpart 2, dealing with wāhi tapu areas. There seems to be a suggestion that wāhi tapu areas could be defined over the entirety of ngā rohe moana, and that they could operate so as to completely exclude commercial fishing or a substantial amount of commercial fishing. But Subpart 2 provides a very detailed procedure for the recognition of a wāhi tapu area. It goes without saying that a wāhi tapu area is not going to be the entirety of the moana or a large stretch; it is going to be a specific area, determined after the procedures set out in Subpart 2 of Part 4 have been complied with, to ensure that areas that truly are sacred are protected either permanently or for a relatively short period of time. But it’s certainly not intended that, through recognition of a wāhi tapu area, huge tracts of the coastline or the seabed are going to be created so as to harm the interests of commercial fishers.

The third issue which has excited some submitters relates to the provisions relating to customary fishing practices—Subpart 5 of Part 2. Again, there’s a very detailed procedure set out in the legislation, picking up what was contained in the agreement, on customary fishing practices. I’m not going to go through all those provisions, but I refer the House to—and this can be dealt with in the committee stages, when the bill comes back to the House for that part of the legislative process. But I am going to refer honourable members to clause 49 of the bill. What was included in there was subclause (3A), which provided that “regulations recommended by the Minister … must—(a) comply with the requirements of the deed of agreement; and (b)”—importantly—“support the purpose and principles of the Fisheries Act”, and those very important purposes include the environmental purpose of the Fisheries Act.

So, in my opinion, there are safeguards both in relation to customary fisheries and to wāhi tapu areas, which, if they’re not complied with, will be able to be reviewed by the courts. So what is set out here is a very detailed procedure both in relation to wāhi tapu establishment and also regulations for dealing with customary fishing practices, and all the necessary safeguards are there to prevent any abuse were there to be abuse—such a suggestion would be strongly resisted by me.

So this has been a very complex piece of work, marrying the provisions of the deed of agreement between Ngāti Porou and the Crown into the new legislation, and I want to commend the excellent work of the officials and the parliamentary drafts people in what really has been quite a complex and painstaking exercise. I look forward to seeing this legislation progress, and I look forward to its passage through the House. It will be a great day for Ngāti Porou. I too commend the bill to the House.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou e ngā hapū maha o Ngāti Porou kua tau mai nei ki Te Whare Pāremata, nau mai, whakatau mai. Tēnā koutou e ngā mema o Te Whare e tū tautoko ana ahau tēnei pire, tēnei pānui, hanga tuarua. Tēnā tātou katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker. Greetings to the many subtribes of Ngāti Porou who have descended upon Parliament House. Welcome, welcome. Greetings too to the members of the House who have stood in support of this bill, this second reading of it. Greetings to one and all.]

I’m very pleased to speak in support of this very historic and significant bill at its second reading. It was also a pleasure to chair the Māori Affairs Committee in our examination of this bill. It’s always a pleasure to follow after the Hon Christopher Finlayson with his contribution, because he just demonstrated his great depth of knowledge that he has on this particular piece of legislation.

This is a long time in the making, this bill. It’s 14 years, in fact, since the original deed of agreement between Ngāti Porou and the Crown was commenced and was executed. So it’s taken 14 years. It’s involved two pieces of legislation, and it’s straddling all of the issues that arise when a deed has been entered into under one piece of legislation, that legislation is repealed, and a subsequent piece of legislation is put in place, and then it’s trying to marry things up but also ensure that the commitments that were made in that original deed are honoured and are continued through and that as much alignment as is possible takes place in the crafting of the final bill. I think that’s what we, hopefully, have achieved here. I think we’ve done a very good amount of work with this bill.

Certainly, as Mr Finlayson said, there were a lot of submissions, a lot of industry submissions from the commercial fishing industry in particular, and also significant interests such as Eastland Port as well. We’ve taken on board all of those submissions, but I think at the end of the day what this bill is about is it’s about ngā hapū o Ngāti Porou, and I think that we must keep that front and centre with this bill. It’s about providing for a framework to recognise customary rights. So, yes, there are other rights holders that exist in the coastal marine space, and yet we have many hapū of Ngāti Porou that have rights that are extant rights. These are rights that have always been there, and what we’re doing with this bill is providing that mechanism whereby those rights can be recognised, can be expressed, and given legal recognition. But it doesn’t happen automatically.

There are significant statutory tests and various other hurdles, I guess, that ngā hapū o Ngāti Porou in certain situations have to jump over, for instance, to attain customary marine title. And there are also other mechanisms under this bill which are put in place by virtue of the fact that we are defining an area of the coastal space which is Ngāti Porou’s, and by virtue of that they have the ability—there are mechanisms in place for further recognition of hapū and their place.

So it is quite complicated when you’re dealing with the complicated history to this legislation, the deeds that have been put in place, and then also the very complex array of mechanisms and processes. It is very complex, but I’m very pleased to be able to acknowledge Ngāti Porou for their patience—I think for their forbearance—in waiting their time and ensuring that the best possible job is done to ensure that we complete the task at hand. That’s what we’re doing. We’re another step along the way with this second reading.

I want to acknowledge the hapū of Ngāti Porou. There are 57 hapū of Ngāti Porou, and 47 of them have ratified this deed. That doesn’t mean the other 10 are not part or are excluded. All that it means is that 10 other hapū are pursuing their customary rights under the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act. So there is a dual, tandem set-up of different pieces of legislation that will apply. But I want to acknowledge all of the hapū, and I want to acknowledge Te Rūnanganui o Ngāti Porou under the chairmanship of Selwyn Parata, and all of the submissions, in particular, that we received in person, all the way up in Kaiti, in the wonderful venue of the Jesus Christ Repentance Community Church that we used as our venue. I think that did help, maybe, in the kōrero. So I want to acknowledge all of the submitters that came, in particular the hapū, the kaumātua, and the wonderful kōrero and songs that were sung. But I also want to acknowledge that, yes, as is the case with all Treaty settlements, you know, there are some parties that may feel aggrieved or are unhappy with certain arrangements.

Some submitters were quite confronting, but that’s just the nature of us being Māori with our cousins that may be over the way. We faced some confronting kōrero, but all and all those issues actually can be taken care of. As I’ve mentioned, when this bill passes, there will be two pieces of legislation that will apply to the rohe of Ngāti Porou: the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act, for those that choose to go down that track, and also this particular piece of legislation, which is exclusively for Ngāti Porou.

So I want to acknowledge the work of our committee and officials, just in closing, because it is a very complex area, and the officials had a big task ahead of them. We considered a weighty 80-page departmental report. Whilst we weren’t able to put all of the issues that were of concern in the commentary to our report back to this House, rest assured that all of those issues were considered and were given quite a hefty examination through our officials. So I want to acknowledge them for that. But, just to conclude, this day is another day in the step for Ngāti Porou. I want to acknowledge them again. They are the only iwi in the country that has this type of arrangement—there will be no other. So I’m pleased that we were able to play our part as a committee, and I’m looking forward to further tautoko on this bill as it goes through its remaining stages. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātou katoa.

NUK KORAKO (National): Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā. Tēnā rā koutou ngā puāwaitaka o roto ō tātou mātua tupuna. Nei rā te mihi hōhonu ki ōku whanaunga, ngā hapū o Ngāti Porou. Ka tū au he uri o Hemo ki-te-Raki e mihi kau ana ki a koutou ōku whanaunga. Nō reira e mihi atu ki a koe e Te Kaiwhakahaere o Te Rūnanganui o Ngati Porou. Ki a koe Selwyn, nau mai haere mai ki Te Whare Miere. Nō reira e koutou rā huri noa i Te Whare nei, mihi atu ki a koutou katoa.

[Greetings to you all, the fruits of our ancestors. I offer my deepest greetings to my relations from the tribal group of Ngāti Porou. I stand here as a descendant of Hemo ki-te-Raki to extend a welcome to you, my relations. I therefore acknowledge you, the chair of Te Rūnanganui o Ngati Porou. Selwyn, welcome to the Beehive. As well, I extend greetings around this House, to you all.]

It is with great pleasure to rise in front of my whanaunga, the descendants of our shared tīpuna Hemo ki-te-Raki and Hamo-te-Rangi—the mother of Ngāti Porou and my Kai Tahu people.

The previous speakers have really detailed a number of points in the Ngā Rohe Moana o Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Porou Bill (No 2) second reading. Absolutely, it has been a long journey, and, absolutely, there has been some complexity. What I would like to cover off in the second reading was—and we know the second reading is very much based on the submissions process, and also that brings a number of sort of technical issues that need to be, actually, highlighted in a second reading. So I think it’s important too to talk about the genesis of this bill and why it happened.

So, looking at it: the bill gives effect to the deed of agreement between 47 hapū of Ngāti Porou and the Crown in relation to specified common marine and coastal areas or rohe moana. Absolutely, there are 10 that are not actually included in this particular legislation, but the door is not closed; it is actually left open so that, possibly, those 10 can still come in to this legislation. But I acknowledge the fact that there are 47 hapū that are included in this legislation as it actually stands.

As a background also, it was first drafted before the 2017 election, so it provides for recognition of customary interests, including customary marine title within the rohe moana. And it provides for Parts 3 and 4 of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011 to no longer apply in these areas, replacing them with specific recognition of customary interest, which is what this particular bill does.

So the seven East Coast management areas comprising of ngā rohe moana, they are actually listed in the bill. These management areas start in Pōtikirua in the north and extend down to Te Toka ā Taiau in the south. So it’s important to note that the areas between Koutunui and Mawhai Point and between Marau Point and the Pouawa River are actually not included. So these were part of the 10 hapū that I’ve actually just mentioned.

I think the important thing too is that the bill arises—the genesis of the bill was from an unfortunate period when a previous Government attempted in 2004 to alienate iwi from their customary mana over the foreshore and seabed. So Ngāti Porou—and this really reflects the mana and also the intelligence and the knowledge of this iwi, because what actually happened then is that it showed how pragmatic they actually were, because what they quickly ascertained was that the tide was fast receding on the rights they thought were guaranteed to them under the three articles of the Treaty of Waitangi.

The Foreshore and Seabed Act corrected Ngāti Porou’s mistaken belief that the Government of the day would honour its Treaty obligations, but, ever the pragmatic people—and, unfortunately, used to the Crown breaches of the iwi’s Treaty rights—Ngāti Porou immediately entered into negotiations to try and protect its customary rights. So the Ngā Rohe Moana o Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Porou Bill was introduced in 2008, and it was designed to give effect to aspects of the 2008 deed of agreement that contributed to the legal expression, protection, and the recognition of the continued exercise of mana by the hapū of Ngāti Porou in relation to ngā rohe moana o ngā hapū o Ngāti Porou. So, fortunately, the awful Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 was repealed and replaced by the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011.

I do take some comfort from the purported words of the chairman of Ngāti Porou, who was the chair of the Ngāti Porou foreshore and seabed implementation committee and also my whanaunga, Rei Kōhere. And I want to quote what Rei Kōhere actually said, because this was in relation to the agreement: “It will therefore enable our hapū to exercise their mana as kaitiaki over our coastline while ensuring our whānau can still gather kaimoana and enjoy our customary rights and access to our kāpata kai.” That there is, really, one of the important parts of this whole legislation, in the way that the Ngāti Porou hapū actually see it.

I want to acknowledge the kaiwhakahaere o Te Komiti Whiriwhiri Take Māori, my whanaunga Rino Tirikatene, because he has covered off the fact about how we actually went and heard the 215 submissions—most of them, the majority actually, there in Gisborne—and then also mentioning Rongowhakaata as well, which was an important part of those particular submissions.

The Hon Christopher Finlayson has actually covered off a lot of those technicalities already. But I want to just acknowledge one person—or two people, actually—who was instrumental, along with the Hon Christopher Finlayson, in ensuring that this particular legislation would actually see the light of day. I want to acknowledge the late Dr Apirana Tuahae Kaukapakapa Mahuika, or uncle Api. He was very, very instrumental in a lot of the genesis of this legislation, particularly after the foreshore and seabed legislation.

I know that the Hon Christopher Finlayson has left the House at the moment, but what I also want to acknowledge is that for the Hon Christopher Finlayson, this may be the last time that he will actually speak in this House on this legislation.

When you think about it, when you think about some of those Māori leaders, one, Tā Tipene O’Regan, is actually still with us. But there are a number: Sir Bob Māhuta; there’s also, I just mentioned, Api Mahuika. There’s others too—Sir Graham Latimer—you know, a lot of these leaders that, actually, have worked with the Hon Christopher Finlayson. And what the Hon Christopher Finlayson brought was the fact that he wasn’t just doing it for Māori; he was actually doing it with Māori.

I want to leave it there, because I see the Rt Hon David Carter will speak, and I hope he will speak more about the Hon Christopher Finlayson. I want to, again, reiterate the fact that this is this bill and its journey moving through this second reading, and then through the committee stage to the third reading. It’s been a long journey, and I hope that it will not be so long when this legislation will be fully passed into law. E Te Mana Whakawā, tēnā koe; huri noa i Te Whare nei e Ngāti Porou, e whanaunga, nō reira tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, e mihi atu ki a koutou katoa. Kia ora.

[Mr Speaker, thank you; all around this House, Ngāti Porou, my kinsmen, greetings, greetings, I salute you all. Thank you.]

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister of Forestry): Kia ora anō tātou. Me Reo Māori ahau i te tuatahi. Kia ahatia e te kanohi o Te Tai Rāwhiti, Ngāti Porou—nau mai, haere mai ki roto i Te Whare i whakaritea hei kōrerotanga mā ngā kaitorangapū mō tēnei take hei whakaeatanga hoki o tēnei kaupapa ā tōna wā. Nō reira e kara, e Herewini, ngā mihi ki a koe.

[Greetings, one and all. I will begin in Māori. Representatives of the East Coast, of Ngāti Porou—welcome, welcome to the House, where politicians may debate, indeed, may resolve this matter in due course. Therefore, Herewini, sir, I salute you.]

Our party will be voting for this bill. However, when we get to the committee stage, there are elements of further clarification that we may require. But I would say that Mr Finlayson has largely addressed areas of anxiety that are covered off in clause 13 of the bill.

Now, the land history and the interface with the takutai moana in the Tai Rāwhiti in the East Coast area are distinctive. As a consequence of the foresight, and perhaps a little isolation, but, certainly, the leadership of Sir Apirana Ngata and the leaders of that time, the land retention, uninterrupted since the days of the Treaty of Waitangi, is unique in this part of New Zealand.

Secondly, this piece of legislation does reflect a long journey, and, despite those who may be prone to exaggerating the downside of the legislation, the reality is there is no pot of gold. There is no rich seam or vein of rich mineral that may or may not be denied the followers of Don Brash’s Hobson’s Pledge group. This is a part of New Zealand where the population spread is sparse but the land is precious. The land, however, is under great stress, which is why, as the first citizen of the provinces and the billion-tree politician, we are seeking ways to increase the land cover so that the land does not slip continuously into the creeks and the rivers and further blight the takutai moana of the Tai Rāwhiti. So I would say to those folk who feel that this is a major departure from the established way of managing the land and coastal interface, exhaust your reservoir of anxiety on something else.

However, clause 13 is important in this piece of legislation because it affirms the ongoing existence of infrastructure rights and a host of other interests where people that did submit were concerned that an unintended consequence of this piece of legislation might be to strip those of their established statutory entitlements. So it’s important that I point that out.

I think it is a matter of disappointment that some of the hapū of Ngāti Porou at this stage have chosen not to be a part of it, because I genuinely believe—and I know my leader believes—that Apirana Mahuika was not only a stalwart for his Ngāti Porou people but he was one of the tōtara trees of his time. It’s often the case that the girth of the tōtara tree is best seen from a great difference, and often one’s own relations and neighbours see not a tōtara tree but a mānuka tree. But, in our view, this man was a tōtara tree. I only hope that those who are, at this stage, not a part of this kaupapa dwell upon how they might join it, because there is no plan B. These are rare opportunities where Parliament uses, over a long period of time, its time, the State’s resources, and a great deal of patience to develop a product like this. For those who are unable to come on board, I am disappointed, and therein lies the difference between leadership and village squabbling.

So, to the Ngāti Porou leadership that have brought it this far, we do acknowledge you, but we will be paying particular attention during the committee stage that all concerns reflected in the select committee process have been adequately addressed. But, at this stage, we tautoko the bill. Thank you.

JO HAYES (National): Kia ora. Tēnā rā koutou aku whānau. Kia ora, nau mai, haere mai ki Te Pāremata i tēnei rā.

[Greetings to my kinsmen. Hello and welcome to Parliament today.]

It is with great privilege that I stand to take a call in the second reading of the Ngā Rohe Moana o Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Porou Bill (No 2) today. As one of my colleagues got up and said, this is the only iwi to have this kind of arrangement when it comes to the moana—and it is—but I also just want to say that I belong to another iwi who also had a historic moment in the House with Te Awa Tupua bill. So I’m proud that I can base my whakapapa across two historic pieces of legislation that have come to this House and that I have had a part and parcel in making it into legislation.

I want to acknowledge my cousins up in the gallery, especially Herewini Parata, who has led Ngāti Porou rūnanga through this process. I want to pay tribute to Uncle Api Mahuika. I remember meeting Uncle Api for the very first time, and I didn’t realise what blue blood Ngāti Porou was until I met Uncle Api. I was absolutely gobsmacked and thought “Wow! Where have I been in this country that I haven’t been able to meet up with him sooner?” Unfortunately, he passed before I could really get to know our rangatira. He was the man that said that access to the beach will not be closed—that was back in 2009. He had foresight, he had vision, he took advantage where the foreshore and seabed bill fell down, and he took advantage for my people—for my father’s whānau—and I feel very proud that that has happened for our Ngāti Porou whānau.

I am sad that 10 of our hapū are no longer part of this piece of legislation. I hope that they did listen to the contribution from Shane Jones, the previous speaker, that there is no plan B—get on board, come on board—and with there being only 10 left out, I think it can be done.

I want to acknowledge ngā rohe moana for the work that they, Ngāti Porou, have done in getting around and talking with the rest of the hapū—the 47 hapū—that have joined this bill to make it the strength that it is and to clarify issues that were brought up through the submission process and to be able to let us move forward on this. As my colleagues have said, this bill has taken a long time to get here to this part of its journey towards being full legislation, and I think that it’s been a good process. From where I stand and from what I’ve read and what I’ve seen and heard, it appears that there has been no stone left unturned. They have gone out, they have talked to our people, and they have negotiated with them to bring them all on board, and I say to the other 10 hapū, please do come on board with this bill.

Two hundred and fifteen submissions is a huge number of submissions on this bill, and hearing the 18 in Gisborne when we went there was quite revealing, actually, with some of the mamae that was expressed there, especially from Rongowhakaata. However, when we start to look at the numbers of people that came to represent Rongowhakaata and when we start to look at whakapapa, we are all family at the end of the day. So, as whānau, I hope that we can actually see through the hara and the mamae, and let’s get on with the work.

I just want to look at some of the parts of the bill, especially the purpose and the outcomes of this bill, because at the end of the day, we’re all here to see it all go through so that our whānau can actually get on and do the mahi that they were born to do in relation to the moana.

Some of the submissions that came through, especially from the commercial fishers, were around wāhi tapu. They were saying that they were concerned and they thought Ngāti Porou might just come out and make a place a wāhi tapu, which just goes to show their misunderstanding of wāhi tapu. I’m sure that as we’ve got this far in the kōrero that’s gone on, the minds of those commercial fishers have been put at rest over wāhi tapu and that Māori just don’t go out and do these things willy-nilly; this is very considered work that Māori do and that hapū and iwi do.

As I was saying, the bill seeks to achieve a few outcomes: “to recognise the unbroken, inalienable, and enduring mana of the hapū of Ngāti Porou in relation to ngā rohe moana … which is held and exercised [in] a collective right;”. Really, at the end of the day, that sentence that I’ve just said is about collectivity. We also have to understand that while the commercial fishers were seen to be concerned, they also forgot that Ngāti Porou are also commercial fishers, so it is about collectivism. It’s also “to provide legal mechanisms that support the expression and protection of the mana of the hapū of Ngāti Porou generally and in those specific areas where customary marine title rights are recognised in accordance with Part 4 of the Bill;”.

The third point: “to recognise that the Crown has a responsibility for public access in, on, and over the common marine and coastal area, and a role in regulating it;”. That’s very key—that iwi have a considerable role in being able to manage those areas. It’s also “to provide certainty about the use and administration of ngā rohe moana o ngā hapū o Ngāti Porou.” That is about working in a collective way with the non-hapū, non-iwi organisations around resource consent with the regional councils.

This has been an amazing journey for everybody, and I want to, like my colleague Nuk Korako, acknowledge the work of the Hon Christopher Finlayson in getting this bill to where it is today. It is a sad day, really, as I stand here acknowledging that, yes, this most probably will be the last time that the Hon Chris Finlayson will speak on a Māori bill in this House—on a Treaty bill. I think that we are all the more poorer for his leaving than we actually would like to consider ourselves and consider him. I think that he will go down in the history of this Parliament as one of the best Treaty settlement Ministers that has walked the corridors of this Parliament. I will miss him, as I am sure there will be a number of other iwi throughout the motu that will miss his considered efforts and being able to resolve the large number of Treaty claims that he has, and especially his respect and the honour that he gave to Uncle Api Mahuika.

I want to acknowledge Rino Tirikatene for his leadership in our Māori Affairs Committee—he does bring about that real whanaunga view on how to run our select committee—and his considered efforts in making sure that we could get to the nub of some of the issues that were presented to us through the submission process.

As I start to wind up my contribution here today, as I said at the start, I am very humbled to be a speaker on this bill and to be able to shepherd it through to its final legislative process—to Royal assent after the third reading—and I trust that the committee stage won’t be too much of an onerous prospect for all of us and that we can move through quickly. Only God knows how long Ngāti Porou have waited for this, and for us to muck them around would be a travesty as I believe it. So, without any further ado, it is my humble opinion and to be able to commend this bill to the House, and may it speed through quickly. Kia ora.

MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. Tēnā hoki koutou ōku whanaunga o Te Tai Rāwhiti, o Ngāti Porou, hoki.

[Greetings to my kinsmen from the East Coast and from Ngāti Porou.]

I’m really pleased to finally be at the second reading stage, after quite a lengthy submissions process, and working out from the submissions then the exact changes that needed to be made to the bill so that we are able to arrive and report back from it. As the deputy chair of the Māori Affairs Committee, a massive mihi—Papa Apirana Mahuika was absolutely visionary right through to the end. This is where we have come to, to be able to pick up the work, which was also the work of ex-Minister Chris Finlayson, and to bring this bill to the House. It’s had quite a bit of a background and my colleagues have talked about how there was a deed of agreement in 2004; there was the Foreshore and Seabed Act which was repealed and replaced. The deed had to be amended to fit into the new legislation, and this is what we are debating and pushing through the House today.

If we go back to the purpose, this is about affirming what has always been really the kaitiaki, the mana Motuhake and sovereignty, care, and responsibilities that ngā hapū o Ngāti Porou have always had. This was the visionary step that Papa Api was taking, and taking hapū alongside to put this legislation in place—quite historical. It is the only legislation like it that actually manages to carve out specific responsibilities and empowers iwi and affirms iwi with what they already had, to be able to have some responsibility over the longevity of the rohe moana, in a way that protects the ecosystem, the food systems, and the entire environment for many generations to come. And that really is part of the purpose of this bill. It’s a legal expression, protection, and recognition of the continued exercise of mana by ngā hapū o Ngāti Porou in relation to ngā rohe moana o ngā hapū o Ngāti Porou. And so I wanted to bring all of these discussions back to the actual purpose of the bill.

We had a fantastic day in Kaiti as the Māori Affairs Committee, travelling to Gisborne to hear from a packed community—very passionate kōrero. I was thinking back to the visions as we were sitting there endowed with the waiata and the kōrero and the history of everyone in that room and everyone who they brought with them—tūpuna gone before us—and everyone, not just in the room, upholding the ahi kā fires as well. So I was thinking back to that room, to the passionate, deeply felt kōrero, to the protection of hapū boundaries—Rongowhakaata and others—making sure that they’re heard, all voices, and wanting to acknowledge that day you were absolutely heard. There were many stories, there were concerns, and there were ways to reassure people also in some of the fears and valid concerns that were raised. So that was another of those very privileged days that you get to have as an MP on the Māori Affairs Committee.

Of course, alongside all of those submissions, we heard from industry voices like Eastland Port and the New Zealand Rock Lobster Industry Council. I just wanted to pick up a bit on those submissions. I know the Hon Chris Finlayson also expanded on that in a lot more detail, but, through the submission process, I wanted to get a sense of understanding. Obviously iwi consent will be required—which is right—for resource consent applications in areas over which it has customary title as well as for proposals such as marine reserves.

Now, there were naturally going to be some concerns raised—for example, Tairawhiti Rock Lobster Industry Association said at the time that if the bill was passed, it would provide opportunities for significant closures of areas impacting on the industry. So if we go into section 13 of the bill, which is about the preservation of certain rights and accommodated matters, and I think even further into some of the other sections, it really is about—see, Māori are considered, well researched, well informed, know their stuff, Ngāti Porou. So they were more than aware of the sorts of considerations that were going to have to take place in pushing through this legislation.

I did want to pick up on one comment, though. That was from Tairawhiti Rock Lobster Industry Association, where it said, “How does 70 years of fishing not count as use and occupation? How is use and occupation measured?” And I feel quite comfortable saying they may now sympathise or empathise somewhat, a little bit, with centuries and centuries of occupation and use and kaitiaki responsibilities, and hopefully can remain aware of the generosity with which Ngāti Porou have actually progressed this legislation with consideration and accommodation of those interests, which is not exactly what was done to Māori in the processes of colonisation and land removal. So I welcome this bill and the considerate way that it is upholding all of the interests.

Only for the purposes of celebrating the passage of the bill, I did want to say that, yes, of course, when we’re talking about land, and moana, and whenua, and Māori customary rights, we’re going to attract some of the less tasteful kinds of submissions. We didn’t attract many, but I just wanted to highlight that there was a good tenor of conversation when the Māori Affairs Committee actually rejected one of the submissions on the grounds that it was offensive. There weren’t a lot of those, but I just wanted to say that it was very easy for us to be able to keep the tenor of the conversation focused on the issues, balancing various accommodative matters, and we were absolutely dismissive, if I can say it, of some of the quite racist views that came into the Māori Affairs Committee, but that was just a little bit.

I then really wanted to move on—oh, gosh, I’ve got two minutes. I really wanted to pick up on one of the major changes, which was the discussion between Te Whānau a Iritekura and Te Whānau a Te Ao Tawarirangi boundaries. What I really appreciated was that it became obvious in the bill that there had been a bit of a mix up with those boundaries. Both hapū met—and it concerned Koutunui Point, down the coast—and agreed that we would shift and name the boundaries to be more appropriate. That was good because immediately on the Māori Affairs Committee, we thought, “OK, so this actually needs to be put right.” The advisers here in Parliament absolutely agreed. There were discussions between all parties, and an agreement was reached, and I did want to make quite a big deal out of that change because it’s why it’s so important that people have these ancestral connections and these histories to make sure that we’re doing our job right in this place. It was so important, for example, that there was acknowledgment that both Te Whānau a Iritekura and Te Whānau a Te Ao Tawarirangi have ancestral connections to the place Te Ngutu o Kore and that they would continue to share, according to tikanga, the responsibilities and the guardianship responsibilities to uphold those whenua and those rohe moana.

So those of us on the committee were quite familiar with the map down the coast there, and that there needed to be a shift around Koutunui. There’s a difference between Koutunui Point and Koutunui Head, and I think it was just a genuine mistake to begin with, but, actually, the outcome was that we had some fantastic affirmations and conversations about overreaching into rohe moana of different hapū. So I think that was actually really positive and a good learning experience for all of us. All in all, we’ll go through to the third reading and really look forward to cementing this properly in this house. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā. Tēnā koutou and welcome to everybody who’s come down from the mighty East Coast, from Ngāti Porou, for the second reading of the Ngā Rohe Moana o Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Porou Bill (No 2). It’s a pleasure to speak on this. I wasn’t on the Māori Affairs Committee, which considered this bill, but it’s still a pleasure to speak on what is, I think, an important stage for the Ngāti Porou iwi, and it’s a really important stage for this bill to go through.

I just want to talk a little bit more about the purpose of the bill and certainly, before that, acknowledge the work of the Māori Affairs Committee and also acknowledge my colleague the Hon Chris Finlayson and the work he’s done throughout the years—this bill is the manifestation of many years of work, from 2004 right up until this stage—and also the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, the Hon Andrew Little, for bringing it to this stage in the House.

Just to reiterate and confirm the purpose of this bill, which is, really, to give effect to the deed that was signed between 47 hapū and the Crown around the area of fisheries. It is a shame, and I do echo the sentiment that’s been said many times in this House, that not all 58 hapū are signing this agreement, and we certainly extend the invitation to them to join this agreement. It is an important bill and an important deed for us to consider. This is, of course, really all about recognising customary rights, and it provides consistency between the deed and the customary fisheries regulations.

We’re at the second reading stage now. This bill has been through the submission process, and we got about 215 written submissions. We heard about 18 of those, and I just want to reflect on some of the key themes that came out of the submission process on this bill. The first is around recognising customary rights, and that was an issue that was reflected in some of the submissions that were made. Secondly, it clarifies the regulation of freshwater fisheries, and that is certainly clear from the bill that’s been put forward to the House. It clarifies, of course, the customary marine title and the marine title for conservation processes, as well.

This is an important deed and an important bill that recognises and cements a deed between the 47 hapū that are in the Ngāti Porou area, in the beautiful East Coast; the area that is the first in New Zealand to see the sun and, in many ways, sees the horizon the first, as well.

So the wider context of this bill is that certainly this House and previous Houses have made substantial progress on Treaty settlements and Treaty claims. All in all, I think about 90 percent of all claims have now been mandated. The Crown has signed 85 of those deeds with iwi over the years, and I wish to acknowledge the efforts of the current Government to continue along these efforts to conclude such a process. And I think that that is what we all want to see, which is the past grievances and past issues acknowledged but also try to be addressed.

The second, and most equally to that, is around focusing on the future. What will this deed and what will this bill, once enacted, enable the good people of Ngāti Porou to do? It will, in essence, enable them to enjoy customary rights over the fisheries area and enjoy the fruits of the sea, and I think that that is also very important to that effect.

So it is very, very good day to be talking about the second reading of this bill, and I just want to acknowledge again all the good work from the Māori Affairs Committee in bringing this bill to the second stage. I look forward to possibly commenting in its third reading later on. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I understand this is a split call. You have five minutes, the Hon Willie Jackson.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Associate Minister for Māori Development): Kia ora tātou. Ngā whanaunga i tae mai nei i tēnei wā ki te tautoko i te pire, ki a koe Selwyn whanaunga, ngā mihi ki a koe e hoa; he tika me mihi i a koe mō te mahi ki te kōkiri te kaupapa Ngāti Poroutanga i ngā wā katoa—ngā mihi ki a koe e te whanaunga me all ngā whanaunga kua tae mai nei i tēnei wā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā anō tātou katoa.

[To the kinsmen who are here today to support the bill, to you Selwyn, greetings to you my friend; it is appropriate to acknowledge you who have worked tirelessly to advance the interests of Ngāti Porou—I salute you my relation and all the relations who have come here today, greetings, greetings one and all.]

It was lovely hearing from the member on the other side. I was probably a little bit rough towards him last night when I talked about his whānau, and I think I was a little bit out of line, so I give my apologies there. I know the Bidois whānau is a very proud whānau, and I wish him all the best, and it was a very good contribution there in terms of this bill.

When we talk about this bill, it’s interesting, particularly in terms of pulling our hapū together, and that is the essence of this bill, the Ngā Rohe Moana o Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Porou Bill (No 2). It is a challenge to bring all hapū together, and no more so are we seeing that than in Ngāpuhi at the moment, where it is a heck of a job that our Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations is going through in terms of trying to whakakotahi i ngā hapū o Ngāpuhi [unite the tribes of Ngāpuhi]. It is one of the biggest challenges for any Minister.

I hear the references to Chris Finlayson, and I know the type of work that he did do. His mahi will be missed, and his contribution is noted, and I think it’s appropriate that the whole of the House note what he went through. Trying to pull hapū together, as has been done in this bill, is one of the toughest things when you go through this process. Of course, we’ve had 10 or 11 hapū opt out for various reasons, but the reality is that we move on and we get a settlement. You have ups and downs through these settlements and you try and find the right way.

I heard Shane Jones talking about the support. I’ll be interested in terms of the relationship that the Ngāti Porou leadership tries to build with urban Māori. I think it’s a tremendously important challenge, and a challenge that I’ve put to the leadership of Ngāti Porou for many, many years, particularly when the majority of Ngāti Porou do not live in Ngāti Porou. So in terms of the bill, what are the connections and how are the relationships going to be recognised in terms of Ngāti Porou? How are the benefits going to be passed on? What is being set up in terms of Ruatōria and South Auckland, Ruatōria and west Auckland, Ruatōria and Porirua—where all Ngāti Porou are around—or Ruatōria and Wainuiōmata?

These are the challenges, I think, that the rūnanga have to work through in terms of their connection, because it’s something that is in front of us at all times and something that the Hon Shane Jones talked about—well, didn’t talk about, but there are these questions that sometimes these settlements go through and we wonder who the settlement is going to be applied to. How will everyone benefit? It’s a big question in Ngāpuhi at the moment. That’s why they’re almost killing themselves—these are all Marama Davidson’s relations. You’ve got the radical Marama Davidson relations who don’t want to sign—not interested, not interested in any of it. The ones who are a little bit saner—oh no, I shouldn’t say that, Marama. But the ones who want to get on with the business—Shane Jones’ son, for instance, and all the other different whanaunga—want to do the business.

It’s such a challenge, this Treaty settlement process, but I mihi to my whanaunga Selwyn Parata and others who have made a choice to get on with it, and they get on with it despite all the allegations of selling out the different hapū. They get those allegations. As part of being a Treaty or a tribal leader, you get called a seller, you get called everything else, but you get on with the business. The reality is that if you get into this game, you’ve got to take the hits that go along with it, and that’s the reality. So people are not going to be happy with the deal, but I think we’ve got a good deal here. I mihi to the Māori Affairs Committee, who’ve done the business, and I think we’re on track for ngā rohe moana o ngā hapū o Ngāti Porou to come together kia whakakotahi mō te kaupapa [to unite for the occasion]. Kia ora anō tātou katoa.

Rt Hon DAVID CARTER (National): Madam Deputy Speaker, thank you. Tēnā koe. Can I start by acknowledging the elders of Ngāti Porou in the gallery today and particularly Selwyn Parata, who, I know, has stepped into the role as chairman of the rūnanga following the very sad passing of Dr Api Mahuika.

I don’t claim to know much about this legislation. As I was listening to the Greens’ contribution, I realised that of all the select committees around Parliament the only one I’ve never sat on, at any occasion, even on a temporary substitution basis, is the Māori Affairs Committee. But I do want to take the opportunity of acknowledging what was said by many speakers, and particularly the Hon Chris Finlayson, about the complexity and the history of this legislation. I also refer to my good friend Nuk Korako and his comments to me that this legislation followed directly from the seabed and foreshore legislation—that unfortunate legislation passed by the Helen Clark Government some years ago that caused quite a lot of angst to many, many iwi around the country.

I do want to take this opportunity of acknowledging the huge contribution that the Hon Christopher Finlayson has made to this particular legislation and also to numerous Treaty settlements over many, many years. Very sadly for this House, Mr Finlayson will give his valedictory speech to the House in two weeks’ time and regardless of political affiliations, I think every member of this House would acknowledge the huge contribution he has made, particularly as Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations with the settlements he has progressed through this House, and also as Attorney-General. In fact, I read some very interesting comments recently by the Rt Hon Winston Peters when he claimed that the Hon Chris Finlayson was indeed one of the greatest legal minds in the Commonwealth. Now, for most, that should be a real badge of honour, but coming from Mr Winston Peters, I’m not sure that it is.

My final words would be to acknowledge the late Dr Api Mahuika. I had the privilege of working with this gentleman on a number of occasions when I was Minister for Primary Industries. He was a man of absolute integrity, a man of huge stature, and a man absolutely dedicated to delivering to the people of Ngāti Porou. I think Māori have a wonderful word that describes this man: he had mana. Of all the people you meet throughout your life, there are some people who impress you significantly and you carry with you for the rest of your days. That particular impression of that man, Dr Api Mahuika, would have been one of those people who had a huge impact on me.

I treasure the time I travelled, on a couple of occasions, to Gisborne, to the East Cape, looking particularly at those issues associated with the East Coast forestry project—the project initiated immediately after Cyclone Bola, as they now move to the second cycle of that. We also visited there, looking at opportunities that the iwi might get, particularly in the primary industries sector around forestry, around agriculture, and around fisheries, and I hope the passing of this legislation will give the opportunity for that iwi to take more opportunities for economic development for the people of Ngāti Porou.

Can I close, Madam Deputy Speaker, by just referring to this book: Ngati Tama Toa: The Price of Citizenship. It’s a history of the Māori Battalion from 1939 to 1945. The reason I mention that is I still remember the day Dr Api Mahuika came into my office and presented this wonderful book to me. He autographed it personally; it’s dated 4 May 2012. I haven’t yet read it, Mr Parata, but I intend to make sure that when I finally leave this place that book goes with me as a great treasure, and when I have more time to read this wonderful story about the contribution of the Māori Battalion to New Zealand and New Zealand’s history through that World War, I’ll treasure the opportunity of reading that book and, as I do read it, I will recall with huge pleasure the person who presented it to me. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour): Tēnā koe Madam Deputy Speaker. Tuatahi ka huri ahau ki ngā uri mai i ngā hapū o Ngāti Porou mai i Te Maunga o Hikurangi, mai i Te Awa o Waiapū; anei te mihi maioha ki a koutou.

[Firstly, I turn to the descendants from the subtribes of Ngāti Porou, from Hikurangi mountain, from the Waiapū River; I extend warm greetings to you all.]

I too want to join in the acknowledgments to those that have travelled from Ngāti Porou this afternoon to join us: Herewini Parata for his leadership and stewardship through the course of this bill but also for the peoples of Ngāti Porou; Ani Pāhuru-Huriwai, the kaimahi o ngā kaimahi o Onepoto [the best worker of all from Onepoto]; Te Rau Kupenga, a healthy servant for the peoples of Ruatoria, and the son of Hikurangi; and Karli Rickard, e te tuahine ka nui te mihi [I salute you].

Fourteen years ago, I think I was outside this wee House protesting at the then Government for extinguishing the rights of whānau, hapū, and iwi to access the courts to a little piece of land known as the seabed and the foreshore—14 years ago. I want to acknowledge those from Ngāti Porou under the then leadership of Api Mahuika, but also that extensive kāhui around him. They had people out on the forecourt, but they also, at that time, were in the rooms negotiating what is to become the most unique and only agreement of this type which we see, 14 years later, come into fruition. So it’s right to acknowledge the role that Api Mahuika played in his leadership vision and aspiration for the people of Ngāti Porou to see this piece of legislation come in hopefully very soon, in the new year.

Too, I want to acknowledge all of those kaimahi that are out there meeting with the many members of those many hapū of Ngāti Porou, and there will be many. But there are some that I got to intimately see, through the trials and tribulations of working with the whānau from those various hapū, and in particular the work of Matanuku Mahuika, Api’s son, Nathan Milner, and Tira Johnson. I had the privilege to work alongside them for many years, but watched them go through relatively formative stages of this piece of legislation when they were going through the consultation. So I just wanted to pay a couple of moments’ homage to them for the work that they did in the background.

There were some remarks canvassed by the Hon Chris Finlayson earlier this afternoon, and I want to thank him for his contribution. I know many of us on this side—well, actually, it sounds like across both sides—of the House have had many submissions from those concerned fisher-peoples that hold existing fishing rights up throughout the East Coast. Mark Edwards and Gordon Halley from Tairawhiti Rock Lobster Industry Association, in particular, I know have been making persuasive submissions to various members across this House. I really want to, again, pay homage to the remarks and analysis provided in this House this afternoon from the former Attorney-General and Minister for Treaty settlements, the Hon Chris Finlayson, who really addressed some of the key concerns that clause 13 had caused for some of those that have existing fishing rights throughout the East Cape.

So I’m not going to labour and go through, blow-by-blow, because, I think it was the Rt Hon David Carter previously who just said, the Hon Chris Finlayson has already been acknowledged, apparently, as the smartest man in this Chamber, and it will be a sad day when we see him leave, which, unfortunately, is pretty soon. He has articulately addressed, in my view, those concerns that were raised by those folk in the Tairawhiti Rock Lobster Industry Association with regards to the current fishing rights that they hold, and I hope that they take some confidence from the analysis that he’s given, particularly with regards to the nature and extent of the wāhi tapu and the other matters that they addressed this afternoon.

It’s been canvassed extensively in this House this afternoon, and I don’t need to labour the point, but 47 hapū of 57 is no mean feat. I know that there’s been various analyses given across this House this afternoon as to whether or not that meets the threshold for what should and shouldn’t get over the line, but I just want to acknowledge that, you know, to have that degree of—well, actually, for those that chose not to opt in at that time, kei te pai tērā. They can make applications under the marine and coastal area Act, and if they’ve got their submissions in, it’s not actually the end of the road. They can go down that path. But they can opt in later on. I want to acknowledge that it was a monumental, mammoth effort by those that have shown leadership within this settlement to get those hapū—47 of them—over the line in agreement with regards to this entire settlement. I don’t want to undercut the significance of the work that has been done, but, also too, acknowledge that for some of those other hapū that chose not to step in there are multiple avenues for them to pursue their own arrangements.

I don’t want to take up too much of this House’s time. I do just, again, want to extend my regards and my thanks, actually, to those that are the leaders of Ngāti Porou for the stewardship that you show for our communities up in the East Coast. Anei te mihi, tēnā koe.

HARETE HIPANGO (National—Whanganui): Madam Deputy Speaker, tēnā koe. Ka huri au ki ngā manuhiri i tēnei Whare. Nau mai, haere mai anō mō te karangatanga o tēnei pire, Te Pire Tuarua o Ngā Rohe Moana o Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Porou. Koinā.

[Greetings, Madam Deputy Speaker. I turn my attention to the visitors to this House. Welcome, welcome again for the call for this reading of the Ngā Rohe Moana o Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Porou (No 2) Bill. Indeed.]

As is tikanga, protocol, courtesy, and appropriate decorum, I acknowledge those who have gathered here in support of this second reading today, especially the descendants, ngā uri o ngā hapū o Ngāti Porou, and I speak as member of Parliament for Whanganui, as uri of Whanganui, Ngāti Apa, Ngā Rauru, and Ngāti Rangi. I also speak as a member serving on the Māori Affairs Committee, and I mihi to my colleagues in the House. I speak also as a National Party member of Parliament.

For the benefit of those gathered here today to hear and hearken to the kōrero of this House, may I briefly explain for the benefit of those gathered what the purpose of the second reading is. In that, I, for a moment, seek your leave to turn to those gathered in the gallery to address them directly. This second reading of your bill—the people of Ngāti Porou, with a 72,000 membership comprised of 57 hapū and 48 marae, spanning from Ōpōtiki around the coastal cape and lines through to Gisborne, Tai Rāwhiti. This bill No. 2 has been before the Māori Affairs Committee for consideration after hearing and receiving the oral evidence in Gisborne and Wellington from 18 submitters, whilst also receiving and considering, in total, 215 submissions.

Accordingly, I acknowledge the work and advice and support from the Office of Treaty Settlements, Parliamentary Service, and counsel for aiding the Māori Affairs Committee in our deliberations and recommendations. I also formally set on record acknowledgment to the former Minister of Treaty settlements, the Hon Christopher Finlayson, who addressed the House earlier. Indeed, it will be the last time as a member of Parliament and a former Minister that he will speak to this bill—a last hook, line, and sinker for him. I also turn to acknowledge the current Minister, the Hon Andrew Little, who expressed back in 2004 his discontent at his Labour Government’s views and the foreshore and seabed legislative passage. He challenged his party at that time, and, as I clearly recollect also, so did Dame Tariana Turia. She crossed the floor, she left the Labour Party, and thus was the seedling and the beginnings of the Māori Party.

I reflect on what my colleague Kiritapu Allan also shared. In 2004, on 4 May—the hīkoi, the march here on to Parliament grounds. Many of us protested the Foreshore and Seabed Act, and I mentioned in the first reading of this bill before the House that I travelled from Whanganui with many of my people and my pōtiki, my youngest at that time, and we marched unified with some 15,000-plus New Zealanders, Māori and tauiwi united in the belief that the Government of the day was wrong with that foreshore and seabed legislation.

Now, fast forward 14 years and seven months after that 4 May march in 2004, and here we are united with the second reading and passage of this bill, the bill of ngā hapū o Ngāti Porou, through to its final reading. This bill has cross-party collaborative support in the House, and before the Māori Affairs Committee, we duly considered and contemplated the detail of the bill and also made recommendations with proposed amendments for that. Those amendments will be made known to the members and to the rūnanga of the hapū of Ngāti Porou.

Time permitting, before I turn to the content of those amendments—and there are some 12 key amendments that are being discussed—may I just add some further context to my address to those gathered in the House. Being the last speaker—or the second to last, but certainly the last speaker for the National Party today—it is somewhat of a challenge to come up with something fresh, and so I’m fishing up some thoughts and ideas in relation to that.

The purpose of this bill—it’s been an arduous and, at times, treacherous adventure and expedition in pursuit of landing this bill. It’s been exhaustive. It’s been an expedition in search of fishing for and securing the legal expression, protection, and recognition of the continued exercise of mana by ngā hapū in relation to ngā rohe moana o ngā hapū—somewhat analogous to the mythological and much-marvelled adventures of Paikea. I will share at the third reading, should I get the opportunity to speak, the adventures of Kupe, but for now I draw the parallel of the arduous journey that ngā hapū o Ngāti Porou have been on, somewhat similar to that of Paikea.

Paikea’s story is well known to the people of Ngāti Porou. It is his story—Paikea’s journey, riding whaleback on that of tohorā, the whale which surfaced after Paikea’s call for help to Tangaroa. For the benefit of the general public who may be viewing and listening to my kōrero to the House, I just share that Paikea was the story where an angry brother, Ruatapu, sought to succumb Paikea to vengeful might and dominance but for Paikea’s resilience and resistance, calling on greater powers to intervene and salvage him from the waves of cascading waters that were sent to swamp and swallow him, finally making landfall on the East Coast, Whangarā—not succumbing to the threat, and escaping inevitable oppression and likely death.

So this is the parallel that I make now in turning to this bill: all efforts to remain afloat, despite being adrift, reaching the safety of shores, to forbear and, in forbearance, resuscitate and revive for the next generations. These parallels in this analogy, indeed, are that to the lengthy legal challenges and expedition endured by, and now, the ngā hapū o Ngāti Porou for a number of generations. And since 2003, it’s been an intergenerational expedition, carried and continued by many. And I hearken to the kōrero and reference and acknowledgments of the late Dr Api Mahuika, and then I look up into the gallery and see kaumātua rangatira Herewini Parata, continuing that leadership, and Dr Mahuika’s son, senior legal counsel and the East Cape crusader, Matanuku Mahuika—all with a vision shared and assured by fearlessness, foresight, fortitude, and resilience; much like that of Paikea’s story. And now there is a certain and sure belief and relief with the passage of this bill from its second reading into its third.

Let me turn to a brief summary and time line of a not-so-brief and arduous journey with this legal fishtail. There’s been reference and talk about how we have arrived at where we are today. Time will not permit me looking up—that I do not carry through to complete this, and I shall, at the third reading. But this journey started back in 2003, when the rūnanga of Ngāti Porou supported applications by their hapū to the Māori Land Court on the foreshore and seabed to have that declared Māori customary land. As we know, the Ngāti Apa Court of Appeal decision was contentious and it was viewed by the country and many as being outrageous, and thus that tracked through to the foreshore and seabed legislation.

Just tracking through very quickly, a deed of agreement was entered into in August 2008. That was ratified by the 47 hapū of the 57. The No. 1 bill was introduced into the House in September 2008, and then here we are today. The time line is much more extensive than that. I turn to acknowledge all those gathered here today in support. Kia ora.

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti):

Ko Hikurangi te maunga

Ko Waiapū te awa

Ko Te Whānau-a-Te Uruahi o Tinatoka te hapū

Ko Ngāti Porou te iwi.

E tū ana ki te mihi ki ngā iwi o te haukāinga kua tae mai ki te tautoko i te pānui tuarua o tātou pire. Nō reira ōku rau rangatira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Hikurangi is my ancestral mountain

Waiapū is my ancestral river

Te Whānau-a-Te Uruahi of Tinatoka is my subtribe

Ngāti Porou is my tribe.

I stand to greet the home people who have come here to support the second reading of our bill. Therefore, to my esteemed chiefs, greetings, greetings, thrice greetings to you all.]

It is indeed my honour to join with all previous speakers in support of the second reading of this important bill. What I wanted to share is that it is accepted knowledge that, prior to the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi, many hapū around the motu lived their lives in undisturbed possession of the moana—the rohe moana. In Ngāti Porou, as it was in Tai Rāwhiti, when the Treaty was signed, in 1840, that existence of hapū mana continued for 25 years, until about 1865, when the Pai Mārire came into the East Coast and there were disruptions and then, of course, we had the presence of the Crown. But one thing that I’m delighted to know and to be part of is that the hapū of Ngāti Porou maintained their ahi kā status, and so I stand in support of the second reading of this bill and acknowledge that it’s the legislation that’s catching up with the hapū reality of Ngāti Porou. So I want to acknowledge the agreement that was entered into way back by those original leaders with the Government of the day.

It’s interesting that, in 2004, when the original deed of agreement was reached between ngā hapū o Ngāti Porou and the Crown, we hadn’t actually even started the land Treaty settlements, and it’s funny that here we are 18 years later with Ngāti Porou’s Treaty settlement legislation being passed and we are only now just getting to this one. So I want to stand in support, like I said, with all the previous speakers in acknowledging the work that’s gone on to bring this bill to the House. I want to acknowledge and join in with others to acknowledge Uncle Api Mahuika. I want to also acknowledge my predecessor, the Hon Parekura Horomia, who was around in 2004, and I’m sure had a hand in working with Uncle Api in ensuring that the agreement came through. There were obviously acknowledgments for the Hon Chris Finlayson and all the hard-working people of Ngāti Porou who did their bit to bring this bill to where it’s at now.

What I want to do is really touch on the process, because it’s really critical, particularly for those who submitted in terms of the gestation—the 14 years—from when the original agreement was signed, in 2004, and how the reforms of the legislation through the Foreshore and Seabed Act and then we went into the marine and coastal area in 2011. Of course, both ngā hapū o Ngāti Porou and the Crown, as these legislation changes from this House were happening, had to renegotiate so that the deed of agreement fitted with the legislation at the time. In August 2017, both parties signed this new agreement and, of course, we had our first reading here in this House, on 10 May, and then it was referred to the Māori Affairs Committee. Can I please acknowledge my colleague, the chairman, Rino Tirikatene and all members of the Māori Affairs Committee for their thorough investigation of this bill? As others have said, not everybody agreed, but I am convinced that the concerns that have been raised in this House and the examination that the select committee provided for those concerns have been adequately addressed in this bill.

Of course, submissions closed on 22 June. We had about 215 submissions, and 18 chose to appear in front of the select committee, both in Gisborne and in Wellington. The Māori Affairs Committee reported back to the House in August 2018. I also want to put on record that, in August 2018, as an arrangement in terms of Ngāti Porou and the Crown’s Treaty settlement, the obligation is for the Crown to have regular meetings with Ngāti Porou. So, in August 2018, at Te Tini o Porou, the current Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern, met with the Ngāti Porou leadership, and amongst other issues that were raised at that hui was the fact that they wanted to see this bill proceed. So I just want to put on record that, by our standing in this House and giving its second reading, we have heard the pleas from the leadership of Ngāti Porou, and I am so glad that we are doing this today. Ideally, I wish it were the third reading, but we’ve had a busy legislative year on this side of the House, and I know we will get to the third and final reading very shortly in the new year.

It is, indeed, like I said, an honour to stand here as the member of Parliament for Ikaroa-Rāwhiti, of which Ngāti Porou is a significant iwi within that rohe pōtae, but there is one matter that I do want to put on the table, particularly around strengthening our hapū capability, particularly those ones at home. There is a lot of talk around climate change, and I applaud the work that the climate change Minister is doing in this country in terms of our international and national obligations, but let me say that the first point of contact with rising sea levels is going to be hapū around the country. And it will be a challenge, but it’s a challenge that we in this House should all accept around communities, particularly these hapū that we’re talking about—Ngāti Porou—and all the hapū around the country. The question I have is: how ready are those communities on the coastlines and seasides around our motu? So it’s an area that I’m passionate about, ensuring that our communities—particularly our hapū up the coast—are prepared for the eventuality of rising sea levels.

Of course, we all know Ngāti Porou has huge erosion and flooding issues in winter, and this bill, like I said, acknowledges the agreement that the Crown has entered into with ngā hapū of Ngāti Porou, oiled by a $15 million contribution. I’m not going to be the one to say where that money goes, but I do hope and pray that it will go towards empowering our hapū in the rohe that climate change readiness is one of the priorities that the iwi see, but it’s also around attracting many of our Ngāti Porou whanaunga who don’t live at home to come home. And I’m seeing more and more of our people wanting to come back to the Tai Rāwhiti.

So, like I said, this piece of legislation really is an acknowledgment, a reflection, of the agreement that was entered into many, many years ago. Like I said, I want to acknowledge all those who worked on this bill. We are almost there, and we’re almost at the third reading so that we can ensure that our coastlines, that hapū around customary fisheries, and, really—let’s be real, when our hapū go and fish, they don’t catch a fish and say, “That’s a commercial fish.” They don’t get a piece of pāua and say, “Well, that’s a customary or commercial fish or pāua.” It’s around empowering our hapū. It’s something that we had prior to the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi, and it should be celebrated in this House, because this bill is a tool to enabling hapū mana to return back to the hapū. Nō reira tēnei te mihi ki a koutou, e te whanaunga o te hau kāinga tēnā tātou, otirā ngā members o Te Whare nei, tēnā tātou, tēnā tātou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[So I salute you all and extend greetings once again to my kinsmen from the homelands as well as to the members of this House, greetings one and all.]

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Crown Minerals Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 27 November.

HAMISH WALKER (National—Clutha-Southland): The purpose of this bill is to “amend the Crown Minerals Act 1991 to [basically] maintain the effectiveness and efficiency of the permitting regime established by that Act. This bill aims to address [a few] gaps [and] errors, and inconsistencies within the Act and to clarify and update statutory provisions.” It’s a bit like a spring-clean. Every now and again you need to have a good spring-clean at home just to polish up a few bits and pieces. The National Party—we support this bill, which amends the Crown Minerals Act 1991. Most of these changes are reasonably small, but they do add some financial beef to prosecute those who fail to notify the Minister of the change of control of a permit participation company. Failure to notify the Minister could result in a fine or a penalty of up to $800,000, which, hopefully, will act as a reasonably strong deterrent for people to not do so.

I just want to acknowledge the select committee who oversaw this and made, in my view, some reasonably good changes—the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, who have done a good job—and, in particular, one of those members who’s here today: Andrew Falloon. It’s good common-sense stuff. They received 11 submissions, hearing oral evidence from five submitters at hearings here in Wellington. The committee recommended that the bill be passed with the following amendments, and I just want to talk about a couple of those amendments, one being around the change of control. Clause 8, which would insert new section 41AB into the Crown Minerals Act, sets out how consent should be obtained for the change of control of a permit operator holding a tier one permit. And as introduced, the new section 41AB(3) states that if a person knows, or should know, that they have obtained the power to exercise, or control the exercise of, 50 percent or more of the voting rights of a permit operator without the prior consent of the Minister, they can be convicted of an offence under section 100(2A).

The third change I’d like to briefly discuss is the committee heard from various submitters, and they have decided that they’re going to recommend amending new section 41AB, along with clause 14. This basically makes it very clear that “a person can only be convicted of an offence if they knew, or should have reasonably known prior to the change in control, that they will obtain the power.” Regarding the late applications for consent—so, basically, if someone forgets to lodge a change of control—the committee recommended amending clause 8 and inserting new section 41AC(2) “to confirm that a late application for a change of control must be made before the change of control is complete.”

That’s probably a good place to end it. In the National Party, we support the bill. Once again, we’d just like to congratulate both sides of the House and the select committee for making, I believe, some reasonably good common-sense decisions.

FLETCHER TABUTEAU (Deputy Leader—NZ First): Thanks, Madam Deputy Speaker, for this opportunity to speak to this piece of legislation, an amendment to the Crown Minerals Act. I think I’d like to start off by pointing out that, as has been said before, what we’re dealing with here are a few minor and technical changes to a piece of legislation. I know and I appreciate the contribution from the previous speaker, but it’s good to point out that most of these changes went through the previous Government’s Cabinet, and so it’s good to see that consistency from the other side of the House.

I’d also like to applaud the work of the select committee, the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee. It’s true to say that there was more work done together on this legislation. It was worked through sensibly with, ostensibly, a common goal in mind, and I think we’ve come to that now in the House. So it’s a pleasure to speak to that unanimous decision and those recommendations put forward to the House from the select committee, and I thank them sincerely for their efforts.

The amendments are here to ensure that the New Zealand Government, through the Minister of Energy and Resources, has oversight where appropriate over the transactions in this sector. Why is this important? Well, I think what we’re seeing around the world is that the nature of exploration is changing. We’re seeing, I suppose, almost a dichotomy of the industry itself, in that we are seeing an increasing amount of large acquisitions and buyouts by large international corporates. But, conversely, in other parts of the sector what we’re seeing are quite different dynamics being played out, in that what’s great to see—and New Zealand is an example of this—is smaller, more agile companies taking advantage of new technologies to, essentially, eke out more and more from existing fields and mines.

This presents the Crown with a need to ensure legislation is fit for purpose. Our hope is that legislation done well will mean an optimal usage of our resources, not only avoiding wastage or underutilisation of New Zealand’s natural resources; actually, doing this right means maximising the return not only to those savvy businesses but to the Government itself and the people of New Zealand. It also means that we are aware of and can manage risks that changes within the sector can bring. This is simply about ensuring that the original intent of this bill can continue to be undertaken—that is, retaining appropriate oversight of acquisition and divestment activity within the sector.

I was going to go into the detail, but that seemed to be adequately covered by the previous speaker, Hamish Walker, and I’m sure will be covered by many more contributions in the House this afternoon. So, in summary, this amendment bill will clarify and update gaps and inconsistencies in areas within the existing legislation, and I believe, therefore, this will ensure that there is clarity for the industry and clarity for our regulators, so thank you for the opportunity, Madam Deputy Speaker.

MELISSA LEE (National): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise, and it seems we are all in support, so I shan’t be taking the full complement of 10 minutes to actually speak on this particular bill. This bill amends the Crown Minerals Act 1991 to maintain the effectiveness and efficiency of the permitting regime established by that Act.

Sometimes in the House, when members actually debate, there is the title of the bill that comes up, and often members get very excited. I got very excited when the “Crown Minerals Bill” was going to be debated, and I thought I was going to be given an opportunity to once again have a conversation and oppose the devastating impact that the Government has actually created in the region of Taranaki. Then, lo and behold, I realised that we all talk in code sometimes. This particular bill isn’t the same one as the previous ones that we got really excited about. This one we agree on.

National, on this side of the House—the National Opposition—supports making minor changes to tidy up bits and pieces in the Crown Minerals Act 1991. I think there were actually 11 submissions. I wasn’t here when other members actually spoke, but there were 11 submissions, and members of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee actually sat through some of the hearings. I remember hearing some of the concerns that businesses actually had in terms of changes in the companies, for example, when there are takeovers.

This particular bill puts a huge financial penalty of up to $800,000 where change of control of the permit could attract penalties. Although that actually seems right, there were some concerns that were raised, and it was really interesting hearing those submissions, because sometimes there were inadvertent things that actually happened—for example, takeover of company. I think officials actually advised us that those things will not be taken under consideration when they are dealing with this particular aspect of the bill where the penalty will be charged.

I will only speak of one particular bit. We made several changes to new section 41AC, inserted by clause 8, to better regulate late applications for consent to change the control, and that’s the bit that I was actually talking about. For example, when there’s a takeover and they were late coming to notification, it was actually going to be OK. An application must still be submitted so that if a person has breached the rules of the control, they cannot revert the new entity. That was one of the things that we discussed.

We also recommended changes in new section 41AC to allow for no offence being charged whereby an application is still under consideration but a change in control had taken place, and only allowing for it when the Minister has explicitly denied the application. That seems pretty fair to me. I’m sure that other members of the committee will actually talk about a couple of other things, but, all in all, we are in agreement, and I commend this bill to the House.

GARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora, Madam Deputy Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. Look, the Green Party rises to support this legislation. A previous member mentioned it and described it as a bit of a spring-clean. I’d agree with that summary of the bill. I guess you could also call it a bit of a tune up of our Crown minerals regime.

What we have seen in the last 10 years is a huge amount of change in this sector in New Zealand. The trends globally are that we’ve seen some pretty high falls and lows of the oil price over the last 10 years, so what we have seen is a number of companies enter New Zealand but also exit New Zealand. I’m thinking of the likes of Petrobras, Apache, the misnamed New Zealand Energy Corporation—which is actually based in Canada—and a host of others. What we’ve seen overseas is a trend towards consolidation and operators taking over other operators’ permits as part of the response to the market conditions, so it’s absolutely correct that this legislation deals with when a change of operator condition occurs.

Now, the risk, of course, is that a company, maybe at the end of a field’s life, does change the permit operator to another one. Now, what no one, I think, in this House, or this country, indeed, wants to see is cowboys taking over permits without any sort of ministerial oversight or consent and then not acting in the national interest. We have seen a number of adverse effects occur overseas, and we’ve seen some in New Zealand, including some of the water pollution under the Kapuni well sites, so it’s eminently reasonable to make sure that a change of permit operator requires ministerial consent. The Green Party is wholeheartedly behind that. It’s a good, common-sense change.

I want to thank the submitters to the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee. While the bill didn’t engender the heat and light that the later Crown minerals amendment bill dealt with, which dealt with the offshore oil and gas ban and the transition towards clean energy, we did see 11 submitters: five from industry, three from NGOs, and one from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment. I’d like to thank them.

Now, I want to speak directly to the environmental NGO submitters, because I think they had some legitimate concerns which were addressed by the committee. As the committee’s report makes clear, there were some amendments and there were some clarifications needed to provide assurance on two key issues. The first was around schedule 4 land, and the second was around authorisation of activities on land adjacent to permits. To take that first, now, quite—I think—legitimately, one could have read the amendment as originally drafted, which is that the same activities that could occur on a permit could occur on adjacent land. Now, this is quite a worry, of course, because, for example, if you’re a farmer with land adjacent to another farmer with a permit over it, you wouldn’t want to see those activities occurring on your land, because there would not be a permit over that land. So what the committee has made clear is that these activities are only of a minimal nature. What we did see the legislation clarify was that the authorisation does not give the permit holder the same power as the permit.

The only activity authorised to occur on the adjacent land is a geophysical survey. Now, this raised another key issue for the committee, because geophysical surveys encompass a whole range of different activities: everything from seismic surveys to gravity surveying, through to radiometric and magnetic surveys. But when it comes to the seismic surveys, this is an area that I’ve paid a lot of attention to with regard to the impact on rural New Zealand over the last five, six, seven years.

What we’ve seen in areas such as Taranaki is that vast swaths of that landscape are covered in seismic surveying. These are packages of explosives—it can be about 2 kilograms’ worth of explosives—buried underground to try and ascertain some information about the resources underneath. Now, what we have seen, I believe, is around 1,300 packages, or seismic survey blocks, through Taranaki, which weren’t given any sort of landowner authorisation. Now, this is a big concern, because I would put it to the House that this is more than a minimal activity—you’re literally digging up fields and burying explosives. What we know from overseas data is that a significant portion of those packages don’t actually explode, so what you have across Taranaki is unexploded packages literally littering the landscape. Now, what is a concern is—as clarified—that these activities can occur on adjacent land. So it was really great to see clarification from the officials—which has been clarified in the legislation and the report—that seismic surveys do not constitute a minimum-impact activity.

I think this is good news, but I would urge the oil and gas industry and I would urge Federated Farmers, on behalf of their constituents, to actually pay more attention to this issue. What we do want to see, I think, is a code of conduct to make sure that farmers aren’t getting an unfair deal, that they aren’t being hoodwinked, and that they aren’t being pressured. I’ve been in rural communities where, literally, farmers have broken down in tears because of the impact of oil and gas companies who—their quote—“have pulled the community apart and have literally lied to people’s faces”. I think a code of conduct would really strengthen that relationship, because what the industry needs is a social licence to operate.

Now, the second key area where I was trying to seek clarification on the committee was this schedule 4 issue, because Kiwis, rightfully, fought back against previous plans to open up schedule 4 land to mining activities. That was clarified in law. I remember that I was at the head of the march. I think there were about 50,000 Aucklanders marching down Queen Street, so it was quite a legitimate concern for submitters such as Environment and Conservation Organisations of New Zealand, who said that this legislation allows access to schedule 4 land in clause 14.

So what the committee has made crystal clear—because that was a legitimate concern as to the way you could read the legislation—is that with a new section 54A in clause 14, which clarifies that schedule 4 land is only “common, marine, and coastal area”, this is not schedule 4 land. This is not the most pristine, treasured, loved places that Kiwis fought so strongly to protect. So I’m glad that this legislation, while being a tune up, was tuned up even more to make sure it was providing assurance to people who had some concerns that it was going further than the minor amendments it was ostensibly trying to produce.

The key issue the Green Party had with the legislation was that while it was making some minor tinkering, it wasn’t getting to the actual engine of the Crown Minerals Act, which is the purpose clause. Now, the purpose of the Crown Minerals Act, as amended by the previous Government, was to add the promotion of oil and gas and other extractive activities. Now, I do not think that is the role of the Government.

The role of the Government is to make sure there is appropriate oversight and appropriate regulation and that the environment and worker safety is protected. I don’t believe it is the job of the Government, particularly in a climate change - threatened world, when the world’s top scientists are saying that we have 12 years left to avert catastrophe—the purpose of our main regulatory body dealing with extractive activities says in its purpose that it is to promote it. Now, I believe this must change, much like the estimated $88 million in fossil fuel subsidies that have been given to the country by independent academics. These are some of the actions that we can take, following on from this tune up.

So I’d like to thank the committee, and particularly the chair, Jonathan Young, and all the members and the submitters. Can I please clarify once again to those environmental NGOs that this is not about opening up schedule 4, this is not about opening up the regime to allow more seismic surveying on adjacent lands, or, basically, providing a new loophole to circumvent the existing rules, and this is about making sure we don’t have cowboys operating. What this Government is doing is starting the process for a just transition. It’s the only fair thing for these communities and the workers. But the great news, as we know, is that clean energy produces four times more jobs than fossil fuels. Taranaki, in particular, has a bright future as an area of marine energy—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Could the member speak to the bill. Speak to the bill.

GARETH HUGHES: —excellence. While we’re not trying to see, as permits change, cowboys enter the market, what we are trying to see is a just transition for New Zealand, for Taranaki, and for those workers. Kia ora.

ANDREW FALLOON (National—Rangitata): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, it’s a pleasure taking a call on a Crown minerals bill that the entire Parliament can support. It’s really fantastic to hear the Greens are supporting it, and I can only assume that David Seymour will be as well, so congratulations to Parliament on supporting a Crown minerals bill. I can only surmise that the reason for that is because it was prepared by a former National Government.

It’s a very straightforward bill, as has been said this afternoon by a number of speakers. The primary requirement in it is that parties seek consent for a change in control of a tier one permit three months before the change is intended to take place. It also sets a number of requirements or tests that a Minister needs to be satisfied that are met, particularly around health and safety and also the Maritime Transport Act.

So we did, as has been said, receive a number of submissions on the bill. I sat on the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee that considered this bill. One of the other changes that is also contained in the bill that we considered—or at least I considered at length—is in relation to how the bill “Clarifies … an access arrangement is needed for access to Schedule 4 land for minimum impact activities.” That intrigued me a bit because, as has been said by Gareth Hughes, there has been a lot of discussion, quite a few years ago now, about the level of the activity that should, or does, occur on schedule 4 land. So I went off and did a bit of research around that, just to see what is meant by that provision and what already exists on schedule 4 land. I was intrigued to find there are at least three mining permits on schedule 4 land already. One was granted in 1996 for public recreational gold mining on the West Coast; another one was granted in 2000 and relates to underground mining for quartz, gold, silver, and clay at the Broken Hills in the Coromandel; and the third one is from 2005 where a consent was granted for gold and gemstone mining on the Hart River in the Paparoa National Park. So there is, I guess, despite what Mr Hughes has said previously, already a level of activity that does occur on schedule 4 land.

We did receive 11 submissions on the bill. A bunch of those were from industry players, including OMV New Zealand Ltd, Shell, Bathurst Resources Ltd, OceanaGold, and also the industry group Petroleum Exploration and Production Association of New Zealand (PEPANZ), but we did receive one from the Law Society, and also one from Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu. This one interested me as well a little bit because it did talk at length about the Health and Safety at Work Act and also the Maritime Transport Act. It did note that neither bill contains any reference to Te Tiriti o Waitangi. That, of course, was outside the scope of what our committee considered, but I think in future that might be something that future parliaments might want to consider.

As I’ve said, they were predominantly industry groups, but there were a bunch—or a couple at least—from environmental lobby groups as well, and I think Gareth Hughes has touched on that. The first one of those was from Protect Karangahake Incorporated. They were concerned that there had been insufficient consultation on the bill. They go on to say that there was no consultation with “any environmental or public interest groups” in relation to the bill. That comment was, I was going to say echoed, but it was also voiced by a group called Environment and Conservation Organisations of New Zealand (ECO), which is an umbrella group of 48 environment and conservation groups. They said that they were disappointed but not surprised at the insufficient level of consultation. Well, I have to tell both those groups that that’s what a select committee process is for. That was the consultation. We went out for a very lengthy period of time, sought submissions from submitters. We had 11, which was probably no surprise—it is a reasonably non-controversial bill. But that was consultation. They were able to come along to Wellington and speak to their submission and make their views known on the bill, which they did. As Gareth Hughes has mentioned, the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee did consider their submissions and did make some changes actually based on their submissions, and so I thank them for that.

I do have to contrast that process, though, with—I made reference earlier to a previous Crown minerals amendment bill. We had a very lengthy period of time on this Crown minerals bill—quite a few months we took to consider it. We went out, we sought lengthy submissions from submitters, and that unfortunately didn’t happen with another Crown minerals amendment bill. I know the Deputy Speaker is looking at me now because I have to stick to the current bill, which I will, but it did just really highlight to me that it was a very non-controversial bill that we had a full select committee process on—several months that we considered the bill for. And there was another Crown minerals amendment bill which was far more dramatic and had nothing like this select committee process—in fact, only a matter of weeks. So I think the Government should reflect on that and perhaps, when they do bring controversial legislation to the House, they do give it the period of time it deserves. This bill is non-controversial and so I don’t want to delay it any further and I commend it to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This next call is a split call and I call Jo Luxton.

JO LUXTON (Labour): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I’m really pleased to stand here and take a call on the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill at its second reading. I mean that. It’s nice to stand here and take a call, because I feel like I’ve been sitting in this House for several days and we’ve never quite got to it. So it’s nice to be here.

I want, first of all, to thank the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee. Obviously, I was a part of that select committee, but I didn’t come on to that select committee until nearer the end of this process. I have to say that it’s a really collegial select committee, and I think that’s really good because it ensures that we work well together and we look at legislation quite thoroughly, and that helps it to come back to the House in the state that you see it today. We’ve examined this piece of legislation and, as has been said before, we’ve agreed unanimously on this piece of legislation but we’ve added some amendments to it through the select committee process. I also want to thank Jonathan Young for his great chairmanship. He’s very good at seeing us have our say and, as I said, it’s really collegial.

I want to thank the submitters. We’ve heard today that there were only 11, which is a small number, but, as Jonathan Young mentioned in his contribution to the second reading, there are only a small number of participants that work within this industry. We appreciated the views that they expressed, as the members have mentioned. Some of the things that they brought up we considered really carefully and, as a result of some of those things, they have been added into the piece of legislation. I think that’s the beauty of our Parliament and democracy: that people can come and submit to these select committees, and we do consider what they say very carefully, and they actually can make changes to legislation.

I just want to move on to the bill itself. It’s not a large piece of legislation; someone referred to it before as “tidying up”, and that is what it does. It’s not large, but it’s actually an important bill, and it’s quite technical. It’s quite tricky to get your head around. It addresses regulatory duplication gaps, errors, and inconsistencies with the current Act. One of the important aspects of this piece of legislation is that it will provide clarity for the industry and regulators around permitting confusion. We know that, if we have confusion within this industry, it actually could be quite catastrophic. So it’s really important that everyone has clarity around these rules. We know that the nature of our petroleum industry is changing, and we need to ensure that our legislation reflects the changes that we are seeing.

When we think about the changes that are happening within this industry, it’s really important that we really keep the changes in mind, because there are risks that come with change. When we’re managing change, it does need to be, I believe, in this particular industry, managed by the Crown through retaining oversight of the acquisition and divestment activity occurring within this sector. The current legislation says that where you have a change in control of a permit operator, which is someone who operates the day-to-day management of a permit—if it changes from one permit participant to another—at the moment, that can happen without any oversight, but this new piece of legislation will ensure that the Minister or a delegated authority must give consent to someone to become an operator.

This is really important, and if you want to become an operator there are certain criteria that you have to meet as well. You must ensure that you are financially viable, because there’d be nothing worse than being in charge of the clean-up or the decommissioning of a mine at the end of its life and going broke. Therefore the work is not going to happen—well, it will happen, but it’ll be at someone else’s expense. So we need to ensure that people have the financial stability when taking on these particular roles.

Another thing about this that I want to bring up is that it gives certainty to the Minister and the public of New Zealand because, as we know, this type of industry is watched very closely by the public. It will help ensure that the public can see that the industry is really trying hard and is adhering to strict guidelines to ensure that it is sticking to the rules that it has agreed to. Thank you.

MAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you very much, Madam Assistant Speaker. I stand today, too, in support of the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill in its second reading here today. And, as my colleague Melissa Lee said earlier, she got excited when she thought she was going to be talking about Taranaki—and so did I. But the tone of my presentation and my contribution today is going to be somewhat more subdued because we are, in fact, on this side of the House, supporting it and, as Andrew Falloon has just said, why wouldn’t we, when this was initiated last year.

It was actually introduced as a bill to the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee on 5 April this year, and they’ve reported back in seven months. So, in terms of a select committee process and the consultation required, it’s probably very timely. Across that time during the process, 11 submissions were received, and five of those were oral submissions heard here in Wellington. But what gave me great comfort when I read the departmental report was that, prior to preparing the bill, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) had consulted with a wide range of interest groups and organisations, including the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, the Ministry for the Environment, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Department of Conservation, the Ministry of Justice, the Environmental Protection Authority, the Office of Treaty Settlements, and Treasury. And what did give me comfort was that MBIE also consulted with the Petroleum Exploration and Production Association of New Zealand, which we know as PEPANZ. They consulted with Straterra and Greymouth Petroleum—not to be confused with a major town on the West Coast of the South Island of New Zealand, in my electorate, but Greymouth Petroleum being a major exploration company in the North Island. There was also some broader stakeholder contribution as well.

The bill makes some minor amendments to the Crown Minerals Act 1991, and it’s simply tidying up some of the duplication and confusion and inconsistencies that we saw in the Act. Even with the submitters who came along to the select committee, it became clear that there was confusion around some of the parts of the existing Act, and as a result there were recommendations made that there should be some changes made to different sections and parts simply to clarify the exact meaning of those parts to avoid that confusion in the future.

One of the biggest changes that have been made is in terms of the prosecution of cases, where the change of control of a permit participant company who fails to notify the energy and resources Minister would now be an offence under this Act and could, in fact, attract a fine of up to $800,000. It did come as a surprise to me that, prior to this change, this was not actually considered an offence for non-compliance. I suggest that now, with a fine of up to $800,000, this will certainly bring about a change of behaviour. If anyone was considering not notifying the Minister, there is nothing like a deterrent of $800,000.

The select committee recommended that clause 23 be added to this bill so that it confirms the change of control of a permit operator. Now, permit operator is quite different to a permit holder. The permit operator is the person who has the day-to-day responsibility of managing the mining operation. So this clause 23 will now say that if this change of permit operator is not completed, there are now provisions in this bill. But it also has a transitional period so that if there were permits that were operational and this bill comes into place before the transition of the mining permit, then the unintended consequence of breaching the new Act rather than the old Act means that there would not be an offence under this provision of clause 23. So I commit this bill to the House. Thank you.

TAMATI COFFEY (Labour—Waiariki): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I rise to take a call on this Crown Minerals Amendment Bill. I feel a bit sorry that my colleagues over there aren’t able to see the glory in this bill or the more recent amendments that we’re going to be making in terms of the petroleum, gas, and oil permits and explorations. Both Maureen Pugh and Melissa Lee signalled that they were ready to get up and have a good go at this one. Unfortunately, this is the very technical bill—very technical to the point where this won’t make the news tonight, but it will make life—

Matt Doocey: It will if you say something.

TAMATI COFFEY: Ha, ha! It will make life pretty easy, in fact, as we do a spring-clean of this particular Act as it relates to permits. This has been an interesting bill to sit over. As I say, it’s incredibly technical. If you don’t operate in this space, you won’t know that this is the bill that seeks to clarify things that need to be clarified, plug the holes, plug the gaps, and fix it up so that it is fit for purpose.

I want to say thank you to the 11 submitters who fronted up. Te Rūnanga o Ngai Tāhu was one of them, and I hope as they look at our report as it’s been reported back, and as they look at the amendments that we’ve made to the bill, that, actually, they will feel a lot better that we’ve addressed some of the concerns that were made. The primary one is—and this is one that’s been touched on by a lot of my colleagues and previous speakers—that, under the principal Act, a change of permit operator requires the prior consent of the Minister of Energy and Resources or another delegated authority. It’s because of this that the Minister will then have the oversight and be able to understand the appropriate transactions in this sector. It is very important to understand who’s got one of these permits and, should it change hands, it’s very important that the Minister has that oversight to be able to know.

The Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee have examined the bill. We’ve unanimously recommended, from all sides of the House, that it be passed with amendments. The recommendations are put there for everybody to see. There’s not much more that I can say about this particular bill, so I commend it to the House.

LAWRENCE YULE (National—Tukituki): This is a great afternoon. This whole House agrees with this piece of legislation.

Matt Doocey: Not ACT.

LAWRENCE YULE: Oh, ACT doesn’t? My apologies, Mr Whip. So the whole House bar one, who doesn’t agree with this legislation. It has been through the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee. It is largely a National Party bill that has been amended, and for that I think we should be grateful in the last hour, in the second to last sitting week of the year.

So this Crown Minerals Amendment Bill is actually a tidy-up. And I do want to touch on some things that have been made by previous speakers, particularly the comment from Gareth Hughes about cowboys, because I am not aware of any cowboys operating in New Zealand of any significance in terms of the space, and I think it does an injustice to the industry and all the professionals involved in those industries who support the extraction of minerals from New Zealand for the betterment of our nation and supply jobs and all those things. So I don’t think I’ve seen any significant examples of cowboys.

What we’re addressing here is largely some commercial realities and some changes. If, in fact, there is a change of ownership or a shareholding dilution or some other change of the entity that has the permits, then there needs to be a way so that can be represented and managed in a commercial way. So obtaining a permit from a Minister pre - a change of ownership in the commercial world we operate in—it’s not that easy. If you have shareholders, if you’re on the share market, if there are a whole lot of things, then that’s not an easy thing to do. And in reality what we’re trying to do is manage protecting the environment and the concerns that people have versus the commercial reality of the management of the Crown Minerals Act.

Why are we doing that? We’re doing it because New Zealanders want to make sure companies follow the rules under which they’ve been granted consents, whether it’s the Resource Management Act rules, Crown minerals rules, the local authority rules, or, in fact, any other rules. They want to make sure that their compliance is sought and managed and looked after. But also, on New Zealand’s interests and on behalf of the environment, we want to make sure that if there is a liability associated with a permit or a clean-up or other activities in the future, people can’t contract out by changing ownership of those liabilities.

So there are new sets of regimes, there are significant fines, and there are a whole lot of technical things in this bill. But in reality what it does is it modernises the Crown Minerals Act. It allows for some very sensible commercial realities to play in the terms of change of ownership of various entities, and, importantly, it makes sure that the nation of New Zealand looks after its environment and its liabilities are looked after by subsequent owners. And, in closing, I think this is a wonderful example across the Parliament of how we can all agree on doing something that’s very sensible. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.

PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai): Look, don’t get too excited, because I’m pretty excited! Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. It’s my pleasure to be speaking on exciting things like—let’s get the title right for starters—the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill (No 2). It is the second reading.

I do want to acknowledge the hard work of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee. It wasn’t as hard-working as when I was on it, but they still work hard; they still do good work—just not as good as when I was the deputy chair. But, none the less, this is an important piece of work.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I apologise for interrupting. I don’t think it is “(No 2)”; I think it’s (No 1).

PAUL EAGLE: (No 1)? Sorry.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): If we’re going to be correct.

PAUL EAGLE: That is actually my pen mark on here. [Interruption] No, no—you’re welcome to inspect it, or I can submit it formally for inspection. I wouldn’t want to offend Chris Bishop any further, but he’s not here to be offended.

Now, can I just say that this will—[Interruption] Hold it; can I just repeat and just acknowledge the words of the Leader of the House, the Hon Chris Hipkins, who introduced this bill, when he said that this would be one of the less controversial things in Parliament. And so, I think that’s good. People have tried to be a little tribal and a little negative. They’ve started the engine but they haven’t got far, and that’s OK. It’s been a long week; a few weeks to go. But, look, I’m going to repeat what others have said: it’s, really, largely a technical bill that makes amendments to ensure that the existing Crown minerals arrangements operate effectively. There we are.

So it’s going to amend the Crown Minerals Act 1991, and the Act itself provides for the efficient allocation of rights to prospect for—that’s one; to explore for and mine Crown minerals; and the effective management and regulation of those rights. So it’s fairly technical. We’ve heard others say it’s a bit of a clean-up. A “spring-clean”—we heard that from several; a clean-out. And so that’s one of the great things—oh, I don’t want to use words like “clean-out”. They might offend people. But, look, can I just say that it is one of those bills that do that effectively, and that’s why it’s good. I also wanted just to note—to reflect a bit and just reinforce—some of the points that are being made and the fact that this Government is committed to that just transition to net zero emissions—well, a net zero emissions economy.

Now, we heard a little bit of argy-bargy around cowboys—you know, who are they, where are they, that we shouldn’t be saying things like that. Look, it’s much more around just saying that this tightens up the rules, makes the framework clear, and doesn’t allow any in. So if there are some out there, hanging around on their horses ready to come riding in, it puts a stop to that. I think that’s the point that Gareth Hughes was making—to say that it stops that—and so the recent change to the Act to halt future offshore gas and oil exploration permits is a signal from this Government so that the industry and the community of New Zealand can make that transition.

I also note that there has been an acknowledgment to look at the wider Crown Minerals Act and ensure that it is futureproofed to meet the needs of all New Zealanders. That’s why, I understand, there’ll be a wider review of the Act, and that will be engaging many more people, because I think we had 11 submitters; so a small group but an important group. My understanding and feedback from those on the committee is that that was a good number of people feeding back into this process. The select committee did examine the bill and unanimously recommended that it pass with some amendments. Those have been discussed, and I’m going to leave it there—

Tamati Coffey: What’s your favourite one?

PAUL EAGLE: We won’t talk about my favourites. I think we’ll now just simply commend the bill to the House. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Accident Compensation Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Hon PEENI HENARE (Associate Minister for ACC) on behalf of the Minister for ACC: I move, That the Accident Compensation Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

I thank the members of the Education and Workforce Committee for their work and consideration of this important bill. I would also like to note the work of the Hon Michael Woodhouse as the previous Minister for ACC. Many of the policy proposals that are in this bill were developed and worked on during his term as Minister, and I think that deserves recognition. I would also like to thank those who made the submissions on the bill. Alongside the submissions on the proposed amendments, many submitters shared their very personal experiences of the scheme and the Accident Compensation Corporation. I thank those submitters for taking the time and making the effort to share their often deeply personal experiences with the select committee. We have directed officials to take those submissions into consideration in the course of their work to improve the scheme.

New Zealand’s no-fault accident compensation scheme has been a source of national pride, and this Government is committed to ensuring that the accident compensation scheme remains fair, transparent, and accessible for all claimants. Overwhelmingly, people who are injured receive an excellent service from ACC in terms of their treatment and their rehabilitation. As such, the bill makes a series of changes to boundaries rather than at the core of the scheme.

First, this bill addresses a gap in ACC coverage for families of employees who are posted overseas in the course of their employment. I believe this is a vital change to make, as we do not want to discourage people from representing New Zealand’s interests abroad because of concern about the medical coverage for their families.

The bill also amends the interface between weekly compensation and superannuation to provide for fairer transitions for those people who are injured close to retirement age. The change means that people will be able to receive up to two years of weekly compensation and superannuation before transitioning on to superannuation. This will provide a fairer, more consistent relationship between weekly compensation and superannuation to provide for fairer transitions for those people who are injured near the end of their working life. It is important to remember that treatment and rehabilitation do not cease based on age.

The amendments to the interface between weekly compensation and superannuation align with our commitment to review the restrictions on superannuitants being able to receive both weekly compensation and New Zealand superannuation. This is particularly vital given the changing nature of work for the over-65 workforce, and in providing security for those who have contributed to New Zealand society over the course of their lives.

One of the amendments relating to this interface addresses the declaration of inconsistency by the Human Rights Review Tribunal that the requirement to elect between weekly compensation and superannuation was discriminatory on the basis of age. The amendment in the bill will mean that a client’s entitlement to weekly compensation as a surviving spouse or partner will no longer be affected by whether they are also receiving weekly compensation. Most surviving spouses or partners, including those of superannuation qualification age or older, will be entitled to a maximum of five years of weekly compensation based on their deceased spouse’s or partner’s earnings at the time of the fatal injury. I am pleased to be introducing this important amendment, which ensures consistency and fairness between the entitlements received by surviving spouses, regardless of their age.

One change recommended at the select committee stage was to insert a new commencement timing of 1 July 2019 for the amendments relating to the interface between weekly compensation, New Zealand superannuation, and veterans pension. This change is for funding purposes.

The bill disestablishes the historic Accident Compensation Appeal Authority, as it is no longer cost-effective or efficient to maintain it given the low number of appeals to the authority. This reflects the Government’s intention to remove the complexity in costs that can arise as to whether the authority or the District Court should hear an appeal. The change will mean that all new appeals under the repealed Acts will be heard by the District Court, which will ensure that claimants’ rights are maintained throughout the process.

I’ve also included in the bill some minor and technical amendments that will increase ACC’s operational efficiency and improve processes for the biennial levy rounds. It is important that we take these opportunities for regulatory maintenance to ensure the effectiveness and efficiency of regulatory systems into the future.

In closing, this Government is proud to work towards creating more equitable outcomes within the accident compensation scheme framework. It is a vital component in our social contract, and we look forward to improving outcomes for all New Zealanders into the future. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Kia orana, Madam Assistant Speaker. Tēnā tātou e Te Whare. It is, of course, now the season of peace and goodwill, and it’s lovely to see that at least—

Hon David Bennett: That’s in a week’s time. Not now.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: My very fine Catholic colleague beside me is correcting me in the liturgical calendar, for which he is noted for his expertise. I was going to make the point that it’s been lovely to see the harmony that has broken out in the House, at least since the end of question time today, in the last three bills, and I see no reason for that not to continue. Could I thank the Associate Minister for the very clear summary of this bill that he has just provided in moving this second reading. In fact, as I find myself wanting to cover many of the points that he’s already covered, I am grateful for the fact that I’m taking the second call, because I really am left wondering what those at the tail end of this debate are going to find to talk about. But good luck with that. I, too, was once a new member of Parliament and had that experience, and I wish them well. I’m sure, because they are members of Parliament, they’ll find something.

But this is a serious matter and it is important, I think, right at the outset, to confirm that. As we did at the first reading when we supported the introduction of this bill, the National Party is definitely continuing in its support for the measure. In part, of course, that is because of the fact that it is a bill that, as the Minister noted a moment ago, originated under the previous National-led Government. I want to thank the Associate Minister for his generous acknowledgement of the Hon Michael Woodhouse in his speech. Mr Woodhouse is a very diligent member of Parliament, and he certainly tackled the ACC portfolio while he was Minister with considerable energy and intelligence. As I say, I want to thank the Associate Minister for that generous acknowledgment, and it is worth noting that although much of the work was happening under the previous National-led Government, the bill wasn’t introduced until April of this year and received its first reading in May under the current Minister.

Could I, as National’s ACC spokesman, thank the Education and Workforce Committee for the work they did. I’m not a permanent member of that committee, but because I hold that spokesman’s role I try to get myself subbed on to the committee whenever they are considering ACC business, and I had that opportunity. So I do want to acknowledge the chair and the deputy chair, both of who are here, and many other members for the very intelligent and collegial approach that they brought to their deliberations and the respectful way in which they considered the submissions that came before the committee. I’d also like to acknowledge the officials who gave, I think, very competent and helpful advice. They always do, of course, but it’s nice to have the opportunity in this House to acknowledge the officials for the service that they provide. Could I thank those members of the public and those with a particular interest in this topic who put submissions forward.

I noticed that previous speakers on the other bills that have been before the House have taken relatively short calls, so I won’t take too long in going through those, but I would just highlight the fact that the only matter that really caused concern to those who made submissions on the bill was the fact that this bill in itself is very limited in its scope. Many of the submitters who came before the committee were desirous of putting on record their concerns about other aspects of policy. While we were sympathetic to those concerns, and I believe there is a chance that the Government may be introducing a more comprehensive bill in this area that might give an opportunity for some of those concerns to be legislated for, in this particular instance the bill is very limited in its scope. As the Associate Minister noted, it makes some minor technical changes, and they are primarily to ensure fairness for those who are injured near to retirement age and also to streamline the complaints process to avoid confusion—or, at least, to remove confusion that exists at the moment.

As I say, many were hoping to be able to cover other matters. I hope that they might get that chance at a later date, because there certainly are some concerns about our accident compensation system. It’s a treasure, one that I think most New Zealanders are very grateful to have, but there are also some problems that exist with our accident compensation scheme at the moment, and I hope that in time they will be addressed.

Several people in their submissions indicated that while they are supportive of the removal of the election between weekly compensation and superannuation, the bill should go further to remove the transition from weekly compensation to superannuation entirely, and to allow injured people over 65 years of age who are working to be eligible for weekly compensation for as long as they are incapacitated. Some other submitters suggested the transition age should be raised to 67 years of age, or even perhaps as high as 70 years of age, but members were reminded by the officials, as we considered those appeals, that weekly compensation is compensation for lost earnings, and that it therefore must cease at some point, consistent with the likelihood that the individual would, if it were not for their injury, have retired from the workforce at some stage. The vast majority of New Zealanders, if they are still working up to the current retirement age, do tend to retire within a short time after that, although increasingly we are seeing many people continuing to work well into their 70s, including one or two members of this House.

Some submitters also commented on the proposed disestablishment of the Accident Compensation Appeal Authority, and we were advised that the authority is a historic entity that hears only a small number of appeals under the now repealed Accident Compensation Acts of 1972 and 1982. The majority of appeals now are heard by a District Court judge in the Accident Compensation Appeals District Court Registry. Because there have been relatively low numbers of appeals to the authority in recent years and there are currently no cases with the authority, it makes sense to remove this inconsistency and complexity in the disputes process that arises from having two separate bodies to hear appeals, and I really don’t think that New Zealanders have any reason to be concerned about the fact that this is happening.

However, as I said, at this point it’s not really appropriate to consider other matters that were raised with the committee, because they were outside the scope of the bill. As I indicated before, I don’t want to leave my colleagues who are to follow with absolutely nothing to say, so I’m happy once again to confirm the National Party’s support for this bill at its second reading.

JAN TINETTI (Labour): Kia orana, Madam Assistant Speaker. Thank you very much. It’s an actual pleasure to stand here this afternoon, because, being a member of the Education and Workforce Committee, sometimes with our agenda, we don’t always see eye to eye, but this was a bill that we could actually work together and come to agreement on. I concur with the Hon Tim Macindoe that it was a very pleasant experience to work through.

I would also like to acknowledge the submitters, who made a—[Interruption]

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Steady on, members. We’re nearly there—just another half an hour.

JAN TINETTI: I’d like to acknowledge the submitters as well, as the Hon Tim Macindoe did, because they made absolutely heartfelt submissions. Sometimes it was quite harrowing to actually hear some of their personal stories, and I was delighted to hear, in the Associate Minister’s presentation at the beginning of the debate on this reading, that they are going to be taking those submissions into account in the future work plan. As I said, there were some very tough stories to listen to, and it’s important that, even though they were out of scope of what we were looking at in this particular bill, we do take notice of everything that they were bringing up in telling those stories.

This bill does go some way to address some tidying up of the Accident Compensation Act 2001, and, as we’ve heard here from our two previous speakers, those ideas have been worked on over the two successive Governments; so they have been in plan for quite some time. This particular bill is bringing those through to fruition, and, as we’ve heard here, there’s going to be a lot that people are going to be talking about through this particular reading. So the one area that I wanted to focus on, which I’ve actually heard a lot about outside of the work that we have done in recent times, is the extending of the ACC cover to spouses and partners and dependants of New Zealand employees posted offshore.

When we were working through this particular work, it wasn’t until I was part of a parliamentary delegation to the Pacific—as were you, Madam Assistant Speaker, on that particular trip—that we actually heard about how important this was to those particular workers. I remember, in Vanuatu, one member of our fantastic post team over there telling us that this had become a real issue for some of the people wanting to be posted overseas, and it was actually putting some people off. This was actually the norm up until 1998. There was ACC cover for spouses and partners and dependants of those people up until then, but somewhere in the ether that’s been lost—the reason why we actually got rid of that. It’s not big in terms of monetary investment. It’s not a big cover for our country. It’s only half a million dollars, in reality, that it would actually cost, and yet that was taken away, and it stopped some people taking up positions overseas in New Zealand companies.

So I’m delighted that this bill brings that back in, that people don’t have to take that into consideration any more, that they can actually be clear that they will have ACC cover when they are an employee of a New Zealand company posted overseas, and that they can have the cover for those spouses and partners and dependants. I think that that’s a really good thing, and, as I said, I have been told that by people who have been posted overseas—that they were looking forward to this coming in in this particular bill.

As the Hon Tim Macindoe said, there’s a lot in there and there’s more there for people to cover, so I won’t take up much more time here this afternoon, only to say that I think it’s fantastic to see this coming through from the select committee, and I commend this bill to the House.

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. As our ACC spokesperson, the Hon Tim Macindoe, said it’s a great afternoon. Yes, it is a great afternoon, a very peaceful and harmonious afternoon, as we are supporting this bill. But I want to also acknowledge the Associate Minister, who acknowledged the Hon Michael Woodhouse as this bill was already in the pipeline. This was being worked on. So it was really good to see that the Government has taken this up, and very quickly in the year we saw that this bill was referred to the Education and Workforce Committee in May and we closed submissions on 29 June. It was good to see that we received 25 submissions from various organisations and individuals. Out of 25, 13 of them came to the select committee for an oral submission. I want to acknowledge them and thank them because it’s a great effort made by all of them to pick it up when it came for submissions before the select committee, and then make their submission and also appeal before the select committee. So I’m really grateful, as the chair of the Education and Workforce Committee, to all of those submitters.

During the select committee process, as other members have said, it was actually really good to work with all members and submitters, because this is a very straightforward bill, which we are supporting as it was already in the pipeline when National was in Government. One change that we made, which was about the commencement date, in the select committee process, was changing it to 1 July 2019. This was mainly to align the changes that we are making through this bill with the funding allocation that is there in Budget 2018. But other than that, it was quite straightforward.

I want to acknowledge all the submitters and also want to say that some of the things that came during the select committee process were not in the scope of this bill, but the select committee has already recommended to officials that that all should be taken into consideration when there are any substantial changes made to the ACC scheme. My understanding is that that is what the Government intends to do. As the Minister said in the first reading speech, the Minister wants to bring some substantial changes to the ACC scheme. So I’m really hopeful that the views and experiences that we heard during the select committee process of this bill will be taken into account when the Minister and the Government go ahead with making those changes. Of course, they will have the opportunity to come back and talk to the select committee again. Talking about submissions, it was really good to hear various experiences from people, and it’s contributions like those that we had during the select committee process that help us make some meaningful changes.

It wouldn’t be possible to acknowledge and read through all submissions, but I just want to acknowledge one which was from Ernest Heads. It was also covered in the Otago Daily Times. So Mr Heads struggled for several years to get a fair deal. In 2008 Mr Head’s wife died after being struck by a car, and then he had to go to ACC. He was turned down. ACC wrote to Mr Heads telling him that he was only entitled to receive both his wife’s ACC compensation and his national superannuation for one year and he must then choose to receive either the ACC payment for the next four years or keep his super and relinquish the compensation. So these people have had several experiences with ACC. Some were within the scope of the bill, but many experiences that we heard were not in the scope of the bill, but I still want to thank them for their contribution.

So in this bill there are mainly two big—they’re not big changes, but in this bill, compared to other changes, there are two big changes that this bill intends to make, and we’ve already heard about those changes from other members. But, very quickly, I just want to say that one is about bringing fairness for people that get injured close to retirement age, because we cannot assume that when people retire at the age of 65 they’ll stop working. Our superannuation is not means tested, so it is possible that individuals will continue to work. In choosing between their weekly compensation and superannuation they’re losing that additional income that they would get. It’s a different standard for someone who gets injured close to the age of 65, close to retirement, and someone who gets injured before their 64th birthday. So it’s really important to bring that consistency into our ACC scheme, and that is what this bill intends to do.

The second change in this is about making the appeals process consistent, because at the moment we have two different authorities looking at the appeals process. To give that opportunity to people where they get a fair go and also they are heard under the same scheme and jurisdiction or legislation, it’s important that we have one kind of system looking at all the appeals. Currently we have the Accident Compensation Appeals District Court Registry and also the Accident Compensation Appeal Authority. So through this bill we are going to disestablish the Accident Compensation Appeal Authority and the appeals from here will be transferred to the District Court system. That way, what will happen is that everybody will have a consistent go when they’re making an appeal.

Of course, we want to look at the sustainability of the scheme—the cost of the scheme. It’s going to be around $1.16 million to $1.55 million per annum. We know that around 150 people a year are required to decide between the two options and 80 percent of people choose to go with the weekly compensation, because usually weekly compensation, as it is 80 percent of their income, is more than the superannuation. So, based on that, it’s a very good move. And just like other members who spoke before me, I support this bill. Thank you.

MARK PATTERSON (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. It is a pleasure to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to reiterate our support for this Accident Compensation Amendment Bill. For those that may be listening in or just flicking through Sky Sport on the way through to the test match in Pakistan, ACC does, just for clarity, refer to the Accident Compensation Corporation, not the “Alternative Commentary Collective”.

Of course, it is an absolute gem, as has been mentioned. It’s world-leading legislation, this. In 1974, I think, the third Labour Government brought this in. It’s very much part of our legislative process and our culture, really, and of how we do business and look after those that have had accidents or, indeed, death. One in three Kiwis actually made a claim on ACC in the 2016-2017 financial year, so it’s something that we utilise a great deal, and, of course, it takes much of the contention out of that.

Of course, we know that it’s actually been really well managed as well. We’ve got something like $30 billion in assets that back—

Hon Andrew Little: Nearly 40.

MARK PATTERSON: —or nearly $40 million, is it, coming up? Yes, it could well be. There’s a massive fund there that’s built up and it’s been well stewarded.

This has been referred to before as a piece of legislation that has originated, I think, from the Miriam Dean report, and it was picked up by the Hon Michael Woodhouse, as was mentioned earlier on before, and is now under the guidance of Iain Lees-Galloway. We commend all the work that has been done across both Governments to get this to where it is, and also, of course, within the select committee process, the officials that helped us work through what can be reasonably dry stuff, but they did it well.

The submitters, as has been mentioned—many of them were out of scope. They saw it as a chance—it’s a bit like Paul Eagle referring to the Crown minerals bill before. He said it was lighting people’s eyes up when they saw “Crown Minerals”, only to find it was a narrow bill. Well, this is very similar. A lot of those submitters came in to have their say on the ACC but were outside the narrow scope of what this bill seeks to address. But I would like to single out one submission: the submission of Warren Forster and Tom Barraclough—I think one is a lawyer and the other an academic down in Dunedin—who put an absolutely comprehensive submission in front of us. They’re absolute experts in this field, and I think it’s great that we’ve got Kiwis that come forward with a real interest in legislation to help the legislative process.

So, of course, this amends the Accident Compensation Act 2001. We’ve heard many of the provisions before; I won’t labour them too much. I think the one about allowing employees of New Zealand companies overseas to have access to the ACC—and also the Government, of course. We’ve got many of our people offshore, and, of course, now, under the Pacific reset and this much bolder foreign policy, we’ve got more diplomats out there as well, and we’re boosting our trade delegations overseas, so this will be very welcome for them as well, because I would imagine healthcare’s very expensive over there in many of these jurisdictions.

It removes the requirement for claimants to choose between ACC and superannuation. They can have both for a period after 12 months as it is now. There is, of course—just on that—a provision where, coming up to retirement age, it does allow for two years after the retirement age to continue to claim both ACC and the super. That allows for a just transition. I think, as Tim Macindoe pointed out in his contribution, that’s pretty fair. We can’t just have it open-ended, but with two years, I think, the committee felt we landed in a pretty fair place.

It also disestablishes—I was interested in this—the Accident Compensation Appeal Authority for 1972 to 1982 claims. There are a lot of people who are suggesting that we should be going back to that system where you don’t have to go to the District Court and there is provision for us to have our own appeals authority and just streamline that. I think, as members of Parliament, one of the significant roles that we do take on is ACC stuff, so members of Parliament will be interested in this as well.

So I won’t labour the points; I think they’ve been well made. It is a nice tidy-up piece of legislation, and New Zealand First is very pleased to continue supporting it. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker, for the opportunity to take a short call on the Accident Compensation Amendment Bill in its second reading. As a member of the Education and Workforce Committee, we have taken submissions on this bill, considered the bill, and reported it back with only the one minor amendment around the implementation date. I would like to acknowledge the chair of that committee, Dr Parmjeet Parmar, for the work that she has done in guiding the committee through the process and ensuring that those who submitted were given a fair hearing on this piece of legislation, which, of course, was a National Party bill. It’s great that one and a bit years after the election, we’re still here debating the good work that the last National-led Government put on the Order Paper and working our way through these changes.

This bill makes a few changes to the ACC legislation. They are important changes to help improve and make the system fairer. I would like to just comment briefly on some of those changes, but I won’t be spending too long on this bill, as I think it’s important that we continue its progress through the House.

The amendments are intended to maintain the effectiveness and efficiency of this regime while also improving its justness and fairness. They include removing the election requirement for ACC clients to choose between weekly compensation and New Zealand superannuation after being entitled to a year of both, and amending the current provisions to ensure that all clients who are close to or above superannuation qualification age receive up to 24 months’ weekly compensation. An important one is allowing surviving spouses to receive up to five years of weekly compensation regardless of age.

So I think all those changes relate to times in people’s lives which are very difficult and which can be very unexpected, but this provides some fairness and justice to the ACC scheme, to ensure that those people who are, through no fault of their own, found in those positions are provided some additional support to assist them through those difficult stages in their lives and are supported by the State and through the ACC system to help carry them through.

I just want to also comment briefly on the disestablishment of the Accident Compensation Appeal Authority. As has been mentioned, there are, essentially, two avenues for disputes to be worked through. This is going to streamline that through the disputes tribunal by disestablishing the Accident Compensation Appeal Authority and ensure that there’s only the one process now. There were very few cases going through this authority, so the impact will be very minor and, I think, by most accounts, quite well supported by those who have used it and who may need to use that authority in the future. So we commend this bill to the House and look forward to its continued progress and continued support and hope that it will be passed into law very shortly. Thank you.

JAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I too rise to take a fairly short call on this, the second reading for the Accident Compensation Amendment Bill to help speed this through its progress. We’ll see if we can get it passed tonight, eh?

This is a bill that makes minor changes, really. They were initiated by the previous National Government under the then Minister Michael Woodhouse and were initially intended, I understand, to be part of a regulatory bill—not actually deserving of a bill in themselves.

This has, I understand, been a good submission process in the Education and Workforce Committee, and that did provide the opportunity for people who have concerns outside of the scope of this legislation in relation to ACC to raise those concerns to this Parliament, which I think was of benefit to all of us, and I am sure the members on this side of the House who heard those submissions will be feeding those through for consideration on the Government’s agenda.

I would note that that had support from the Opposition as well, so I look forward to their support for progressive ACC legislation in the future. It’s just a shame that after the many, many horror years under their watch in relation to ACC, now they’ve come to the view that we need to listen to people. It would have been nice if they’d come to that view nine or 10 years ago.

What this bill does, to really briefly recap, is it clarifies the current provisions to ensure that all claimants who are close to or above New Zealand superannuation age receive up to 22 months of weekly compensation and removes the election requirement for ACC claimants to choose between compensation, weekly compensation, or New Zealand super, and it allows surviving spouses to receive up to five years of weekly compensation regardless of age and removes the requirement for another dependent to elect between weekly compensation and New Zealand superannuation. It moves from an annual review to a biennial review of the accident compensation, and it enables maximum and minimum liable earnings to be specified by a method linking it to the minimum wage and labour costs, indexed respectively to improve the workability of that levy.

So they are all pretty technical changes that will make a difference in some people’s lives, and others will not notice at all. The Green Party is happy to support this legislation.

DENISE LEE (National—Maungakiekie): Thank you very much, Madam Assistant Speaker. It’s my pleasure to add to colleagues from both sides of the House in support of the Accident Compensation Amendment Bill, and here in the second reading there are sensible changes, which have been identified during the National-led Government term. These changes were in the pipeline, and here we find ourselves, late in the afternoon before the House rises and very close to the House rising. The main changes ensure fairness for those who are injured near retirement age and streamline the complaints process to remove confusion—a couple of technical but really important points, none the less.

So under the previous National-led Government, we know that the ACC scheme turned around its performance, delivering better service, and we know that it’s now essentially fully funded, that there’s enough money to cover the ongoing cost of claims, and that levies should be able to come down even further. We’ve got a world-leading, no-fault scheme, and of that we can be proud.

I want to just touch on what the two broad objectives are, and the reason I want to do that is because I too sat on the Education and Workforce Committee and heard the personal submissions. I want to just touch on those submitters who came and talked to things that were out of scope, and I’ll say why I want to raise that, and it’s in a heartfelt sense. The bill has the two broad objectives: to ensure that ACC continues to provide cover and entitlements that are appropriate and consistent and sustainable, and ensure that we improve the Act and ensure that it’s effective and efficient with best regulatory practice.

Now, it’s not intended—and this came in the departmental report—that the words “effective and efficient” be read in a wider context. They were, and I think that’s what set off some really good and heartfelt—in fact, heart-rending—submitters to come before us in the select committee, and it was my first experience of seeing people cry. So that was quite hard for all of us sitting around the table, from both sides of the House. The tissue box came out in several instances, and they do deserve recognition because I think that for them, getting things off their chest was the right thing to do, and it was tough for us because we knew that we couldn’t do anything about it within the confines of this bill. There were actually 25 submissions on the bill and 13 of them were outside the scope of the bill, so you can see the level of emotion that was set off, I think, quite simply by the term “ACC”—in came the submissions.

One particular one was a submitter suggesting that there be provision for additional support for the permanently injured, single people that have little or no assets and who are about to reach retirement age. It’s related to the cut-off point between weekly compensation and superannuation, and the submitter suggested that ACC continue to pay weekly compensation to this group. Here is what she said—and I think she deserves some Hansard: “I’m a single person, renting a small home in a rural area, with no other means of support and few assets. I suffer from permanent injury sustained … I work part-time, however I am unable to achieve the hours required to reach full-time employment. Once I reach retirement age I will be required to move from Weekly Compensation to Superannuation. As a consequence, I will be unable to afford to rent the home I am in (and it would be unlikely I could find a cheaper one), or support myself. I will still have to work part-time for the rest of my life, even if my Weekly Compensation is maintained.”

We support this bill. Madam Assistant Speaker, thank you.

Hon CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I rise—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I apologise to the member. I’m sorry about that. I was hoping the previous call would go right through until the 6 o’clock break.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.