Thursday, 13 December 2018

THURSDAY, 13 DECEMBER 2018

THURSDAY, 13 DECEMBER 2018

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Business Statement

Business Statement

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): On Tuesday next week, third readings will be given to the Child Poverty Reduction Bill, the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Monetary Policy) Amendment Bill, the Conservation (Infringement System) Bill, and the Earthquake Commission Amendment Bill. On Wednesday, the House will debate the first reading of the New Zealand Māori Arts and Craft Institute Vesting Bill. Instead of a general debate, there’ll be a debate on an adjournment motion, at the conclusion of which the House will adjourn until 12 February 2019.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I thank the Leader of the House for that outline of next week’s programme, but would ask if he could give us some indication of when there might be some legislation to give effect to the Government’s announcement today with regard to the synthetic drug problem in New Zealand. The next question I would have is: how soon can we expect the Labour - New Zealand First Government, supported by the Greens, to introduce item No. 29 on the Order Paper, the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary Bill, which we’ve been waiting for more than 12 months to see passed through this House?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I believe that we’re getting close to the amount of time that that bill stayed on the Order Paper under the tenure of the last Government. But in terms of the first part of the question, I believe that the legislation around synthetic cannabis will be early in the new year. So within the first couple of months of the new year, I expect that we will have something to table in the House. That’s under development at the moment. I have just been reminded that I omitted something very important from the Business Statement—

Hon Christopher Finlayson: Very important.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: —very, very important from the Business Statement—which is that the Hon Christopher Finlayson will be delivering his valedictory statement to the House on Tuesday.

Speaker’s Rulings

Written Questions—Unsatisfactory Answers

SPEAKER: Members have raised with me the unsatisfactory responses to written questions provided by a range of Ministers. Questions about meetings, reports or events within a specified month have received a reply saying that ministerial diaries will soon be publicly available. According to the Cabinet minute, ministerial diaries from the beginning of the Parliament until 31 December this year will be released on 30 April 2019. A four-month wait for an answer to a written question is not satisfactory when the time frame in the Standing Orders is six working days. When the proactive diary release system is operating, it may be that a short wait for replies to general—often known as fishing—questions about monthly engagements and briefings is acceptable; however, that is not the case at present. I expect all of the replies that have declined to provide information on the basis that it will be available under the Government’s proactive release of diaries policy to be corrected before noon next Thursday.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. What you’ll see from the Cabinet paper and Cabinet minute that was released, as I’m sure you’ve read it very thoroughly, is that those diaries will be progressively made available by—the date you mentioned is the latest date for them to be made available. For example, in my own case, many of those are already posted online and my office are working backwards through my diary and posting them as they are completed. Diverting people’s attention away from that task to the task of answering written questions, which often deals with the same information, will actually delay the overall release of that diary information.

SPEAKER: Right, I just want to make it very clear that this House does not run according to the convenience of the Minister’s staff—[Interruption]—who interjected then?

Chris Bishop: Me.

SPEAKER: Stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Chris Bishop: I stand, withdraw, and apologise.

SPEAKER: I would have thought that that member of all people should have been the last to interject on that matter.

The point that I am trying to make is that there could well be a compromise whereby Ministers ask the staff to turn their attention first, over the next few days, to the areas covered by those written questions, get those up on the website, and then it would be appropriate to point towards those as part of the written answers. If that can’t be done, then the answers should just be done properly in the way that’s been ruled by Speakers in the past.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Further to the point of order, Mr Speaker. In the case of many Ministers, those questions cover the entire period of time in question, because they’ve lodged a series of questions for one week, and then the next week, and then the next week, and then the next week, and then the next week. So in order to be able to answer those, we do have to do the exercise of releasing all of the information. So it makes a lot more sense to do that in a systematic way rather than trying to answer those questions, some of which it will be impossible to answer by the deadline you have fixed, because the process of compiling them will take longer than the deadline that you’ve fixed, because it covers the entirety of the period in question.

SPEAKER: Well, I’ve had a good look at a large sample of the questions, and I’m satisfied that the vast majority of them could be answered if Ministers’ officers were properly organised and turned their minds to it. I am satisfied—I mean, there were only, I think, about 30 of them referred to me; there could well be a lot more. But Ministers have been in office for a year now. They’ve had fair warning of the requirements to have systems in place to answer questions from members of Parliament according to the Speakers’ rulings and Standing Orders, and I expect them to do it.

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister of Forestry): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Your reference to the word “convenience”, though, is not helpful. When you’re deluged with 5,400 questions, a large percentage of which are dross, it’s not a matter of convenience or otherwise.

SPEAKER: No, the member will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Hon Shane Jones: I withdraw and apologise. Speaking to the point of order.

SPEAKER: No. There is not a point of order. I just want to make it clear to Mr Jones that the comment that he made was one which in one way stated the obvious. We all know, and probably no one more than myself, that it is relatively easy to generate questions, some of which result in important information and most of which resulted not much. But it is the right of members of Parliament to ask those questions. The Government is doing a good thing as far as the proactive release of briefings and diaries. I know that the member himself has indicated that he wasn’t that comfortable with that approach, but we are heading towards that. It will be more efficient, but until that time, the current rules apply.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Finance

1. Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) to the Minister of Finance: What are the priorities for Budget 2019?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Budget 2019 will be New Zealand’s first well-being Budget, and is an important first step in embedding well-being at the heart of what we do as a Government. Today, in the Budget Policy Statement, I have announced five priorities for Budget 2019—

Hon Amy Adams: They were announced yesterday.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: —which will be delivered in May next year, and I want to thank the National Party for getting that excellent information out into the public arena. I have already announced that one of the priorities will be supporting mental health and well-being for all New Zealanders, and we are putting a special focus on those under the age of 24. The other four priorities are creating opportunities for productive businesses, regions, iwi, and others to transition to a sustainable and low-emissions economy; supporting a thriving nation in the digital age through innovation, social, and economic opportunities; lifting Māori and Pacific incomes, skills, and opportunities; and reducing child poverty and improving child well-being, with a specific focus on addressing family violence.

Dr Duncan Webb: How were the priorities selected?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The five priorities were identified through an evidence-based approach—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Borrowed off the previous Government.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: —that’s something Gerry Brownlee needs to learn about—using Treasury’s Living Standards Framework, evidence from sector-based experts, and the Government’s science advisers, and with collaboration among public sector agencies and Ministers, we developed five priorities which signify the outcomes that will make significant improvements to the long-term intergenerational well-being of New Zealanders. This represents a new way of thinking about how we develop our priorities as a Government and how we measure our success as a country.

Dr Duncan Webb: How will the priorities influence Budget bids?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Instead of setting high-level, values-driven priorities halfway through the Budget process, like previous Governments have done, the five Budget 2019 priorities were sent to Ministers and agencies at the start of the process, in Treasury’s Budget guidance document in September. This means that all Ministers and agencies will be collectively responsible for delivering on the priorities and that for the first time, they are being tasked with developing their own Budget bids through the lens of these priorities. Ministers are being asked to work together from the outset of the Budget process, across portfolios, on initiatives that will deliver the outcomes identified by the priorities. I am proud that the coalition Government is widening the focus of the Budget to look past traditional measures like GDP and to also look at what we can do to improve the well-being of our people, the health of our environment, and the strength of our communities.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

2. Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: What was the content of the text message she received from Richie Hardcore about Karel Sroubek?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: On behalf of the Prime Minister, an unsolicited message from Richie Hardcore expressing his opinion on the Karel Sroubek decision was received after the decision was made, and seeing as I got about 50,000 communications in the last year, it is not in the public interest to release the contents of all of those messages.

Hon Simon Bridges: Will she not release the precise content?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: There is no requirement for the Prime Minister to release any information that came in confidentially—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: The most open, transparent Government!

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: —and we don’t need a dictate from Nick Smith about openness and transparency. If he was talking about a lack of integrity and dishonesty, yes, I’d listen to him, but when it comes to talking about—

SPEAKER: Order! The Prime Minister will resume her seat. I want to remind the Deputy Prime Minister that he is answering for the Prime Minister. He has reflected on the integrity of a member in a way which is not in keeping with her normal kind approach. He will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Quite right, Mr Speaker. I apologise.

SPEAKER: And withdraw.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: And, obviously, withdraw.

Hon Simon Bridges: When she said earlier today that the text was from Richie Hardcore, stating he “knew the individual in question”—that is, Sroubek—can she elaborate on that and why she thinks Richie Hardcore would send her such a text?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, a number of texts—

SPEAKER: No, I am going to ask the Leader of the Opposition to rephrase at least the second part of it, because it goes to the state of mind of an individual for whom she has no ministerial responsibility.

Hon Simon Bridges: When she said earlier today the text message was from Richie Hardcore stating he “knew the individual in question”—that is, Sroubek—can she elaborate on that?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, a simple message, which, if pronounced properly, is quite capable of being understood.

Hon Simon Bridges: What does that mean?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: That means he expressed an opinion in a text supporting a decision that had been made prior to when he sent the text and prior to any idea from the Prime Minister’s point of view that this was going to be an expression that she would receive. I would believe that there would be many, many other people who expressed opinions on all sorts of matters. To construct that as being in some way engaged in persuading the decision maker is utter poppycock.

Hon Simon Bridges: Can she elaborate, when her chief press secretary said yesterday that the text was “commending the Sroubeck decision”, on what was meant by that and why she thinks Richie Hardcore would commend her?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf the Prime Minister, frequently, acting as a Prime Minister and being the Prime Minister, messages are received which are really a comment on what fellow Ministers have done, but, nevertheless, the communication goes to the Prime Minister, who is seen to be the No. 1 Minister of the land. It’s not complicated. In this case, a very simple text arrived saying that this person agreed with the decision—a decision, of course, which at that point in time had already been made, and well before the Prime Minister ever knew of the communication—and then no reply was sent back from the Prime Minister. To impute some sort of malicious, malignant engagement, which has been the last two weeks of their line of questioning, shows you what a bunch of Philadelphia lawyers they are.

Hon Simon Bridges: Given that the Prime Minister’s happy to discuss so much of the detail of the text, why doesn’t she just release its precise words?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, there’s no way this Government is going to infringe upon the privacy rights of all manner of people that communicate, just to satisfy a political leader in such desperate trouble to get attention.

Hon Simon Bridges: So, to confirm, was the text a thank-you text?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The reality is that the text wasn’t a thank-you text at all.

Hon Simon Bridges: Well, you just said it was.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No, no, don’t say, “Yes, it was.” No, it wasn’t. On behalf of the Prime Minister, it wasn’t. What it said was that, in short, it appreciated that that person perceived the decision to be the right one. But then, of course, countless emails and texts came in saying the reverse, none of which in any way had any shape of influence on the original decision, which has to be the point that that member needs to get home before any other conclusion can be arrived at.

Hon Simon Bridges: Has the Deputy Prime Minister seen the precise words of the text?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, I cannot possibly comment on the widespread research of the Deputy Prime Minister.

Hon Simon Bridges: What date was the text received on?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, I don’t have that information at this point in time, but I do know it was subsequent to the decision being made.

Hon Simon Bridges: When can we see submissions on the Sroubek deportation file by Richie Hardcore?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, not making this the final conclusion, but whenever has there been a case of such submissions being made privately to a Minister or anyone else and becoming immediately public property? We’re not going to infringe upon people’s human rights and rights of freedom and privacy just to satisfy a recalcitrant, malignant line of questioning based on nothing so much as a rumour.

Hon Simon Bridges: When did she notify her chief press secretary or any member of her staff of the text she had received from her friend Richie Hardcore?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, that question cannot be answered today—not that there may not be an answer to it, but because it was not significant. Like so many communications, there was no reason to rush off and tell anybody. That’s why there was no reply from the Prime Minister, because being flat out, working 18 hours a day, and getting all these tens and tens of thousands of communications, such a thing could be construed as a mere bagatelle.

Hon Simon Bridges: Why did her chief press secretary go to the press gallery after 6 p.m. yesterday to advise journalists of the text received by her from her friend Richie Hardcore?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Because the press secretary, being the responsible person that he is, realised the perverse misinterpretations that were being put around this country and he sought to forestall those, roadblock them down with honesty, and that’s what he’s done.

Hon Simon Bridges: Why was it only yesterday the text was disclosed, given questions were raised about Richie Hardcore’s role as far back as 7 November in this House?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, where this decision was concerned, Richie Hardcore had no role at all—end of story.

Hon Simon Bridges: How can we know that, when we won’t see the precise words of the text?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, who’s renowned for her honesty, take our word for it.

Hon Simon Bridges: In regard to her chief press secretary, was she—that is, the Prime Minister—hoping the press gallery would not pick up on the matter, given it was after 6 p.m. yesterday? [Interruption]

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, it was foreseeable that some in the press gallery, as is their wont to do, believe in fake news, and will pick up on it. But I have noticed that all questions and investigations today where that member is concerned have been challenging his conclusions to such a pathetic piece of material evidence.

SPEAKER: I didn’t want to interrupt members, but I have given some additional questions to the National Party as a result of the interjections while that question was being asked.

Hon Simon Bridges: How many texts has she received from Richie Hardcore since she became Prime Minister?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, I’m unable to answer that question. That member will have to put it down in written form and on notice, and he’s got a couple of days to do it.

Hon Simon Bridges: What is her understanding about why Richie Hardcore would text her about his friend?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, this is becoming more and more an obtuse line of questioning. The fact of the matter is probably 50,000-plus people have communicated with the Prime Minister’s office and the Prime Minister in the last year—maybe much more than that. But here’s the point: which part of the question concerns, Mr Bridges, any evidence of any wrongdoing at all?

Hon Simon Bridges: Have 50,000 people got the Prime Minister’s cellphone number?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, about 50,000 have got mine. I think probably about 100,000 have got hers.

Hon Simon Bridges: Is Richie Hardcore a close friend of hers?

SPEAKER: Order! That is not a matter for prime ministerial responsibility.

Question No. 3—Immigration

3. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister of Immigration: Other than Karel Sroubek’s lawyer and family members, who made representations on his behalf in respect of the deportation liability that was the subject of the Minister’s decision on 19 September 2018?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister of Immigration): I refer the member to the answer I gave when he asked me the same question yesterday.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: When he said yesterday that some people had requested anonymity, is former martial arts champion Mr Richie Hardcore one of those who requested anonymity?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: As I have said a number of times, I do not consider that it is in the public interest to name specific individuals. However—however—given that the Prime Minister has confirmed that she received unsolicited communication from Richie Hardcore, I am prepared to confirm to the House that I did not receive any communication from him prior to making my decision.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Does he consider an unsolicited text from a friend of Karel Sroubek to the Prime Minister to be a form of representation?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Not when it comes—

Hon Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. What ministerial responsibility does the Minister of Immigration have for text messages that are sent to the Prime Minister?

SPEAKER: I’m prepared to let the question go, because it could well be—if the timing was different and the Prime Minister did something with it, it could be a representation.

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Not when it comes—

Hon Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That wasn’t the question. If the member asked that question, it would be a legitimate question. That wasn’t the question that he asked. The Minister has no responsibility for the topic of the question that was asked. He could word his question in a different way to get it to a Minister’s responsibility, but the Minister doesn’t have that responsibility.

SPEAKER: Yes. I’m going to ask the member to ask it again. I thought it was right at the tangential edge of responsibility and I let it run, and I haven’t been convinced otherwise.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Speaking to the point of order—

SPEAKER: No, no. Just ask the question again so we get it straight. If it’s badly out, I’ll rule it out.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Well, I’ll reserve the right to speak to it. Would he consider an unsolicited text from a friend of Karel Sroubek to the Prime Minister to be a form of representation?

Hon Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The text message in question happened after the fact—after the Minister had made the decision. He has no responsibility for it.

SPEAKER: And we have had a number of questions about representations to the Minister. The Minister’s interpretation of whether something is a representation or not is something which he can explain to the House. I think he’s perfectly capable of doing that. Frankly, the more I listen to the question and the more I think about it, the less merit I think the Leader of the House has.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: No. I’ve asked the Minister to answer the question. There can’t be a point of order.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Well, it goes to the merit of the question. I would point out that the primary question was carefully worded not to include representations to the Minister of Immigration but about the deportation.

SPEAKER: That’s right, and if I’d ruled it out, the member might have a point, but I’ve ruled it in.

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: No, because a representation has to have some bearing on the decision that I make.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Has there been any communication between the Prime Minister and himself with regards to the text message from Richie Hardcore, and when did that first occur?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Yes, after I made the second decision.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Given he is now playing—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Tell Richie we’ve changed our mind.

SPEAKER: Order! I’ve just reversed my earlier decision. Thank you.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Given he is now playing the process of elimination game which he ruled out yesterday, will he now disclose the names of all submitters who made representations?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: No. As I said, I do not consider it in the public interest to name specific individuals. The only reason I’ve named Mr Hardcore is because his name has been raised in relation to the Prime Minister.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Does he not agree, though, that we have now reached the point where public interest outweighs any issues of privacy with respect to the deportation liability of Mr Sroubek?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: No. I don’t want people who in good faith made representations to be a subject of a witch-hunt from that member.

Question No. 4—Finance

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

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Yes, in the context in which they were made, given, and undertaken.

Hon Amy Adams: Does he stand by his statements that tax policy should work for the benefit of all New Zealanders, given that today’s Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update (HYEFU) figures show that this Labour-led Government will be collecting $17.7 billion more tax from New Zealanders over the next four years than was forecast prior to the election, despite growth having slowed?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The reason that that tax take is happening is because lots of people around New Zealand and lots of businesses around New Zealand are working hard, making profits, and ensuring that the economy ticks over. I think it’s a sad day when the National Party think that people actually doing well and paying their taxes is a bad thing.

Hon Amy Adams: Is he aware that today’s HYEFU figures show that even with growth slowing, that $17.7 billion of extra taxes mean every household will pay nearly $10,000 a year more tax over the next four years than was forecast pre-election?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I absolutely reject the premise of that question.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does it follow, as night follows day, that taxes usually go up when businesses are successful enough and private individuals are successful enough to pay the taxes?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Indeed, that is exactly right. What the books today show is that revenue from corporate tax is going up and that the contributions that people make through their PAYE is going up. I want to remind members on the other side of the House that with very few exceptions, this is all under the tax settings that they had in place.

Hon Amy Adams: Is the Minister aware that today’s HYEFU numbers show that households’ ability to save is getting worse and worse every year under this Government, as more taxes and higher cost of living take their toll?

SPEAKER: Order! Can I ask people to be quiet. I think people might have assumed, seeing that there’d been two bursts, that the question was finished. I’ll get the member to start her question again but remind her that as Mr Brownlee has pointed out, questions and answers should not have more than is necessary and certainly shouldn’t have more than two legs.

Hon Amy Adams: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Just to understand your ruling, I’m sorry, the question didn’t have more than two parts. I paused because of noise from the other side. That wasn’t two parts. Is that your concern?

SPEAKER: I think what we’ll do is we’ll start the question again, and I will listen carefully to it again.

Hon Amy Adams: Is the Minister aware that today’s numbers show that households’ ability to save is getting worse and worse every year under this Government as more taxes and higher cost of living take their toll?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I reject again the premise of the member’s question.

Hon Amy Adams: Can we take from today’s announcements that the transformational Government that this Minister says he’s leading really means higher taxes, lower growth, and households worse off?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No, we can’t take it. What we can take from the books that have been released today is that this Government is doing a good job of getting the balance right where we’ve got strong growth, where we’ve got a surplus, and where debt’s being kept under control and we’re finally addressing the massive social and infrastructure deficits that her Government left us.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: On the question of capacity to save, is it not a fact that, twofold: one, the Cullen fund is saving more now than ever before and, two, KiwiSaver has record numbers that are not matched by any previous period in our history?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Yes, both of those things are true, and the fact is that this Government has turned around what the previous Government failed to do, where they did not put in any Government contributions to the Superannuation Fund for—

SPEAKER: Order! We have had numerous Speakers’ rulings over the years about donkey drops to attack the Opposition.

Question No. 5—Transport

5. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Transport: Does he stand by all his statements on regional fuel taxes?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Transport): Yes, particularly the ones where I’ve ruled out any outside of Auckland.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: How can he stand by his statement in the House in October that “Well, it was scaremongering and misinformation for the Leader of the Opposition to go around claiming that the Government was in secret talks with Wellington councils to implement a regional fuel tax. It was never going to happen.”, when documents released under the Official Information Act show senior New Zealand Transport Agency officials were circulating documents in June this year, including a regional fuel tax for Wellington gathering $36 million, as an option to be considered, after an earlier version of that same document had been sent to Ministers?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I do stand by that statement. Officials provide advice on a range of issues, and in this case they provided briefings on the progress made by the multi-stakeholder Let’s Get Wellington Moving governance group, which includes a number of local councils. I specifically ruled out a regional fuel tax to that governance group on 8 October to make it clear that they should focus on other funding arrangements for that programme.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: How does he square his statement to Radio New Zealand in October “to be fair, you know, we’ve never had a plan to have additional regional fuel taxes” with a statement in a letter to the mayor of Hamilton: “If in the future, Hamilton City or the Waikato region wish to have a regional fuel tax, I would encourage you to engage with officials at the Ministry of Transport. Officials will be able to provide guidance [on] any future applications including the matters that will need to be considered and addressed to increase the likelihood of an application being approved.”?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, it was a pro forma letter that reflected the wording of the legislation—legislation which does not allow any more regional fuel taxes until after 2021. Myself and the Prime Minister have both ruled out any future regional fuel taxes.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: How can the Prime Minister have been correct on 31 October, when she told the House that “this Government never considered spreading a regional fuel tax.”?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Because we did not.

Question No. 6—Transport

6. KIERAN McANULTY (Labour) on behalf of PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai) to the Minister of Transport: What progress has the New Zealand Transport Agency made in investigating regulatory non-compliance in the land transport system?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Transport): The New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) advises me that all of the urgent cases have been closed. They are making good progress: 441 cases have been closed out of a total of 850, with work continuing on the remainder. I want to commend the board of NZTA and Meredith Connell, who they brought in to take over the regulatory work, for their efforts to clean up this mess and restore public confidence.

Kieran McAnulty: What actions have been taken by NZTA as a result of this work?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: As of today, there are 94 compliance actions under way. This includes 48 notices to revoke or suspend, 14 warnings, 26 immediate suspensions, and six licences to certify have been revoked.

Kieran McAnulty: What led to the New Zealand Transport Agency having to investigate this regulatory non-compliance?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: These lapses go back for the best part of a decade. Meredith Connell have advised that there is a lack of internal systems for dealing with compliance breaches and a lack of focus on compliance. Years of underfunding are clearly at the heart of it. Several industry bodies, media, and Government agencies have been raising concerns about compliance failure for a number of years, and until the Government changed last year, these concerns clearly fell on deaf ears.

Question No. 7—Housing and Urban Development

7. ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua) to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: What is the forecast cost of underwriting private developers through the Buying off the Plans scheme, and has this changed in today’s Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Housing and Urban Development): The forecast net cost of underwriting private developers through the Buying off the Plans initiative is expected to be zero over the first three years of the programme. The target for the Buying off the Plans programme over the 10 years is to achieve a net zero cash cost of the underwrite. This is consistent with the basis of the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development’s forecast, which remains unchanged. At 30 November 2018, the net expected cost of underwrites that I’ve approved over the life of the programme is less than $1 million.

The member may be interested to know that the business case modelled risk to the Crown in a number of scenarios as being between $0.3 billion and $0.7 billion over the 10 years. Note that that modelling has high and low volumes and different typology sizes; hence the range. The Crown will always have the flexibility to reshape the programme if there are material costs over the first few years. There was no change in the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update (HYEFU) to the forecast cost of underwriting private developers through the Buying off the Plans programme.

Andrew Bayly: Is Budget 2018 incorrect when it states, “A net $134 million of capital expenditure has been shifted to operating expenditure as a result of the ‘Buying off the Plans’ programme”?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I believe the Budget documents are correct.

Andrew Bayly: What does he say to the commentary on KiwiBuild in the HYEFU released today: “To achieve programme goals, there may be a need to change policy parameters and provide support to developers and/or homebuyers,”?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, every time Treasury does a HYEFU or any of the other economic statements that it’s responsible for, it considers upside and downside risk scenarios. The member’s referred to just one scenario, which includes the possibility of house prices dropping, but I would note that neither Treasury nor the Reserve Bank nor the Government believe that house prices will drop. House prices have stabilised in line with our policies, and on this side of the House we think that’s a good thing.

Andrew Bayly: What are the conditions that would trigger the underwriting of private developers for the amount of $210 million that would result in the Crown paying money to KiwiBuild developers who are unable to sell their houses at the agreed KiwiBuild price?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, the nature of the underwrite is that it’s triggered by a particular house not being sold.

Question No. 8—Education

8. SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga) to the Minister of Education: Does he believe the New Zealand taxpayers are getting value for money out of the fees-free scheme?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Yes.

Simeon Brown: Does the Minister think it is good use of taxpayers’ money that more than $50 million of the fees-free budget was wasted by students that either failed or withdrew during their first year?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: It won’t be $50 million. The member is making a number of very significant assumptions in order to get to that figure, including assuming that someone who withdraws from a course is withdrawing from an entire programme.

Simeon Brown: Well, then, has the Minister done the calculations, and, if so, how much is it?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: No, it’s not possible to do the calculations yet because the data is not available to do them accurately. We don’t know how many students have withdrawn at this point in the year.

Question No. 9—Health

9. ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour) to the Minister of Health: What announcements has he made about a response to synthetic drugs?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Earlier today, the police Minister and I announced a crackdown on the suppliers and manufacturers of synthetic drugs in response to an increase in drug-related deaths. We intend to classify as class A the two main synthetic drugs—5FABD and AMB Fubinaca—that have been linked to recent deaths. This will give police the search and seizure powers they need to crack down on suppliers and manufacturers, who also face tougher penalties, up to life imprisonment. We’re also creating a temporary drug classification category, C1, so new drugs can easily be brought under the Misuse of Drugs Act, giving police the search and seizure powers needed to interrupt supply, which is an important part of a health response. Synthetic-drug dealers are on notice, and they will face the full force of the law.

Angie Warren-Clark: How will these announcements affect people with addiction problems?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Good question. We don’t want our jails full of people with addiction problems; we want these people getting treatment and help. So today, we’ve also announced that we will be amending the Misuse of Drugs Act to specify in law that police should use their discretion and not prosecute for possession and personal use where a therapeutic approach would be more beneficial or there is no public interest in a prosecution. We know the police are already using their discretion in this regard, but I want to be clear: misuse of drugs remains illegal. Police will continue to prosecute people for possession where appropriate. We are striking a balance between discouraging drug use and recognising that many people using drugs need support from the health system or education about harm reduction.

Angie Warren-Clark: Why has the Government made these changes?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Under current laws, synthetics and other dangerous drugs are killing people and fuelling crime while dealers and manufacturers get rich. The current approach is failing to keep Kiwis safe; it is time to do what will work. We need to go harder on the manufacturers of dangerous drugs like synthetics and treat the use of drugs as a health issue by removing barriers to people seeking help.

Question No. 10—ACC

10. Hon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) to the Minister for ACC: What evidence, if any, did he seek and consider in reaching his reported view that the ACC Vehicle Risk Rating programme had not contributed to a safer vehicle fleet?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister for ACC): I received advice from officials, met with the motor vehicle industry expert group, and considered feedback from public consultation.

Hon Tim Macindoe: What does he say to those New Zealanders who are driving the safest cars on our roads, according to their vehicle risk rating category, who will now face an increase exceeding 150 percent in the cost of registering their vehicles?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: I would say to them that they are contributing to the motor vehicle account so that ACC is in good health and there where Kiwis need it.

Marja Lubeck: What does the Government intend to do with the data collected by the vehicle risk rating programme?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: The information contained in the vehicle risk ratings is useful to consumers. To that end, Cabinet has directed officials to consider ways the vehicle risk rating information can be made available to consumers at the point of sale.

Hon Tim Macindoe: If the Minister believes that the vehicle risk rating programme has not contributed to a safer vehicle fleet, then has he asked the transport Minister why the New Zealand Transport Agency is currently focusing on expensive advertising campaigns with slogans such as “The safer the car, the safer they are.”?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: I absolutely agree that the safer the car, the safer they are, but what I also agree with is all the advice I receive that variable levies based on vehicle risk rating is not making any difference to people’s purchasing choices. What will potentially make a difference is providing that information up front when people purchase their vehicle, and that’s what the Government intends to do.

Question No. 11—Biosecurity

11. Hon NATHAN GUY (National—Ōtaki) to the Minister for Biosecurity: Do detector dog teams provide complete coverage when the International Mail Centre is operating; if not, on how many days since 26 October 2017 have there been times when no detector dog teams have been working whilst the centre is operating?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister for Biosecurity): The first thing to note is that the mail centre does not work 24 hours a day, although dogs are scheduled to work on the international mail lines every day that it does operate.

Hon Nathan Guy: Why doesn’t the Ministry of Primary Industries (MPI) have enough dog detector teams operating on the mail pathway that allowed 26 brown marmorated stink bugs that were alive to come through the border in a shoebox?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: We currently have about 50 dog teams, and by the end of next year we will have 60. The dogs are trained either to detect seeds and other unwanted organisms or bugs, not both. I can’t explain how that particular box came through, other than to say that we are upping the systems all the time and improving the investment. The hours that the dogs are operating are about the same level as operated in 2016 and 2017, when that member was the Minister.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Seeing as 26 October 2017 was the first day of the new Government, how many months would he have had to take to get the dog detector teams prepared that weren’t there when he became the Minister?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: It takes many months to train a good dog. This Government is currently undertaking the training of 10 additional dog teams. The fact that we didn’t have sufficient when we took over is an indictment of that previous Government’s lack of commitment to biosecurity.

Hon Nathan Guy: As he’s confirmed that historically, dog detector teams have covered the international mail pathway, why now, in the height of the brown marmorated stink bug season, are there not enough MPI resources to get the dogs out of their kennels to protect the primary sector?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: There are plenty of resources. What we don’t have is enough well-trained dogs, and that’s because the previous Government didn’t train them.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is the greater dog detector team—a solution that that Minister is putting in place—a response to the fact that he inherited a situation where twice as many dog detectors were there as there were dogs?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Correct. I have to say that, you know, we do rely on dogs, although it’s not the only part of a robust biosecurity system, and the fact that we’ve had to match up the resources and train enough dogs so that there are an adequate number of dog handlers to manage them at the same time says that the previous Government had a lack of strategic planning for the biosecurity system.

Question No. 12—Building and Construction

12. KIERAN McANULTY (Labour) on behalf of KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour) to the Minister for Building and Construction: What recent actions has the Government taken to support the construction industry?

Hon JENNY SALESA (Minister for Building and Construction): The Minister for Economic Development, the Hon David Parker, and I have jointly written to all Ministers asking them to instruct the chief executives of the Government’s 137 agencies and departments to begin taking skills and training into account now when contracting for large construction projects, rather than waiting for this to become mandatory. The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) is currently working to make skills training and development a formal requirement for construction projects valued at over $10 million. This will take effect next year, but we believe the Government should act now and take a leadership role in building and construction. This will give certainty to the construction industry.

Kieran McAnulty: How can Government agencies support skills development and training in the construction industry?

Hon JENNY SALESA: The Government has the opportunity to leverage its construction projects through procurement to encourage businesses to train and develop people in order to address and help our current skills shortage in Aotearoa New Zealand. MBIE’s construction procurement guidelines, which are voluntary, were developed, together with the industry, in 2015. However, procurement practices across the Government agencies have been inconsistent, including the practice of taking the lowest-cost approach to procurement and the inappropriate transfer of risk. This has contributed to the current challenges that are facing the construction sector today. This sector agrees with the Government agencies’ approach, and they are happy to apply the procurement guidelines. This will have a positive effect on the construction sector.

Bills

Ngāti Tūwharetoa Claims Settlement Bill

In Committee

Part 1 Preliminary matters, acknowledgements and apology, and settlement of historical claims

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I’m taking this opportunity to speak briefly to Supplementary Order Paper 181. For the benefit of the members of Ngāti Tūwharetoa who are in the gallery, who are here, we are doing a small, technical procedure which just makes some minor amendments to the bill, just before we do its third reading.

The Māori Affairs Committee reported the Ngāti Tūwharetoa Claims Settlement Bill back to this House on 19 June this year and recommended that it be passed with minor technical amendments. In my second reading speech on the bill, I also noted that further amendments to the bill in relation to the Waipahihi stream conservation area would need to be considered by way of a Supplementary Order Paper. So the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that we are presently considering for the purposes of this committee stage will make technical amendments and additions to two clauses and one schedule of the bill. These changes won’t alter the make-up of the bill or, indeed, the redress package.

The amendments and additions to two clauses are required to validate the lease arrangements over the Waipahihi stream conservation area and specify the requirements for future leases over the land. The land is included in the bill as a property to transfer to Ngāti Tūwharetoa on settlement date as a recreational reserve. The land is subject to a lease granted under the Land Act 1948 in 1966, held by Taupō Hot Springs Ltd, who own the DeBretts Hot Springs business currently operating on the land. However, the lease was incorrectly renewed in 1997 under the Land Act 1948 rather than the Conservation Act 1987. This means that the existing lease is currently unlawful and likely voidable.

Officials from the Department of Conservation, the Office of Treaty Settlements, and the Crown Law Office have been in consultation with both Ngāti Tūwharetoa and Taupo Hot Springs Ltd since the issue was identified, to find a solution that meets the interests of everybody. Officials have consulted with Ngāti Tūwharetoa and Taupo Hot Springs Ltd about the amendments in the proposed SOP, and that ought to conclude all matters and allow the whole issue to proceed accordingly. I want to just conclude by thanking members of the Parliamentary Counsel Office for their assistance and thoroughness in ensuring that that is done and the legislation is ready for the committee. On that basis, I commend to the committee the three changes alone outlined in SOP 181.

Before I proceed any further, I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one debate for the purpose of this matter.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be not.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National): Can I just take a brief call to congratulate the officials and the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations on sorting this matter out. It was a concern to the Māori Affairs Committee. I know that the owners of the operation were—it was a very stressful time for them. The effect of the amendments moved by the Minister in the Supplementary Order Paper will be to regulate matters and provide a basis on which there can be a negotiation in the future. And I note that new clauses 91(A) to 91(C) only come into force on a date to be determined by Order in Council. So I think this is a very satisfactory arrangement, and I can assure the Minister that it will impress those members of the Māori Affairs Committee who were dealing with this matter and had been very concerned with it.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 181 in the name of the Hon Andrew Little to clauses 2 and 91 and schedule 3 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Parts 1 to 5, schedules 1 to 6, and clauses 1 and 2 as amended agreed to.

House resumed.

Progress reported.

Report adopted.

Third Reading

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I move, That the Ngāti Tūwharetoa Claims Settlement Bill be now read a third time.

Ngāti Tūwharetoa iwi, nau mai, haere mai, whakatau mai. E te ariki nui, Tā Tumu, nau mai, haere mai ki Te Whare Pāremata. He rā tino nui tēnei mō koutou. He rā tino nui hoki mō Aotearoa. Nā koutou te kaha me te manawanui nō reira rau rangatira mā, tēnei taku mihi atu ki a koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Ngāti Tūwharetoa tribe, welcome, welcome, welcome. To the paramount chief, Sir Tumu, welcome, welcome, to Parliament. This is a big day for you. This is also a big day for New Zealand. You have had strength and patience, therefore, my esteemed elders, this is my greeting to you, greetings, greetings, greetings to us all.]

I’d like to begin by extending a very warm welcome to Sir Tumu te Heuheu and to those members of Ngāti Tūwharetoa who have travelled to Wellington today to be here for the third and last reading of your settlement bill. Reaching this milestone has been a long journey for your tribe. Indeed, this October marked five years since officials of the Office of Treaty Settlements first visited Waihī Marae at Tokaanu to initiate settlement negotiations.

This bill will give effect to the deed of settlement signed by Ngāti Tūwharetoa and the Crown at Waitetoko Marae on 8 July last year. The bill itself has five parts and includes impressive cultural redress and significant Crown apology redress. Ngāti Tūwharetoa’s cultural redress will give the iwi greater influence over the management of some of the sites that are most sacred to them. They will also participate in regional conservation management initiatives and exercise mana and kaitiakitanga over the Taupō catchment in partnership with the local authorities. Thirty-two sites are also being returned to Ngāti Tūwharetoa through this settlement bill, including sites at Five Mile Bay, Huka Falls, Parakiri, the Tongariro National Trout Centre, and Taurewa Landcorp farm. In addition to the funds the iwi received through the central North Island settlement, Ngāti Tūwharetoa will also receive $25 million in financial and commercial redress.

This settlement also includes Crown apology redress. Often, when the New Zealand public think about what a Treaty settlement comprises, they focus on the redistribution of financial assets and culturally significant sites, such as the ones I’ve just mentioned. And, of course, they’re not wrong to do so; it’s clear how such redress helps Māori lay to rest almost 180 years of deeply held grievance and how it fosters the social progress and economic renewal of New Zealand’s tangata whenua. But, in a Treaty settlement, the Crown also acknowledges the ways it has breached its obligations under Te Tiriti and formally apologises to Māori for this wrongdoing. To do this, it agrees an historical account with iwi, where both groups revisit and renegotiate the shared understanding of the events that happened between them. It can be easy to overlook the latent power of the historical record, but its reassessment is as significant as any piece of cultural or commercial redress. Indeed, it was ahead of this third reading that I reflected upon the restorative power of Ngāti Tūwharetoa’s Crown apology redress.

Ngāti Tūwharetoa’s Treaty settlement includes one of our nation’s most important examples of this process: Horonuku Te Heuheu Tūkino IV’s tuku of the three central North Island volcanic peaks in 1887. For more than a century, the narrative, told and retold, about Horonuku’s act became an entrenched romantic myth of sacrifice and beneficence. The ariki’s gift developed into a convenient albeit inaccurate parable that uncritically assumed Ngāti Tūwharetoa’s wholesale agreement to the establishment of the Tongariro National Park, the introduction of exotic species within its borders, and the construction of recreation and public works infrastructure upon the mountain slopes. Through this Treaty settlement, however, Ngāti Tūwharetoa and the Crown have officially reappraised the meaning of Horonuku’s act and seek to finally overturn the fallacious myth of the old rangatira-style gift.

As the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, I’m proud to state on behalf of the Crown that the ariki’s tuku was not an unconditional gift. Horonuku intended the tuku to establish a shared responsibility with the Crown in order to protect and preserve the three maunga for Ngāti Tūwharetoa, for all iwi, and for all New Zealanders. To appreciate the difference between a tuku and a gift is to finally recognise that Horonuku sought a true partnership between Ngāti Tūwharetoa and the Crown—a partnership with obligations that the Crown has not always honoured. To realise the difference between a tuku and a gift is to return to Horonuku the dignity that the myth of the gift has sought to diminish. And, finally, to understand the difference between a tuku and a gift means that the Crown accepts that the Ngāti Tūwharetoa view the mountains as living rangatira—deified guardians who watch over the tribe and to whom the people belong.

This is but one very special example of how re-engagement with the past can help to re-forge Māori agency and identity in the new millennium. Reappraising our nation’s historical record isn’t about rewriting this country’s history; it’s about an equitable, balanced reassessment of our past in order to invigorate a shared future. To understand this is to appreciate how Treaty settlements have the power to recast meaning from two world views rather than the Crown’s alone and that this approach is the foundation of true partnership.

This bill is testament to the hard work of many people over many years. I want to begin by paying tribute to Ngāti Tūwharetoa’s ariki Sir Tumu te Heuheu and his forebears of Te Whare o te Heuheu. Sir Tumu and seven generations of paramount chiefs before him have worked tirelessly as advocates for their iwi. It’s an honour to have you in the House today.

I also want to acknowledge all the people who contributed to this settlement, who have worked for many years to hold the Crown to account but who are no longer with us to bear witness to this milestone. Let this day be a tribute to the dedication of those dearly loved people who have passed on.

The unflagging determination of the Ngāti Tūwharetoa negotiation team deserves special mention. Since 2010, Sir Michael Cullen led the entity mandated to represent Ngāti Tūwharetoa in comprehensive settlement negotiations with the Crown. He and his team have worked long days and, I know, many nights and made significant personal sacrifices to reach this milestone.

From the Crown, I’d like to acknowledge the hard work and dedication of the Crown team, led by chief Crown negotiator John Isles with support from the Office of Treaty Settlements, the Department of Conservation, Land Information New Zealand, the Department of Internal Affairs, the Ministry for the Environment, and other agencies. I want to acknowledge also the chair and members of the Māori Affairs Committee, who delivered their report in a timely, professional manner. And, of course, it would be remiss of me not to also acknowledge once again on this very special occasion the work of my predecessor, the Hon Chris Finlayson, and the legacy that he leaves, relived through so many Treaty settlements concluded in his time as Minister.

Lastly, I want to acknowledge the people of Ngāti Tūwharetoa. Without their support, courage, and foresight we would not be here today. Their unflagging determination to hold the Crown to account for its acts and omissions and their desire to advance the social well-being and economic prosperity of their tribe have led us to this moment. With the passage of this bill, I hope that Ngāti Tūwharetoa will be able to support and develop their people in ways that best suit their needs and that iwi will grow alongside the community in Taupō as everyone works together on projects that will build the prosperity of the region.

This third reading concludes the settlement of Ngāti Tūwharetoa’s historical Treaty claims. In doing so, the Crown renews its partnership with iwi and commitment to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, and, in the new year, Te Kotahitanga o Ngāti Tūwharetoa and the new Māori-Crown relations agency, Te Arawhiti, will take our first bold steps together. I commend the Ngāti Tūwharetoa Claims Settlement Bill to the House. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

NUK KORAKO (National): Tēnā rā koutou ngā puāwaitaka o tō tātou mātua tīpuna. I kā mea nui ki te mihi atu ki tō tātou Matua Nui i te Raki, ko ia te tīmataka me te whakaute kua te ao katoa. Nō reira ka mihi au ki te kaihōmai o kā mea pai katoa. Ka maumahara mātou ki a rātou kai tua kua wehe ki te ao wairua, nō reira e koutou rā, o ia marae, o ia iwi, o ia waka, haere i ruka ki te ara o te whānui a Tāne, kua tua o te ārai, haere, haere, e haere atu rā.

Nō reira anei rā mihi hōhonu ki ngā uri o Te Arawa waka. Ka huri te titiro ki ngā tapuae o Ngātoroirangi e takatakahia ō koutou whenua. Ngā uri o Tūwharetoa i te ao pōuri, tū mai, tū mai, tū mai koutou. He mihi kau ana ki a koutou Tūwharetoa iwi e tau mai ki Te Upoko o te Ika ki te tautoko i te kaupapa nei, te muru o te hara nā kāwanataka i mahia, te kōrero tūī, tuatoru o te pire nei. Ka nunui te mihi ki a koe e te ariki, rakatira, e Tā Tumu te Heuheu. Nō reira, e koutou rā, tēnā koutou, e mihi atu ki a koutou katoa.

[Greetings to you the fruits of our ancestors. Most importantly, I acknowledge our Father in heaven, who is the beginning and tender of all things. Consequently, I acknowledge the giver of all good things. We remember those beyond the veil who have departed to the spirit world, therefore to them, of every marae, of every tribe, of every canoe, go on the wide path of Tāne, to beyond the veil, go, go, go yonder.

Therefore, here are deep greetings to the descendants of Te Arawa waka. My gaze turns to look at the footsteps of Ngātoroirangi who treaded on your lands. The descendants of Tūwharetoa in the dark world, arise, arise, arise. Unreserved greetings to you Tūwharetoa tribe who have alighted in Wellington to support this initiative, the ritual compensation for the transgression done by government, the reading, the third reading of this bill. A huge acknowledgment to you the paramount chief, chief, Sir Tumu te Heuheu. Accordingly, all of you, greetings, greetings to all of you.]

The story of Ngāti Tūwharetoa in modern times is a story of unified purpose and endurance. It is a story of a paramount people respected the length of both islands for the bravery and for their fortitude. Their bravery and fortitude was sorely tested when, in 1863, Crown troops invaded the Waikato. Prior to this, Iwikau Te Heuheu, ariki of Tūwharetoa, had played a statesman’s role in building relations between the iwi and the Crown. He had sought to constrain his iwi anger at the growing alienation of lands, but this House and the people of New Zealand should not mistake Iwikau’s actions as appeasement. Iwikau was an ardent advocate for Māori rights, and in 1856 he convened a hui at Pūkawa to oppose further sales of Māori land.

Iwikau was also an ardent devotee of the emerging Kīngitanga and supported the installation of Pōtatau Te Wherowhero as Māori King. He was instrumental in pledging Tūwharetoa’s support for the Kīngitanga. He was succeeded by his nephew Horonuku Te Heuheu. Horonuku had watched his uncle constrain Tūwharetoa hands in the previous clashes between the Crown and Taranaki in 1861 to 1863. Iwikau was concerned to protect Tūwharetoa lands from unscrupulous Crown land dealings. I give this background to the House so that they understand the deliberate course of peace that Tūwharetoa attempted to take with the Crown. The Crown invasion of Waikato forced Tūwharetoa’s hand.

Tūwharetoa had a solemn promise in place with the Kīngitanga. These alliances and promises are profound, and iwi mana hinges on the honouring of promises made to each other. For our old people, death was better than dishonour. Failure of mana would pass down through generations until addressed. Tūwharetoa was honour-bound to fight with the Kīngitanga, but, more importantly, they had to fight the tyranny of the Crown. The invasion of Waikato was unjust. Tūwharetoa understood that if they did not support their kin, they would likely be next. In any case, fight they did.

Unfortunately, Tūwharetoa was dealing with an adversary who was wilfully blind to Māori tikaka and determined in its purpose of stopping the expression of tino rangatiratanga to Māori. The Crown deliberately sought to misinterpret Tūwharetoa’s actions as rebellion rather than obligation. The Crown used its most treasured instrument of torture to punish Tūwharetoa, and that was raupatu, or land confiscation.

I said yesterday in this House that I cannot perceive how the Crown thought impoverishing Māori, their fellow New Zealand citizens, would work to the betterment of New Zealand. And I say this knowing that my predecessors were not ignorant of the impact of their actions in confiscating Māori lands. It was deliberate. It was a deliberate act of devastation designed to free up Māori land and to demoralise our Māori people as well. Much of the actions of some members of this House in the years subsequent to the confiscations led me to the conclusion that they were deliberately hastening the demise of Māori.

Fortunately, it didn’t work, because the evidence stands or sits in the gallery here before us. It sits here today. Tūwharetoa have rebelled. They have rebelled against the path that this House tried to impose on them when we, the Crown, went to war against them and then unjustly took their lands from them. I mihi to the mana of Tūwharetoa, who honour their commitments in peace and in war.

It is Ngāti Tūwharetoa who says ka mate kāinga tahi, ka ora kāinga rua [the first home passes away, the second home lives]—a person who stands alone perishes; a person who stands alongside their people will endure. Through all their trials and tribulations, Tūwharetoa has stood as a people alongside each other. And today I stand in this House and celebrate the passing of the Ngāti Tūwharetoa Claims Settlement Bill.

In previous speeches, I’ve outlined the various features of this bill, so I’m not going to go into the technicalities of the bill itself. But I also undertook to speak in more detail about the apology that this House would proffer to the people of Tūwharetoa, as we’ve just heard from the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, because this speech, the Minister’s speech, is actually an apology. It is an apology for punishing Tūwharetoa rather than honouring Tūwharetoa for the fighting against my parliamentary predecessors’ tyranny. It is an apology to Tūwharetoa for standing up for freedom and the rule of law and for laying down their lives in defence of rights of all New Zealanders that we hold inalienable today. New Zealand can be truly grateful to Māoridom and the people of Tūwharetoa who first took up arms in defence of freedom and against the tyranny of Government oppression and which inspired our country to do likewise against the Nazi tyranny in 1939.

Whakaponotia, manaakitia, pūmautia ki ngā tikaka a Ngāti Tūwharetoa—and that is: believe, care for, hold fast to them through the tikanga of Ngāti Tūwharetoa. Tūwharetoa, these are indeed your words and may they become New Zealand’s words when we say truth is on our side. Care and hold fast to the values not just for Tūwharetoa but for all of Aotearoa.

May I convey my true gratitude to Tūwharetoa for their ongoing patience and true aroha that they’ve shown in all these years of loss they have suffered. Tūwharetoa’s humility and manaaki to the whole country stands as a testament to the mana of this truly great, respected iwi.

To the iwi of Tūwharetoa, the final steps of the journey are here today when your bill passes into legislation. It’s been a long journey and we all honour you here today. Nō reira e koutou rā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, e mihi atu, e mihi atu ki a koutou katoa. Nō reira meri Kirihimete me ngā mihi mō te tau hou. Nō reira kia kaha, kia māia, kia manawa mawananui. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, e mihi atu, e mihi atu ki a koutou katoa. Kia ora.

[Therefore, to all of you, greetings, greetings, greetings, I greet all of you. Also, merry Christmas and greetings for the new year. Thereby be strong, be brave, be patient. Greetings, greetings, greetings, I greet all of you. Thank you.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I understand the next call is a split call. There’ll be a bell at one minute.

Hon PEENI HENARE (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector): E Te Māngai o Te Whare, ka noho tonu ahau ki roto i Te Reo Māori mō te roanga ake o taku kōrero i te rā nei. Ka tīmata ake me pēnei ki roto i a au ko te kōrero e kī pēnei ana, ehara taku hoa a kāinga roa, he purupuru he taka ka pātau ko ahau, ko te tītī, ko te aporei, ko te tama i āta purupuru mārire, ko te angaanga tītī i hoe te rangi, ko Ngāti Rangi e tū nei.

Nā, ka waihona atu taua kōrero i konā ki te tāhūhū o tō tātou Whare. He aha te take o taua kōrero? Nā, nā tōku tupuna a Tara, i noho ki runga i te wā kāinga i whakakāingahia ai e te tupuna o Ngāti Tūwharetoa, arā o iwi kau ki roto i a au o Te Tai Tokerau, o Te Pēwhairangi. Nō reira hei tūhono i te whakapapa o tēnei e tū nei ki a Ngāti Tūwharetoa, e iriiri mai nei ki runga i ngā pātū o tō tātou Whare.

Huri tua atu ki a koe e te tupuna, hei taku ariki, e Tumu. Tuatahi ka mihi atu ahau ki a koe mō ngā mahi nunui i oti i a koe ki te hāpai i ngā kaupapa kei te wā kāinga o Te Pēwhairangi. Mō te hia tau ka noho mai koe ki runga i te poari whakahaere o te whenua ki Waitangi. Te wāhi i hainatia ai e ōku mātua, e ōku tūpuna, i Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Tēnei ka mihi, tēnei ka tangi. Ka tangi nā runga i te mōhio ka whakangaro atu rā koe i tō tāua kāinga o Te Pēwhairangi. Heoi nā, heoi nā anō kua tukuna atu e au ki a koe mā runga i te rangimārie me ngā mihi maioha o te hau kāinga, ki a koe kei taku ariki tēnā koe.

Kāti ki a koutou katoa e ngā matatini o Ngāti Tūwharetoa, he kitenga kanohi, he hokinga mahara. Ko ngā whakaaro nui ki ngā aituā maha o te wā, ki roto i ngā tau, ki roto i ngā marama, ki roto i ngā wiki kua pahure ake nei. Rātou kua whetūrangitia, nā rātou i hāpai tēnei kaupapa, kua wahaina mai e ētahi o ngā kaikōrero o te tari i te rā nei, i te hītori e pā ana ngā tūkinotanga o Te Tiriti o Waitangi ki a koutou o Ngāti Tūwharetoa. Heoi anō ka mihi atu ahau ki a rātou, ka tangi atu ahau ki a rātou. Haere mai, haere, whakahokia mai ngā rārangi kōrero ki a koutou e ōku rangatira.

Āe, ka tautoko atu ahau i ngā mihi o te Minita a te Hon Andrew Little ki roto i te hoe o te komiti o Te Whare i tīnihia wētahi o ngā tūāhuatanga ki roto i te pire, hei whakatikatika i ētahi tūāhuatanga kei roto i te pire, kia whai motuhake ai koutou o Ngāti Tūwharetoa ki roto i te pānuitanga tuatoru. Heoi anō ko aua whakatikatika he mea pai, he mea hei tautoko i te nuinga, otirā e Te Whare i te rā nei.

E tautoko ana ahau i wāna mihi ki te Minita tawhito a te Hon Christopher Finlayson, ā, me tōku tuakana a Rino Tirikatene, nā, ko ia te heamana o te Rōpū Whiriwhiri i ngā Take Māori. Anā, ko te tangata i mua i a ia, ko Nuk Korako. Ka mihi atu ahau ki ngā āpiha, ki ngā tāngata katoa kua hāpai nei tēnei kaupapa. E ōku rangatira kua kite atu koutou kua tata pau te wā ki a au.

I mea mai te mema a Nuk Korako, “Ko te mutunga tēnei.” Ko tāku e kī atu ahau ki a koutou e kāhore, ko te tīmatanga kē. Kua tae ki te wā kua whakapāha mai te Kāwanatanga ki a koutou, nā kua whakaritea mai ki roto i te pire i tētahi rahi pūtea, i te whakahokinga atu i ngā wāhi o tō koutou wā kāinga ki a koutou, ka tautoko mārika.

Heoi anō, ko te mea nui, kei roto i ō koutou ringaringa te āpōpōtanga mō Ngāti Tūwharetoa. Horekau he take tua atu i tēnā. I kite atu ahau i ngā tamariki, mokopuna, e omaoma haere nei, e tangi haere nei ki roto i tō tātou Whare. Ko te manako ko ngā mahi ka tutukihia i a tātou i te rā nei ana, anā te oranga mō ngā uri whakatupu ā taihoa ake nei.

Kāti, e ōku rangatira, e tika ana ngā kōrero, mā te Atua koutou e manaaki, e tiaki i roto i tō koutou hokinga atu ki te wā kāinga, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou e Te Māngai o Te Whare, ka tautoko ahau i te pire.

[To the Deputy Speaker, I will remain in the Māori language for the duration of my speech today. I shall begin this way: amongst my own there is a saying which goes like this, my friend is not long home, is of no account, and merely serves as caulking, and oft will fall off. If, however, we contemplate the zenith, the principal chief, the diligent preserving son, the head adorned with the plume from the heavens, it is Ngāti Rangi who stands before me.

So I will leave that saying here with the ridgepole of our House. What is the point of that saying? Well, my ancestor Tara was living in the homeland which was made our home by the ancestor of Ngāti Tūwharetoa, that is of a single tribe amongst my people of Northland, of Te Pēwhairangi. Consequently, in order to connect the genealogies of this person standing here to Ngāti Tūwharetoa, and to preserve it on the walls of our house.

Turning to you the ancestor, my paramount chief, Tumu. Firstly, I acknowledge you for the vast work you have carried out to support matters in the homeland of Te Pēwhairangi. For any number of years, you have sat on the management board of the land at Waitangi. The place where my elders, my ancestors, signed the Treaty of Waitangi. I both acknowledge and mourn. I mourn in the knowledge that you will disappear from our shared home of Te Pēwhairangi. And so, and so it is from me to you in peace and with affectionate thanks from the home people, to you my paramount chief, greetings.

Well then, to all of you the many faces of Ngāti Tūwharetoa, seeing a face brings back memories. With great consideration for the many deceased of the time, from throughout the years and throughout the months and throughout the weeks which have passed. Those who have gone to become stars, they who shouldered this matter, they have been brought in by many of the speakers of this office today, around the history pertaining to the violations of the Treaty of Waitangi to you of Ngāti Tūwharetoa. And so I acknowledge them, I mourn for them. Go, go, I return the focus of my speech to you my chiefs.

Yes, I support the greetings of the Minister the Hon Andrew Little in his rowing of the committee of the House which changed some aspects of the bill, to correct some aspects within the bill, so that you of Ngāti Tūwharetoa would be distinct within the third reading. And so those corrections are a good thing, supported by the most, that is, by the House on this day.

I support his acknowledgments to the old Minister the Hon Christopher Finlayson and my elder brother Rino Tirikatene, and he is the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee. There he is, the person in front of him, Nuk Korako. I acknowledge the officials and all the people who have supported this matter. My chiefs you can see that my time is nearly over.

The member Nuk Korako said to me, “This is the end.” What I say to you is no, to the contrary this is the beginning. We have come to the time that the Government has apologised to you, and it has been arranged within the bill that a large sum of money, the return of places from your homeland to you. I unequivocally support that.

And so the main thing is the tomorrow for Ngāti Tūwharetoa is in your hands. Nothing matters beyond that. I saw the children, the grandchildren, running around here, calling out in our House. The hope is that the deeds achieved by us today, there is the well-being for the descendants being nurtured for tomorrow.

And so, my chiefs, the saying is apt. May God care for you and protect you on your journey homewards. Greetings to you; greetings to you Madam Deputy Speaker, I support this bill.]

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): A kororia, hariruia ki a Ihowa, ngā mano, matua, tama, wairua tapu, me ngā anahera pono me te māngai hei tautoko mai ai, āia nei, ake nei āe.

Tēnā koutou aku rangatira, Te Ariki Tā Tumu te Heuheu, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou Ngāti Tūwharetoa, tēnā koutou ngā hapū maha kua tau mai nei i Te Whare Pāremata. Tēnei rā nui whakahirahira, nō koutou tēnei rā, nō te, nō koutou tēnei kaupapa. Āe, ka mihi atu ki a rātou ngā mate huhua o te wā. Haere koutou, hoki mai ki a tātou te kanohi ora e pai nei, huri rauna i Te Whare, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Glory and halleluiah to Jehovah, the myriad hosts, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and the faithful angels and the orator to support us, now and forever, yes.

Greetings to you my chiefs, the paramount chief Sir Tumu te Heuheu, I greet you. Greetings to you Ngāti Tūwharetoa, greetings to you the many subtribes who have alighted here at Parliament. This important day, this is your day, from the, this is your matter. Yes, I acknowledge all the many deceased of this time. Go, and returning to us the living gathered here, right around the House, greetings, greetings, greetings to you all.]

It’s a true delight for me to stand and tautoko in support of this very historic bill for settling the Treaty claims for Ngāti Tūwharetoa. I know my time is short, and when it comes to third readings, it’s really all about acknowledging the iwi and the hapū and the people who have travelled, because this bill is about them and it’s for them.

I want to acknowledge especially the fact that this settlement is about addressing cultural redress for Ngāti Tūwharetoa—predominantly. Also, I want to acknowledge Te Kotahitanga o Ngāti Tūwharetoa, who have, from the outset, ensured that this settlement is about mana ā-hapū. I want to acknowledge all of the 26 hapū that make up Ngāti Tūwharetoa that are recorded in the deed of settlement, because these are special days and I do always like to acknowledge those individual hapū.

I’ve got three minutes, so I want to go through all 26—I want to get them out, and I want to acknowledge all of those hapū. So I want to acknowledge: Ngāti Hā, Ngāti Hikairo, Ngāti Hine, Ngāti Hinemihi, Ngāti Hinerau, Ngāti Hineure, Ngāti Kurauia, Ngāti Manunui, Ngāti Moekino, Ngāti Parekaawa, Ngāti Rauhoto, Ngāti Rongomai, Ngāti Ruingarangi, Ngāti Tarakaiahi, Ngāti Te Kohera, Ngāti Te Maunga, Ngāti Te Rangiita, Ngāti Te Urunga, Ngāti Turangitukua, Ngāti Turumakina, Ngāti Tutemohuta, Ngāti Tutetawhā, Ngāti Waewae, Ngāti Wairangi, Ngāti Wheoro, and Te Kapa o Te Rangiita. So I want to acknowledge all of those hapū, and I’m pleased that they’ll be recorded for all time in the records of this House.

This is a significant day. It was an honour to chair the Māori Affairs Committee as we examined this bill, as we travelled to Taupō. We heard from all of the submitters. As was mentioned in the second reading, we weren’t able to get the perfect outcome on every individual mamae, but we definitely did our best as a committee, working within the constraints of what we do as a committee, to hear, to acknowledge, and to do the mahi that we did. I’m very proud that we have come to this momentous day.

I lastly want to acknowledge Tā Tumu te Heuheu for his leadership and example that he has set. When I think of Tūwharetoa, I think of that great man and all of his illustrious forebears and the wonderful people who make up this mighty tribe—the fifth-largest tribe in Aotearoa. I just want to acknowledge them today. I also want to acknowledge, because it’s for all in the uri, Hunters Rugby League and my dear friend up there from Ngāti Tūwharetoa. It’s for everybody, and I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora tātou.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National): The trouble with Mr Tirikatene is that he’s a skite. I’m not going to go through all the hapū, but I am going to welcome the various representatives of Tūwharetoa here today and thank them for coming to this third reading speech. Can I acknowledge the negotiators: my old friend Mr Isles, who was the negotiator for the Crown; and Tūwharetoa’s negotiator, Sir Michael Cullen. I’m very pleased that he’s interrupted all his work on developing a capital gains tax to come to the gallery today to witness this very, very important occasion. Can I also acknowledge Sir Tumu and our very old—not in that sense, but old and dear—friend Georgina, who’s here today. It’s lovely to see her here.

Can I begin by thanking the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations for his very kind comments about me. I’m really pleased, as I said in the committee stage, that we sorted out that issue that gave rise to the Supplementary Order Paper, and I think he dealt with that in a very clever way, and I also thank the officials for that. I also thank Mr Henare for his kind words. Frankly, I don’t deserve any kind words from Mr Henare, because I’ve been in the media this week saying he’s the person who needs to go back to Ngāpuhi to take leadership because he’s probably the only person who could do it. Anyone who says that about anyone in Ngāpuhi deserves undying contempt, but thank you very much for what you said.

This is my second to last speech in this House, my final speech on a—

Hon Ruth Dyson: Change your mind.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: No, it’s too late, Ruth; I’m off. There are some comments that I want to make—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would say use the full names.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: —and I’m sure you’re going to give me a great deal of latitude.

The first is on overlapping claims. Tūwharetoa is, in many respects, sort of like the Poland of Māoridom: it’s surrounded by other large and strong iwi. Dealing with overlapping claims has been a hugely important matter, and I want to congratulate the iwi for the way in which it’s dealt with overlapping claims negotiations, bearing in mind that they’ve had some wonderful people to deal with: Vanessa Eparaima and the team from Ngāti Raukawa are always great to deal with; Tiwha Bell from Ngāti Maniapoto, always very generous in spirit when it came to overlapping claims; and, of course, Ngāti Rangi, Ngāti Tūwharetoa ki Kawerau, and Mōkai Pātea, who are yet to get into negotiations, although they can’t be far off. But I really congratulate everyone for the way in which these very difficult issues have been dealt with in this negotiation. As I’ve said before, Ngāti Maniapoto have been so generous over the years, and the Hon Nanaia Mahuta will agree with me. They’ve been so good over the years. I cannot wait till they have their day in the sun and achieve their settlement.

The way in which these overlapping claims have been dealt with can be distinguished from other overlapping claims. It’s with a heavy heart that I’m going to be leaving this place knowing that on the Order Paper, items 23 and 24 are the Ngāi Te Rangi and Ngā Pōtiki Claims Settlement Bill and the Tauranga Moana Iwi Collective Redress and Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Ranginui Claims Settlement Bill. These have been very intense overlapping claims. Of course, Hauraki went to the tribunal to demand a seat on the Tauranga Moana body, and we followed the findings of the tribunal, and now the other side are off to the tribunal to have a go at the Crown as a result of the actions of Mr Little in signing an agreement. So it’s very hard to win in the tribunal, but the fact of the matter is these overlapping claims can be very, very difficult, and I do say to Ngāti Tūwharetoa and its neighbours how very, very well they have dealt with this issue.

The negotiations—this is my second point—also dealt with Landcorp farms. Frankly, when dealing with Landcorp farms, I think it’s fair to say it is one of the most aggravating exercises any Minister of Treaty negotiations can be involved in. One tries to deal with the issue by hoping to appoint reliable people to the board of Landcorp, but, as I’ve said to people before, it’s the old mafia slogan: you can buy someone, but how long do they stay bought? In the case of people who are appointed to the board of Landcorp, it’s about two minutes, and then they sort of believe all the Landcorp rhetoric that this is a splendid State-owned enterprise that has tremendous returns for the Crown, when it’s all garbage—of course they don’t.

The best thing that could be done with Landcorp farms—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Come back to the bill. Can you come back to the bill?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: No, no—this is my second to last speech, and I’m going to get it out before I go. The best thing we could do with Landcorp is flog off all the farms to the iwi. Mr Jones, I’m sure, agrees with every sentiment there, and I hope he will lead the charge in that regard, because this negotiation was no different from, for example, Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa. The negotiations are long and tortuous trying to get an agreement on price. Frankly, I’ve said all I want to say about Landcorp. It’s hopeless.

The third point I want to make concerns clauses 184 and 185 of the legislation. Clause 184 will provide for Ngāti Tūwharetoa to have membership of the Rangitaiki River Forum. This forum was established many years ago, I think, when the Ngāti Whare or the Ngāti Manawa legislation was passed. It’s a hugely important body, and it’s going to give the iwi the chance to have an important say in the way in which that river—which, of course, you know flows through your particular constituency, Madam Deputy Speaker—is going to be managed, and so I’m delighted that yet another body joins that forum.

Importantly, clause 185 deals with the Hawke’s Bay Regional Planning Committee. Ngāti Tūwharetoa are ubiquitous. They’re everywhere, and they also are members of this body. This was the body devised by Dame Fran Wilde for the Hawke’s Bay, and, of course, Ngāti Tūwharetoa have an important role to play on that, and I wish them well. Having iwi involved in the clean-up of our iconic rivers is extremely important, and they have a massive contribution to make.

Others have spoken about other details of the bill. They’re the points I wanted to mention. I want to close by referring to the future. We’re going to have—not me, because I’m washed up and out of here, but there will be a negotiation in the future to deal with national parks, and John Wood started that. I think Jim Bolger was also involved. That will involve all the iwi around the mountain, and I’m sure that is going to be a very successful negotiation and it will bring in other iwi like Ngāti Rangi and Mōkai Pātea and others. I wish Ngāti Tūwharetoa all the best for that.

There will be other issues that are going to come up in the future. Water is on the horizon. If we deal with these issues as a country in a positive and in a non-emotional way, there’s a way through all these issues, and we don’t need to get overly excited. I can say that because I’m going! Can I simply finish by extending my very warm wishes to Ngāti Tūwharetoa. This was a really enjoyable negotiation with wonderful people who have made a fantastic contribution to this country. I’m sure that the future is theirs, and so, with those words, I commend the bill to the House.

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister of Forestry): Te Reo Māori i te tuatahi. Taupō-nui-a-Tia, ngā maunga huratau Tongariro, Ngāuruhoe, ka tū atu ki a Ruapehu, Tūwharetoa iwi, Te Heuheu tangata, tēnā koutou ka tatū mai ki roto i tēnei Whare whakaharahara, whakahirahira i tēnei rā i whakaritea hei whakatutuki mā mātou ngātahi me koutou i ēnei nawe, ko te hia rā nei roa e tārewa ana ki waenga tonu i a koutou ko te Karauna.

Te wahanga ki te hunga kua whetūrangitia. Taku tūranga mutunga nāku anō i mihi atu ki ngā rangatira pērā i a Pat Hura mā, nāku anō i mihi atu ki a Patsy, ki ngā kaumātua i mōhio ai ahau i roto i te tamariki ki te kura i Tipene.

Nā reira e kara, e Tumu, tēnei ahau te tāpae nei te ingoa o tō pāpā i te aroaro o te motu waenga tonu i a tātou i raro i te tuanui o tēnei Whare. Tō pāpā nāna te iwi Māori i whakakotahi i tōna wā. Te kaumātua nāna a Te Ātairangikahu i tautoko hei tuara mōna, nā reira rātou ki a rātou, tātou ki a tātou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[The Māori language to start with. Taupō-nui-a-Tia, the surrounding mountains of Tongariro, Ngāuruhoe, and right up to Ruapehu, the tribe of Tūwharetoa, Te Heuheu people, greetings to you all who have arrived at this marvellous House, this important House on this day which has been organised for us and you to jointly address these grievances, they have been unresolved for a very long time between you and the Crown.

The part for the people who have become deceased. In my last stand I acknowledged the chiefs such as Pat Hura and others, I also acknowledged Patsy, and the elders whom I knew amongst the children at St Stephen’s School.

Therefore friend, Tumu, I present the name of your father in the presence of the country amongst those of us who are under the ridgepole of this House. Your father, who united the Māori tribes in his time. The elder who supported Te Ātairangikahu and was a backbone for her, therefore let the departed remain with each other, and us living be with each other, greetings, greetings, thrice greetings.]

In our Māori language, I acknowledged a number of the people who have gone on, but in particular, I acknowledge te ariki, the paramount chief of Tūwharetoa, Tumu te Heuheu, and recite the name of his father, because 100 years ago, there was a te Heuheu in this Parliament. A hundred years ago, Tūreiti was a member of the Legislative Council. It was during that period of time, after he had worked with Taiaroa of the Ngāi Tahu to assemble a group and to drive forward the notion of a Kotahitanga movement, that he eventually took up the position of being in the Legislative Council. Oh that he were here today to hear the speeches and to witness in 100 years the distance that ordinary Kiwis, politicians, professionals, and those who make up our increasingly diverse community—what we have grown into.

Of course, it’s virtually 150 years ago that what is regarded as the final incident of the so-called Māori Land Wars took place at Te Pōrere, where Te Kooti escaped wounded but the chief of Tūwharetoa was wrongfully arrested for being perceived as having offered shelter and offered assistance to that redoubtable warrior chief of the Māori world Te Kooti Rikirangi. It was during the Second World War that one of the most famous cases pertaining to our Treaty of Waitangi took place at the Privy Council, between the paramount chief te Heuheu of that time and the Aotea District Maori Land Board. That is when the Privy Council established the dictum that, unless the Treaty of Waitangi was incorporated into actual municipal domestic legislation in New Zealand, it had no status. So we are talking about leaders and a body of our Māori tribal community that, in many respects, have been at the forefront of various attempts to bridge the gap between the colonial powers of that time, creating a rallying point for Māori endeavour. So it’s with a great deal of pleasure, on behalf of my leader and my colleagues from all across the House, to stand and acknowledge what has been achieved today.

What has been said in our Māori language is that what we do today creates the platform to move forward. The quantum, the land, the resources are an important endowment, but I think it’s fair to say that, because these settlements go to the actual foundational influences of what makes up New Zealand, the Crown, represented by that historic figure Queen Victoria, and the rangatira, wearing the koka and holding the hani, as reflective of that original partnership. So we stand very proud today alongside not only Tūwharetoa but the Ministers.

I do want to acknowledge Minister Christopher Finlayson. He has had a tremendous period of advocacy, leadership, and toil in this space. Of course, there will be some who will think back on that time and think, “Did New Zealand do too much and pander to too many of the aspirations of iwi?” No, they didn’t. Whoever the Minister is holding this role, we are stewards for our broader community, but we also seek to right the wrongs of the past. As he goes forward into a private life—that is very good; we will no longer have to tolerate his sarcasm in this House, but I have to say, it’s been what we say in Māori a type of “reo kawa”: a provocative sort of language—I only hope that when he journeys around Aotearoa and has his holidays, they are closer to Ngāi Tahu and Tūhoe. For God’s sake, don’t go to Ngāpuhi!

To the officials who have given of their time, to the Pākehā professionals who have also provided leadership in bringing the kaupapa to this particular point, this is a part of New Zealand where there genuinely were sacrifices given, not the least of which is when te Heuheu responded to Grace that one way forward was to gift the maunga and then they would remain as a permanent contribution and a permanent taonga. This is also the area where our Māori soldiers came back to from the First World War. It was te Heuheu and Tōpia and Kīngi who provided land, heading over towards the Ruahine, as redevelopment settlement farms for our men coming back from the First World War. Now, a cynic might say there was so much empty space that it was a natural thing to do, but the reality is that history records that not only have the people of this area provided a great rallying point for our own people but they have provided, on a host of occasions, very generous gestures, and they should be recited on this day, as a small part of what was lost is restored back into the care of the iwi.

E kore wēnei mihi āku e koni atu e kara, e Tumu, atu i tēnei. Aha, tautoko ana nei i te kōrero a taku tamaiti a Peeni, kei konā ngā kōrero i waenga tonu i a mātou e koutou mō te wā i a Tāmati Waka Nene, mō te wā i a Te Wera Hauraki, waiho wēnā hei take kōrerotanga mā tāua ki runga i ō tāua marae. I tēnei rā ko te reo tēnei o te kaitōrangapū he mihi atu ki a koutou, he mihi atu ki ngā Minita, nō reira tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou, kia ora tātou katoa.

[These acknowledgments of mine won’t be more than this my friend, Tumu. And I support the speech by my nephew Peeni, the narratives are indeed still amongst us for you about you at the time of Tāmati Waka Nene, the time of Te Wera Hauraki, leave these as topics of conversation for the two of us on our marae. Today this is the voice of the politician greeting you all, I acknowledge the Ministers, therefore greetings, greetings, greetings to us all.]

JO HAYES (National): Kia ora, e ngā maunga Ruapehu, Ngāuruhoe, Tongariro, tēnā koutou. E te moana, Taupō, tēnā koe, e rau rangatira mā o te iwi o Ngāti Tūwharetoa, tēnā koutou. Nau mai haere mai ki tēnei Whare Pāremata i te rā whakahirahira. Kia ora.

[Greetings to the mountains of Ruapehu, Ngāuruhoe, and Tongariro, I greet you. To the lake, Taupō, greetings, my esteemed elders from the tribe of Ngāti Tūwharetoa, greetings to you. Welcome to Parliament on this important day. Thank you.]

I am truly blessed to be standing here—honoured, in fact, to be standing here—to take this call in the third and final reading of the Ngāti Tūwharetoa Claims Settlement Bill. I want to acknowledge the leadership of Ngāti Tūwharetoa, specifically Te Arikinui Tumu te Heuheu, and our dear friend and colleague Dame Georgina te Heuheu, and also Sir Michael Cullen sitting up in the gallery today.

I want to acknowledge the many hands that have made this possible today: the negotiators, both on the iwi side and the Crown side, and all of you in the gallery today. You all helped in getting this bill to this place today, and I want to thank you and acknowledge you, and I pay my respects to you all. I know that once this time is over and the bill reaches its Royal assent, then whānau mokopuna will be able to add to the economic wealth of Ngāti Tūwharetoa, and really, at the end of the day, this is about the future of the mokopuna of Ngāti Tūwharetoa.

I too want to add my acknowledgments to the Hon Chris Finlayson. I will miss him. He has got such a big brain on his little body, and I have learnt so much from him. I will miss the way that he does his debates in this House. So, yes, without any further ado, I just want to pay respect to the Hon Chris Finlayson.

Finally, I do want to acknowledge the chair of our Māori Affairs Committee, Rino Tirikatene. He has worked tirelessly on completing this bill as our new chair, and I also want to acknowledge Nuk Korako, my colleague who chaired the Māori Affairs Committee when we started out on this journey with Ngāti Tūwharetoa, and also the other select committee members as well.

We can’t do this stuff without the kaimahi in behind us: the clerks, the advisers, the Parliamentary Counsel Office—all of them. They’ve all worked really hard. We had quite a lot of demands on them, and they came through, and we sent them back and they kept coming through. So I do want to acknowledge them.

I remember the day that we travelled to Taupō for the hearings. We were all very excited coming up to Taupō to do this, and I also remember the numbers of people that actually supported this bill. There were those that kind of sat on the fence and had neither way and those who were definite that they weren’t supporting the bill, and it’s been very good that we’ve been able to work through these processes to actually get to today.

I think that the actual sweetness of this whole process of claims settlement is actually in the submission process and listening to the kōrero that comes from each and every one of you and your views on what you think about the bill, whether it resonates with you or whether it doesn’t resonate with you, and this third reading actually is a culmination of all of those views that you have had over the time that this bill has been traversing its way through the House.

I just want to also acknowledge the past of Ngāti Tūwharetoa. Your ancestor Tūwharetoa ki Te Aupōuri—he was, from what I have read, a very strong warrior. I think that also, through his ancestry back through the captain of the waka of Te Arawa—the priest, I think—he was able to actually guide Ngāti Tūwharetoa through the many ups and downs that you faced.

Every time I get up and speak here about our Treaty claims, I’m always saddened by the way that our whānau was treated, and for no reason. And I’m always saddened by the fact that the Crown, through their so-called understandings of what we meant, as to what they meant, always misunderstood and we always ended up on the sticky end of the stick, and we were always treated this badly. So many times I’ve stood here and almost felt like I’ve wanted to cry because of the treatment, but today is really no time for crying. Today is a celebration, and, as I said, I’m humbled to be part and parcel of that and to put into the Hansard the history of Ngāti Tūwharetoa and what has happened here over time.

I think that even though there’s been some areas, as the Hon Chris Finlayson talked about, that we weren’t able to progress forward, I think that post-settlement there will be opportunities, especially around the Landcorp farms. I mean, I totally agree with the Hon Christopher Finlayson that those Landcorp farms should go back to iwi to let iwi have a good go at it. It’s your land and this is what we should be doing.

In closing, I just want to say to Ngāti Tūwharetoa: congratulations. I want to wish you all a safe and happy Christmas with your whānau. I want to make sure that you do have a good travel home. You’ve all travelled a long way today. I was talking to one of your rangatahi in the wharepaku, and I said to her, “You look a little bit flustered.”, and she said, “I’ve been up since 6 o’clock, and my door got knocked on at 5 o’clock.”, and I said, “Oh well, at least you’re here.” The most important thing is to be here. Without any further ado, if you’re leaving tonight or if you’re leaving tomorrow morning, I wish you all a very safe journey. It is my pleasure to commend this bill to the House. Tēnā koutou katoa. Kia ora.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just to advise the House, I understand there’ve been three power cuts in the interpreter booth, and that is why some of you have not been able to hear the interpretation of some of the speeches. I hope it’s fixed.

MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): E Te Māngai o Te Whare, tēnā koe. Tēnā tātou katoa i roto i tēnei Whare Pāremata. Tēnei rangi pai, rangi rangatira tēnei. Ā, nō reira kei te mihi ki a koe e Te Ariki Tā Tumu te Heuheu, ki a koe e Dame the Hon Whaea Georgina te Heuheu hoki. Ngā mihi aroha ki a koutou ngā uri, ki a koutou katoa ngā whānau, ngā mokopuna o Ngāti Tūwharetoa i tēnei rā, kia ora mai tātou.

[Madam Deputy Speaker, greetings. Greetings to all of us here in this House. This good day, this is an esteemed day. And, therefore I greet you paramount chief Sir Tumu te Heuheu, and to you Dame the Hon Whaea Georgina te Heuheu also. Loving greetings to you the descendants, to all of you the families, the grandchildren of Ngāti Tūwharetoa today, greetings to all of us.]

Kia ora. I’m particularly pleased to stand, at the third reading of the Ngāti Tūwharetoa Claims Settlement Bill, as an uri of Te Roroa e Ngāpuhi in the north and Ngati Porou in the East Coast. One of the privileges of being able to go through the House and journey alongside our claims settlement bills is learning about the different rohe around our country that we may not be as familiar with as we are with our own tūrangawaewae.

So, with that, it really is a pleasure to have you here, and we don’t just say that. I was listening to the tangi o ngā pēpē earlier before, and that’s a beautiful sound to remind me, actually, that in our mokopuna is the reflection of our tūpuna. And this is everything about what we are doing today: it talks about who we are as iwi and who we are as tangata whenua, and having the voice and the tangi and the reo of our babies is one of the best backgrounds to be able to help us move through the debate and the kōrero on this bill. And, actually, we like babies in here—so, nau mai, haere mai to every one of you.

As I said before, I’m learning about this rohe. I haven’t spent lots of time in Lake Taupō, Taupō Moana, the central plateau, and much of the central North Island and Te Araroa regions, and, of course, being the fifth-largest iwi, with approximately 36,000 of you. So that’s helping to get my understanding of who you actually are. Then, of course, in who you are is the strength and the vision that you all represent here as uri in upholding the whakapapa work that was brutally interrupted by colonisation, by the processes that are outlined in the historical summary account in this bill.

The whakapapa disruption to your kaitiaki responsibilities over land and water and maunga and mokopuna and economic development and being able to sustain yourselves was brutally, brutally disrupted, and this bill and this day represent part of the journey to try and at least acknowledge what has happened, to try and give some semblance back to Ngāti Tūwharetoa to take forward with the best kaha that I know you all will muster. And so I also wanted to acknowledge, actually, TKT—Te Kotahitanga o Ngāti Tūwharetoa—who are the post-settlement governance entity, because, as we all know, you’ve still got more work to do. TKT still has more work to do particularly—and my colleagues have traversed them quite well today—in some of the unresolved issues that will still need to be progressed outside of this settlement process.

I wanted to pick up a lot of what the bill does. A lot of the historical account, which I’ve also traversed in this House in my earlier readings on this bill, has been picked up, so I thought I would pick up particularly on another few key issues that maybe haven’t been traversed as well.

I want to acknowledge the concern around Lake Rotokawa Conservation Area in this settlement. I want to acknowledge that there have been many discussions and forums, actually, trying to pull together Ngāti Tahu - Ngāti Whaoa and Ngāti Tūwharetoa hapū who really wanted to consider having that conservation area in this. I know the Crown has removed Lake Rotokawa Conservation Area from this settlement package, and, because of that, it cannot be included in this bill. And I’m sure those conversations will continue. I was very grateful to have visited Lake Rotokawa with Ngāti Tahu – Ngāti Whaoa—or, as I found out when I realised half way through the day that when they say Tahu-Whaoa, that’s who they’re talking about, and was finally like, “Oh yes. Right, now I know who that is.” And so I just wanted to acknowledge what that place means for so many people and what has happened, actually, over that colonisation interruption, and how this has happened through a lot of our rohe and overlapping claims around the country. It is hapū in particular who are left with trying to restore the connections over particular pieces of whenua. It’s an ongoing issue. I acknowledge the manaaki that I was shown when I visited that place.

Another outstanding issue: of course, I do encourage the pursuit of the Motutere Recreation Reserve as redress, especially when I hear that, apparently, even the Taupō District Council supports the concept of returning that reserve as redress. I do encourage that discussion to be continued, but what I really wanted to have a chat about was the kaitiaki work that I know will improve.

I completely agree with Mr Finlayson when he says—and the Greens have said this often—that the most enduring conservation plan we can have for Aotearoa, for our rivers, our soil, our maunga, our trees, our indigenous species is to give it back to iwi. I would go further and say we should just give it all back—not just Waititi Land Corp.; just all of it. Just give it all back—that absolutely would be the most enduring conservation plan that this country could have, because our maunga are our living rangatira, as the Minister referred to in the beginning. When they are our living rangatira, when the maunga really is our koro, and when the river really is our kuia, then we are accountable to her and to him. We are accountable to keep him well and to keep her well. We are accountable to think about everything we put in our soils and our waters and what it will be doing to the mauri and the well-being of our rangatira and our whakapapa and, therefore, what it will be doing to their mokopuna. So that is why I completely uphold that returning all the stolen stuff back to its rightful owners is one of the most enduring things.

I haven’t been able to spend a lot of time—sadly, I was unable to attend the hearings in Ngāti Tūwharetoa that particular day, and I read with deep, profound interest the submissions and the report back from my colleagues on te Komiti Whiriwhiri Take Māori about how that amazing day went. I might take up Gina Rangi, who would like to take me up to visit your maunga in a more Ngāti Tūwharetoa - centred way—and if that was supposed to be a secret, well, it’s not any more. But I think being able to really ground myself in your history, your tūpuna, and your rangatira—oh yeah, that tuku was never supposed to be a gifting over. So I’m glad we’ve established that really well—again, you know, give our koro back.

The authority was disrupted and interrupted, and returning taonga and affirming the kaitiaki responsibilities for hapū and iwi over water, maunga, rākau, lakes, etc. is a really good start. I know that you all will do the best with what has been delivered. I know you have all worked so hard over generations, actually, to try to regain some justice. I can’t wait for the day when New Zealanders are enlightened enough to understand that giving everything back would be good for all of us, and that’s the vision that I hope for.

So, with that, ngā mihi aroha, ngā mihi hohonu ki a koutou katoa, ngā uri katoa o Ngāti Tūwharetoa, i ō koutou whakapapa, ngā rangatira, ngā rangatira, ngā maunga, ngā awa, ngā mea katoa, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa [loving greetings, deep greetings to you all, all the descendants of Ngāti Tūwharetoa, your genealogies, the chiefs, the chiefs, the mountains, the rivers, and everything else, greetings, greetings, thrice greetings].

HARETE HIPANGO (National—Whanganui): Ko Tongariro te maunga, ko Taupō te moana, ko Tūwharetoa te iwi, ko Te Heuheu te tangata.

[Tongariro is the mountain, Taupō is the lake, Tūwharetoa is the tribe, Te Heuheu is the person.]

As the elected member of Parliament for Whanganui, as uri of Whanganui, mokopuna of Hipango, and as a member of the Māori Affairs Committee, today I stand in immense humility and also significant privilege to be able to greet and welcome you to this Whare, to this House of Representatives. For this day and in this moment are whare miere—honeyed with this third and final reading of the Ngāti Tūwharetoa Claims Settlement Bill as it makes its assent and ascent into law. The law of Ngāti Tūwharetoa is soon to be the law of the land between the Crown and the peoples, te iwi o Ngāti Tūwharetoa. Mihi maioha koutou ngā iwi, ngā hapū, ngā uri. Nau mai, haere mai.

[Affectionate greetings to you the tribes, the subtribes and descendants. Welcome.]

I acknowledge and I congratulate the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations and also the former Minister, my colleague the Hon Christopher Finlayson, who has spoken to the House on his last Treaty settlement bill today, and for him to do so on this bill is so significant. E te tuahine Louisa, ngā mihi nui.

I recount the apology that was conveyed by the Crown. In brief, it was stated that it was extended: “Through this settlement, and with this apology, the Crown recognises how your resilience as hapū and as an iwi depends on your deep connection to the whenua and your desire to protect it. The Crown looks forward to building an enduring relationship of mutual trust and co-operation with Ngāti Tūwharetoa based on te Tiriti o Waitangi … and its principles, and to support you in the revitalisation of ngā hapū o Ngāti Tūwharetoa.” E Tā Tumu me the Hon Dame Georgina te Heuheu, ngā mihi maioha ki a kōrua.

[Sir Tumu and the Hon Dame Georgina te Heuheu, affectionate greetings to you both.]

I further continue my speech, referencing my concluding words in the second reading of this bill before the House, quoting Tā Tumu, with your words spoken at the signing of the deed of settlement on 10 July 2017 on the shores of Lake Taupō, within the secure embrace of Waitetoko Marae: “I firmly believe that this settlement provides a solid foundation for Ngāti Tuwharetoa to set its own course to a strong future. We have formed a powerful consensus around our vision and aspirations … To move forward, we must be precise in our intent and bold, yet humble in our actions.”

Ngāti Tūwharetoa are just now at the beginning of being present in that future: to be precise and bold, innovative, and brave. Today is a day of circumspection, a day to reflect on the journey past to the present, and, importantly now, to embrace and embark upon the yonder and beyond. The time of reflection on the ebbs, the flows, the turbulence, the currents, the losses, the woes, the griefs, the wrongs, the injustice, and the mamae that has been. And ’tis now with anticipation and excitement to look forward and to embrace with hope and expectation all that soon to be filled and fulfilled potential and opportunity to flow from this bill.

Today is the day of deliverance. As is known, Ngāti Tūwharetoa are a tribal collective peoples of approximately 36,000 members, comprised of 26 hapū—the fifth-largest tribal entity in Aotearoa, bounded and bordered by no less than 20 other groups with overlapping tribal interests. This leg of this settlement journey began in terms of the legal discussions and negotiations in 2003 with the establishment of the Ngāti Tūwharetoa Hapū Forum Trust, and in March 2015 the agreement in principle was signed with the deed of settlement in July last year. And here we are now in this moment, this being a day of deliverance by way of this bill being made and passed into law. However, the passage of the law of Ngāti Tūwharetoa, the kotahitanga, in moving forward and into the future with aspirations of its people and its hapū as has been depicted in the three pou: Tongariro te maunga, te matāpuna o te wai, te ahi kā mau, Tūwharetoa te iwi, Tūwharetoa te hapū [Tongariro the mountain, the source of the water, the fires of continuous occupation, Tūwharetoa the tribe, Tūwharetoa the subtribe].

Redress has been spoken about, and it is known what the financial redress is and the cultural and fiscal redress, but also the non-physical elements as are detailed in the bill. Noting that the Crown does not, nor could it ever, fully compensate for the wrongs of the past, the settlement and passage of this bill provides a fundamental foundation to help contribute towards your stronger economic, cultural, and prosperous future.

The Māori Affairs Committee deliberated over 36 submissions with an additional 44, hearing the kōrero of 29 submitters at Taupō. As a result, on reflection, and with considerable angst at times, the committee recommended, as has been noted in the Supplementary Order Paper and also clause 14 of the bill, for the inclusion of the Wai 24 claims. So there was consternation. There was anguish in relation to discussions to do with the Lake Rotokawa Conservation Area, the Motutere Recreation Reserve, and, as my colleague Christopher Finlayson mentioned, the Waitiī Landcorp farm. However, Ōnekeneke was able to be addressed by way of a Supplementary Order Paper to secure your interests in time to come.

In concluding, I note that today is one of celebration. As I was walking to the House this afternoon, I noted a gathering of graduate students outside. I noted their expressions, and that they were gathered with the support of their whānau and their people. I observed a sense of reflection, a sense of relief, the dedication of their hard toil and turmoil, and, now, the delight, and, of course, the excitement going into the exploration of the future adventure for them, fulfilling their dreams, their hopes, their desires, and their potential—so similar to the gathering and your intent and purpose today.

So having sat once where Ngāti Tūwharetoa now sit when I joined with my people of Whanganui for the passage of Te Awa Tupua (Whanganui River Claims Settlement) Act into legislation, I sense the overwhelming mix of emotions and I sense the intensity and depth of hope. So may I say that it is with a heart filled with hope, eyes welled with tears, and thoughts flowing for those departed, and now for all of we here present who are imparted with the hope and the opportunity to realise all that is to be gained from what is secured under your bill.

Kei a koutou te iwi o Ngāti Tūwharetoa i te tīmatatanga.

[To you the tribe of Ngāti Tūwharetoa at the beginning.]

I commend the Ngāti Tūwharetoa Claims Settlement Bill, on its final reading and passage, to the House. Tēnā tātou katoa.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): This is a split call. I call the Hon Nanaia Mahuta—five minutes.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister for Māori Development): Tēnei ka tū ake ka titiro atu ki a koe e Te Ariki, Tā Tumu, koutou ngā mana, ngā ihi, ngā wehi o ngā hapū o Ngāti Tūwharetoa, ka nui te mihi atu ki a koutou i tēnei wā. Ka rere taku mane ki te tihi o Taupiri, ka tōpiki tōna haere, ka titiro atu rā ki Pirongia, arā, ki Kakepuku te wāhi i mōteatea ai a Puhiwahine mō tōna hoa pūmau a Toko. Ka rere tōna haere ki te tihi o Tongariro, arā, te wāhi i whakaarohia ai ā tātou nei mātou tūpuna, kia hīnanga ki uta, hīnanga ki tai, kia tū te Kīngitanga mō tātou katoa, ka nui te mihi atu ki a koutou.

Ka whakanikoniko ēnei kōrero i runga i te whakaaro o tēnei kaupapa kua takotohia e koutou kei mua i te aroaro o tēnei Pāremata. E kore e mutu ngā whakaaro ki a rātou e kore i kite i tēnei wā, engari kei reira te wairua o rātou katoa. Kei reira anō i te hoki i te wairua o ngā whakaaro i roto i tēnei o ngā kaupapa, nō reira tēnei te mihi atu ki a koutou, pai mārire ki a koutou katoa.

[As I stand and look at you paramount chief, Sir Tumu, and you the authorities, the powers and important ones of the subtribes of Ngāti Tūwharetoa, greetings and salutations to you at this time. My bird flies to the top of Taupiri, it climbs up, I look yonder to Pirongia, namely to Kakepuku, the place where Puhiwahine sang a lament for her beloved one, Toko. Its journey flowed on to the tip of Tongariro, namely, the place where our ancestors considered, to raise up from inland and coastal environs, to create the king movement for all of us, many greetings to you all.

I have embellished with these words the concept of this matter which has been brought before this Parliament by you. The thoughts of those who are not seen at this time will never cease, however the spirits of them all are there. They are also there with the return of the essence of the thoughts around this matter, therefore this is an acknowledgment of you, blessings on you all.]

I’ll make a brief contribution to support and endorse all of the comments that have been made in this House today as we recognise the significant achievement that has been reached in this settlement.

Now, my colleague Rino Tirikatene mentioned the 26 hapū and why it was so important, because it was a really challenging time as we observed and understood the path that you took to achieve a settlement with the mandate of hapū. Tā Tumu, you stood clearly behind the will of your people to go down a different road. Even though the Crown process required a large natural grouping, you maintained the integrity of what the people wanted, which was something akin to building and investing in the mana of hapū. That wasn’t an easy road, so we’re not going to understate that here today, but we just recognise that in taking that path, ultimately the future that was envisaged was one that would strengthen the hapū across Ngāti Tūwharetoa, with a view in mind to building the collective responsibility to the greater aspirations of Tūwharetoa, the iwi. So we recognise that here today. We also recognise that anyone who goes down the path of negotiation knows just how difficult it is. You don’t do it for a good time—that’s for sure.

I want to acknowledge the negotiators on the Ngāti Tūwharetoa side, who, I know, tested officials within the Office of Treaty Settlements time and time again about the parameters of the settlement aspirations within the context of Treaty settlement criteria. If I can share some conversations that I did have when I had another role for Ngāti Maniapoto, it was an insightful conversation that I had with both Te Ngaehe and Gina about the experience, and be assured that everything came back to where the people were at and what the people wanted, as difficult as the conversations were. Why that mattered to me was because Ngāti Maniapoto were in the same type of situation. Yes, they understood the collective aspirations of Maniapoto iwi but, actually, where the rubber hit the road in terms of the benefits of the Treaty settlement, it is always intended to benefit the hapū within the Maniapoto context. So grappling with those issues, I think, provided some insights from your experience that undoubtedly helped other iwi who looked to some leadership elsewhere.

I want to also endorse the comments that were made in terms of the nature of the overlapping claims. Actually, where Tūwharetoa became an exemplar for those within Te Rohe Pōtae was that it was always about relationships—always about relationships and respect—and I can say confidently, from Ngāti Maniapoto’s side, it was always reinforcing the respectful relationships, because what wasn’t commented on within the context of your historical experience was the nature of Te Rohe Pōtae and the strength of the shelter that Tūwharetoa provided after the land wars. Tāwhiao came down to the people of Tūwharetoa, to te Heuheu to seek refuge, counsel, and advice after some hardship. So we are here to say the journey hasn’t been easy, the future looks bright, and it’s all up to you now for the next generation. Nō reira, tēnā koutou katoa. Kia ora.

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is a privilege to be able to speak on these Treaty settlement bills, and the other thing that I think is a great privilege is that, as the previous speaker, Nanaia Mahuta, suggested, it’s very seldom the whole House agrees on everything we do. I think that’s one of the things I really enjoy about the Treaty settlement process—it’s that we get to a point where we agree. And I want to make one other point about the Treaty settlement process for those who go into this negotiation process. When you think about it, you must go in there with huge trepidation, because you’re really negotiating on behalf of every generation that follows you, and that’s the thing that, really, I think is amazing. You’ve got to be pretty brave to do that, and to get to a point where you settle I think is amazing.

I too want to warmly welcome all members of Ngāti Tūwharetoa who’ve come all the way to Wellington today. And believe me, I know how far it is, because I’ve got to be in Taumarunui first thing in the morning, and you can’t fly there. It’s a long way, so I think you’re pretty special. That so many of you have come down here I think is pretty cool.

As the Minister Andrew Little and the Hon Chris Finlayson have said—and many others have too—this is a historic day for both the Crown and for Tūwharetoa. There’s an amazing amount of work that goes into these things, and I’m not going to go back in history and talk about too much of the history of this, because that’s been mentioned by so many people today, but I do want to talk about the uniqueness of your place. I think that there’s no other part of New Zealand that’s been invaded or infiltrated by a couple of million, effectively, foreigners every year, who traipse through your territory and the most beautiful part of New Zealand. I was thinking, when Shane Jones was talking before, that it’s a great opportunity for you to go and see him and get a bit of the pūtea he’s handing out around New Zealand and take it back to Tūwharetoa, because he’s clearly got plenty of it. But when you think about the massive tourism industry, which, of course, wasn’t there 100 years ago, there are some significant challenges in your part of New Zealand that are caused by that tourism industry, which is pretty amazing.

I want to talk about one or two other things, too, because you, effectively, supply power to half of the North Island. Not only that, they then introduced a whole lot of fish, which ate the fish that you liked to eat. But the frustrating thing for me about those fish is that they’d be beautiful if we could farm them. We don’t farm them. Let’s get on and farm the fish that live in your place. I think that’d be pretty cool. So there’s some interesting things about you, and the other thing I wanted to particularly mention was the timber industry. If you look at the timber industry of the central North Island, it’s—I could use a fairly strong term but I probably won’t—effectively been raped and pillaged for the first 100 years of our coexistence in New Zealand. It’s not until you see the remnants of that amazing bush left there that you realise how majestic it must’ve been 150 years ago. So there’s some interesting things that I think have happened in your part of New Zealand that probably haven’t impacted on other people to nearly anywhere near the same point.

The Hon Chris Finlayson talked about the overlapping claims, and many of those overlapping claims are right in the area that both our Speaker at the moment, Adrian Rurawhe, and I share a lot of the representation of. And there’s a number of those claims still to be settled, and I think that will be hugely positive and I look forward to the time—and I don’t imagine I’ll see it, but I look forward to the time—when they’re all settled, because I think that’d be pretty amazing. It will make a difference to what happens in our part of the world, and it will be very significant for all of us. So I think that’s the thing that’s really exciting.

So I want to congratulate you on the immense amount of work that’s gone into getting to the point you’ve got to. I want to congratulate you on bringing such a great contingent down to Wellington today, and I think the other special thing about you all coming here is that this place is our place, effectively, and I think it’s so cool that these things are done with so many people from around New Zealand coming into the Parliament to witness it happen. So that’s my lot, and I just want to fully support and endorse the process and hope that we can get a whole lot more of this process done under Minister Little in the next couple of years. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare.

Moe mai

Ngā mate o Ngāti Tūwharetoa

I roto i te aroha

Whakatō mai

I roto

E te wā kāinga

Ka eke i aku kamo

Ngā wai, roimata

Auē, e ngā mate o Ngāti Tūwharetoa

E tū ōku, ōku nei

[Rest here

The deceased of Ngāti Tūwharetoa

With love

Plant here

In the homeland

Emerging from my eyes

The tears, tears

Alas, the deceased of Ngāti Tūwharetoa

Stand, mine, mine]

I sing that lament on our behalf, for our whānau who aren’t with us today, for our whānau across our 26 hapū, for our whānau who are part of a collective group who participated in the process that the Crown has enabled since 1975—we had 100 Wai claims. So I sing that proudly because I stand here as an uri of Ngāti Tūwharetoa, incredibly proud of the legacy that our tūpuna have left us. I acknowledge for all of us our whānau who have passed on, but they passed us this legacy of representation, this legacy of actually being staunchly Ngāti Tūwharetoa.

I was thinking about what to say today, and I’ve decided, actually, it’s not really my words that I want to share with us today, and so I found an interesting quote. It was written by Edward Jerningham Wakefield in his book Adventure in New Zealand, and he talks about the king of Taupō. On 1 January 1842, at te Heuheu the Great’s village in Te Rapa, he conducted an interview. At that time, te Heuheu was being besieged by many people who wanted him to sell his land. This is what is quoted in this pukapuka—and I quote:

“If this be your wish … go back and tell my words to the people who sent you. I am king here, as my fathers were before me, and as King George and his fathers [were] over your country. I have not sold my chieftainship to the Governor, as all the chiefs round the sea-coast have done, nor have I sold my land. I will sell neither. A messenger was here from the Governor to buy the land the other day, and I refused: if you are on the same errand I refuse you too. You White people are numerous and strong; you can easily crush us if you choose, and take possession of that which we will not yield; but here is my right arm, and should thousands of you come, you must make me a slave or kill me before I will give up my authority or my land. When you go, you will say I am”—this is interesting—“[a] big-mouthed [Māori] like the other Māori[s] who you have talked to; but I am now telling you that by which I mean to abide. Let your people keep the sea-coast, and leave the interior to us, and our mountain, whose name is sacred to the bones of my father. Do not bring many White people into the interior, who may encroach on our possessions till we become their servants”.

Te Heuheu did not sign the Treaty. We were incredibly clear that we would not cede anything, that we wanted to be the rangatira of our own lands; we wanted to control our own lives. So, in highlighting those words, I must highlight the words of te ariki o Ngāti Tūwharetoa Tā Tumu, who said at the signing of the deed of settlement at Waitetoko, on 8 July 2017—I’ll make two quotes—“let us never forget the remarkable feats of our tupuna, neither can we forget the many who began this journey with us, who though not physically here today, are undoubtedly with us all [in] wairua, within each and every one of us. Let this settlement be a sacred thread that binds us all; that we may look to the health and well-being of our future generations from a platform of consensus and unity. It is a testimony to the strength of our tikanga that Ngāti Tuwharetoa has never ceded our authority within our rohe, each generation upholding the legacy of Ngatoroirangi and our tupuna.”

I want add to that quote. I’ll add to te Heuheu the Great and actually knowledge you, Tā Tumu, who has led us so valiantly to the point that we are at today. I acknowledge all of our rangatira across our hapū, who have participated in a process that we have controlled. I do want to highlight that, through the Treaty settlement process, we have amazing opportunities before us because, as part of the settlement, we have a relationship with the Department of Conservation, for example; Te Piringa Agreement. We will have opportunities with the Waikato Regional Council and the Taupō District Council through our Te Kōpua agreement. So there are many opportunities yet to be realised, and I think that the foundation that we have and the partnerships that we have and the opportunities that we have are significant. I want to acknowledge all of those rangatira who will be leading us through that process into the future. So kia kaha to our Te Kotahitanga o Ngāti Tūwharetoa reps. We have much to do, but I know that we have the capacity, we have the intellect, but more than that we have the heart and the legacy, which means we will be creating opportunities for future generations.

I just want to take the last couple of minutes of my contribution to echo the words of Tā Tumu when he signed the deed of settlement, because it was an acknowledgment, actually, of the process. It was an acknowledgment on that day of Minister Finlayson and Minister Flavell, and I know today he would add Minister Little to that list. It was an acknowledgment of the Crown negotiators, both on the Crown side and on Tūwharetoa’s side, and I acknowledge Sir Michael Cullen, who’s here with us today, and the others. It was an acknowledgment of the officials within the Government departments. It was also an acknowledgment of the Crown Forestry Rental Trust.

So, in thanking all of those who have been involved from the negotiation perspective, I would now like to highlight the role of the Māori Affairs Committee and I want to specifically acknowledge our chair, Rino Tirikatene, and the members of the Māori Affairs Committee. We undertake that work with incredible pride and, in fact, when I first came into this House, I sat next to the Hon Parekura Horomia for three years as a member of the Māori Affairs Committee. It is the most humbling work that we could ever do, because, in fact, it is our truth and reconciliation process, and it’s an opportunity for us actually to acknowledge what happened in our country, and the fact that many of us were killed. We had land stolen from us and, with our land, we had our culture and our language taken from us, and through colonisation we were supposed to assimilate, but we never did and we never will, because we are strong and we are proud.

So the legacy that we must ensure our children get is our language and our culture. My father said to me, “If I could speak Te Reo, I would have everything.” And it’s interesting. I don’t have Te Reo—it was beaten out of my dad, and he wanted to protect us—but my baby sister does, so I mihi to my little sister, Janice, who’s not here. But the rights of every one of our tamariki and mokopuna going forward is to know our history, to learn our Reo, so that we can continue, I believe, to stand on the shoulders of our ancestors, our tūpuna, who have brought us to where we are today. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): E Te Māngai o Te Whare, tēnā koe. E ngā member o Te Whare nei tēnā tātou katoa. Tūwharetoa mana, Tūwharetoa reo, Tūwharetoa tangata, anei ngā mihi ki a koutou katoa. Anei ngā mihi i runga i tō karanga o te piere nei whakahirahira.

Nō reira he uri ahau o Te Tai Rāwhiti, Ngāti Kahungunu, tēnei te mihi maioha ki a koutou katoa. E Te Ariki Tumu, tēnā koe, me tō hoa rangatira, Susan, tēnā kōrua. Dame Georgina tēnā koe, otirā ōku rau rangatira mā tēnā koutou katoa.

[To the Assistant Speaker, greetings to you. To the members of this House, greetings to all of us. Tūwharetoa authorities, Tūwharetoa voices, Tūwharetoa people, here are greetings to you all. Here are greetings because of the call of this significant bill.

Therefore, I am a descendant of the East Coast, Ngāti Kahungunu, this is an affectionate greeting to you all. To the paramount chief Tumu, greetings, and your wife, Susan, greetings to you both. Dame Georgina, greetings to you, and to all of you, my chiefly ones, greetings to you all.]

It is indeed an honour to stand and support this settlement bill of Ngāti Tūwharetoa, so important that so many people wanted to get up and stand to celebrate and acknowledge this special occasion. So can I just please humbly thank the Opposition for allowing me to take a slot so I can stand. Ngā mihi ki a koutou. Thank you very much.

I thought about sharing some stories of significant people from Tūwharetoa who I’ve had the privilege to work alongside as a way of celebrating this significant day. Of course my colleague here Louisa Wall, whom I’m very proud to share Government benches with, represents Tūwharetoa very well. So I want to mihi to you, Louisa, for all that you stand for and all that you bring to this House, and the way in which you do it. I’m proud to call you a colleague.

My predecessor, my mentor, my friend, the Hon Parekura Horomia had a way of creating relationships with people all around the motu. On this special occasion, he said, “We need to go and see Tumu.” And of course it was with honour that Parekura and I travelled to Taupō, and of course our favourite saying was “We must get on the boat with Tumu and go fishing.” and that was a code, I believe, for two great men to kōrero—to kōrero. So we went off to Taupō, we got on a boat, and we went out fishing. Unbeknown to us, Tumu hadn’t told the rest of the tribe and we were on the lake for about four hours. There was a flurry of “Where’s Tumu? Where’s Tumu?” and when we arrived back after catching trout, being fed on the boat, there was a delegation at the port when we got back in Taupō. I’m pretty sure there were some words of “Where have you been? Where have you been? What have you been up to?” and Tumu’s gracious way was “That was for me to have and not to share with you.”

Many of our leaders—and I do want to acknowledge not just Parekura, but it’s times like this I remember Timi, and I remember his contribution to his brother and to his people. And like Lou said, it is times like these that you think of these great rangatira who are no longer here with us but who have forged a passage for this very day where we stand in this House to celebrate Ngāti Tūwharetoa and their contribution to the nation. I want to stand and acknowledge Parekura. I want to acknowledge Timi, and of course I’ve acknowledged my colleague Louisa. I also acknowledge a colleague by the name of John Bishara, who I worked with under Parekura at the Community Employment Group. So wherever John is, I know he’s made a significant contribution to the people of Aotearoa and I know he comes from these great people. So I want to acknowledge John.

I also want Tūwharetoa to claim the current coach of the Silver Ferns. I do. I know she’s from up north, but she was schooled in Taupō. So I want to acknowledge Noeline Taurua and her beginnings in Taupō. Let’s not forget that. So there may be a few tickets coming Tūwharetoa’s way when you remind her about where she grew up and who nurtured her—I know it was Taupō.

It’s people like these that I’ve named. Of course, I want to also acknowledge Tuarōpaki. I want to acknowledge Tūmanako Weretā and the hapū and whānau, and what they’ve been forging, as Tūmanako always does, under the radar. But I know, and I want to acknowledge, his contribution to this nation and what they are doing in Mōkai, particularly around the hothouses, miraka, and their native nursery, and, of course, the contribution that he’s given this Government through his daughter Puāwai Weretā, who currently now sits on Damien O’Connor’s agricultural council—bringing Māori expertise, the way we do it, to bear on this side of the House. So we are contributing to awe, like the Prime Minister has said many, many times.

So I wanted to stand and acknowledge these fine people as only a small glimpse of Tūwharetoa’s generosity to this nation—their generosity, their patience. I’m looking down at the deed of settlement. I see it was signed on 8 July 2017, and a year and a half later, we’re having the final reading of their bill. So they have been very patient, and they’ve also been, like I said, very generous with what they have given. I am proud to stand in support of this bill with all members of this House. I too want to acknowledge Sir Michael Cullen. I also want to acknowledge John Isles. I want to acknowledge the negotiators that have brought to this House a bill that we are proud to support. I want to thank you for doing all that work for that outcome.

In the time I’ve got left, I want to acknowledge our rangatira āpōpō, our rangatahi that are in the House today. If that haka that we saw at the pō’hiri is anything to show where Tūwharetoa’s going, watch this space. I want to acknowledge those rangatahi—rangatahi that not only did the haka but are here to support this important kaupapa, and who I know are already planning their next five, 10, 15, 50 years out in terms of Tūwharetoa. I want to acknowledge them. I want to say respectfully to the Kotahitanga o Ngāti Tūwharetoa that amongst all the planning—because this is just the beginning; it’s not the end, and I’m excited about what’s going to come out of Tūwharetoa—that we always remember to be bold and to invest in our own. To be bold and to invest in our own. For too long we have always thought the expertise lies outside of our people. It is now our time to invest in our rangatahi, to invest in their futures, because we have so much to do and we have so many people to do it with. We could be the catalyst for that change, the pipeline of leadership that should be coming through with a range of skills to unlock the potential that is in the Tūwharetoa rohe.

These are just a few words of advice, again, like my sister Nanaia, as a former negotiator, is always having something to share. But to stand in all humility in celebration with the people of Tūwharetoa for this significant achievement—this is your day. This is your hour. This is your future.

Nō reira e Te Māngai o Te Whare, tēnei te mihi ki a koe, otirā te iwi o Ngāti Tūwharetoa, harikoa te ngākau ki a koutou katoa, he mihi aroha, he mihi maioha, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tihei Tūwharetoa.

[Therefore Mr Assistant Speaker, this is a greeting to you, and indeed to the tribe of Ngāti Tūwharetoa, my heart is joyful for you all, loving greetings, affectionate greetings, greetings, greetings, thrice greetings, tihei Tūwharetoa.]

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister of Employment): Tuatahi he tika me mihi ki a koutou Tūwharetoa i tae mai nei i tēnei wā, i whakarangatira i a mātou. Ki a koe e te rangatira, i tahuri koe i tō korowai rangatiranga i runga mātou i tēnei wā, ngā mihi ki a koe.

[Firstly, it is only right to greet you Tūwharetoa who have come here at this time, and ennobled us with your presence. To you the chief, you have endowed us with your chiefly cloak at this time, greetings to you.]

When I think of Tūwharetoa, I think of the chief’s father, Sir Hepi. In my view, he laid the groundwork. We forget sometimes that it was your father who challenged the Government, who was quite anti-Government for a while—and I salute him for that—and who challenged the process and brought Te Ao Māori together. We must never forget that. His legacy is one of challenge to the Crown. He followed in the footsteps of his tīpuna, as you have, Tā Tumu. I honour him, and I think he set the footprints for all of us.

As some of the Tūwharetoa people will know, I have a bit of a connection with Tūwharetoa. OK, it’s not a connection that went for ever, but it was a connection and a connection I was very proud of for a while—whether Tūwharetoa was proud, I’m not sure. But it wasn’t really my fault. Actually, it’s Georgina te Heuheu’s fault, because she sang in the church along with her husband, Timi te Heuheu—and obviously a little bit flat, because things went off a few years later, didn’t they, Georgie? But lovely to see her, whaea Georgie, here, who carried on the legacy of her father-in-law. I salute Georgie. I salute what she did, coming into the National Party. That must have been hard. That must have been tough. But I salute her. She went into that National Party and she carried on the challenge that her father-in-law laid down, and she was an advocate for kaupapa Māori and an advocate for tikanga Māori. I just think it’s wonderful seeing her today.

But, as I said, I had a bit of a long relationship there with Tūwharetoa, and I want to salute some of that whānau who I was part of for a long time, the Maniapoto whānau—a whānau that might not have been tino rangatiratanga advocates, but a whānau who were whakangahau advocates, without doubt. To that whānau, who are not at the forefront but at the back doing the entertaining—a very integral part of this kaupapa. I say to my former father-in-law, Nēpia Maniapoto, to the great Huri Maniapoto, who married my auntie Bubs Ngārimu from Ngati Porou, and I say to Manu Maniapoto, who’s now gone, and to Jim Maniapoto and to Uncle Tilly Maniapoto—we remember them well, don’t we? We remember them and their contribution to the Tūwharetoa kaupapa well.

Sometimes we forget these unsung heroes who might not be out the front—a bit like old Cedric up the back there. But if you muck around with anyone from Tūwharetoa, Cedric will deal with them—and my other cousin there, Auntie Bubs’s son. I salute these people, these unsung heroes who make a contribution. We forget them sometimes because we do have our heroes and our tīpuna who have made such a big contribution to these settlements, who Louisa talked about in her beautiful kōrero, who Meka Whaitiri talked about, and who others on the other side have talked about. There have been so many heroes in terms of Tūwharetoa—and, of course, John Bishara, a good friend of mine and probably the grumpiest and most horrible chief executive who ever graced Te Māngai Pāho. He’s not even here today—you know, typical Bish. I salute them all.

I think this is their legacy. The Maniapotos; te Heuheus; Georgina, who’s been wonderful; you, Sir Tumu, who’s been along; Cedric, who’s running the team at the back—I think you should be proud of this contribution and the legacy that was set down by the great Sir Hepi right at the start, who challenged us all and talked about tino rangatiratanga, talked about kotahitanga, talked about justice for our people. I mihi to him, and I mihi to you all today. Tēnā nō tātou katoa.

TAMATI COFFEY (Labour—Waiariki): What an act to follow. Why would you do it? Whānau, I’ve got five minutes to have my speech, so I’m going to rip through it and I’m going to leave some of the formalities to the side.

Ka tika me mihi ki a koe e te rangatira, taku rangatira, a Tumu, ā, tēnā koe. Aunty Georgina, ā, tēnā koe hoki, ki a koe hoki, Sir Michael Cullen. Tēnā koutou katoa. Nei ngā hapū maha i waenganui i a tātou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[It is right to acknowledge you the chief, my chief, Tumu, greetings to you. Aunty Georgina, greetings to you also, and, also to you, Sir Michael Cullen. Greetings to you all. There are many subtribes amongst us, greetings to you all.]

Like The Drifters say, they save the best for last—“Save the Last Dance”; oh, that’s what it was. As a new MP, this is all new to me. This is actually my first settlement from back home in the Waiariki, so it’s a big moment for me. Being a new MP, it’s all about looking and learning and listening. You know I’m a new MP—you put me here. Well, most of you put me here.

It’s interesting to see the spectrum, actually, of settlements back home in the rohe. You’ve got Tūhoe on the one hand, who settled a while ago and are on their feet and doing well. You’ve got other iwi, like Tauranga Moana, who are still waiting for that right outcome and for that deliberation to take place to reach that happy point. But you, today, are signing your settlement, and I mihi to you for all of the hard work that has gone into today.

I was there at the signing of the deed of settlement at Waitetoko. It was a big day. It was a momentous day. It was a milestone. That was the day that the apology was presented. I saw in the bill that the apology was there, and it’s just words on the paper, but I wanted to, in my short contribution today, just read out a little bit of that apology and do it with a bit of meaning, because that’s why we’re here. The whole purpose of today is, basically, the Crown, us, saying sorry to you, to us, Ngāti Tūwharetoa.

The apology starts like this: “To the resilient iwi that is Ngāti Tūwharetoa, to your Ariki, your beloved tūpuna, your hapū, … your whānau, the Crown offers this long overdue apology: the Crown unreservedly apologises for the ways [that] it has dishonoured its obligations to you under te Tiriti … and its principles.

Ngāti Tūwharetoa’s relationship with the Crown is one characterised by your iwi’s generosity of spirit. Time and [time] again, your hapū have shared taonga precious to you for the benefit of your fellow New Zealanders. At other times, the Crown has taken your whenua and your resources from you. The Crown regrets, profoundly, its actions, [its] omissions, and policies that have debilitated Ngāti Tūwharetoa’s social, cultural, spiritual, political, and economic structures. The Crown understands, and is deeply remorseful that, by removing the ability of your whānau and hapū to safeguard your whenua and taonga, your ability to nurture yourselves has been hindered. …

Through this settlement, and with this apology, the Crown recognises how your resilience as hapū and as an iwi depends upon your deep connection to the whenua and your desire to protect it. The Crown looks forward to building an enduring relationship of mutual trust and co-operation with Ngāti Tūwharetoa based on te Tiriti … and its principles, and to support you in the revitalisation of ngā hapū o Ngāti Tūwharetoa.”

That’s in there, whānau. I encourage you to get that printed up and put it at your marae, because the words are deep and they’re incredibly meaningful.

You are at the start of your journey, but I can’t stop telling my colleagues down here just how much you’re kicking it in Tūwharetoa. I talk about Tuarōpaki and the awesome stuff that’s happening there. Just last week, I went to the signing—the Obayashi Corporation and Tuarōpaki about to build their hydrogen plant—cutting edge stuff. Tauhara North No. 2—I keep telling my auntie to pass her shares over; she won’t do it. Her loss; I’ll get there eventually.

The new whare that’s been built at Mōkai. I was there for the dawn ceremony. It is beautiful there. I’m trying to hustle our Māori caucus colleagues to come down to Tūwharetoa in the new year—namely, to come and look at our marae, down at Waitahanui, down at Pākira. I know that a lot of love and a lot of work has gone into that. So, hopefully, we get that over the line, and hopefully I can bring the Prime Minister with me when we make that journey. There you go. I just put her on notice.

That’s all I’ve got time for, whānau. Thank you for coming here today. It warms my heart like you wouldn’t believe. If I don’t see you this afternoon, I’ll see you at Pā Wars in the uka tent. Kia ora.

Bill read a third time.

Waiata

Bills

Subordinate Legislation Confirmation Bill (No 2)

Second Reading

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move, That the Subordinate Legislation Confirmation Bill (No 2) be now read a second time. I suspect after that last debate that this is going to be somewhat of an anticlimax for the House, particularly after the very moving speeches that we just heard and the very warm and considered contributions from members across the House—this is somewhat of a contrast.

Subordinate legislation confirmation bills are an annual event in this House. Their purpose is to confirm, by an Act of Parliament, regulations that would otherwise be revoked on a particular date, in some cases at the end of the year. If these regulations were allowed to lapse, the result would be administrative chaos, considerable expense, and the loss of a significant amount of revenue.

The process is set out in the Legislation Act 2012, having been clarified in detail by the Legislation (Confirmable Instruments) Amendment Act 2015. With only the second reading of the subordinate legislation confirmation bills being debatable, detailed select committee consideration of the bill is particularly important. I’d like to thank the Regulations Review Committee, under the chairmanship of the Hon Gerry Brownlee, for the work that they have done on this bill, which was examined with commendable thoroughness. Explanations about why the instruments should be confirmed were sought from five Government departments that have responsibility for administering them, as a result of which the committee felt they were able to recommend that all of those instruments be confirmed by the House.

The committee’s report also contained reflections on the confirmation process itself, which could be fed into the Standing Orders Committee’s triennial review of Parliament’s rules in 2020. Having had some conversations with members involved in that process, I think there are some really good issues there that the Standing Orders Committee could get into in more detail.

This year’s bill confirms delegated legislation made under seven Acts of Parliament: the Animal Products Act 1999, the Antarctica (Environmental Protection) Act 1994, the Biosecurity Act 1993, the Commodity Levies Act 1990, the Customs and Excise Act 1996, the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001, and the Tariff Act 1988.

The instruments to be confirmed fall into several broad categories. The setting of levies and duties on various goods and services accounts for half of the regulations that are being validated by this bill. They include levies on fish processors and large processors in the dairy industry, biosecurity system entry levies, and commodity levies on kiwifruit, rock lobster, pāua, arable crops, maize, cereal silage, and asparagus. Increases in the excise duties on tobacco and alcohol products are also included.

A second category of regulations that is validated by the bill is import and export prohibitions. The export of certain kinds of pounamu and green-lipped mussels is prohibited. Consumers are protected by the banning of the import of motor vehicles with faulty or absent odometers. The safety of the general public is enhanced by the banning of the import of certain offensive weapons, including some kinds of knife. New Zealand’s commitment to peace and non-aggression is behind the prohibition of items that may have an application in a nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons programme, as well as certain other weapons or military goods.

Several regulations are consequential from international agreements or treaties, such as amendments to the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty, which increased protection for native Antarctic animals, mammals, birds, and plants.

Finally, increases in benefits and allowances related to New Zealand superannuation are approved. The subordinate legislation confirmation process enables Government to be responsive and efficient without compromising the essential parliamentary scrutiny. I commend the bill to the House.

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker, for the opportunity to take a call on the Subordinate Legislation Confirmation Bill (No 2), which the National Party will be supporting—to the great relief of the Leader of the House, no doubt—this bill, which typically is not a bill which attracts a lot of debate or attracts a lot of controversy.

This bill does have an important purpose, and that purpose is to prevent the revocation of certain pieces of subordinate legislation that, by virtue of Acts of Parliament under which they are made, are revoked if they are not confirmed by an Act of Parliament. So this is Parliament’s ability to be able to scrutinise the lawmaking, the subordinate legislation which is made under Acts of Parliament, to ensure that it is in line with the intent of Parliament, and then this legislation gives Parliament that ability, if it is not satisfied, for those regulations to be lapsed if they are found not to be within the intent that Parliament gave to that legislation in the first place.

As a member of the Regulations Review Committee, we were able to look at the regulations which are presented in this bill, and we were able to hear submissions. We received submissions from a number of Government departments, from the New Zealand Customs Service, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Ministry of Social Development, and the Ministry for Primary Industries, and they all said that they believed that these needed to be confirmed to ensure that they were not automatically revoked.

So these confirmations, as the Minister Chris Hipkins has outlined, cover a range of pieces of legislation, from the Animal Products Act, which includes some fees and charges and levies, to the Antarctica (Environmental Protection) Act. Most interesting, I think, came under the Commodity Levies Act, where there were levies regarding kiwifruit, rock lobster, pāua, arable crops, maize, cereal silage, and asparagus—and I’m sure the Green Party would be very interested in that one. The ones around the asparagus were very important regulations which are included in this bill.

Tim van de Molen: Asparagus is a great crop.

SIMEON BROWN: Asparagus—that’s right, Mr van de Molen. I appreciate your input there. The Customs and Excise Act included a number of other excises, and that particularly focuses on the tobacco products indexation and the 10 percent increase in tobacco excise which was confirmed, as well as the indexation of excise on alcoholic beverages.

So this does cover a wide range of regulations, and the point of contention—which I’m glad to hear the Minister saying is going to be addressed through the Standing Orders review, and which was discussed at the committee and is outlined in the report back to the House—is over the process around when the committee should be able to review the regulations. The National members of the committee believe that the committee’s scrutiny would be more effective if it was able to consider the instruments prior to their finalisation.

The way that the process currently works is that the regulations are made and then this bill is brought to the select committee, and at that point we scrutinise, and then we make recommendations to the House. The National members believe that what should take place is that before the regulations are finalised they should be scrutinised, and then the process should go towards the confirmation. This would allow the committee to report to the relevant Minister, if necessary, before the instruments come into force.

This anomaly is particularly important, I think, when it comes to duties or levies. Under the current process, if an Act which allows for these levies to be put in place—if levies are put in place—is then found to be inconsistent, or the Regulation Review Committee reviews those levies and finds them to be required to be revoked, then currently the process is that while they’ve been in place they’ve been in law, essentially, and those levies have been charged. Then the committee looks at those regulations and may decide to revoke them, and at that point those duties or levies, in most instances, will have to be refunded to the people upon which they have been charged.

So this leads to a potential situation where, essentially, levies are charged, and then the Regulations Review Committee reviews those regulations which set up the levies and says, “Actually, we don’t believe that they fit within the purpose of the Act.”, and then they are revoked, potentially, by Parliament, if that’s the recommendation by the Regulations Review Committee. Parliament will pass an amendment to the subordinate legislation confirmation bill, and then they are revoked, and then a refund of those levies will have to be put in place. So what we’re saying is that that process should be reversed and the regulations should be reviewed first, prior to them being struck, so that the requirement for those levies to then be refunded is no longer in place.

So that’s something which I’m very glad to hear that the Minister is going to look into as part of the Standing Orders review. I think that’s something which all parliamentarians would find incredibly interesting and would be quite interested in being part of—I certainly would be. I know there would be many members on this side of the House, and I’m sure there would be others on the other side, who would have a range of different thoughts, as no doubt they will have had experience with constituents who have come to talk to them about different levies which have been struck, about when and how they were struck, the process of consultation, and whether that was done through due process.

We will be very interested whether the Regulations Review Committee can play a more substantive role in actually looking at these regulations prior to them being struck. I think that will be certainly something which all parliamentarians would be very interested in. So I’m really looking forward to that conversation. I’m really pleased that the Minister has indicated that that conversation will happen. I’m sure it will be something which all of Parliament can agree on. It will be something which will be very, very interesting indeed. So without further ado, I just want to say that I commend this bill to the House.

NICOLA WILLIS (National): I rise to speak also on the Subordinate Legislation Confirmation Bill (No 2). I’m conscious that my colleague Simeon Brown has already done a very good job of illustrating some of the issues that we have discussed at the Regulations Review Committee in relation to this bill. I am a new member, and my participation in the Regulations Review Committee has been a very gratifying experience, because, on that committee, I think we feel very close to the purpose of Parliament and, in fact, what the power of this House is. Of course, as MPs, our job is not only to create new legislation but also to ensure that the regulations that are set fall within the scope of statutes that have already been passed, and this scrutiny is an important role for Parliament. So, in discussing the Subordinate Legislation Confirmation Bill (No 2), both National and Labour were very clear that there was no particular reason why these particular instruments shouldn’t be confirmed, but we did have a very thorough conversation about the process at play with this bill and its appropriateness given the supreme role of Parliament within our democracy, and whether or not that role does play out in this process.

So, in particular, I want to acknowledge the chairman, the Hon Gerry Brownlee, who I think, as a parliamentarian of many years’ experience and standing, was well placed to lead this discussion. I want to acknowledge Dr Duncan Webb, who, of course, as a legal mind, was very able to engage in the debate as well; Kiritapu Allan, Dr Liz Craig, and Simeon Brown. The Regulations Review Committee—as members in this House who have sat on it will appreciate—is a committee that is not often adversarial but where good debate and discussion about detailed matters takes place.

In relation to this bill and the process issues which the National Party in particular raised, it’s important that people understand the current process. So the current process is that Parliament sets an empowering Act that allows the creation of legislative instruments, and it requires, in setting that Act, that those legislative instruments be confirmed by legislation within a certain period. The instruments are then made, they’re notified in the Gazette, they’re published, and then they’re presented to the House. Then this bill is prepared, and we go through this debate as we are today.

But, of course, the key point here is that we’re really having the debate after the fact, because the regulations have already been set; they’re already in effect. And so if, for any reason, those regulations have actually strayed outside the scope of the original empowering Act—if officials have perhaps gone beyond what was the mandate of Parliament or the intent of Parliament—we do have, potentially, a significant issue, as Simeon Brown laid out. That issue is not just about the role of Parliament in a theoretical sense—which I would argue is also very important—but it’s a practical issue, because if regulations have been set that have allowed levies, for example, to be collected in excess of what the original statute had envisaged, then we would find ourselves in the circumstance of Parliament having to pass an Act saying that that wasn’t OK and then requiring those levies to be recollected again. We can imagine the administrative challenge and difficulty and complexity that could cause.

So, in raising this issue, National had very good intent, which was to say, “Yes, in this particular bill, there are no particular instruments that we have special concern about.”, but, of course, we did raise the question of: “Well, what if we did?” And it would really, frankly, be after the fact, and it means, to some extent, that it makes a little bit of a joke of the powers of the Parliament to do much about it. So that is the process point which we’ve acknowledged and which the committee has reported on, and that I think it’s important for members of this House to appreciate and reflect on.

The next step, of course, is for those substantive issues to be considered further. I think the Minister referred to the Standing Orders Committee potentially being the avenue for that discussion. I think it’s a useful discussion. I would appreciate the opportunity, potentially, for other legal scholars—those who’ve studied our public law systems—to reflect on it. I think what is very important—and I hope it’s a view that is shared across this House—is that when we come here as members of Parliament, we do so with the responsibility to ensure that the decisions that we vote on in this House are representative and work through our democratic systems. And if we allow the executive to take actions which sit outside Parliament, we are losing the supremacy of Parliament; we are losing the power of our roles in here.

So this is a significant issue. It’s a process point. It’s a technical point. I won’t pretend that this was a discussion that I thought could be streamed live on TVNZ or NewsHub, for that matter. I’m not sure that it would have kept young people up and down the country awake and excited, and yet it is an important and substantive conversation. So, again, I’d like to acknowledge fellow members of the committee for the discussion we had to reconfirm National’s support for this bill but our desire to engage in further discussion about this process. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): The question is that the motion be—oh, I apologise. I call Mark Patterson.

MARK PATTERSON (NZ First): I hope it won’t be so inconsequential. I just rise, actually, for a very brief contribution just to affirm New Zealand First’s support for this Subordinate Legislation Confirmation Bill (No 2). I do note—we have just been following the debate around the process—that the Minister has offered to look into it as part of the triennial review, and it does sound like there is some cause for that. I would note, just for some context, for example, when we’re looking at the Commodity Levies Act and the levies that this has been delegated to bring into force, or the rate of—these industries all come to the Minister after having wide consultation within the sector involved, and often there’ll be a vote, and most of the votes that I’ve seen on these commodity levies have got 95-or-so percent of the participants who are the actual payers of these levies who have shown support.

So I think we need to have a little bit of context there around some of this, too. We don’t want to wrap it up in too much red tape. We’re merely confirming what these industries have debated and wished for during their consultation process. So that will no doubt be taken into account within that wider discussion. But, outside of that, New Zealand First is very happy to support this legislation. Whilst it’s not the highest-profile legislation, as Nicola Willis mentioned before, it is actually really important for those industries. The Commodity Levies Act, the Customs and Excise Act, the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act, the Biosecurity Act—they’re all really important issues that this country faces, so having the mechanisms in place to enact the legislation and regulations is really important. So New Zealand First supports that.

I will commend the Regulations Review Committee for wading through this, and I note that Nicola Willis showed some enthusiasm for that committee. I’m glad I’m not on it. It does sound fairly dry old stuff, but we do need people that are motivated to look and then trawl through the details of this stuff. It’s important for our democracy that they do, and I’m glad that it’s not me. But, without further ado, New Zealand First supports this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Thank you, and I apologise to the member again. OK, are we done? OK.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move, That the Subordinate Legislation Confirmation Bill (No 2) be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Coroners (Access to Body of Dead Person) Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): I move that the third reading of the Coroners (Access to Body of Deceased Person) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. First of all, I want to begin by thanking everyone who has contributed towards this bill and, in particular, the Māori Affairs Committee, who, through its 2016 report, Inquiry into whānau access to and management of tūpāpaku, recommended this legislative change. I’d also like to thank those members of the public who took the time to make submissions to the select committee’s bill.

This bill implements part of the Government’s response to the Māori Affairs Committee’s report—again, that report was Inquiry into whānau access to and management of tūpāpaku. In particular, the bill will codify the current practice that many coroners exercise and ensure that all cultural beliefs, including tikanga Māori, continue to be recognised and supported in our coronial system.

The Coroners Act establishes the coronial framework in New Zealand and regulates whānau access to tūpāpaku. The role of the coroner is to investigate sudden or unexplained deaths and to make recommendations that can help reduce the chance of further deaths in similar circumstances. The Act seeks to balance the cultural and spiritual needs of family and those in a close relationship with the person who has died with the public good associated with a proper and timely understanding of the causes of death. Overall, the coronial system responds well to cultural and religious needs. However, there are always opportunities to improve the responsiveness of the coronial system to cultural considerations.

Even though the bill itself is small in size, the completion of this bill’s passage through this House will have far-reaching impacts for many people in New Zealand. Of the estimated 31,000 deaths in New Zealand each year, 20 percent of these are referred to the coroner. This bill amends section 26 of the Coroners Act to explicitly require the coroner to consider tikanga Māori and the expectations of other cultures when determining who can view, touch, or remain near a body. While the Coroners Act 2006 and coronial practice does respond well to the cultural needs of whānau and family during the coronial process, the legislation should place a stronger emphasis on the need for this respect.

The ability to stay with the deceased and carry out traditional cultural activities is an important feature of many cultures, religions, and ethnicities. It’s a traditional Māori cultural practice that immediate whānau do not leave the tūpāpaku until burial. As New Zealand is made up of many diverse cultures and people of different religions, we wanted to make sure that all cultural beliefs, including tikanga Māori, continue to be recognised and supported during what is a challenging time for whānau and all parties involved. This bill will ensure that all cultural beliefs, including tikanga Māori, will be recognised and supported in our coronial system.

Again, I’d like to confirm that this bill doesn’t seek to change the current practice of coroners—many are already doing this—but it is important to have an emphasis in the statute so that there can be no room for doubt when whānau are asking coroners to respect their needs. The bill ensures that the practice of taking cultural considerations into account is more visible to the families, and they can be assured that their cultural requirements will be respected. Again, I thank everybody for their ongoing support for this legislation as it has passed through the House, and, indeed, all of those who have taken an interest in it and have made submissions to the select committee.

It’s important that what this bill does do is recognise this important aspect, and it will bring benefits to many, many New Zealanders. On that note, I am pleased to commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): No, I’d ask the Minister to remain on his feet. Could I just ask you to move the motion as written, again, for us, please.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I’m obliged, Madam Assistant Speaker. I move, That the Coroners (Access to Body of Dead Person) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Thank you for that.

NUK KORAKO (National): Kia ora, e Te Mana Whakawā. It is indeed my pleasure to be able to stand to talk in the third reading of the Coroners (Access to Body of Dead Person) Amendment Bill. Can I just also acknowledge the genesis of this particular bill. It came out of the inquiry that was done in the 51st Parliament by the Māori Affairs Committee. I want to acknowledge the member of Parliament, the honourable Metiria Turei, who was the one who actually, first of all, instigated the inquiry, and then also others who are not here in this Parliament, in the 52nd Parliament, who had a lot to do with it are the Hon Chester Borrows, Marama Fox, and Pita Paraone. I also acknowledge the Komiti Whiriwhiri Take Māori of the 52nd Parliament, under the chairmanship of Rino Tirikatene, which was able then to conclude and move the legislation forward through the Māori Affairs Committee.

This was quite a sensitive take, because, on the one hand, we have the requirement that the coroner be able to undertake their duties in a manner that ensures the integrity of the role that the coroner maintains. Equally, we also have tikaka Māori that often requires the tūpāpaku to be accompanied by whānau at all times. Yet we still have to let the coroner do their job. What my colleagues on both sides of the House did, through the Māori Affairs Committee, was to recognise that a Treaty partnership requires that we explore ways in which cultural expression can be recognised and given effect without actually subverting the fundamental role that the coroner plays within our society.

Looking at that, it’s about the recognition of the Treaty of Waitangi, which actually means recognition of the Treaty partners, being both Māori and Pākehā alike. One doesn’t prevail over the other, actually, when looking at this, and so, rather, we try to work within the best interests of each other. This bill is a reflection on the endeavour to work in the best interests of our society. That also brings in the other part, which is that we did, during the submission process, hear from not only Māori and Pākehā but also other ethnicities as well.

Before I go into the detail of the section 26 amendments, probably just some background also, particularly with the statistics: an estimated 31,000 deaths occur each year in Aotearoa, and most are the result of natural causes. It’s the 20 percent of deaths that are referred to the coroner, which is around 6,000, and it is this particular part of it—the referred deaths—that the amendment actually addresses. So it’s around that 20 percent, and many of those deaths that we found were actually of Māori descent. In the case of a suspected crime, the matter is relatively quite straightforward, and for our whānau, adjusting cultural practices in the interest of justice is easy to actually agree to. That’s what we found. Looking at our cultural ways, they’re not completely written in stone. We can adapt when we need to.

This is actually more about the case of non-crime death, where matters start to grey, and this was something that came out. For the bereaved whānau, the need to grieve in a sort of culturally defined way is an absolute requirement and a necessary step on the process of farewelling their loved one and then moving to closure. So there are sensitivities, as we know, and emotions are very, very high. But what appears to be a straightforward death to whānau may raise concerns, particularly for medical staff, and referral may be made. In the amendment itself, it makes it quite clear that cultural considerations must be taken into account by a coroner who is assessing whether to undertake a post-mortem investigation. I think that’s a very, very important part of the bill itself. It’s not a handbrake on the role of the coroner; rather it’s a measure designed to ensure that the whānau are properly spoken to and given the chance to be part of the initial consideration process.

I’ve previously stated, in previous speeches, that an unexpected death that reveals a hereditary heart defect that a whānau was not aware of can mean actual life for a whānau member of the deceased. A sudden death that can be attributed to a communicable disease can mean safety for a community. Then the other one, the discovery of a homicide, can mean justice for that community or society. So if this is carefully explained to the whānau and the undertakings as to speed and the efficiency are detailed and adhered to, most whānau will agree to the investigation taking place. But where agreement is not reached, then the bill requires that the coroner carefully weigh the competing interests in making a final determination as to whether to proceed or not.

Looking at this bill, I believe, as we do, I’m sure, right across the House, that this is a good solution and that it’s also a good outcome. So I mihi to my colleagues on both sides of the House who really worked to bring this amendment about, and also, as I mentioned earlier, to the previous members of the Māori Affairs Committee of the 51st Parliament. I just want to acknowledge, too, and mihi to the Minister of Justice, the Hon Andrew Little, and acknowledge him and thank him for bringing this bill to the House. On that note, I would have no hesitation in commending this bill to the House. Kia ora tātou.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I too stand in support of this bill, the Coroners (Access to Body of Dead Person) Amendment Bill, in its third reading. I want to acknowledge the member, Nuk Korako, who’s just resumed his seat, for the role that he played with the Māori Affairs Committee of the 51st Parliament, which initiated the inquiry which has led to this piece of legislation, and all of the members of that committee, and, likewise, the response from the Government.

This bill has straddled, I guess, two separate parliaments, and so there has been cooperation from both Governments, both the previous one and the current one, to ensure the passage of this legislation and the acceptance of the recommendation which the committee made, which has led to the bill.

So this is a small provision that we’re inserting into the Coroners Act, but it’s very significant. As we know, coroners are judicial officers. They perform a very important and very professional role in what they do, in determining matters around suspicious or unexpected deaths, and as part of that judicial role that they play, inevitably, there are the issues which come with the intersection of grieving whānau—with loved ones. And what this bill does is follow through on those recommendations to ensure that coroners do take into account the ethnic origins, social attitudes, and customs, spiritual beliefs also, of the person who is deceased or their immediate family to ensure that those are taken into account to allow either immediate whānau or representatives to be able to view, to be able to spend time with, and to touch their deceased loved ones.

So I believe this is an important piece of legislation because it is showing humanity even though we all know that the coroner has to perform a very important judicial role. There is definitely scope in it, and what we’re doing is ensuring that it is a requirement that coroners, in exercising their discretion as to who may have access to a deceased loved one, take into account those cultural considerations. It’s definitely important for tikanga Māori, and this provision also extends to all cultures that are part of Aotearoa New Zealand society.

I don’t intend to take too long with this contribution other than to say I support the bill. Coroners do play an important role, but there are also other important steps, I guess, that take place—whether it’s the role that district health boards play in terms of their role with dealing with deceased persons; likewise, undertakers and funeral directors. I know that there is, across all of those different offices and different organisations, consideration given to those cultural concerns and spiritual beliefs and the like. And so I’m pleased that we’re able to set this directive through this piece of legislation to ensure that that also applies in the Coroners Act to direct our coroners as well.

And so with that I commend this bill, but as is Māori custom I’d like to, as we say, āpiti hono tātai hono, rātou te hunga wairua ki a rātou, āpiti hono tātai hono, tātou te hunga ora ki a tātou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa [let the connections be made, the spiritual ones remain with each other, let the connections be made, those of us who are living remain with the living, greetings, greetings, thrice greetings].

JO HAYES (National): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. It is with pleasure that I stand to take a brief call on the third reading of the Coroners (Access to Body of Dead Person) Amendment Bill. I do want to mention Metiria Turei, who started this whole process back in the last sitting, Parliament time. I want to thank her for bringing this to our attention. As I said in my contribution during the committee of the whole House, I had no idea it was a big issue, because I had not personally experienced it. But I understand that a number of whānau have experienced it.

I’m sure that the sentiment of this bill resonates not only with Māori but across all cultures, actually. When my husband’s aunty died, they had her lying in state, and we could go in there and we could give her a kiss goodbye and touch her as well. So that was really good, and they weren’t Māori. So I think that this bill does resonate with a number of cultures in our country.

I think it’s all about, and what it’s brought to the fore, is respect—respect for not just the work of the coroners and the role that they play but also respect for whānau with the coroners and the relationship that that has built. I think that is only a good thing.

Actually, we know that whānau pani—those are the families of the deceased—are used to being able to be there when the whānau member dies, when the tūpāpaku passes, to be able to dress them and to be there throughout the whole process and journey into the ground from whence they came. I think this is a great bill, and I’m really pleased that it’s got support across the House.

As I mentioned, it’s going to be a short contribution from me. I think that it is quite a narrow bill. It does do many things that are great things. I want to thank all of those who put submissions forward, and I’m very happy and proud to commend it to the House. Thank you.

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister of Forestry): As someone who is mildly superstitious, this is the first time I’ve spoken on this bill and I’ve avoided every other obligation to speak on it, but, naturally, we support it. As someone who has received complaints, as an MP, about the treatment of whānau concerns in the treatment of the person who has passed away and an inability of the coroner, the pathologist, and other elements in the system, I’m reminded of one of my tupuna, who, in 1887, went and had a meal with the bishop in Parnell. He was accompanied by Kelvin Davis’s tupuna, who was the then member of Te Tai Tokerau, Te Tai Hakuene. My tupuna’s name was Rēnata Tangata, from a little place called Pēria at the back of Taipā, at the base of the Mangamuka Ranges. They were served tinned meat, and that meal became te matenga o te tīni mīti amethe death of the tinned meat], because the meat had not been properly prepared, or had gone foul in the actual tin.

Three of our kaumātua left on the Clansman, which was the main vessel to take them out of Auckland back up to the wild and woolly North, and all three died as a consequence of this tinned meat poisoning. Two were leading Anglican clergy—Rev. Rūpene Paerata, Rev. Tangata—and Te Tai Hakuene, whose photo is near where the media currently occupy. When the superintendent came to get the body of Rev. Rēnata Tangata so that the medical authorities could undertake some sort of assessment to see what the reason was that he passed away, the natives rebelled. For hour after hour, they demanded that they not lose the tūpāpaku, that the person be grieved over and stay on the marae, but, like all good Māori Anglicans, they eventually acceded to the request. So there’s actually a long tradition where I come from of mighty rows about where medical authority meets customary expectation.

In 1992, when I came back from studying in the States, I was summoned by the police to help recover the body of a tiny little baby that had already been taken to the marae in Hokianga, and the hapū who had the baby under no circumstances were going to release it. The coroner and the police said, “We need to get hold of this tūpāpaku to find out how did this kid die.” So the armed offenders squad arrived, the riot squad arrived, and we eventually did work with the whānau and the hapū and got the body of the baby released. I only tell that story because, for a number of us, these are very vivid cases, and I only hope that the inclusion of tikanga Māori enables the medical professionals and the staff advising the coroner and the coronial decision maker to actually put into practice what at one level is common sense but at another level is a long history of missed opportunity for the system to pay a suitable quality of respect in terms of how Māori whānau grieve for those who have passed away and use that as a basis for passing on culture.

So with those few words, I’ll say no more about a topic that I find rather culturally distasteful. Thank you very much.

HARETE HIPANGO (National—Whanganui): Thank you. I rise for the second time this week. The bill was before the committee of the whole House earlier in the week, and I spoke to some of the detail around that. Clause 4, under the amendment bill, is specifically dealing with an amendment to section 26 of the Coroners Act 2006, and that is to seek an insertion after section 26(2)(e) by way of new paragraph (ea). I would just like to read that out to the House, because the coroner is tasked in the event of a sudden or unexplained death or death in special circumstances to determine whether or not a post-mortem or autopsy ought to occur. So this amendment is seeking to insert, as one of eight interests or matters to be considered—mandatorily now, with this amendment, should it be passed into law, and it’s expected that it will; it has full House support—that the coroner factor in, amongst those other eight considerations, “the ethnic origins, social attitudes or customs, or spiritual beliefs of the person who is, or of a person who is suspected to be …”, and this means an unidentifiable dead person or deceased person, which is often associated with either a tragedy by way of an accident or some criminal event that may have occurred; so “of a person who is suspected to be the dead person, or of an immediate family member of that person, that customarily required viewing, touching, or remaining with or near the body”. For us in our Māori cultural reference, that is our tūpāpaku.

Having worked as a lawyer for a number of years and also as part of that responsibility engaging with the police, with coroners, appearing in the coronial court as well—and medical practitioners—this has created a level of angst. That angst has often been associated with the time or the era of having practised. I reference that because I have recollection of dealing with the coroner some 20 years ago on behalf of whānau and the difficulty for whānau just to have access to the body, the tūpāpaku. That was very much premised on relationships of the day. This amendment will require that the coroner must factor this in, amongst other considerations, to permit or allow either the viewing, the access to, or the remaining with the tūpāpaku.

This is a short address to the House, but I do reflect that on the first reading of this bill, I referenced speaking to a colleague of mine who is the deputy coroner, Brandt Shortland, and he harkened me to be mindful that coroners have practice notes. In this day and age, the practice notes—although there’s a discretionary consideration, as there had been under the Coroner’s Act, this will make it mandatory. The coroner’s practice notes very much remind coroners of their duty, in the cultural landscape of Aotearoa as it is today, to bear in mind the importance of cultural considerations around decisions being made whether to have access to touch or view the body. That was balanced up against other factors such as contamination of evidence, if that was critical or crucial to the inquiry or the outcome and finding of the cause of death.

In closing, I do commend to the House this amendment by way of this bill to be passed into law. There’s been mention made by other speakers in the House that it factors in tikanga Māori—yes, it does, but it also factors in other cultural requirements and needs and belief values and systems.

As a matter of interest, we live in an ever more diverse landscape in society here in Aotearoa. In the days when I was working as a lawyer for Child, Youth and Family there was a Muslim social worker. He died suddenly and unexpectedly and as is the custom of their people and their beliefs he was required to be buried within 24 hours. Fortunately, there was no suspicious death aspect to that, and the coroner made a decision not to require an autopsy. But this amendment under this bill, once passed into law, will require those considerations to be factored in. I commend this to the House. Kia ora.

MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): I am very pleased to have seen this, the Coroners (Access to Body of Dead Person) Amendment Bill come through to this third reading in this House. And I know that all throughout the readings my colleagues have upheld the whakapapa of this particular change in law, which is about requiring coroners to take cultural considerations—tikanga Māori and the expectations of other cultures—into account, particularly around deciding when whānau can remain with their tūpāpaku, with their loved one who has passed on.

And so I must, I feel, as is appropriate in this third reading, recount that story when, I think in 2016, Metiria Turei raised with the Māori Affairs Committee the problem, the issue of not enough consideration. There were many, many stories from decades, actually, and from all around the country of things going wrong for whānau at a time where stress is at its high point when people have lost their loved one, and the exchanges between agencies and between organisations—you know, a wide cross-section, whether it’s coroners or police or hospitals, undertakers, and so on—with that whānau in extreme grief and stress become harmed by the process and add further injury to, already, pain. Metiria Turei raised it in the Māori Affairs Committee: can we look into this? And, of course, every single person on the select committee had their own associations and stories—Māori or non-Māori—of how we could do better and how traumatised people can become in that moment of grief when those exchanges go wrong, when those processes go wrong.

So the inquiry was born and carried through over a couple of select committees, actually, and into this present select committee, where I acknowledge our chair, Rino Tirikatene, and all the members of the previous select committee. I actually do want to say their names again—the previous Parliament’s select committee: Chester Borrows; Nuk Korako, of course as chair; Pita Paraone; Jo Hayes; Marama Fox; myself—because there was a clear agreement that we would take this inquiry through. Everyone had their experiences from all different backgrounds. I remember Mr Chester Borrows from his police background having seen firsthand, again and again and again and again, where it could go wrong and how it could improve. So we took this through, and one of the recommendations that came out of the report in the inquiry picked up on this very recommendation: this very bill that we are finalising today in the House.

So the recommendation was a sort of an overview of improving cultural consideration as one of the top umbrella recommendations. And a couple of points under that have been why we are able to make an amendment in this bill where section 26 of the Act requires coroners, “when determining whether a person should be allowed to remain with the tūpāpaku, to also consider tikanga Māori and expectations of other cultures.” So I’m incredibly pleased to see this starting point of that inquiry and the recommendations from the report into that inquiry be picked up by this House.

We’ve got more work to do. On this third reading, and going forward, we also need to look at capacity issues of the coronial system and pick up on the Law Commission’s report of 2015 around death, burial, and such matters. So we’ve certainly got a pathway forward. The capacity issue was a massive one, actually, that we heard about in full alarm.

With the rest of my time, I’d like to acknowledge some of the stories of why this particular bill is so important, and particularly for whānau. I believe the Hon Shane Jones referred to other cases, particularly the death of a baby. The death of a baby is, well, the worst thing that can happen, I think—the separation of that baby from whānau—and there are still mamas, in particular, living with the trauma of a process gone wrong. I’m being very general because that’s not my story—it’s the people who gave it to me; it’s their story—but I do want to refer to it as a general example without stealing their story from them, but for the purposes of this bill, I really want to go back to the core of why this is so incredibly important, and that we at least can also raise awareness.

This is a win-win-win for everybody. When we have got whānau who are feeling as supported and as loved as they can feel in a moment of utter grief, that is going to also improve the interactions across all agencies and personnel at the time of death. So a coroner being able to show some leadership in taking tikanga Māori into account is going to really help that. People just want to be able to grieve how they want. They want to be able to preserve their tikanga—whatever their tikanga is—and we have an obligation and a duty to allow that care approach to happen. We also understand the benefits of that in being able to help whānau through that process.

So I’m just really acknowledging the whakapapa, the baton that I received from Metiria Turei, the Māori Affairs Committee’s work and support on this inquiry, the bill, and the Minister Andrew Little having the good sense to pick up that particular recommendation and bring it through the House, which in my mind is a commitment that we’ve got more work to do. This is a fantastic starting point. I look forward to when whānau can just deal with their grief and not any other injury that happens upon them from shoddy processes—when whānau can simply be left to do the job of grieving and are supported as much as possible through the coronial process in that situation. So, without anything further, Madam Assistant Speaker, thank you very much for the opportunity to assist this bill to its place in our law books today. Kia ora.

CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker, for the opportunity to join others on both sides of the House in commending the Coroners (Access to Body of Dead Person) Amendment Bill in this the third and final reading. We’ve heard from others with experience in the professional sphere, and I acknowledge Harete Hipango; those with personal stories, and I acknowledge the Hon Shane Jones, who gave a couple of moving accounts from recent and past experiences in his whānau and connections that he has had; and also the procedural, and I acknowledge the outline by Marama Davidson of the history of this bill coming to this place. My own perspective will be, briefly, historical, and also with some thoughts about some philosophy about the relationship between the State and its citizens as reflected in this very helpful amendment to our statute book.

The word “coroner” literally means an officer of the Crown, going back to the days when, in the Anglo-Norman phase of English history, the coroners, as they became known, were responsible for collecting local records of proceedings in which the Crown had jurisdiction; also, collecting certain revenues and, relevant to the modern function, of course, investigating suspicious deaths. It was in that latter, as well as the other types of function, that it was acknowledged then, and perhaps more so now, that the awesome power of the State over its citizens should be exercised in a way that reflects the seriousness of the role that they carry out but is also sensitive to the rights of subjects. Of course, we are talking about a balance in this piece of legislation, and more particularly in the amendment that’s before us now, in understanding that coroners have an important function both in medical terms and in legal terms but also needing, of course, to understand the sensitivities around the cultural considerations, in particular, that arise when circumstances of a person being dead do arise and need to be taken into account.

I’ll just pause briefly for a moment to note that, in legal terms, a dead person is not a person, and, of course, by definition a person is a living person and has human rights on that basis. But that’s something of a legal fiction, because, of course, a recently deceased person—and, indeed, maybe a person throughout time immemorial, according to the beliefs of some—will always be a person and not merely, in that moment when they’ve recently deceased, a collection of human tissue or merely cells and so forth. And so, from a cultural perspective, of course that person is indeed very much still a member of a family, a whānau, and so on. So it is important that, notwithstanding that legal fiction about the status of the physical body, in fact we do need to be sensitive to the dignity of that person and also, of course, the loved ones who are left behind. In particular, in circumstances where a coronial investigation would be under way, naturally, there would be oftentimes circumstances to imagine that the stress and the grieving would be particularly heightened.

So it’s balancing these practical, pragmatic considerations of the legal and medical aspects to learn the lessons but also perhaps to prepare in some cases, sadly for a criminal context, to understand the circumstances, balanced against the human needs of that person themselves and their family and whānau, that this piece of legislation seeks to achieve. And that balance, I think, is well reflected in the fact that we talk in what will be the new section 26(2)(ea) of ethnic origins, social attitudes or customs, or spiritual beliefs, and so forth. That seems to me appropriate, as does the giving of an example of the right of persons to view, touch, or remain with or near the body—for example, the customary requirement under tikanga Māori. And that seems, to me, an appropriate example because it reflects, as is the case in this country, something of a first among equals status, whereby we acknowledge that, in many cases, for whānau it will be particularly significant for this right for these considerations to be taken into account but also understanding that other ethnic and spiritual and religious and cultural considerations will mean that others too feel a particular need to be able to do these things and to grieve in a way that’s appropriate to them.

These are considerations that are to be taken into account now. That seems to me entirely appropriate. The coroner will be able to do what he or she needs to be able to do, but taking into account this sensitivity, understanding that the power of the State is to be exercised in that way seems entirely appropriate. So, with no further hesitation, I’m pleased to join others among the assembled contributors to this debate in the House in commending this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I understand this is a split call.

JAN TINETTI (Labour): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I remember speaking on this bill in its first reading and at the time thinking that while it seems a small piece of legislation, it’s actually a very important piece of legislation, because we’re actually including cultural beliefs, including tikanga Māori, into this important area.

It was only last week when I was at an event and I had a whānau member come up to me and say how they’d actually been following the progress of this bill. I was quite surprised, so I actually engaged in conversation around this. They’d had a rather unpleasant experience through an unfortunate death that they’d had in their family where they’d felt confused and isolated through the process. They felt that this legislation, while it codifies good practice and practice that’s currently happening, also ensures that where it’s not happening, it’s going to occur in future. It was really, really important to that particular whānau member.

I spoke in the first reading about my own experiences growing up around death and how that, for a long time, in my—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I apologise to the member. This debate is interrupted and is set down for resumption next sitting day.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.