Thursday, 23 May 2019

THURSDAY, 23 MAY 2019

THURSDAY, 23 MAY 2019

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Business Statement

Business Statement

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): On Tuesday, 28 May, the annual review debate will be completed and the Racing Reform Bill and the Veterans’ Support Amendment Bill will receive their first readings. Legislation to be considered on Wednesday, 29 May will include the Support Workers (Pay Equity) Settlements Amendment Bill and the Building Amendment Bill. At 5.45 p.m. on that day, Paulo Garcia will make his maiden statement. Thursday, 30 May is Budget day. After the delivery of the Budget statement by the Minister of Finance and speeches by the party leaders, urgency will be moved.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I thank the Leader of the House for that very early acknowledgment, or indication, that there will be urgency towards the end of next week. Can I ask him, though—on the Order Paper at No. 25 there’s the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary Bill, and we understand that’s not making progress at this point. But just above it is the Autonomous Sanctions Bill, which has been on the Order Paper, I must admit, for a time and, given recent statements from the Prime Minister, is there any intention to move that further up the Order Paper? I can assure you that there would be some facilitation for the progress of that bill.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): What I can tell the member is, if he looks at the Order Paper, of course there’s a very busy Government with a very busy legislative programme. We are committed, of course, to working our way through all of those matters and some other matters which he’s about to learn about.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): Well, 24 things—only 24 things on the Order Paper for the Government to do, and they call that busy.

SPEAKER: It sounds like an invitation to add something to the urgency motion, to me.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Finance

1. Hon AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) to the Minister of Finance: Is the Government still committed to “reducing net debt to 20 percent of GDP” as outlined in the Speech from the Throne?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Yes, and I thank the member for the opportunity to reaffirm my announcement I made earlier today that we will meet this target and the other Budget responsibility rules in Budget 2019, as we did in Budget 2018.

Hon Amy Adams: Why has he changed his original commitment, which was to maintain that debt target for five years under this Government, but instead announced today that from next year’s Budget the debt under his Government could actually be considerably higher?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: That’s not correct.

Hon Amy Adams: It is correct.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: That is not correct. The commitment of this Government is that we would reduce net core Crown debt to 20 percent of GDP within five years of taking office. We are absolutely meeting that commitment.

Hon Amy Adams: Does he stand by the Prime Minister’s statement last August that—and I quote—“These rules are not … nice to have[s]. … Some people have called for us to relax our borrowing rules or simply spend more. We won’t.”?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Absolutely, I stand by that comment. As I said, the member will be pleased to see that, in Budget 2019, we are meeting our Budget responsibility rules around debt, in particular. So I think the member needs to reflect a little bit on the performance of her Government and, actually, might want to consider that the target that the previous Government set of 20 percent net debt was never ever met—not once—and they left us with 22.8 percent net debt.

Hon Amy Adams: Is the real reason he’s broken his debt limitation promise to the people of New Zealand that he’s realised—

SPEAKER: Order!

Hon Amy Adams: —that this Government has overpromised and can’t deliver?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Mr Speaker—you are calling me? Yep.

SPEAKER: Yes. I was contemplating, but if the member really wants to answer it, he can.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: That question from the member is completely and totally untrue. The member will see, when the Budget is released, that we are meeting our net debt target and that it will be 20 percent of GDP five years after taking office, and, actually, the member will see it will be below 20 percent in the sixth year and the seventh year and, actually, on the projections out to 2032.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Foreign Minister, is he saying—

Hon Amy Adams: “Foreign Minister”?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Oh, sorry. Can I ask the finance Minister—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Right. Now, come on, come on. It’s not part of the 10-year plan.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the finance Minister—after consultation with the Foreign Minister—that despite all this necessary infrastructure and social spending being so neglected, the debt ratios are going to be inside the targets way before the time he originally said?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Absolutely. This Government has struck the right balance between increasing the amount of money that we’re investing in fixing schools and hospitals and transport and housing and all of the critical public services we have, and we have balanced that with meeting our debt target. The member opposite is simply wrong in what she is saying today.

Hon Amy Adams: Isn’t the real reason he’s now being forced to rewrite his debt commitment because the economy has slowed under his watch, his revenues are falling, and he now cannot meet his spending commitments to New Zealand?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The member is completely wrong. Our debt target stands and we’re meeting it in this Budget, as we met it in the last Budget, and the fiscal projections that the member will see on Budget day show that not only are we meeting it now but we’re meeting it out to 2032. If the member’s logic is to be followed, she’s now endorsing a Government over here that will last until 2032. I’m not sure if I’ll be there all the way through that, but I’ll do my best to stick around.

Hon Amy Adams: Does he think it’s responsible to burden future generations of New Zealanders with extra debt simply because the Government can’t manage the books and is wasting billions of dollars on failed policies like the fees-free policy and KiwiBuild?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The member is continuing in each of her questions to represent a complete falsehood—a complete falsehood. The Budget responsibility rule debt target has been met.

Hon Amy Adams: You’re rewriting it.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Ha, ha! The Budget debt responsibility target has been met. What we announced today was that, after the end of the five-year Budget responsibility rule period, we were moving to a range. I can assure the member today that she probably should be grateful for that, given that her Government never actually made the 20 percent debt target and would have needed the range to be able to claim success.

Hon Amy Adams: Hasn’t he today really just revealed the Government’s real economic strategy, which is to tax more, spend more, and borrow more?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No, no, and I really do encourage the member to read what’s in the speech today and to read what’s in the Budget. What I have announced today is that this is a Government that has managed to keep to our Budget responsibility rules and balance that against investing in all of the issues that were let go by the previous Government to fix our schools and to fix our hospitals. Ms Adams, you need to read the document. It says we’re going to meet the 20 percent target and, when you see the Budget, you’ll see that we’re meeting that target out to 2032, and the way they’re going over there, we will definitely be here in 2032.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the—

Hon Amy Adams: The Foreign Minister again?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: —finance Minister, and not the Foreign Minister, again—he was the Treasurer at one time—has he read Liam Dann’s comments about his speech today, that said, “But the Government has the upper-hand as it has just spent the past year and a half focused on bedding down its conservative credentials …”—with respect to the Opposition—“It’s a classic Hollywood trope.”?

SPEAKER: Order! Order! The—

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The first part?

SPEAKER: The first part only, yes, because that’s what he’s got responsibility for.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I have read the column by Liam Dann. I also noticed that it had been read by the Leader of the Opposition, who re-tweeted it and then quickly deleted the tweet when he saw what it said.

Question No. 2—Housing and Urban Development

2. Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura) to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: Is he confident none of the 58 KiwiBuild houses currently being marketed in Canterbury will have to be purchased by the Crown; if so, why?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Housing and Urban Development): The underwrite enables builders to have certainty, to obtain finance, and to free up their investment in a reasonable time frame, which allows them to then go on and build more homes. The Government then continues to market these homes to KiwiBuild buyers. By sharing the burden of that risk with developers, the Government is getting affordable homes built. As I told the member in question time on Tuesday, the ministry has already acquired three homes in Canterbury that are currently on the market for eligible buyers. Therefore, the answer to the member’s question is no.

Hon Judith Collins: Why would he think that these two-bedroom KiwiBuild homes being marketed for $500,000 are affordable when the median sale price for two-bedroom homes in Waimakariri is currently $330,000?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, we’re talking about new homes that are being built, here. There are new Mike Greer homes, very nice two-bedroom homes, that are on the market for $360,000, which is a very good price not only in Canterbury but in any other market around the country.

Hon Judith Collins: Is he aware that, in the last 12 months, two-bedroom houses in Pegasus Town, where these KiwiBuild homes are being built, have taken, on average, 700 days to sell?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I know the member’s obsessed with how long a place takes to sell, but the reality is that some homes—no matter whether they’re new, old, KiwiBuild, or any other kind of home—sell in days. I note that in Tauranga recently, in Ōmokoroa, four of the eight houses that went on sale had deposits put down on those houses in the first weekend that they were on the market. Other houses take a bit longer to sell, and that’s perfectly natural and what happens in the market.

Hon Judith Collins: What will he do with the houses he has recently had to buy in Canterbury?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: They are already on the market and are available to KiwiBuild buyers. In fact, under the underwrite, we’ve acquired 12 across the entire KiwiBuild programme, and one of those has already been on-sold to first-home buyers.

Hon Judith Collins: Is this deal a bailout for property developers who, at the height of the housing bubble, at an event hosted by the then Prime Minister Helen Clark in 2006, bought $122 million of property in Pegasus Town in just one day?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: No, but I’ll say this to the member: she makes a great noise about how we’ve supposedly spent $600 million on this across the KiwiBuild programme. That is not how much money’s been spent; that is the value of the houses that have been built, that have been enabled, by this policy—affordable homes for first-home buyers that otherwise would not have been built and certainly wouldn’t have been built under that party’s policy for nine years.

Question No. 3—Housing and Urban Development

3. PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour) to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: What announcements has the Government made about providing wrap around support and housing to homeless New Zealanders?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Housing and Urban Development): The Prime Minister has announced that the Wellbeing Budget will expand Housing First to provide wraparound support and housing to more than 1,000 extra households, expanding the programme to 2,700 households. Housing First works with homeless New Zealanders to make street homelessness rare, brief, and non-recurring. It’s been successful in Canada, the United States, Europe, and the United Kingdom. The Housing First model recognises that it’s easier for people to address issues, such as mental health and addiction, once they are securely housed.

Priyanca Radhakrishnan: How many households have been housed by the Housing First programme?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Seven hundred and forty-eight households have now been housed through the programme since it began. In Auckland alone, 452 children have now been housed under the Housing First programme.

Priyanca Radhakrishnan: What progress are Housing First providers reporting?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The providers are reporting extremely good progress. For example, Christchurch’s Housing First provider said that more than 100 households had come through its doors since they opened in June, and 66 of their clients had been without a home for more than a year at that point. Among them was a man who had lived on the streets in Christchurch for more than 11 years, and he’s now been in his own home for more than 9 months.

Priyanca Radhakrishnan: What feedback has the Minister received from Housing First clients?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I’ve seen a number of stories of people who have been housed under this programme. One Christchurch resident said—and I quote—“It actually makes you feel good. It lifted my self-esteem.” He said, “I was way down in the depths of Loch Ness for quite a while there. I was struggling to get myself out of that situation, and, emotionally, I was wrecked.” He said he’d always wanted to work, but not having a home was a barrier to employment. In less than a month of living in his new home, he has already secured permanent work.

Question No. 4—Economic Development

4. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister for Economic Development: What is his Government’s economic development strategy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Acting Minister for Economic Development): On behalf of the Minister for Economic Development, being aware of the way the Minister of Finance’s question was curtailed yesterday, I will keep this brief. The economic strategy that the Government has is to grow and share New Zealand’s prosperity more fairly, support thriving and sustainable regions, govern responsibly and develop broader measures of success, and transition to a clean, green, carbon-neutral New Zealand. We want equality of opportunity and more equal outcomes, no matter who you are or where you live. We aim to diversify our export base, turning volume into value, and I note that exports as a percentage of GDP have risen from 26.8 percent to 28.8 percent, in contrast to the last Government. We also have a focus on a just transition to a low-carbon economy, meeting the future of work with confidence, building better and greater infrastructure, and improving the institutions that underpin economic development.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does it concern him that this is the fourth time I’ve asked this question and that is the fourth different answer I’ve received; and, if so, is he surprised that everyone is confused as to what the growth strategy is?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The economic development strategy of the Government is clear. The confused person in this case is the member asking the question.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Wouldn’t a more accurate description of the Government’s economic development strategy be spend more, borrow more, and hope for the best?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No. An accurate description is the one that I have given, which has turned around our export performance, which had consistently declined on trend under the last Government, despite their big bold claims. This is a Government that is getting alongside industries and communities right around New Zealand, to make sure that they grow sustainably through the Provincial Growth Fund and through the just transitions work we’re doing. It’s actually a model of active economic development, not sitting on the sidelines hoping for the best as the previous Government did.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Why does he think his strategy is working when, as the Reserve Bank Governor put it, there has been a “sharp decline” in the economy and new job creation has dried up?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Minister, the Reserve Bank Governor went on to say that the fiscal strategy is helping the economy at the moment. It’s helping because the Government is prepared to get alongside communities and invest. If the member had been at the Just Transition Summit in New Plymouth, he would have seen a community that is now committed to the transition to a low-carbon economy, that sees massive opportunities for new energy and for the creation of new jobs in that region. He should take a leaf out of the book of the people of Taranaki and get on board. Jonathan Young loved the summit. I saw him there.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is the Foreign Minister saying that, in much less than 18 months, a 30 towards 25 percent—

SPEAKER: Order! I’ll just get the member to start the question again.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is the finance Minister and economic development Minister saying that, in less than 18 months, the decline of exports from 30 percent down towards 25 percent—in that short time—has been turned around and that it’s risen to 26.8 percent already?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: In fact—I thank the member for the question—it’s actually up to 28.8 percent, from 26.8 percent. So it is moving in the right direction and, most certainly, the trend had been in the other direction under the previous Government. That was a result of a philosophical view that standing on the sidelines and hoping for the best is economic policy—

SPEAKER: Order! That’s enough—not responsible for it.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Whatever happened to the Business Partnership Agenda that was announced with great fanfare by the Prime Minister in August last year?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The programmes that are within the Business Partnership Agenda continue, with one particular exception. That website, which the National Party went looking for some ideas on, has been updated since that time.

Question No. 5—Health

5. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister of Health: How many adult New Zealanders reported an unmet need for GPs due to cost in the past 12 months according to the results of the 2017/18 New Zealand Health Survey, and how does that compare with the 2016/17 survey?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): I’m advised that an estimated 585,000 people did not access GP services due to cost in 2017/18, though I would note that the survey was completed before the start of the Government’s cheaper doctors visits policy in December last year, which reduced the cost of primary care for approximately 600,000 New Zealanders. Unmet need for GPs due to cost was an estimated 547,000 in 2016/17.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Well, does he believe that his policy goal of reduced barriers to access for all New Zealanders has been achieved when 38,000 more people have unmet needs for GPs due to cost last year, compared with the previous year?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I thank the member for his question and reiterate what I said in the response to the first one: that, of course, that result came in before the Government’s policy change, which has reduced the cost of going to a doctor for around 600,000 New Zealanders—540,000 community services cardholders can now access cheaper doctors visits that couldn’t before. That is $20 to $30 cheaper on average for those community services cardholders, for 540,000 more New Zealanders. It’s great news for those people who were struggling to access a doctor. On top of that, and thanks to New Zealand First, we have free doctors visits for 14-year-olds. So 600,000 New Zealanders can now access cheaper doctors visits than before the time that the member’s highlighting.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: How does that figure of 540,000 adult New Zealanders compare with his lofty promise that every single adult New Zealander would be getting a reduction in fees, and when will that occur?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: It is true that we have an ambition of making sure more New Zealanders can access affordable primary care. That is something this Government is absolutely committed to. I’d also note that the Families Package is helping 384,000 New Zealanders, and when it’s fully rolled out it will be $75 a week in those households that they will benefit from. We’re very clearly targeting a situation where more people can afford to go and get the primary care they need.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: When the GP fees changes were implemented, did his ministry tell general practices that they should increase the consultation fee for patients without a community services card, and has that resulted in an increased number of adults saying they avoid the GP because of cost?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I think it would be very difficult to trace all of that causality. The member knows, I’m sure, that increases in primary care visit fees are agreed with district health boards (DHBs) each year, and they are done within a range so that primary care providers cannot put up their fees by a dramatic amount from one year to the next. It’s an incremental change as costs go up. The cost of visiting primary care can go up a little bit each year. That’s the historic pattern; these are private businesses. But there is an agreement in place with DHBs to ensure that they don’t rise rapidly.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Will he resign as Minister of Health if the next survey shows that the GP fees changes in Budget 2018 have not resulted in his expected reduction?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I think what is absolutely clear is that the New Zealand Health Survey has tracked a historic trend where people feel it has been unaffordable to get primary care. This Government is doing something about that. We are not afraid to tackle the big challenges that that Government sat on the sidelines and watched get worse for nine long years of neglect. Shame on them.

Question No. 6—Health

6. ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI (Labour) to the Minister of Health: What progress, if any, is being made to improve care and rehabilitation for Aucklanders who suffer a stroke?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Good news. High-quality care and rehabilitation for the 9,000 New Zealanders who suffer a stroke each year and support for their whānau is a priority for this Government. We’re making progress in tackling the contributors to stroke, but there is a pressing need to expand care and rehabilitation services due to population growth and demographic changes. That’s why I was very pleased to confirm $30 million in Crown funding for a new integrated stroke and rehabilitation unit at Auckland City Hospital last Thursday.

Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki: How will this new facility make a difference to the lives of New Zealanders who have suffered a stroke?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Stroke care is currently delivered in different parts of Auckland City Hospital, with acute care split between two wards and rehabilitation provided elsewhere. Co-locating these services in a new, purpose-built, 41-bed unit will help to improve continuity of care for patients and reduce the overall time spent in hospital.

Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki: How will this project help stroke victims outside of Auckland District Health Board (DHB)?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Well, Auckland DHB’s stroke unit is led by the internationally renowned neurologist Professor Alan Barber, who perfected the game-changing clot retrieval technique, which is vastly improving outcomes for many stroke sufferers. The clot retrieval service at Auckland City Hospital takes patients from the northern and midland regions as well as from the Auckland area. All of these patients will benefit from improved care at the new unit. This new stroke care and rehabilitation unit is the final large project funded from the $750 million we set aside in Budget 2018 for long-overdue investment in our hospitals and other health infrastructure.

Question No. 7—Land Information

7. Hon DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) to the Minister for Land Information: Does she stand by all her statements, actions, and decisions?

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Minister for Land Information): Yes, in the context in which they were made or given.

Hon David Bennett: Are all mining applications now unsustainable under the Minister’s economic test in the OceanaGold case that an “investment in [a] non-renewable resource extraction is inherently unsustainable.”?

Hon EUGENIE SAGE: No, and I have previously approved an application for quarrying in Otago and for extracting sand in the Auckland region—so no.

Hon David Bennett: Why did she make that test and that definition in the OceanaGold decision, then?

Hon EUGENIE SAGE: Because I was applying the Overseas Investment Act—the criteria in that Act where it is a privilege to buy land in New Zealand. Applicants have to show that they are providing a substantial and identifiable benefit. I did not consider that using 178 hectares of productive farmland to build a 60 hectare tailings impoundment to store 17 million tonnes of hazardous mining waste provided a substantial and identifiable benefit.

Hon David Bennett: Did the Minister receive any written advice to approve the OceanaGold application, and if so, from whom?

Hon EUGENIE SAGE: I received advice from the Overseas Investment Office. Their recommendation was to approve the application.

Jonathan Young: So when the Minister gave a negative weighting in her decision on OceanaGold’s application, stating, “The acquisition of the land will enable more mining, and therefore more emissions, which could encumber New Zealand’s transition to a net-zero emissions economy,”, what emissions was she referring to?

Hon EUGENIE SAGE: OceanaGold, in its own report in 2017, highlighted that mining in Waihī produced 5,892 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent in 2016 alone.

Jonathan Young: If she is aware that 25 percent of OceanaGold’s Waihī operation is already powered by electricity off the grid, with investigations well under way to increase that percentage, why is she so sure that they won’t reduce their emissions any further?

Hon EUGENIE SAGE: Applications that the Minister for Land Information makes in relation to the Overseas Investment Act are about the purchase of land. It was the land purchase and the applicant’s proposal to convert productive farmland into a 60 hectare tailings impoundment to store toxic mining waste which was what I took into account.

Jonathan Young: If that’s the case, then why did the Minister refer to emissions and give a negative weighting to that, and out of the other applications, the four out of the 35 that she has declined, in which of those applications was use of diesel or petrol vehicles a consideration for her decision?

Hon EUGENIE SAGE: In all of the applications, they are considered on a case by case basis. I take a sustainable, economic perspective when evaluating whether benefits are substantial and identifiable. If the Opposition doesn’t want to consider contribution to climate change, perhaps they should consider the future of the planet.

Question No. 8—Education

8. NICOLA WILLIS (National) to the Associate Minister of Education: Can she confirm that despite the Prime Minister’s announcement in May 2018 that 1,750 additional children would receive early intervention support in the next year, only 626 did; if so, does she take responsibility for failing to deliver on the Prime Minister’s commitment?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Associate Minister of Education): In answer to the second part of the question, I take responsibility for underestimating the devastating condition of early intervention support left to us by the previous Government after nine years of neglect. In answer to the first part of the question, yes.

Nicola Willis: Can she confirm that, in every region of New Zealand, waiting times for early intervention support are greater now than they were in National’s final year of office?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: While I have those figures in front of me, it would take me some time to find the exact page with the exact year that the member is asking about, because region by region there have been variations in waiting time over the period of years the member has asked for in her written questions. So I would assume that she’s picked a particular year and a particular region that she’s asking for, and I cannot be that specific without referring to the report.

SPEAKER: The member will ask the question again.

Nicola Willis: The question was: can she confirm that, in every region of New Zealand, waiting times for early intervention support are greater now than they were in National’s final year of office?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: Mr Speaker, if you’d give me a moment. [Interruption]

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Which member did that? Which member called out when the point of order had been called? The member will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Andrew Bayly: I withdraw and apologise.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: There’s always room for reasonable banter at question time, but what we’re hearing from over there by way of that cacophony of sound is just simply unacceptable, and I’m sure it’s so for the public out there as well as anybody inside this Parliament right now who’s got a conscientious need to hear what the Minister’s got to answer.

SPEAKER: Well, I don’t often absolutely agree with the Deputy Prime—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I would if I was you.

SPEAKER: Well, the member will stand, withdraw, and apologise now.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I apologise for saying “I would if I was you.”

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: Mr Speaker—

SPEAKER: No, no, no, I’m not finished yet.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I apologise, Mr Speaker. I shouldn’t have said that.

SPEAKER: Right. As I was about to rule, I asked the member to ask the question again in a way which was probably requiring more detail than would normally be expected with a question of this generality. I was being generous to the member, I was supporting the member, and I don’t expect colleagues to guffaw while the Minister’s trying to find the information—frankly, more information than the vast majority of Ministers would’ve brought down for this sort of question in the past. I think the normal reply to this from Ministers previously where we’re talking about detailed regional figures by year would be a request to ask a specific question, and that would’ve been reasonable. The member didn’t do it. I’m now going to ask Tracey Martin if she’s found the correct page.

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: I believe I have, Mr Speaker. I am advised that the tables that have been provided to the member show the waiting list data the ministry holds for early intervention services between 2012 and now are variable because there was a different system and a different format; so it’s not 100 percent comparable. However, I believe the member is specifically asking about the 2016-17 year, and, therefore, my understanding is that the early intervention support waiting list numbers were at 2,849. In the 2018-19 year, they were at 2,721, according to the table provided to the member under her written question No. 16803.

Nicola Willis: So does the Minister stand by her answer to written question No. 16745, which shows that, in every region of New Zealand, average waiting times for early intervention support are greater in the 2018-19 financial year than they were in the 2016-17 financial year, and what does that say about the year of delivery?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: I thank the member for actually identifying the written question she wants me to answer on, because that is helpful.

Nicola Willis: You’ve already answered it. You should know what’s in it.

SPEAKER: Order! I haven’t.

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: So, in answer to the member’s question “Do you stand by the answer to written question No. 16745?”, yes, I do now that she has been clear about what she is addressing. In the 2016-17 financial year, the average was 71.34 days. In the 2018-19 year, the average is 105.91 days. I would, however, point out the increases that I’ve mentioned previously, for which there was no planning under that member’s Government, and also that even though the wait times are greater, because more staff have been employed, there has actually been an increase in the number of children seen even though certain wait times have increased.

Nicola Willis: What does the Minister say to the family in the Waikato region that was forced to wait 462 days for early intervention support, and will the Minister act to ensure that never happens again?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: I would like that member to send to my office the specific family she’s talking about. If she is referring to the average length of time that was in the written answer sent to her about one particular family, then, again, I answered that question. There was a family in Wellington, for example—remembering that I don’t know the family this member is talking about—who were on record: their child was waiting for 438 days. Why was that? It was because, when the referral was put forward, the parent then contacted the service and asked us to put it on hold. It remains open as a referral. By the time the ministry went back to the family, the family said, “We no longer need the service, because we have had other supports.” So, without the specific detail of that specific family, I cannot confirm whether this family’s situation is the same as the one in Wellington or not.

Nicola Willis: Why did the Government make such a specific commitment to children needing early intervention support if it did not have an achievable plan for delivering that and if it is clear that waiting times and lists have only grown since that commitment was made?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: The Government made a commitment because we want to make a difference for these family, and we underestimated how much the Public Service cap had affected the workforce. These are public servants that the previous Government put a cap on so that no more could be hired even though, in that period of time, there was an increase in the need.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Stop making it up.

Hon Chris Hipkins: Supplementary question?

SPEAKER: No, no, I’m going to ask Mr Brownlee to withdraw and apologise.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I withdraw and apologise.

Hon Chris Hipkins: Can the Minister confirm that the trend for a number of years has been for the wait times for all forms of learning support to be increasing, and that one of the biggest constraints to dealing with that increase in wait times for those services—

Nicola Willis: That is not true.

Hon Chris Hipkins: —has been the lack of specialist staff to undertake the necessary assessments?

SPEAKER: Right, before the member answers, Nicola Willis will stand, withdraw and apologise.

Nicola Willis: I stand, withdraw, and apologise. I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: No, you can’t have a point of order. We’re going to have this question answered. If the member has a further one after that, we’ll take it.

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: As I have informed the House previously under this line of questioning, we have had large percentage increases in the children that need this support. There was not the workforce developed to address that need under the previous Government, so it will take us some time to address the issues left behind.

Nicola Willis: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your guidance; I’m a new member—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! Now, whoever made that noise will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Hon Shane Jones: I stand, withdraw, and apologise.

SPEAKER: No, the member knows how to do it. He’s had plenty of experience. Do it properly.

Hon Shane Jones: I withdraw and apologise, sir.

SPEAKER: Thank you. Now, Ms Willis, if you have a specific point of order, you should make it, but I do want to warn the member that prefaces like that don’t go down very well with someone who’s been so long in the buildings.

Nicola Willis: Understood. My point of order is this: the Minister of Education just said in the House that the trend is for waiting times to be increasing across areas of early intervention support. I have, in the supplementary questions and in written questions, referred to specific data that shows that the trend, under National, was that those waiting times were reducing, and yet, under Labour, they have increased. The point of guidance I am seeking from you is how can it be that the Minister of Education is allowed to make such a false statement in this House when I have in front of me written question data which demonstrates that the statement he made is incorrect?

SPEAKER: And the member has a very important and valid point, and that is that assertions should not be made as part of supplementary questions unless members are absolutely certain that they are accurate, because we do have a degree of trust on all of us, and, as the member knows, as all members know, as questions are submitted in writing, for the primary questions there’s a lot of work that goes on to make sure that they are properly authenticated. If the member has a view that something has been misleading, then she’s probably already indicated to the Minister that it is, and it’s incumbent on him to do some fact checking now. But I do want to warn members that there are a lot more questions which happen from my left, and a lot more supplementaries occur from my left, and if we have a very tight system, it won’t necessarily help those who want to make detailed inquiries of the Government if they have to provide authentication for supplementary questions.

Hon Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I’m absolutely confident on the supplementary question that I asked; however, the point of order that you just allowed Nicola Willis to raise at some length was completely out of order. If a member is concerned that a member has misled the House, there is only one course of action they can do in order to raise that, and it is not by point of order.

SPEAKER: That is the case if a member is convinced that a member is deliberately misleading the House. I don’t think, at any stage, Ms Willis suggested that. That is a breach of privilege. I was working on the basis that Ms Willis thought that the Minister had made a mistake, and, in that case, that’s not a breach of privilege, but if it’s a mistake it’s still something that, if it’s found to be the case, has to be corrected.

Nicola Willis: Speaking to the point of order.

SPEAKER: I have dealt with the point of order. Is there a further supplementary?

Nicola Willis: Will she share with the Minister of Education her answer to written question No. 16745, which shows that, in the years between 2013-14 and 2016-17, waiting times for early intervention support were declining but that, in the financial year 2018-19, waiting times had increased from 71 days to 106 days?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: I always share with the Minister of Education whenever he seeks me to do so. I would note, however, that between 2014-15 in Te Tai Tokerau and 2016-17 there had been an increase.

Question No. 9—Police

9. CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South) to the Minister of Police: Does he stand by all statements, policies, and actions of the Police in relation to the theft of 11 guns from the Palmerston North police station?

Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Police): As I said yesterday to a very similar question, yes, I expect the commissioner to ensure the law is followed. The role of the Minister and the role of police are very clearly defined in section 16 of the Policing Act. Enforcement, investigation, and prosecution are quite properly the responsibility of the commissioner, and this includes information-gathering methods. In regard to the Palmerston North burglary, that is clearly within the domain of the commissioner. As I also said yesterday, there is an active criminal investigation, and the matter is before the courts. Speaker’s ruling 177/1 and 177/2 reinforce that it is not in the public interest for me to comment while that investigation is under way and risk compromising what is before the court.

Chris Bishop: Is it correct that the person who stole the firearms from Palmerston North police station moved a skip bin next to the side gate at the rear of the station, jumped the fence, walked in an open garage door, and stole the firearms from a poorly secured exhibit room, then exited the station and loaded the firearms into his car?

Hon STUART NASH: I’m not too sure if the member heard my answer to the primary. I have a very clear expectation that the Commissioner of Police will follow the law and will ensure that the operational integrity of his force is maintained. This is not my responsibility.

Chris Bishop: Why were the 11 firearms stolen from Palmerston North police station contained in an exhibit room rather than the secure firearms safe in the firearms room upstairs next to the front counter?

Hon STUART NASH: If I was to comment on every single live investigation, we would open a Pandora’s Box. Does that member wish me to know the details of, for example, social media investigations against MPs, etc.? I do not know—nor is it acceptable, nor is it right or proper for me to know—the details of every single police investigation.

Chris Bishop: Has he asked police if they paid for the return of some or all of the eight firearms recovered from those stolen from Palmerston North police station; if not, why not?

Hon STUART NASH: Actually, in preparation for this question, I sought advice from police on this case. They came back with the following: “It is not in the public interest to disclose the specifics of some information-gathering methods, as that could put public safety at risk.” Now, in any investigation, whether or not payment has been made, I would not discuss details in the House—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Buy-back plus!

Hon STUART NASH: —as it would be reckless and irresponsible, Mr Brownlee, and could put lives at risk. I do not know, nor should I know, this type of detail. As I said yesterday to this question, it is up to the Commissioner of Police.

Hon Grant Robertson: Has the Minister received any advice on how many times Ministers of Police in previous Governments have used the phrase “That is an operational matter and I can’t answer” during his time in Parliament?

Hon STUART NASH: If I was to list every single date that previous Ministers of Police in the last Government used that, I would be pulled up by the Speaker for an out of order answer that was too long.

Chris Bishop: Why did he say yesterday, “You know what? I have no idea, and I don’t really want to know.”—regarding police payment for firearms stolen from them—and why does he think that is an acceptable attitude from the Minister of Police given the significant public interest in this matter?

Hon STUART NASH: In any investigation, whether or not payment has been made, I would not discuss details in the House or with the media as it would be reckless and irresponsible—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Rubbish! It’s called accountability for public money.

Hon STUART NASH: —and it could put lives at risk, Dr Smith. I do not know, nor should I know, this type of detail, and, as I said yesterday, this is a question for the Commissioner of Police.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is it the position that he’s taken that the separation of powers—that is, in this case, between the police and their Minister—is essential for a democratic Government but not a fascist Government?

Hon STUART NASH: That is a very good point. Not only is it essential but it is actually outlined in section 16 of the Policing Act.

Question No. 10—Police

10. GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu) to the Minister of Police: What recent announcements has he made about making it easier for the public to get in touch with Police for non-emergency events?

Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Police): I am happy to inform him that, since the concept was first floated in 2005, New Zealand now has a 24/7 non-emergency number—105. Since it was launched 13 days ago, police have answered more than 14,000 calls to 105—on average, 85 percent caller satisfaction. With the 105 non-emergency number and the 105 online reporting, we’re hoping to build trust and confidence in police by giving New Zealanders a simple new way—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: What about a gun price list?

Hon STUART NASH: —to report situations that don’t require an urgent or immediate response. Fantastic news, Mr Brownlee.

Greg O’Connor: What events would warrant a call to 105 rather than 111?

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Oh, hang on, that’s a bit operational!

Hon STUART NASH: The easiest way to break it down—[Interruption] Does the Opposition want to know?

SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Oh, look. Order! Is there something in the Christchurch water at the moment? Those two members should settle down.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There is indeed chlorine in the Christchurch water at the moment. It’s an utter disgrace. It shouldn’t be there, and the council should move to get rid of it as quickly as possible.

SPEAKER: Well, we’ll have to look at Mr Yule and see what it’s like up there.

Hon STUART NASH: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. For the first time ever, I agree with that member. There’s chlorine in the Napier water. It should never be there, and it should be removed immediately.

Greg O’Connor: Can the Minister provide other examples of emergency or non-emergency situations where help might be needed?

Melissa Lee: When the guns are stolen from police stations!

Hon STUART NASH: Settle down. If it’s happening now, call 111. If it’s a non-emergency event, call 105. Or you could try other methods to defuse a heated situation, as two members of the Opposition did last week by shifting the blame on to others by saying they had “little choice” but to vote with their party on gun reform and then stating that police were “bullying people.”—despicable.

Chris Bishop: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just seek your guidance because the Minister, not five minutes ago, was making it very clear he wouldn’t comment on operational matters, and we’ve now had a series of supplementary questions from Government members in which the Minister’s gone into quite some detail about the operation of the 105 and 111 police response lines—

SPEAKER: No, the member will resume his seat. In this particular case, the Minister is not revealing operational details of cases but the policy as to which line should be used by the public. I think it’s in the region of a public service announcement, not an operational detail, and I think the member is well enough across the portfolio area to know the difference. Any furthers on that?

Question No. 11—Police

11. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) to the Minister of Police: Did he make the statement on TVNZ One News in December in response to the launch of Matthew’s Petition urgently seeking the introduction of random roadside drug testing so as to reduce the escalating road toll from drugged drivers, “There’s a discussion document that’s been approved by Cabinet”; if so, was the statement correct at that time?

Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Police): Yes. Cabinet had approved public consultation via a discussion document in relation to drug-driving. Subsequent to that, officials drafted a document. Cabinet signed off the document in February this year for release in March, subject to final editorial changes. All of this information has been proactively released and, as the member knows, it is available on the transport website. I am not sure, however, if the previous Government has proactively released their Cabinet decisions from April and November 2016 where they rejected proposals around drug-driving off the back of a review in 2014.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: How can he stand by a statement saying there’s a discussion document that’s been approved by Cabinet, a statement made in December 2018, when the document is referred in January as a draft and when Cabinet only approved it in late February?

Hon STUART NASH: I suggest the member listens to my words: Cabinet had approved public consultation via a discussion document in relation to drug-driving.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Had Cabinet in December approved the discussion document?

Hon STUART NASH: I’ll say again: Cabinet had approved public consultation via a discussion document in relation to drug-driving. Subsequent to that—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Hon STUART NASH: —officials drafted a document—

SPEAKER: No, resume your seat.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I have now used, on a previous occasion and on this occasion, five questions to ask a simple question: was the discussion document approved? What the Minister keeps doing is saying “a consultation process”. Now, this is the same Minister that’s told my colleague Chris Bishop that he needs to be accurate with words. I am being accurate with words; I ask the Minister to do the same.

SPEAKER: Yes, and the member has been here long enough to know that that may well be an appropriate point of order to make at the completion of the supplementary answer, not by way of interrupting it. I mean, the member might consider it a bit of a miracle if he’s satisfied with an answer, but we’ve got to give the Minister a chance.

Hon STUART NASH: As I mentioned, Cabinet had approved public consultation via a discussion document in relation to drug-driving. I would say that I do find the line of questioning from that member rather rich, considering the previous National Government knew this was a problem in 2009—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Hon STUART NASH: —and rejected Labour’s initiative—

SPEAKER: Order! Order!

Hon STUART NASH: —to deal with this 10 years ago.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I stand by the point that you asked me to make and that was: my question five times now and in the question on notice was about a discussion document. The Minister has not addressed the question of the timing of the discussion document being approved by Cabinet.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Speaking to the point of order—look, can I just say that if you read what was said in December, there’s a discussion document that’s been approved by Cabinet. Then ask yourself: is there such a record of an agreement for there to be a discussion document and is that itself the document? There are many ways to answer this question and he’s being pedantic and stupidly semantic, if I might suggest.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: We’ll stay with this point of order rather than a new one, can we?

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Well, this is the same point of order.

SPEAKER: The same point that Dr Smith has raised?

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Well, I simply want to make it clear to the Rt Hon Winston Peters that the question here really goes to the heart of whether a document existed at the time it was claimed to exist.

SPEAKER: And I’m going to go right back to the ruling that I made the last time Dr Smith interrupted a question, and that is that we’ve got to give the Minister a chance to finish. Continue, Mr Nash.

Hon STUART NASH: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, I’m going to repeat what I’ve said about three or four times, and I hope I make this clear. Cabinet had approved public consultation via a discussion document in relation to drug-driving. Subsequent to that, officials drafted a document. Cabinet signed off the document in February this year for release in March, subject to final editorial changes. So, yes, Cabinet had approved public consultation via a discussion document.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why did the proposals for introducing random roadside drug-testing from police and transport officials sit on Ministers’ desks for 17 months before being approved—a period in which another 100 New Zealanders died from drug-driving?

Hon STUART NASH: I’m not too sure if the member is referring to the Cabinet documents drafted and presented to the Cabinet in which that member sat twice in 2016 and rejected, or if he is referring to a discussion document which I had a look at, which was woefully incomplete and inadequate. So is it the Cabinet papers that your Cabinet rejected, Dr Smith?

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does he stand by the statement in the Cabinet paper he signed, which says, “The technology of roadside drug testing has improved markedly since Cabinet last considered the issue in 2016.” and that “fatalities have since sharply escalated”; if so, why is he now saying that the previous Cabinet had it wrong?

Hon STUART NASH: I am saying the previous Government had it wrong in 2009 when it rejected a fantastic Labour initiative which, in fact, would have made the introduction of roadside drug testing much more streamlined than it is today.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Has he seen the research in the New Zealand Listener that road fatalities from cannabis-impaired drivers increased by 145 percent in Colorado following legalisation; if so, how is legalisation of cannabis consistent with the police goal of a zero road toll?

SPEAKER: I’m not sure the Listener is a research document, but I get into trouble if I say too much about that!

Hon STUART NASH: Yeah, I don’t know what the member is talking about when he’s talking about the legalisation of cannabis. This Government has not proposed the legalisation of cannabis, so it’s hypothetical.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Will he give an assurance that random roadside drug-testing will be introduced prior to any of the Government’s moves to liberalise access to recreational drugs taking effect—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: No. We’ll wait until the end of the question.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I’ll start again.

SPEAKER: No, just keep going from where the member interrupted.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I am going to start again, because—

SPEAKER: The member, if he wants to have the supplementary, will continue from the—and the member will sit down while I’m standing up. If the member wants to continue with the supplementary, which might well yet be ruled out of order if he doesn’t get it order, the member will continue. He won’t start again.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: —such as the amendment to the Misuse of Drugs Act, which removes the capacity to prosecute for the possession of drugs such as meth and cannabis?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member prefaced his question by saying it was a Government move. The fact of the matter is that such a matter is a condition subsequent to a referendum. It is for the people to decide. It is not a Government move, and, therefore, the question should be ruled out.

SPEAKER: Speaking to the point of order, the Hon Dr Nick Smith.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: My question specifically referred to the amendments to the Misuse of Drugs Act. That is an amendment that is before the House. It is a Government bill. It is separate to the question of the referendum, and both the Police Association as well as the New Zealand Law Society say that it amounts to decriminalisation of possession.

SPEAKER: Answering the question.

Hon STUART NASH: I do not consider what we are proposing under the Misuse of Drugs Act to be a liberalisation of drugs whatsoever. What we are doing is we are taking synthetic cannabinoids and actually putting them into class A under the Misuse of Drugs Act, which will allow the police to go a hell of a lot harder against those who are dealing, supplying, and importing synthetic cannabis into our community.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Can the Minister confirm that the amendment to the Misuse of Drugs Act, which is currently before the Health Committee, still allows for the prosecution of those who are using or who are in possession of drugs but provides and formalises that police discretion?

SPEAKER: Order! While it comes close to one of the previous supplementaries, it’s not within the range of the primary question or the other ones.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does the Minister stand by his statement that the introduction of roadside drug-testing is urgent and “needs to be rushed”; if so, why did the discussion document prepared by police and transport officials sit on his desk for 17 months?

Hon STUART NASH: It did not sit on my desk for 17 months. There was a discussion document, which was woefully inadequate, but what I would say is we do take this very seriously. The previous Government blocked a move in 2009 to deal with this. In 2016, the previous National Government rejected two Cabinet papers. We take this very seriously. That is why this Government is doing something about it when that Government had nine years and did nothing.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Can the Minister confirm the difference between the impairment of somebody on a substance and the presence of a substance in somebody’s system?

Hon STUART NASH: Well, what I would say is that the New Zealand Police already undertakes a compulsory impairment test when they suspect that someone is driving under the influence of drugs, so to say that there is no drug testing at the moment is, in fact, incorrect. What this Government is looking to do is use technology in a way that will allow us to be a lot more accurate in testing impairment.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why did his office tell Newshub that I had refused to work with him on the introduction of random roadside drug-testing when I had repeatedly stated publicly that National would support any of our bills or Government bills to achieve that, and the only communication between our offices was my invitation for him to meet with affected families and his reply, refusing to do so?

Hon STUART NASH: What I can say is we take this so seriously that when the member Alastair Scott had a member’s bill—

Kieran McAnulty: Who?

Hon STUART NASH: —Alastair Scott—I met with Mr Scott and offered to work closely with him to ensure that his bill was fit for purpose. But the advice that I received—which I handed on to Mr Scott—from the New Zealand Police was that his bill was too narrow to make a difference. I offered to work with him to widen the scope of the bill so we could work together on this, and he said no.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If this is the case, was the 17-month document, which it is claimed he left lying unread on his desk, the one refused by the previous administration—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: No, it wasn’t.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: —and for the same reasons he was not reading it himself?

SPEAKER: Order! Who interjected then?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: He did.

SPEAKER: It happened again. Who interjected?

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Did the member interject?

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Yes, I did.

SPEAKER: The member will withdraw and apologise.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Why is it acceptable for the Deputy Prime Minister to interrupt my questions but not the other way round?

SPEAKER: I ruled against the Deputy Prime Minister when he interrupted the member. I repeatedly ruled against that member for interrupting questions that were out of order, and I’m not sure whether he is being deliberately—

Hon Member: Obtuse.

SPEAKER: No, I can’t think of an appropriate word. It’s not that one.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Provocative.

SPEAKER: Provocative; that’s a good word. Thank you—and the fact that I wasn’t standing means that you can interrupt to support me. I can’t work out if the member’s being deliberately provocative, but I’ll give him the generosity of thinking that he wasn’t.

Hon Member: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: No, sorry. We’ve got an answer to give here.

Hon STUART NASH: Look, I just want to reiterate yet again, the previous National Government knew this was a problem in 2009—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

Hon STUART NASH: —they did nothing about it then.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Point of order, Mr Speaker

Hon STUART NASH: There were two Cabinet documents—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Order! Order!

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There’s a long set of Speakers’ rulings that say it’s not appropriate for questions to be asked to give the opportunity for a Minister to have a whack at a previous Government or the Opposition. We have now had three questions on this subject in which false claims have been made about the steps that were made by the previous Government, as evidenced by the quote that I made of the Minister’s own Cabinet paper.

SPEAKER: OK. I was getting pretty close to agreeing with the member when he accused one of the two Ministers of making a false claim. At that point, he lost it. The Minister will answer.

Hon STUART NASH: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like that member to let me know which claim I have made is false.

SPEAKER: No, no, no. The member will answer the question.

Hon STUART NASH: I’ve forgotten the question.

SPEAKER: I’m going to ask the Deputy Prime Minister to remind the House.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: To the Minister of Police, just to make it clear: the document that sat there for 17 long months was because it was utterly deficient and he began to work on something that would be worthwhile into the future?

SPEAKER: That wasn’t quite it, but it was close.

Hon STUART NASH: The Deputy Speaker is dead-right; the document that—[Interruption] The Deputy Prime Minister is dead-right; the document that we inherited from the previous Government was woefully inadequate.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why will the Minister not release the original discussion document drafted by police and transport, that the Deputy Prime Minister now says is deficient?

Hon STUART NASH: I’m confused. This member has said that I inherited a document from his Government, and now he’s asked me to release it. Goodness me, Dr Smith! I am sure that you had something to do with that—it’s probably why it was so deficient.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is a very serious issue involving 70 lives that are lost per year. This Government received a discussion document from transport and police officials in December 2017. The Minister has refused to release that. My question, which I asked him to answer, was “Why would he not release that discussion document prepared by police and transport?” That’s a reasonable question.

SPEAKER: I want to just get an assurance to make sure that we’re completely online. The member has asked for its release under the Official Information Act (OIA) and it has been refused?

Hon Dr Nick Smith: It has not yet been answered.

SPEAKER: It’s out of time?

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I would need to check with my—[Interruption] I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question of whether the document has been released or not—the fact is that the Deputy Prime Minister has made claims about the deficiency of that document that was prepared by police and by transport. So it’s a perfectly reasonable question to say to the Government, “Well, release it.”

SPEAKER: The member said, “Why had he not released it” and to me it sounded like the Minister had actually refused to release it, as opposed to—or made a decision about it. Given the description of it and my experience of the Act, I’m sure it will be forthcoming. If it’s been studied so closely for its inadequacy, it must be in the Minister’s office and I expect it to be delivered under the Official Information Act, of course which I have no responsibility for. But I’m sure if it’s been properly requested, it will be over in the next couple of days.

Hon STUART NASH: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just want to reiterate that there are no OIAs sitting in my office that are overdue.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It just might be helpful for the House to say that the discussion document and all of the documents that were related to that were released under the Official Information Act by my office over a year ago, in fact, to his colleague Chris Bishop as well as some journalists.

SPEAKER: OK. Well, that was not a point of order. Now, a supplementary question?

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The final discussion document has been publicly released; the draft that the Deputy Prime Minister referred to has not.

SPEAKER: There’s a very clear difference, and I hope the House has been given accurate information.

Personal Explanation—Question No. 9 to Minister

CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South): I seek leave to make a personal explanation.

SPEAKER: Relating to?

CHRIS BISHOP: Relating to an answer given by Mr Nash yesterday and today.

SPEAKER: That affects the member personally?

CHRIS BISHOP: Yes—an accusation. Yes.

SPEAKER: I’m putting that leave to the House. Is there any objection? There is not.

CHRIS BISHOP: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Both yesterday and today, the Minister of Police has said that at a meeting in Te Awamutu last Monday, I publicly said that the police were bullying people, in particular licensed firearm owners. I let that go yesterday when that accusation was made. It was repeated again in question time today. There is no record of me saying that, and I utterly reject the accusation that I said that. Thank you.

Hon Stuart Nash: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Speaking—well, a point of order.

Hon Stuart Nash: Well, can I speak—

SPEAKER: No, no. The member has given his word to the House. It’s not something the member can argue with. It’s a very serious matter if it’s inaccurate, but the member doesn’t bring it up now if he’s disagreeing.

Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Police): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I take these matters very seriously as well. That member has put down my source in a written question, and my office is in the process of replying to that written question in a way which may, in fact, enlighten him as to where this came from.

SPEAKER: Well, that’s not a point of order, and it’s not appropriate. I’m getting a bit sick of it.

Urgent Debates Declined

Crown Debt Target—Proposed Changes

SPEAKER: I have received a letter from the Hon Amy Adams seeking to debate under Standing Order 389 the Government’s recent announcement that it will shift to a net debt percentage range of 15 to 25 percent of GDP rather than a single figure of 20 percent. This is a particular case of recent occurrence. It involves ministerial responsibility. The announcement was made by the Minister of Finance in a speech this morning.

The Government has stated that the new range will exist from 2021-22 onwards. There will be many opportunities to debate the proposed change, including three Budgets and a general election. If—[Interruption] I haven’t finished yet. The member is tempting me. If decisions to bring it into place were made during the upcoming Budget, there would be an extended opportunity to debate it during the Budget scrutiny process. This is an important matter, but I am not convinced that it meets the case for urgency. Therefore, the application is declined.

Intelligence and Security Committee

Membership

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move, That under section 196 of the Intelligence and Security Act 2017, this House endorse the Hon Amy Adams as a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee, nominated by the Leader of the Opposition under section 195(1) of the Act and in accordance with section 194(2)(c) of the Act.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

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

Third Reading

Hon PEENI HENARE (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector) on behalf of the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations: I move, That the Ngā Rohe Moana o Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Porou Bill (No 2) be now read a third time.

E ōku rahi kua tatū mai nei ki roto i Te Whare i te rā nei. Kia aroha mai ki ngā mahi pōrangi kua kitea nei koutou. Heoi anō e mihi atu ana ahau ki a koutou katoa mō te taha takiri nei ki roto i tō tātou Whare. Heoi anō ki a koutou e ngā uri o Porourangi rāua ko Hamo, haere mai rā koutou ki roto i tēnei Whare. Haere mai rā koutou ki roto ki tēnei mokopuna a koutou, te uri o Pākura e mihi nei ki a koutou katoa e ōku rangatira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa. Anei ngā kupu a Te Minita Te Hon Anaru Iti mō te kaupapa nei. Nō reira, e ōku rangatira tēnā tātou.

[To the distinguished who have arrived in the House today. Please excuse the silly things that you have seen. And so, I greet you all from this side of our House. And so, to you, the descendants of Porourangi and Hamo, welcome into this house. Welcome to this grandchild of yours, the descendant of Pākura, who greets each of you my esteemed ones, greetings to us all. Here are the words of the Minister the Hon Andrew Little about this matter. Therefore, my esteemed ones, greetings to all.]

In a third reading, it is appropriate to acknowledge those who have played such an important role in reaching this stage. Firstly, I want to pay tribute to the hapū of Ngāti Porou and their immense resolve and patience in ensuring the Crown honours its commitment to them. The dedication shown by the people of this iwi has been paramount to this bill’s success. I want to acknowledge all your people who have contributed to the deed of agreement and the deed to amend. You have worked hard for many years to get to this point, and you can be extremely proud.

It is important also to take the time to remember the leaders within Ngāti Porou who have passed on while the work for this bill progressed. So many are in our thoughts today. In particular, I acknowledge the late Dr Apirana Mahuika, who was chair of Te Rūnanganui o Ngati Porou during most of the negotiations and a staunch advocate for the hapū of Waiapū. This bill would not be where it is without his immense work and dedication. E te rangatira, koutou o te pō, haere, haere, haere. Ka hoki mai ki te ao o te ora.

[To our leader, all of you who have passed, depart from this world. I will now return to the world of the living.]

I want to acknowledge his son Matanuku Mahuika, who has made a significant contribution to the work behind this bill. I want to acknowledge all the work of Te Rūnanganui o Ngati Porou, currently under the chairmanship of Selwyn Parata.

I would also like to acknowledge the work of previous Treaty Ministers Sir Michael Cullen and the Hon Christopher Finlayson QC. Sir Michael Cullen oversaw and signed the original deed of agreement in 2008. The Hon Christopher Finlayson saw the signing of the 2017 deed to amend, which has led to this bill today. I want to acknowledge the work of the Māori Affairs Committee, chaired by Rino Tirikatene, who heard and considered over 200 submissions.

But, of course, today is about ngā hapū o Ngāti Porou. Representatives from ngā hapū o Ngāti Porou, along with other Ministers and I, have just come from a ceremony where a whakamana accord was signed along with five relationship instruments agreed to in the deed. I look forward to the future annual forums between ngā hapū o Ngāti Porou and key Ministers of the Government.

I will just give a brief history as to how we have arrived here before talking about this unique bill. After the Ngāti Apa Court of Appeal case in 2003, the Foreshore and Seabed Act was introduced. Ngā hapū o Ngāti Porou were the only group under that Act to reach a deed of agreement with the Crown, and it was signed on 31 October 2008. A bill was introduced to Parliament to bring effect to the deed. However, when the Government changed, a review of the Foreshore and Seabed Act took place. And the original Ngā Rohe Moana o Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Porou Bill: from that outset of that review, Government consistently stated that it would honour and fulfil its obligations in the deed of agreement.

After the review, the Foreshore and Seabed Act was repealed and replaced with the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011. Ngā hapū o Ngāti Porou and the Crown negotiated amendments to the deed of agreement. These amendments reflect the takutai moana Act and other changes to legislation since 2008. The negotiated amendments were incorporated into a deed to amend, which was ratified by 47 hapū of the 57 hapū of Ngāti Porou and was signed by both parties in August 2017. This bill before the House gives effect to the amended deed of agreement.

This bill is unique. Its purpose is to contribute to the legal expression, protection, and recognition of the continued exercise of mana by ngā hapū o Ngāti Porou in relation to ngā rohe moana. The bill does this by recognising the unbroken, inalienable, and enduring mana of ngā hapū o Ngāti Porou in ngā rohe moana. The bill does not bring any recognition of customary rights into effect; however, it does provide the process for the recognition of customary rights. It also recognises the Crown has a responsibility to ensure public access as well as ensure the continuation of other lawful activities and uses of the takutai moana.

This bill provides a legislative framework for the recognition of Ngāti Porou’s customary interests in their rohe moana. In providing this framework, the Crown honours its commitment to the 2008 agreement. The bill’s mechanisms for recognising the customary interests of ngā hapū o Ngāti Porou are similar to those found in the takutai moana Act 2011. However, they have some unique features that reflect the agreement reached with the hapū in 2008. It provides for mechanisms that have been negotiated and agreed to between ngā hapū o Ngāti Porou and the Crown that require legislation to bring them into effect.

In this bill, “Ngā Hapū” refers to the hapū who are party to the amended deed of agreement. Of the 57 hapū of Ngāti Porou, 46 are party to the agreement because they have ratified the deed and detailed their management arrangements. As it stands, the 11 other hapū can continue with existing applications to have their customary rights recognised under the takutai moana Act 2011. Alternatively, they can ratify the amended deed of agreement and detail a management arrangement later to be considered as ngā hapū o Ngāti Porou under this bill. This bill does not apply to whānau, hapū and iwi who are not from Ngāti Porou. The takutai moana Act still applies to all other whānau, hapū, and iwi throughout Aotearoa New Zealand.

I would like to take the time to discuss the different parts of the bill. First, Part 4 of the bill sets out the legal tests for the recognition of protected customary activities, customary marine title, as well as wāhi tapu and wāhi tapu areas. These tests are the same as the tests in the takutai moana Act. Similarly, just as in the provisions of the takutai moana Act, ngā hapū can seek the recognition of their customary rights by making an application to the High Court, or through direct engagement with the Crown. There is also a two-year time limit for ngā hapū to apply for recognition of their customary rights under this bill. The two-year time frame gives ngā hapū flexibility to make new applications or review the details of existing applications.

If customary marine title is recognised under this bill, then Part 3 sets out several mechanisms that apply to the customary marine title area. These relate to resource consent applications, regulations for customary fishing practices, recognition and effect of an environmental covenant established by ngā hapū, applications and proposals for conservation processes, the ownership of taonga tūturu, and the ownership of minerals other than petroleum, gold, silver, and uranium existing in their natural condition. Customary marine title is not fee simple title and areas where customary marine title is recognised remain part of the common marine and coastal area. The bill balances the rights of all New Zealanders by providing a mechanism for ngā hapū to test their rights while also protecting public access, fishing, navigation, existing resource consents, and other lawful activities in the common marine and coastal area.

Part 2 of the bill contains mechanisms that are not dependent on the recognition of customary marine title. When the bill is enacted, these mechanisms apply across all of ngā rohe moana and recognise the mana of ngā hapū and ngā rohe moana that exists, irrespective of the evidentiary thresholds for customary marine title. There are eight mechanisms in Part 2 of the bill and they were negotiated in good faith and agreed to with ngā hapū in the 2008 deed of agreement. These mechanisms are generally consistent with those available to iwi, hapū, and whānau under the relevant provisions of the takutai moana Act. They are also generally consistent with coastal statutory acknowledgments, relationship protocols, and name change provisions provided for in historical Treaty settlement legislation, and customary fishing regulations.

The first mechanism is the statutory overlay instrument that is designed to provide for the effective participation of ngā hapū in the processes relating to resource consent applications and applications under the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014. It ensures that a map of ngā rohe moana is attached to key public documents. This includes the promotion of the sustainable management of ngā rohe moana and the protection of cultural and spiritual identity of ngā hapū. Where the environmental covenant relates to resource management issues, the Gisborne District Council will be required to take the environmental covenant into account.

The third mechanism relates to protected customary activities and the fourth relates to wāhi tapu and wāhi tapu areas. These customary rights can apply across the whole of ngā rohe moana. However, they are contingent on the evidentiary standards being met before they can come into effect. The fifth mechanism relates to customary fishing practices and recognises the special relationship that ngā hapū o Ngāti Porou have with the fishing grounds within ngā rohe moana. The Māori Affairs Committee recommended amending parts of the bill, namely, clarify the regulation of freshwater fisheries, ensure consistency between the deed—[Assistant Speaker indicates time has expired] I do apologise, the House went on for some time. Finally, there are five schedules in the bill. I would like to speak—no, I won’t. The Māori Affairs Committee recommended amending the southern boundary of ngā rohe moana from Koutunui Point to Koutunui Head.

This is a historic day. This is a unique piece of legislation, detailed in that particular speech, and it has been a long time coming. Once again, I must praise the whānau and hapū of Ngāti Porou, who started this journey in 2004 and are seeing it through to the end. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast): Tēnā koutou katoa e Te Whare. Tēnā koutou katoa a ngā hapū a Ngāti Porou. E ngā mana, e ngā reo, e ngā hau e whā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Greetings to the House. Greetings to you all of the subtribes of Ngāti Porou. The authorities, the spokespeople, those from the four winds, greetings, greetings, greetings to you all.]

I want to start by paying tribute to the late Dr Apirana Mahuika—Uncle Api, as we all knew him—who began this great journey that ends here today. I can feel his spirit with us. I want to pay tribute to the many great rangatira watching over this historic day, recognising the mana whenua of Ngāti Porou: Henare Pōtae, Mokena Kohere, Rōpata Wahawaha, Tuta Nihoniho, Tā Apirana Ngata, Dr Api Mahuika, and, of course—I’m sure he is with us today—Selwyn Parata. I know that there are many, many more, and I know that you people in the galleries here today have them with you in your hearts and in your minds.

The great traditions of Ngāti Porou, their rangatiratanga, founded in tikanga, make them unique, as does this historic day and the agreement before this House. Ngāti Porou have always stood apart, firmly rooted in their rohe, secure in their whakapapa, and epitomised for me in the response that goes back to the 1850s, when the offer was made to the rangatira to take up the position of Māori King. His response was—and I’m going to say it in English because my pronunciation in Te Reo would mangle these magnificent words—“My mountain, Hikurangi, does not move. It remains steadfast. My authority comes from beyond, from my ancestors.”

So today, a historic day—and I give my apologies for not being present during the pō’hiri and the signing of the agreement. Today brings into law—l-a-w—what we in Tai Rāwhiti recognise as lore—l-o-r-e. That is, it recognises the continuous exercise of mana by the hapū of Ngāti Porou over their rohe. The bill sets that out clearly. In the three major clauses relating to Ngāti Porou, it talks about recognising the unbroken, inalienable, and enduring mana of the hapū of Ngāti Porou in relation to ngā rohe moana o ngā hapū o Ngāti Porou, which is held and exercised as a collective right; it provides legal mechanisms to support the expression and protection of the mana of the hapū of Ngāti Porou; and it provides certainty about the use and administration of that rohe—three critical things that recognise that continuous exercise of mana.

Actually, to Ngāti Porou, that goes back to the beginning of time in New Zealand, because, of course, Ngāti Porou claim that when Māui-tikitiki-a-Taranga, the great fisherman, fished up the North Island, his waka, Nukataimemeha, was cradled on the top of Ngāti Porou’s ancestral maunga, Hikurangi. So, of course, in the Takutai Moana Act, we only talk about from 1840, but Ngāti Porou go back long before that to the beginning of time.

Can I pay tribute to Matanuku Mahuika, the chief negotiator, and his team. There was a huge responsibility on them to have an agreement, see that law disappear, and then negotiate again a new agreement without giving—I know, because I saw the reports—ground. I know that the second agreement was negotiated in true Ngāti Porou style, with grace and dignity, with a complete grasp of tikanga and lore—l-o-r-e—but with an iron fist. That’s the Ngāti Porou we know and respect and love.

Can I pay tribute to the patience and the good grace of the hapū of Ngāti Porou. This has been a long, long journey—a 15-year journey—that you have taken, and today we have arrived at this place, at our destination, with all that mana, with all that tikanga, and with all those people of the past with us in partnership as we shake hands, as we sign the agreement, and we go forward together, recognising that each one of us has a responsibility and we need to work on it together.

So I say to the hapū of Ngāti Porou: thank you. Thank you for agreeing to renegotiate what you already had agreed with a previous Government. It’s almost full circle, where you began with a Labour-led Government, a National-led Government came in the middle, and the final signing and agreement is with a Labour-led Government. Perhaps that is the way that life should be. It doesn’t matter who holds the Treasury benches; the important thing is the partnership that we negotiate and manage together.

Kia kaha. Kua mutu tērā. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou.

[Be strong. That is over. Greetings, greetings, greetings to you.]

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. A, tēnā koutou ōku rangatira, a Ngāti Porou, me ō hapū maha, Te Tai Rāwhiti, nau mai, nau mai, whakatau mai, nau mai, piki mai ki Te Whare Pāremata, ki te ana o te raiona. I tū ai, nuinui mā, teitei mā, nau mai whakatau mai ki te whakatutuki i ngā wawata o rātou mā. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou. E tū ana ahau ki te tautoko i tēnei pire i tana pānuitanga tuatoru.

[So, greetings my esteemed people, Ngāti Porou and your many subtribes, The East Coast, welcome, welcome, and ascend to Parliament, to the lion’s den. Stood up, large and tall, welcome here to execute of the dreams of those who have passed. Greetings, greetings. I stand to support this bill in its third reading.]

I’m delighted to be able to speak at the third reading of this bill, the Ngā Rohe Moana o Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Porou Bill (No 2). This is such a joyous day, and to be in the presence of Ngāti Porou, who have graced our gallery today, and the wonderful pōwhiri and the signing of the relationship agreements and the accords that took place prior to the House sitting today—it certainly is a wonderful occasion. I’m just very proud to be able to have played a little part in what is a significant piece of legislation for Ngāti Porou.

Can I acknowledge, as we do on these occasions, those that have passed on. I’d like to tautoko the sentiments that have been made when we think of all of our illustrious kaumātua, Apirana Mahuika, and all those that have been involved in this journey. It has been a very long—not just the 15-odd years in terms of the culmination of this bill, but this bill, obviously, is about recognising the rights that go right back to 1840, stemming from Treaty rights. We’re giving legal expression—we’re giving greater expression—to those rights for the hapū of Ngāti Porou. So I’m delighted to tautoko this bill, and I want to acknowledge the contributions made thus far by the Hon Anne Tolley and my colleague and whanaunga, the Hon Peeni Henare.

This bill is about giving recognition to those customary rights. These rights have always existed—always existed—for these hapū. The connection that they have to their coastal takutai moana environment—they have always existed, but it has never been recognised through the laws of the land. What we are doing today is passing this legislation which affirms the deeds that were signed between the Crown and our hapū of Ngāti Porou to give effect and to give greater expression of those rights.

So this is a significant piece of legislation. This is historic. It is one of a kind. Ngāti Porou were leaders in terms of the original deed that was established. There were two sets of legislation that have led to the enactment of this bill. So we know there has been a long history, and it is all about recognising those rights, providing those mechanisms, but it also balances the rights of the public and of other rights holders, be that in the fishing industry or through navigation of our waterways.

So it has been well thought through. I want to acknowledge Matanuku Mahuika, Herewini, the heamana of Te Rūnanganui o Ngati Porou, for all their leadership and their work—a lot of work has gone into this, a lot of kōrero with officials—and all those that have been involved over many, many years. I want to acknowledge them for their forbearance in being able to get to this point.

Just conscious of the time—it is always an honour for me, and I want to take this opportunity while I have the time at hand and I’m on my feet. I want to acknowledge the hapū of Ngāti Porou. There are 57 all up—there are many hapū; 47 are directly part of this deed, but, for completeness, I do include all of the hapū who are here and represented for Ngāti Porou. So I want to race through them—there are quite a few, and I want to make sure that I set this down in the record of the Hansard. So we’ll start from the North and we’ll work down: for Pōtikirua kī Whangaokena Takutai Kaitiaki Trust, Te Whānau a Tapaeururangi, Ngāi Tuere, Te Whānau a Tuwhakairiora, Te Whānau a Te Aotaki, Te Whānau a Kāhu, Ngāi Tamakoro, Te Aopare , Te Whānau a Tarahauiti, Te Whānau a Hunaara, Te Whānau a Hinerupe, Te Whānau a Te Aotaihi. For Whangaokeno kī Ōnepoto, Te Whānau a Takimoana, Te Whānau a Tāpuhi, Te Whānau a Te Uruahi, Te Whānau a Tinatoka, Te Whānau a Rerewa, Ngāti Nua, Ngāti Hokopu, Te Whānau a Rakaimataura, Ngāti Putaanga, Te Whānau a Ngāi Tāne, Te Whānau a Hinepare, Te Whānau a Karuai, Te Whānau a Hinerupe ki Waiapu, Te Whānau a Rakaihoea, Te Whānau a Pōkai, Ngāti Horowai, Te Whānau a Māhaki, Te Whānau a Uruhonea, Te Whānau a Hineauta.

For Te Papatipu o Uepohatu me te Papatipu o te Ngaere, Ngāi Tangihaere, Ngāti Rangi, Ngāti Uepohatu, Te Whānau a Umuariki, Te Whānau a Ruataupare ki Tuparoa, Te Whānau a Hinetapora, Te Whānau a Hinekehu at Rauru Marae. For Te Aitanga a Mate Te Aowera and Te Whanau a Hinekehu, we have Te Whānau a Hinekehu, Te Aitanga a Mate, and Te Aowera. For Mataahu ki Kokoronui, I want to acknowledge Ngāi Taharora, Te Whānau a Iritekura, Te Whānau a Rakairoa, Te Whānau a Te Haemata. For Kokoronui kī Te Toka ā Taiau, Ngāti Wakarara and Ngāti Hau. There’s also Ngāti Oneone as well, further south.

I also want to acknowledge, for completeness, these hapū as well: Ngāti Konohi, Ngāti Kuranui, Ngāti Patuwhare, Te Whānau a Te Rangipureora, Te Aitanga a Hauiti, Ngāti Kahukuranui, Ngāi Tutekohi, Ngāti Ira, Te Whānau o Te Aotawarirangi, Te Whānau a Ruataupare ki Tokomaru. Those are ngā hapū o Ngāti Porou, and this is a very significant day for these hapū. Through this bill, we are affirming and providing mechanisms whereby the hapū will be able to continue the exercise of their mana and of their customary rights, the continuation of that.

Also, I want to acknowledge my colleague the Hon Kelvin Davis, who’s the Minister for Te Arawhiti and will be responsible for the processes that will continue in terms of recognition of customary marine title. This is only putting in place the mechanisms in some places. Sure, there’ll be general mechanisms, but for those specific applications that will be made, I’m looking forward and I encourage Mr Davis to ensure that we can get as many of these applications through so those mechanisms can be given the absolute full expression under the law and in accordance with the deeds that have been signed.

So, with that, I just once again want to mihi to ngā hapū katoa of Ngāti Porou who are here today. This is your day, and we certainly do celebrate with you the passage of this bill. Kia ora tātou.

Hon NICKY WAGNER (National): Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā. Kia ora anō tātou. As a new member, and, actually, a returning member, of the Māori Affairs Committee, I feel enormously privileged to be speaking to this bill on this historic occasion. As we’ve already heard, it’s been a very long and winding road to get here today; 15 years of complex, challenging, and stressful processes for Ngāti Porou, but we’re here. Numerous people have been involved along the way, and I’d like to pay tribute to everyone who’s worked so hard, but in particular I’d like to pay special tribute to Dr Apirana Mahuika and his son, Matanuku. Uncle Api—I hope I can call him that—began this process, and, sadly, of course, he’s no longer with us, but I’m sure he would be enjoying today as we think of him.

I’d also like to note the work of Selwyn Parata, chair of Te Rūnanganui o Ngati Porou, who I do see here today and, I’m sure, will be leading the waiata at the end of the day, because I always see him, larger than life, at Te Matatini.

The negotiations for this bill go all the way back to the days of the Foreshore and Seabed Bill, right back to 2004, and at that time, Ngāti Porou, the people of the East Coast, were the only group—the only group—to sign an agreement with the Crown. Ngāti Porou—always the leaders—signed that agreement establishing customary title, customary rights, and a protection of wāhi tapu. And then—and then—it had to be renegotiated all over again under the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act in 2011.

I would like to thank Ngāti Porou for their patience, for their wisdom, for their tenacity, and—I’d also like to echo my colleague Anne Tolley—for their good grace and their steely determination during that time. The deed was finally ratified by ngā hapū o Ngāti Porou and signed by all parties in August 2017, and I know that the Hon Chris Finlayson, who has worked so closely with Ngāti Porou and who considered Dr Api a friend, was particularly pleased when we finally got that signature of the deed to amend.

Now, nearly two years later, this legislation finally completes the parliamentary process and the bill will pass at this third reading. It will provide certainty. It will provide certainty for all of us—certainty about the use, certainty about the management, and certainty about the mana of the rohe moana of Ngāti Porou.

The bill, as we’ve heard, recognises the unbroken, the inalienable, and the enduring connection of the hapū of Ngāti Porou to those who are most closely connected to the beautiful areas of Ōpōtiki and the East Cape. It also will recognise Ngāti Porou’s role as kaitiakitanga of the area. It provides the legal mechanisms to protect the mana of Ngāti Porou across the rohe and to recognise the specific areas that they have customary marine title rights for, and it also recognises that the Crown has a responsibility for public access to the common marine coast area and a role in regulating it.

So, at last—at last—this day has come to pass the bill, after 15 long years of negotiation and parliamentary process. As the Hon Chris Finlayson foretold, in the second reading of the bill, about this final step—and I quote him. He said, “It will be a great day for Ngāti Porou.” Indeed, today is a significant day for Ngāti Porou, an historic day for Ngāti Porou, and a great day for Ngāti Porou. Kia ora tātou.

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister of Forestry): A kāti e te iwi, koutou katoa kua tau mai ki Te Upoko o Te Ika, a Waiapū awa, Hikurangi maunga, Porourangi tangata. E kī, e kī, ko te whakarangatira o Te Ao Māori kei te tihi o Hikurangi, mei kore te tihi o Hikurangi, kua kore a Te Ika-a-Māui e kitea.

Tuarua, e kī, ko Ngāti Porou e heke mai rā runga i te tohorāha mā te haerenga mai o Paikea ki Aotearoa. Tua atu i tērā kāhore he rākau pōhutukawa tua atu i Te Waha o Rerekohu. Arā ko tēnā te āhuatanga o ō tātou whanaunga o Ngāti Porou. Mā rātou i roto i te rangi a Tamanui te Rā e mihi i te tuatahi, ia rā, ia rā, ia rā. Engari pai ana kei ahau a Ngā Puhi ko Te Paipera Tapu, ko Te Tiriti o Waitangi, me Te Rerenga Wairua. Kia ahatia? Tēnā koutou katoa.

Me mihi atu ki tō tātou manukura, ki a Api, tana hoa haere a Poro. Whātorotoro haere ki tō tātou, ki tōku hoa ake, tō koutou huanga a Parekura. Nāna anō te kaupapa nei i whakakorikori i te taha o Dr Cullen i tōna wā. Te mea pōuri, kīhai rāua, rātou i toe kia kai kanohi mai rātou ki ngā mahi rangatira e oti ana tātou i roto i tēnei rā. Nā reira, Ngāti Porou whānui, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[To one and all, all of you who have descended upon Wellington today, Waiapū River, Hikurangi mountain, the people of Porourangi. Well, well, the epitome of the Māori people is at the peak of Hikurangi, if it weren’t for the peak of Hikurangi, Te Ika-a-Māui would not have been seen.

Secondly, you don’t say, Ngāti Porou came on a whale when Paikea journeyed to Aotearoa. And what’s more, there is no pōhutukawa more outstanding than Te Waha o Rerekohu. That is indeed the way of our relations from Ngāti Porou. During the day it is them who first greet the sun, day in, day out. On the contrary I am happy that we of Ngā Puhi have the Holy Bible, Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and Te Rerenga Wairua. What’s to be done about it? Greetings to you all.

I must acknowledge our leader, Api, and his companion Poro. I reach out to our friend, my personal friend, your progeny Parekura. He himself moved this matter along alongside Dr Cullen in his time. The sad thing is that those two, all of them aren’t remaining to see with their own eyes the excellent work that is being completed by us at this time. Therefore, wider Ngāti Porou, greetings, greetings, greetings to you all.]

As I’ve said, we think fondly of the people who carried this kaupapa. I recall going with Dr Michael Cullen, at the invitation of Dr Apirana Mahuika, with the late Hon Parekura Horomia after the tumultuous times of the original seabed and foreshore issues, and then to begin the negotiations with this tribe, that has enjoyed uninterrupted ownership since the Treaty of Waitangi of the whenua adjoining the takutai moana. Their tupuna Sir Apirana Ngata, who graces the walls and the corridors of this House, played a key role in leading the consolidation and the holding of their land so that it didn’t go the way of other tribes.

I come from Ngāpuhi nui tonu, and Sir Apirana Ngata came to the Far North. He said in Māori, to my mātuas, “Tēnā he toki anō tāku. Kua tapahia e ahau te hiku o tēnei ika kia tere atu ki te puku o te moana.”, which meant “If I had an axe, I would cut off the tail of this fish for fear of its sting infecting the rest of Māoridom and allow it to float away into the sea.” So that man—we celebrate his legacy today as modern-day parliamentarians, and it’s very rare in modern-day parliamentary life that we go that far back in history.

There was some anxiety about this piece of legislation—that it would impede the rights, the interests, the habits, the usages, the customs of people who enjoy the East Coast. We have put those fears to bed. There were concerns from the fishing industry that their activities might be impeded. They will never be impeded by the party that I belong to, and given that this tribe are key owners of substantial fisheries resources, they treat fish with a great deal of respect—and so they should, because their tupuna Porourangi, upon catching the fish, was poisoned by the fish. Ko te ingoa o tērā ika ki roto i ahau, ki a Ngā Puhi, ko Te Pokati. Ki roto i Te Tai Rāwhiti, nā wai rā nei i mea mai ki a au ko Te Nuhu. Nā, mau tēnā ika, ka puhipuhi, ka puhipuhi, ka tetere te hanga. Katahi ka werohia te tangata, nā, mahi nui tēnā kia ora ai te tangata i tēnā werohanga

[The name of that fish where I come from, in Ngā Puhi, is Te Pokati. In Te Tai Rāwhiti, it follows that it was told to me it is Te Nuhu. So this fish was caught, shot, shot, and was in prime condition. A person was then pierced, and this was a huge task for someone to survive this piercing.]

So this is a group, and I’m proud to represent the party and stand with my coalition partners and the Opposition parties to say: this shows there is little to fear as we evolve the law, as we evolve our frameworks for managing resources, and we join together because the foundation influences of Aotearoa are to be found in the Treaty—the missionary influence, the Crown influence, and the indigenous leaders. Those of us who are of Māori extraction and claim to be the inheritors and the custodians of our foundation heritage, as many of my Pākehā friends and brethren do, must cling; we must, at every opportunity, celebrate it so that it does not fall prey to strong globalising influences that threaten what it means for us to be New Zealanders.

So to the people of the East Coast, tēnā koutou katoa. I acknowledge the efforts of Chris Finlayson. He has created a fine legacy here. To his great sadness, he never emulated it amongst my own people of Ngāpuhi. Thank you very much.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā. To everybody from the East Coast here today, tēnā koutou katoa. Ko Tainui te waka, ko Waikato te awa, ko Ngāti Maniapoto te iwi, ko Ngāti Huiao te hapū, ko Te Kauae te marae. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Tainui is my ancestral canoe, Waikato is my ancestral river, Ngāti Maniapoto is my tribe, Ngāti Huiao is my subtribe, Te Kauae is my marae. Greetings, greetings, greetings to you all.]

I’d like to just start off by welcoming everybody in the room that’s come here from the mighty East Coast today for what is a special occasion in this House and for New Zealand. I’d like to acknowledge everybody from Ngāti Porou—all 72,000 members that affiliate to this iwi. That’s double those from my iwi, Ngāti Maniapoto, so something’s going right with this iwi group. I’d also like to pay a special acknowledgment to your ancestors—many of which are great ancestors. To tautoko what the Hon Shane Jones mentioned, Sir Apirana Ngata stands out here for us today in the House. What a great man he was. His legacy lives on even today.

So we’re here at the third reading of this important bill, which we have discussed, that brings together the effect of a deed of 47 important hapū in this iwi and the relationship between these 47 hapū and the Crown. You were the only iwi group that signed this deed under the Foreshore and Seabed Act, so you have led the way in the past and continue to lead the way into the future.

Although that Act was repealed by the previous National Government, you’ve managed to renegotiate the deed, and we are here today to acknowledge and bring effect to that deed that you have all worked so hard for in the last 15 years. So this is a special day for Ngāti Porou. It’s a special day for the people of East Cape, and we acknowledge the process that’s gone through, started in 2018 where the first reading was made, and it’s great to acknowledge, certainly, the Hon Chris Finlayson and the work that he’s put into this. There’s been a lot of people to acknowledge. Those here today, we’ve got, of course, Dr Api Mahuika and Selwyn Parata, who have been leaders in this process throughout several years in bringing us to this stage here today.

So here we are. We’ve been through several processes throughout the last few years. We had about 215 submissions in the select committee process, of which 18 were oral submissions. There were a number of changes that were made in that process from the select committee, if I can just recap a few of them, around introducing a cut-off date for hapū providing views on resource consent applications, around clarifying the regulation of freshwater fisheries, providing consistency and clarity between the deed and customary fishing regulations, and a whole raft of other changes that we listened to in the select committee process. I wasn’t on that select committee, but I am on the Māori Affairs Committee now.

So a number of changes came out, and we’re now at the stage of the third and final reading. We’ve had here the culmination of many years of work, and I do just want to acknowledge everybody in the room, and in the House here today—from both sides of the House—who have come together in order to make sure that there is an acknowledgment of the customary fishing rights of this iwi and of the 47 hapū who have signed this deed, that this Act and this bill would effectively bring into force. So again I want to acknowledge the previous speakers and everything that’s been said here today. I want to acknowledge, of course, all the team who have been involved in the negotiating process. It is a special day for you all on the East Cape where you now will have clarity, you will have ownership, and you will have certainty, as was said by my colleague the Hon Nicky Wagner.

So I would like to just sum up and say that this is a special day. It is going to be a day that will be remembered, and this iwi leads the way for other iwi in terms of how we deal with foreshore and seabed matters and issues related to the customary fishing rights of iwi and of hapū that sign up to these deeds as well. So I don’t want to take any more time. I do want to, again, acknowledge everybody for making the trip down from the mighty East Cape. You are the first to see the sun every day, you are the first to have led the way on matters such as this, and, no doubt, you will be the first of many such things to come in the future. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

JAN LOGIE (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. It’s a great pleasure to rise on behalf of the Green Party to also add our support to this piece of legislation, Ngā Rohe Moana o Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Porou Bill (No 2). I send my greetings from our co-leader Marama Davidson, whanaunga. I understand she’s currently with the newest member of the whānau, her first moko, but her heart I know is torn, because she’s also here with you, acknowledging the significance of this moment.

There’s two things I’d like to pick up from some of the discussions so far that are particularly important for the Greens, and I want to acknowledge the member Rino Tirikatene for his speech, and calling, and listing, and bringing into this House all of the hapū that are of Ngāti Porou, who are impacted by this legislation, who have created this legislation, who it is essential that we acknowledge. It’s a rare moment in the processes of this House where hapū are actually seen and heard. All too often, our consideration of Treaty bills is, I would say, hampered by the process of large natural groupings, where hapūtanga is actually, I would say, undermined, whereas in this piece of legislation this afternoon, we had those voices and you and your stories acknowledged and brought into this space. So thank you for your work.

I also want to acknowledge another part of this that for me—so the Green Party was staunchly opposed to the Foreshore and Seabed Act, and I remember sitting in a small fishing village on the other side of the world, watching the media coverage of that happening, and, it may surprise some people, but I actually went on to the website to consider joining the Māori Party, because I was so horrified by what I was seeing, and did not think that was the country that I knew. So I want to acknowledge that in some ways, while this legislation is the Crown getting out of the way of ourselves and allowing your inherent rights to be recognised, which required a removal of our processes, and law—that is the history, and the work that we are doing now, and needs to be the focus of this Government; of us getting out of the way of those original rights.

I want to acknowledge that this process, which I believe and interpret as an act of resistance, that this negotiation that has brought us through to this process has been an act of survival and resistance for the hapū of Ngāti Porou, and I pay tribute to you for that survival, and that resistance. I think they are the key points that I want to convey and, on that, I will allow this to speed through and acknowledge all of you for your heart and your resistance.

HARETE HIPANGO (National—Whanganui): Ki ngā uri o Ngāti Porou, ki ngā hapū o Ngāti Porou, nau mai, haere mai i tēnei Whare. Ngā mihi nui, ngā mihi mahana ki a koutou katoa.

[To the progeny of Ngāti Porou, to the subtribes of Ngāti Porou, welcome, welcome to this House. Big and warm greetings to you all.]

It’s a distinct privilege to be able to address the House for the third time, for the final reading of this significant bill that is about to pass into law with the third and final reading. As is tikanga, and as I referenced in my second address to the House, which was for the second reading, I stated that it’s appropriate to acknowledge those who are gathered here now, but also those of us who are no longer with us. I acknowledge also my colleagues across the House in terms of the contribution that we participated in whilst serving as members of the Māori Affairs Committee; I no longer serve as a member, but I harken to when we travelled to Gisborne to listen to the stories in the warm embrace of Ngāti Porou.

I speak as the MP for Whanganui, formerly as a member of the Māori Affairs Committee, but also as uri of Whanganui, Ngāti Apa, Ngāti Rangi, and Ngā Rauru. I also speak as whanaunga of Aunty Lorna Ngata, who is of Pūtiki, and then was embraced by the people of Ngāti Porou—Uncle Henry’s family. Also, I talk about the journey as a member of the Māori Affairs Committee when we travelled over there, and I reflected on previous journeys that had been taken that way.

This reading is about the bill—the bill of Ngāti Porou: Ngā Rohe Moana o Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Porou Bill (No 2). I reflect on just some of the relationships that I have with Ngāti Porou. One that is significant is whanaunga Dame Tariana Turia. Back in the late 1980s and1990s, when another of our whanaunga, Judge James Rota, served over in Gisborne, I travelled with Tariana and her beloved George, with a group of our people from Whanganui Ngāti Apa, to the swearing in of Judge James Rota to the District Court bench after he’d given service in the Māori Land Court. We stayed at Whangarā Marae. The other connection—not knowing of it until we were in the warm embrace of the whare there—was Aunty Lorna’s brother Uncle John Mete-Kingi. Some of the carvings that are resting within the Whare were his contributions.

The other whanaungatanga I would like to regard it as—well, certainly the relationship and connection to Whangarā, but back to my younger days serving as an employee of the Department of Māori Affairs under the leadership of Dr Tāmati Reedy, and also the strong influence of Ngāti Poroutanga. I look up into the gallery and I see Dame Iritana Tāwhiwhirangi. Ngā mihi e kui. I reflect too on the many who I served alongside as a young woman in the Department of Māori Affairs. Mention has been made of Dr Api Mahuika, and I acknowledge the next generation with his son Matanuku, with the service that you have given to your people, but also our people of Aotearoa New Zealand. The other connection, of course, is Te Rau Kupenga: his father, with connections to Whanganui, of course, and, again, through to the village settlement of Pūtiki that I grew up within.

So I’d like to come back to the passage, the journey, that I was part of with Dame Tariana over to Whangarā, and then the other passage and journey that I was part of after Dame Tariana crossed the floor, moving away from the Labour Party as a result of the Government of that day seeking to impose the Foreshore and Seabed Act. On 4 May 2004, with another large rōpū, ope, from Whanganui, we travelled here to Te Whanganui-a-Tara, Pōneke, to march in that hīkoi to protest against the bill. That was a journey and a passage that we picked up on later.

But this journey and passage for o ngā hapū o Ngāti Porou, as is well-known, began in 2003 when, at the time, Te Rūnanga o Ngati Porou—now Te Rūnanganui—supported applications by the hapū to the Māori Land Court to have the foreshore and seabed in your rohe declared as Māori customary land. It’s well-known—the Court of Appeal’s Ngāti Apa decision was released and the Government announced its intention to introduce the Foreshore and Seabed Act. Whanaunga Dame Tariana did the right thing, and with the hīkoi of some 15,000, at least, I, with my baby and husband, marched on to Parliament grounds to protest that.

That has only been part of the passage and the journey that ngā hapū o Ngāti Porou have taken. There’s a time line that’s outlined here around the waves that you have had to traverse in this. I reflected, when I spoke at the second reading, on the analogy of the journey of Paikea and the treacherous adventure that was there—very much like the passage of this bill that Ngāti Porou hapū have travelled through. It’s recorded in Hansard at the second reading—just that analogy that I had made around that.

I just would like to share in closing that with this arduous journey over a course of 15 years, it is now coming to a time to be able to take stock, pause, reflect on those who have gone before, but also the vision that ngā hapū o Ngāti Porou has with where to take this. I look up into the gallery and, again, I’m heartened when I see our younger generations—the next ones to carry through all the work that has been done.

I have a copy here of this bill. It is detailed; it is extensive. This sets down, as a matter of record, but also as a matter of kōrero to carry through into the future, the responsibilities that are there, not only for Ngāti Porou, but for the Crown to be bound by. The words that we convey in this House don’t always convey the weight of the work and the thoughts that go on before, but I am ever so mindful that when I do address the House on these pieces of work and bills that are about to become law, I don’t only speak as an individual, but I speak for my people who have gone before, and reflect and harken on the journey that we have endured also.

This law is specific to our people from Ngāti Porou, in the same way that the Te Awa Tupua legislation for Whanganui River is specific to enshrining in law the protections of what our rights are. In closing, I turn to ngā hapū, ngā uri o Ngāti Porou, and I am sincerely overwhelmed in being able to address you all. Ngā mihi mahana, ki a koutou katoa.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Members, this is a split call—five minutes.

KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour): E Te Māngai, tēnā koe. Ngāti Porou, tēnā koutou, nau mai, hara mai, hoki mai ki tō tātou nei Whare, mai i te maunga o Hikurangi, te awa o Waiapū. Nau mai, hara mai, whakatau mai.

[Mr Assistant Speaker, greetings to you. Ngāti Porou, greetings to you, welcome, welcome, return to our House, from the ancestral mountain of Hikurangi and the ancestral river of Waiapū. Welcome, welcome, thrice welcome.]

I was talking to my colleague Meka just now and we were going, “How can we take that wairua that we all just experienced outside in the signing and the jubilation that you all carried for this moment?” This moment, after 16 years—16 years and so many faces. We saw all of those people that had passed away, adorning the room just next door.

You know, I was just sitting here reflecting. I remember the first time I heard even an inkling of the negotiations for this bill—what’s now about to become law—back in 2004. We’d just had the seabed and foreshore march 2003, and there was Dayle Takitimu and Matanuku Mahuika. We’d heard about these chats, that they were having yarns—because I think Parekura must have been telling us all about it—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order!

KIRITAPU ALLAN: The Hon Parekura Horomia, and son of Mangatuna. We heard that there were these chats going on between these two tribes up on the East Coast—Te Whānau-a-Apanui and Ngāti Porou. This was a time when everyone was all pukuriri about this poor legislation coming through this House, but there was something that was very significant that came from the leadership of Uncle Api: that political astuteness and leadership to know that, whilst these things were happening in this Chamber—and they were things that many people did not agree with—they picked up that wero and worked and drove and worked and drove to ensure that the hapū, those kaitiaki of your hapū, would retain the mana over your whenua in whatever ways that could be.

Now, those discussions have been enduring over the past 16 years—three Governments. You started with the Hon Michael Cullen. Then you had the Hon Christopher Finlayson, and I want to acknowledge the work that he did alongside you all. Now my colleague Ānaru Paku—the Hon Andrew Little—who can’t be here, because his mother passed this week and she’s being laid to rest. So my thoughts are with him as well. When I think about the significance of what you’ve all achieved—and we know, because I used to work with Matanuku and Nathan and Tira.

I know how challenging it has been, and the weight of the decisions that you had to make for all of you that led those discussions for your hapū, that chose to enter into and sign up to the accord. We know the difficulties and, no doubt, many sleepless nights that many of you would have had in trying to know that you were doing the right thing for your people. So I want to acknowledge all of you that carry the mana of your hapū on your shoulders.

When I think about this particular piece of legislation, it is unique and it will not be replicated elsewhere, because of the foresight of people like Apirana. Some of those things—and I was reflecting over the past 16 years, and this is actually for all of you fellas—all you rangatahi here, down from down Te Araroa, tēnā koutou. This is a constitutionally really significant bill. Sixteen years ago, when there was a whole heap of protest going on, it was an abhorrent thought to have Māori around the table making decisions on behalf of the whenua. This is a constitutionally significant bill, and it has been enshrined mai rānō for you fellas to carry on those responsibilities, because there are rights within this bill, but they come with a lot of responsibilities. So I applaud Campbell for bringing these rangatahi here to be able to see this piece of legislation become enacted today, because what you are witnessing is something that no other tribe will witness.

Thank you for coming. Thank you to the leaders amongst you all. Thank you to the hau kāinga who stoked those fires. We know that you will do exceptionally well in conducting the responsibilities that are entrenched in this bill. Nō reira, tēnā koutou.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Just before I call the next speaker, I just want to remind members that they should use full names if they are mentioning them in their kōrero. It’s a nice thing to do. It’ll be recorded in Hansard. People reading this in 50 years’ time won’t know, otherwise.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): O ngā iwi, o ngā hapū, whānau, o Ngāti Porou. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. Te hunga mate ki te hunga mate, haere, haere, haere. Te hunga ora ki a tātou te hunga ora, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. Ko Paul Goldsmith ahau.

[The tribes, the subtribes, families of Ngāti Porou. Greetings to you all. Let the deceased remain with the deceased and depart from here. Let the living remain with the living, greetings to you all. I am Paul Goldsmith.]

My great-great-grandfather was Charles George Goldsmith, who came out to New Zealand and settled in the Poverty Bay, and in the 1840s, spent a lot of time at Muriwai and also a lot of time up the coast at Tikitiki, at Ohinewaiapu, and I’m sure I am related to many, many of you here today. I’m your long-lost cousin from Auckland. Yes, Great-great-grandaddy Charles Goldsmith was a great lover of the Ngāti Porou wāhine, as we all know, and I stem from the last of the wives that he had—Harriet Wales—and so I’ve, many years later, wound up in Auckland. I’m in the House and it’s my great pleasure and privilege to be able to speak very briefly on this bill coming to the end of its process in Parliament.

I do want to acknowledge the late Parekura Horomia and his role in the work behind this legislation. I made the mistake of going on the field in the match up in Ruātōki to celebrate his life, and I still feel pain in my ribs from the tackle that I received from a pig hunter who was opposing me on the wing. If he happens to be here tonight—I haven’t seen him yet—do give him my regards. I didn’t follow my distant cousin Jasin Goldsmith in my rugby skills, unfortunately, but I do acknowledge all the work that’s been done.

Like my colleague Shane Jones, who I have a mixed relationship with, I did have my concerns early on about this bill, around ensuring access for all New Zealanders to the sea and the water, and I do accept the assurances from him and from my earlier colleague Chris Finlayson that those have been very carefully resolved through the negotiations around this bill and this agreement. I do hope that this agreement will lead to a future economic boom and also social and cultural boom for the many hapū and whānau of Ngāti Porou over the years to come, so that we can all continue to live together and work and socialise and enjoy this wonderful, wonderful country that we share here in New Zealand and in that wonderful, remarkable region of New Zealand on the East Coast, in your area, over the decades to come—so that we can realise the hopes and potential of the relationship that started to be formed so many years ago.

My best wishes and congratulations to all of the people of Ngāti Porou on this occasion. It’s my great pleasure to have a small opportunity to say a few words today. Thank you very much.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Associate Minister for Māori Development): Tuatahi he tika me mihi ki a koutou ngā whanaunga i tae mai nei i tēnei wā, i whakarangatira i a mātou i tēnei wā. Tēnei te tino mihi ki a koutou ngā kuia, ngā koroua. He tino waimārie ahau ki te tū i mua i a koutou, tēnā koutou, ā tēnā koutou, tēnā anō tātou katoa.

[Firstly, it is appropriate to greet you my relations who have arrived here today, to ennoble us at this time. I especially acknowledge the elders. I am indeed fortunate to stand before you, greetings, greetings, greetings once more to us all.]

I didn’t know you were a rellie, Goldie! But, anyway, coming back to this, what a wonderful morning we had this morning, and if ever there was an example of Ngāti Porou being the leading tribe in the country, this morning was it—no doubt about it. We’ve had so many maroke sort of ceremonies through the years, and we all stood there—even these Ngāpuhis didn’t rush out the door, as they normally do, and enjoyed the waiata and the wairua. It made me proud. It made us all proud, because we were all taking videos and photos. It was just magnificent. So I want to congratulate you again on showing why Ngāti Porou lead the way.

As we all know, I was brought up in Wellington, and I was brought up under the umbrella of Ngāti Porou, where there were only two types of Māori—as we all know, those who were Ngāti Porou and those who wanted to be. My upbringing, like maybe for a lot of our young people here, was absolutely Ngāti Porou. I was talking about this with Peeni Henare. Even though some of us were not brought up under the umbrella of Hikurangi, Hikurangi was with me all the time, particularly in Porirua, where Ngāti Porou ruled everywhere. Bill Kerekere was running the kapa haka. Taxi drivers were all Ngāti Porou. There was only one type of reo and it was Ngāti Porou. Ngāti Toa couldn’t speak Māori, according to Ngāti Porou. No wonder they called us “Ngāti Blow”, as my colleague Meka Whaitiri has said in previous speeches. But that’s the upbringing of many Ngātis who went into the urban areas.

I was so proudly Ngāti Porou. My father was going on about it every single day, and my great grandmother lived with us, who was a Taare from Tikitiki, and all the kōrero was about Ngāti Porou. It was a wonderful upbringing and the kōrero was about the coast and about Ruatōria, and I have to say that when I was brought up I thought Ruatōria was like Las Vegas, until I got there. And I thought: what the heck was the old man going on about? What was the old man going on about? But they talked about the coast in such romantic terms, you know, and I thought it was like Fantasy Island or something, you know. But hello, not Hiruhārama, where Selwyn and I are from. Heck, I couldn’t even find Hiruhārama when I first went up there. But these are the stories as urban kids that you’re brought up with. You know, our people so loved Ngāti Porou, so romanticised about Ngāti Porou, and Ngāti Porou made an impact, one would have to say, when they came to the cities, particularly in areas like this, Wellington, where we had rangatira who came down. One of them is up there right now. I think she’s 99 years of age, our whaea Iritana Tāwhiwhirangi. Oh, it’s 90 years of age, isn’t it, e kui?

But these were the personalities who came to the cities, and Ngāti Porou rangatira were leading in the cities, like Bill Kerekere, like Tāmati Reedy—wonderful rangatira who came into the cities like Pita Awatere. We must remember them at these times, because they led the way for us, for our people, and they opened up the doors for our people in the cities, in the Wellingtons and in the Aucklands. This is the time right now—rather than me getting into every technicality of the bill and worrying about Mr Goldsmith worrying about his Pākehā mates missing out on their fishing rights—when we should celebrate our people who opened up doors for all of us, for all of us.

Even in 2004 with that Foreshore and Seabed Bill that at the time I wasn’t too complimentary about, but now that I’m in Labour I’ve taken a bit of a sort of different look at things—mistakes happen, as we all know, mistakes happen. I wasn’t so, sort of, easy on that kaupapa back in 2004 on the Paul Holmes show when I was in Māori media, but, you know, times change. We made a mistake, and we’re moving on, sort of like Rogernomics, you know. We’re moving on—we’re moving on. And who would have believed in when that mayhem, who would have believed—you know, I’ll never forget that day. We all came down here, marching on the streets. I remember ringing up to John Tamihere, who was in his office. He said to me, “How many, how many are down there—about 150?”, and I said, “No, about 20,000, bro.” Ha, ha! I’ll never forget that day. Here we had the mayhem in terms of Māori—and we were all going crazy. How on earth could a tribe do a deal in the midst of all that? Well, the Hon Parekura Horomia was able to do it, and so you’ve got to give it to him. The whanaunga thought, “Oh that’s mayhem, mayhem’s happening.” Tari’s running off here and the Māoris are all going—“I’d better ring Uncle Api and we’ll do a deal.” Isn’t that amazing?

So when I think back, you’ve got a lot to thank Labour for. You’ve got to think about this—you’ve got to think about this. If we had not been betrayed—the Māori nation—at the time, things would have been different. You wouldn’t have been here today, would you? So you’ve got to sort of think this out a bit. No, no.

Anyway, I want to compliment Parekura Horomia for his innovativeness and creativity. I’ll never forget that time, because we could not believe what Pare was doing, because everybody—there’s no way anybody wanted to go near the Crown at that time, apart from the cuz, who saw an opening, saw a gap, saw an opportunity—typical Ngāti Porou. Off he went with Uncle Api Mahuika and they did the deal that has come into fruition today, and it was carried by his very quiet—I was going to say “cunning”, but I was going to say “handsome”—son Matanuku Mahuika, who is here today. It’s lovely to see you, Ma. I know you’ve been a big support for our girl here—I’m not allowed to say “girl” in the Labour Party, eh—our lady here, Kiritapu. We know how much you’ve supported her and you have carried the mana of your papa and the mana of Ngāti Porou to a unique settlement where we are today.

This is a unique settlement. It must be, because Annette Sykes was in my office this morning, and I can recall what Annette Sykes said back in 2004 about Ngāti Porou. It wasn’t very nice. But today Annette said, “Oh, I had a kai with your whanaunga last night.” “I’m so proud”, she says, “and I’m so happy about this settlement.” So when you win over the Annette Sykes of this world, you know you’re on the right track, because you’ve not only got the backing of this Parliament but you’ve got the backing of warriors—you know, Māori women warriors like Annette Sykes.

This is a unique deal. It’s a deal that should be celebrated and supported because it has set the benchmark. So well done to you, Matanuku. Well done to you there, whanaunga Selwyn, for your leadership. I think it’s just wonderful the way that this kaupapa has been steered, as you said in your whaikōrero this morning, through three Governments.

You know, the management has been terrific. I know the cousin over there gets hōhā with me because I said to him “Oh, you just stick with your National Tories.”, and he said, “You shut up. I supported Parekura in Labour.” I don’t know what party he’s with, actually, but, anyway, I know it depends on the day, eh cuz? But anyway, his leadership must be celebrated today along with Matanuku, along with our kuia and koroua who have come here, and set up one of the most unique settlements in the history of New Zealand. It’s a credit to our party and it’s a credit to National that we’ve been able to kia whakakotahi for this kaupapa. So I mihi to everyone here today.

I know we say some funny things about each other sometimes. I know I was getting attacked by some of the Māori MPs in National the other night. I never thought Harete Hipango would attack me the way she did, but on this kaupapa, we are united. We celebrate this kaupapa. It’s a kaupapa about tino rangatiratanga. It’s a kaupapa about Ngāti Porou. All our young people should be proud, I’m proud, we’re all proud to say we are from Ngāti Porou. Kia ora anō tātou.

Rt Hon DAVID CARTER (National): Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. What a proud day for Ngāti Porou, and I take a special opportunity to acknowledge the huge crowd who have travelled all the way from Ngāti Porou country to be here today. Can I also say that I won’t take my four minutes, because I’m looking forward to the waiata and we’ve only got one more speech after me before we have that wonderful historic waiata in this House today.

Can I start by acknowledging the contributions of all the members of Parliament that I’ve heard this afternoon. The Hon Willie Jackson—I don’t often agree with him, but he’s right. Today is, well, a chance for him to make a couple of confessions but, more importantly, he acknowledged this as a day of huge celebration, and it is.

I want to also acknowledge the leaders of Ngāti Porou. I see Selwyn Parata there. Can I also refer, and I know everybody else has referred, to the late Api Mahuika. Can I just say that as a Minister shortly after the Key Government came in in 2008, I was made the Minister of agriculture, forestry, and fisheries, and I immediately had the opportunity to interact with Uncle Api. There are some people who have a real influence on one’s life, and upon meeting him, I could see he was one of those men. He had that wonderful way of giving very good guidance, but in a way that was polite and respectful of my position. He had that word that Māori have—it’s “mana”—and even to this day, I’m sure that you miss him as much as I do. He was a wonderful contributor.

As a member of Parliament, one of the privileges is you get to travel all around New Zealand, and there are two very special places for me that, sadly, most New Zealanders don’t get to. One’s on the West Coast of the North Island—Taranaki, a wonderful part of the world—but the other is your patch, the East Cape and that wonderful city of Gisborne. The last time I was there, sadly—so it’s been a while—was the tangi for the Hon Parekura Horomia. I’d only just been made Speaker, and when I went to the tangi, I was given the privilege of saying a few words. I remember remarking on the way he used to entertain this House. He was the one who would stand to answer a question as a Minister, he’d sit down after answering the question and we, as the Opposition, had no idea what he had just said, and you could see on his own face as he sat down that he’d actually had no idea what he had said.

So it was an absolute privilege then, as Speaker, to preside over a very special memorial to that wonderful member of Parliament here in this House, as members had the opportunity to say their farewells to that person. I think that while we acknowledge the work that’s been done by everybody as this bill has come to its fruition, the Hon Parekura Horomia is certainly, in my mind, to be credited for a lot of the work that he did.

The Hon Anne Tolley, the Deputy Speaker, made some interesting comments about the transition of the bill and how long it’s taken—how it’s been through a Labour Government and a National Government and, now, a Labour Government—and I think that goes to show the bipartisan nature of not only this Treaty settlement but all Treaty settlements. One of the greatest lessons that I’ve learnt since I became a member of Parliament in 1994 is the fact that the history was not ever taught to me about the Treaty of Waitangi and the grievances and the inaction by the Crown over decades. Having come to understand how that has hurt not only Ngāti Porou but all the other iwi that we’ve done settlements with, I am proud for the part that I have played in any Treaty settlement for any recognition of the grievances, because they don’t go away, but at least the Crown, in a bipartisan fashion, can finally start to do something about it.

That’s why we’re all here today, all speaking on this third reading of the Ngāti Porou settlement bill. It is now about not forgetting the past, because you shouldn’t forget the past, but I encourage you—and I know that without my encouragement, you’ll do this anyway—to look to the future with pride. I wish Ngāti Porou well with the settlement of this legislation. Tēnā koutou katoa.

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): E Te Māngai o Te Whare, tēnā koe. Ngā mema o Te Whare, tēnā tātou katoa. Kua tae mai a Hikurangi, kua tae mai a Waiapū, kua tae mai Ngāti Porou, Porourangi, nō reira, ōku rau rangatira mā, kui mā, e koro mā, pakeke mā, ngā mātua, ngā tauira, mokopuna, tamariki, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Madam Deputy Speaker, I greet you. Members of the House, greetings to us all. Hikurangi has arrived, Waiapū has arrived, and Ngāti Porou and Porourangi have arrived. Consequently, my esteemed people, elders, adults, parents, students, grandchildren, and children, greetings, greetings, greetings to us all.]

It is indeed a honour for me to rise and say a few words in this third and final reading of the Ngā Rohe Moana o Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Porou Bill (No 2), and I was reflecting on all the previous speeches around those that have been instrumental in bringing this bill to the House. I too want to acknowledge the late Uncle Api Mahuika. I want to acknowledge the current negotiators that picked up his mantle. I want to acknowledge Ma and Selwyn Parata for bringing this bill and for the work that they have done to bring it here, and to honour the patience, the resilience, and the tenacity of Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Porou in enduring a 16-year journey—a 16-year journey—that started back in 2003 as a result of the Foreshore and Seabed Act.

They took it upon themselves to sign the original deed of settlement in October 2008, under the Labour Government—that’s been previously acknowledged—with the Hon Sir Michael Cullen. Of course, a month later, we had a general election in this country, in November 2008, and then all bets were off because the Government of the day wanted to review the Foreshore and Seabed Act. But that didn’t stop Ngāti Porou engaging with the National-led Government from 2008 to ensure that the Takutai Moana Bill of 2011, which was passed as a result of the National Government’s review, was reflected in an amendment to this new deed for Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Porou.

So that was in 2008. The Takutai Moana Act came out in 2011, and it wasn’t until August 2017, under the Hon Chris Finlayson, that the amended deed was signed. So it’s important—particularly as I look at the rangatahi in front of me, in the gallery—that that statement of patience, of tenacity, and of resilience is reflected in how long we have taken to bring this bill to the House.

In November 2017, we had another general election, and in came the coalition Government. I want to acknowledge that from the time that that amended deed was signed under a National-led Government in August 2017, it has been approximately 21 months to this day, when we are now passing this piece of legislation. So it is absolutely right that both sides of the House acknowledge their part in this process, but I am particularly proud of the coalition Government—of my Labour colleagues—who took 21 months to make sure that we not only introduce the bill but we pass it. For some, it may have been too slow, but I’m proud to stand here in support of this bill, acknowledging all the players and the actors behind the scenes.

It is truly a unique bill. It is truly a unique bill, and enough cannot be said of the foresight and the leadership of those who originally brought this idea of protecting Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Porou and having their customary and commercial rights, and everything else they want to do on their foreshore, protected in legislation. For me, it is important to acknowledge that this bill shows that lore—l-o-r-e—actually trumps law—l-a-w—and I want to acknowledge that in passing this legislation, we are simply reaffirming that what we, as hapū members and as whānau members, know exists today has never ever been extinguished. Our mana whenua and our mana moana have always remained in the hands of hapū.

So now, today, you are witnessing the legislative part of this country catching up with the l-o-r-e—the lore—and I wanted to make sure that I made that point because I don’t think I can actually draw on an example where that has ever happened before. It cannot be overestimated, the significance, not just of this bill but of the reaffirming of the mana motuhake and the rangatiratanga of hapū. So I wanted to just share that thought.

The other one that’s brought to mind, when we’re addressing this bill, is the boldness. So in 2003, because of the Foreshore and Seabed Act, the idea of an iwi e ngā hapū rallying to protect what they knew were instinctively their rights through legislation was bold. It was bold and it was unheard of, but today it makes complete sense. So if we are to be bold and do things differently in this House—sometimes the issues that we debate in this House do not make sense; but on this occasion, the boldness to protect those hapū on the coastline of Ngāti Porou back then, makes absolute sense today. Again, I just want to acknowledge the leaders of that time, the trust that went behind trusting the protection of Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Porou.

There have been some stories shared in this House about the Hon Parekura Horomia. I want to thank our “cousin”, the Hon Paul Goldsmith, now that we’ve all heard on the public record his Māori whakapapa. So now we’ve got another ally on that side of the House when it comes to kaupapa Māori. So I want to acknowledge the Hon Paul Goldsmith and his recognition of his Māori whakapapa, because that’s absolutely right, Paul Goldsmith—big whānau of Goldsmiths up the coast. So when you acknowledged that, I said, “Welcome cuzzy bro.” I look forward to your tautoko, when we are bringing kaupapa Māori issues to the House.

Like I said, I want to acknowledge the late Hon Parekura Horomia. Six years ago in June, or, actually, it was in March or April, when he passed and left us. The Hon Willie Jackson, there’s one thing that you can learn from the great Hon Parekura Horomia, and that’s about holding the line. So yes, Governments come and go but kaupapa remains constant. If there was one thing that Parekura talked about, walked, and exemplified, it was that when it came to kaupapa Māori: hold the line. So the Hon Willie Jackson, there’s a bit of a lesson in there for all of us. So our whanaunga the Hon Willie Jackson, he does great work on behalf of the Māori caucus, but it’s a message for all of us here in this House, when it comes to kaupapa that is near and dear to us.

So my final statement is to our tauira that are in front of us. I want to acknowledge Te Kura Kaupapa Māori o Kawakawa mai Tawhiti for joining us here today. A lot of hands have gone into the making of this bill, but it is your hands that will carry on the importance of this bill. This bill enables and enacts the power and the undisturbed rights of our coastline at a hapū level, and it is in your hands—not āpōpō, ināianei—around how we exercise that right to protect and create opportunities up our coastline. So it’s to you, our future—kāore e rangatira āpōpō, he rangatira ināianei [not a leader tomorrow, but a leader today].

So I mihi to you for coming. I wish you all the best as you return home, and remind you that this a significant day for Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Porou. I stand in honour of supporting this bill. Nō reira e te iwi, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Therefore to the nation, greetings, greetings, greetings to you all.]

Bill read a third time.

Waiata

Bills

Building Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 9 May.

NICOLA WILLIS (National): From the profoundly moving to the what I’m sure will be somewhat less profound but still important issues of the Building Amendment Bill. This is a bill that National supports, and I want to start by thanking the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, which has worked on it, in particular our great members Matt King, Alastair Scott, and the very fine Tim van de Molen. I thank the members in particular because what this bill does—and it is a piece of legislation that represents work of the previous National Government—is it deals with issues that involve really difficult clashes of people’s relative rights. The bill, of course, seeks to amend the laws as they relate to how buildings are managed after an emergency and to allow for proper investigation by Government authorities of any weaknesses in buildings and how we could prevent those in the future.

This is all very real stuff for us here in Wellington. We saw after the Kaikōura earthquake—and I know my colleagues in Canterbury saw before us—the devastating damage that major earthquakes can do and the consequential issues for building owners. These issues can be particularly acute in the immediate days following a disaster, and there are difficult decisions to be made. This legislation provides much clearer guidance about how those decisions are made so as to protect life.

You have people wanting to get access to their personal property and business records, sometimes in buildings that are perfectly safe but there’s a building next door that’s not safe. How do we ensure that we protect people’s lives but also ensure that, where appropriate, they are able to make access?

You also have engineers in the immediate aftermath of earthquakes working incredibly hard, long hours, having to make dozens of critical decisions in order to provide authorities good advice about what should be done with buildings, which should be demolished, and when. Again, this bill clarifies matters and provides good guidance to decision makers.

Here in Wellington, I know that one of the complex issues we need to be prepared for and that I am pleased this bill creates certainty around is the issue of complex body corporate structures, where you can have private property owners who may take offence at officials having powers to demolish their most valuable asset. You add to that the mix of heritage issues and the inherent emotional stresses that people are under post an earthquake, and that can be an explosive mix of competing interests.

So, as I said, I thank the members of the committee, who clearly have worked in a constructive way to balance these competing rights and interests and come up with a piece of legislation that can be supported by both sides of the House.

The two areas that the bill covers, of course, are distinct. One is around improving the system for managing buildings immediately after an emergency—as I’ve detailed—but the other is to provide the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) additional powers to investigate building failures. This is the part of the bill that I see as very important for our future, because what it ensures is that MBIE, where it has concerns about structural issues, underlying issues in buildings, has extensive powers to investigate failures, and the reason those extensive powers are important is it allows officials to learn the lessons for the future of what other failures could be anticipated.

We, of course, have seen that here in Wellington with the failure of Statistics House, where we saw that learnings were taken—actually, I prefer “lessons”; we won’t call them learnings—about pre-cast concrete floors. What we know is really important is that when we understand new things about the way the buildings may perform under the stress of an earthquake, we use that to create guidance for the future. This bill gives clarity to MBIE that it has the powers to make those investigations and make recommendations for the future.

I’d note, in commending this bill to the House, that we here on the National side are hopeful that there will be more building legislation coming through this House, because there are certainly some pressing issues, with skill shortages, product certification issues, consent issues, and the collapse of many construction companies. We note that this is the only piece of legislation that the Minister has brought to the House in the 18 months since being appointed to the portfolio and hope for much more. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. I rise for a very short call on the Building Amendment Bill. I see absolutely no need in delaying the passage of this at its second reading. I think it absolutely marvellous that yet again this House has an example where both sides of the House are working together in support of something that absolutely makes sense. I think it’s regrettable that the public do not see these examples, which are more frequent than they might think. I see no point in delaying this. I commend the bill to the House. [Interruption]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can we just get on with the debate on the bill, please.

Hon DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): So the Building Amendment Bill: the second reading is in front of the House here today. National supports the bill. It’s one of those pieces of work that the National Government had started in our previous Government, and it’s been brought to the House by the Minister for Building and Construction about 18 months after her appointment to the portfolio. It makes valuable changes to the sector, and we all realise what an important area the building area is for our communities, especially with the issues around housing that were always exposed in this House through question time. We need to make sure that there are the skills in the building sector, there are the products that are certified, and the consent issues are dealt with, and, well, you need to also look at some of the building companies that have been under concern with their financial position.

We also need to be mindful that the housing area is something that is the biggest asset that many communities, and families especially, will invest in. They’re something that they need to have security and peace of mind around, because it is their fundamental asset that they save a lifetime for and it is the biggest asset that most people will purchase during their lifetime. They deserve and expect Government to have set the rules and the requirements so that they can have certainty around those purchases, because it is their lifetime asset.

So we encourage the Minister to continue this work. I see Mr Twyford is across the room and no doubt will be looking forward to this legislation passing, as well. We commend this bill to the House. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour): I too rise just to take a very brief call in support of the Building Amendment Bill in this second reading. I want to acknowledge the work of the Minister the Hon Jenny Salesa in bringing this piece of legislation through. I actually want to reiterate the comments of my colleague Kieran McAnulty. On many occasions—the advent of bringing through legislation in this House that both sides of the House consider significant and important. So I just want to acknowledge both sides of the House for making that commitment.

We’ve heard from others about the range of submissions—25 written submissions on this bill; 10 amendments across the bill in total, with three key sections being amended—that being the management of buildings after an emergency, the investigation of building failures, and then there were several miscellaneous matters. Those have been traversed thoroughly by those speakers that have gone previous in this debate, so I won’t go through them.

But I just will say that it’s really pleasing to have this type of legislation that ensures that our buildings that are important—sorry, of course they’re important; they’re buildings. It’s pleasing to see the work that the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment has put into this to ensure that these buildings will be safe, in light of all of the tragedies that we’ve seen across from Kaikōura through Wellington and the advent of greater natural disasters that are occurring. We need to up the standards, and this bill is a consequence of the work that has gone through this House on many occasions. So I commend this bill to the House.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Canterbury Earthquakes Insurance Tribunal Bill

Third Reading

Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Police) on behalf of the Minister for Courts: I move, That the Canterbury Earthquakes Insurance Tribunal Bill be now read a third time.

This bill will help support thousands of weary, frustrated Cantabrians resolve their long-standing insurance claims. The people of Canterbury have been sidelined for too long, and with this bill we are putting them back in the centre. I am proud to be moving this bill through the House and look forward to the tribunal being able to make real progress in resolving these issues. I’m pleased to see that there is majority support across the House for getting closure for these homeowners who have waited nearly nine years to resolve their insurance claims. I’d like to thank everyone who contributed towards this bill, in particular the Governance and Administration Committee for their thorough work in suggesting improvements to the bill and the members of the public who took time to provide a submission on the bill, for their valuable feedback.

The bill will establish the Canterbury Earthquakes Insurance Tribunal. The tribunal will be a specialist judicial body that provides policyholders affected physically, mentally, emotionally, and financially by the 2010 and 2011 Canterbury earthquakes with a way to resolve their long-standing residential insurance claims with the Earthquake Commission (EQC) and insurers, including Southern Response. The tribunal has been designed to provide fair, speedy, flexible, and cost-effective services, including a funded mediation service to Cantabrians with outstanding claims so that they can achieve some closure on what they’ve been through for almost nine years, and move on with their lives.

The tribunal will be homeowner-initiated and easy to access. This means the decision to access the tribunal will be in the homeowner’s hands rather than driven by the insurers or the Earthquake Commission. There will be no application fee for the tribunal and policyholders do not need to bring a lawyer if they do not wish to. Policyholders may also bring a support person with them if the tribunal agrees—which is particularly important, as we know from a Canterbury District Health Board wellbeing survey that policyholders with unresolved claims have experienced significantly more stress compared to those who have settled their claims or other Cantabrians. The tribunal has been developed as an alternative pathway specific to the Canterbury earthquakes’ context, emphasising speed, flexibility, cost-effectiveness, and, of course, fairness. It is not intended to replace the courts or any other existing dispute resolution processes. The tribunal will provide people with another option to help resolve their claims in addition to all other existing options, including courts, private mediation and facilitation, and the Greater Christchurch Claims Resolution Service.

Flexibility is the key element of the tribunal process. We know that the remaining insurance claims are complex and that the one-size-fits-all approach would be unhelpful. For this reason, the bill allows resolution processes to be tailored to the needs of each claim. For example, the tribunal process includes a fully funded mediation service; however, after eight years, parties may already have tried to settle their claims through other dispute resolution processes. Therefore, the bill gives the tribunal the flexibility to decide on a case by case basis when mediation will be helpful and when it won’t.

The tribunal has a number of powers to help it consider claims. For example, it will be able to appoint independent experts. These experts will play a key role in helping the tribunal to understand complex information and provide an independent view of competing expert opinions. The tribunal can convene conferences of experts to streamline evidence within claims. This can make for a more effective and efficient process, and help avoid duplication of advice or evidence. The tribunal can also bring separate claims together to hear technical evidence on similar subject matter at a special hearing with all affected parties present, provided all the parties to the claim agree. This means that a number of claims with similar technical issues can, if the parties agree, be resolved more efficiently. The tribunal will also be able to set time frames that parties must follow. This will help ensure that claims keep moving.

Overall, there are many benefits for policyholders to bring claims to the tribunal: homeowners are the ones that get to choose to use the tribunal and it is accessible for homeowners, with no fees, no requirements for lawyers, and allows for support persons. The tribunal has powers to manage experts and technical evidence sufficiently and fairly for all parties and keep claims moving forward through the process. All of this will be carried out with the bill’s purpose in mind: to be fair, speedy, flexible, and cost-effective.

Again, I extend my sincere thanks to the Governance and Administration Committee, and to everyone who submitted on the bill for their contributions. This Government promised that it would help those policyholders left behind for too long after the Canterbury earthquakes, and I believe that this bill and this tribunal meet that promise. I am pleased with how we have developed this bill to work for Cantabrians and I am confident the tribunal will help those who need it. I commend this bill to the House.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Well, the bill’s been well-outlined by the Minister. There are some very good things about this bill; however, there are some quite bad things about this bill, and I’m going to touch on those. I can start by saying that the National Party will not be voting for this bill, because of the significant issues that I will be pointing out in a moment.

No one disputes that there needs to be some final justice for those people through the system, but you don’t deal with injustice by creating another injustice, and that is what this bill will do. I introduced several Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) during the committee of the whole House stage, none of which were supported by the Government—they may well feel quite uncomfortable about that in time.

So one of the first ones I brought in was around allowing who can bring a claim to the tribunal. As the legislation stands, it’s only an insured that can do that. That is actually against the advice that Cabinet received from their own department, which said “You cannot do this, you should not do this”, but they’ve done it anyway. It is unprecedented in contract law in New Zealand. The only time that you have an access issue like this is like in the leaky homes legislation tribunal, and that’s where all the problems come from with this bill. They have been quite lazy; they’ve just done a cut and paste from that legislation into this bill, and that is where the problems begin because that is under a tort law and this is under contract law. So that is a major issue with the bill—it’s something that we won’t support for many reasons, but that’s one of them.

The second one, I think, perhaps more importantly, is clause 37(4) in the bill which potentially limits the rights for cross-examination and calling of expert witnesses. It actually goes against the purpose of the bill. One of the purposes of the bill—and the Minister touched on this—is for fairness. This is not fair. I’ll read the clause; it says: “[it] does not require the tribunal to—(a) permit the cross-examination of a party or person: [or] (b) allow the use of an expert by a party in the tribunal’s processes”. These disputes are all about experts; that’s how the insurance damage is assessed. It’s about how the damage is assessed, what the quantum is to repair it; it all swings on expert witnesses, and yet that tribunal has the right to actually limit that. It’s also in contravention of section 27(1) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, which I’ll quote from this—[Interruption]—it’s very important, and perhaps they could listen—“Every person has the right to the observance of the principles of natural justice by any tribunal or other public authority which has the power to make a determination in respect of that person’s rights, obligations, or interests protected or recognised by law.” This goes against that, and the problem with it is, far from being speedy, it could end with someone taking this to the High Court if they feel that their rights have been trampled on by this tribunal. A simple thing to have fixed—I had a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that would have fixed it.

It was interesting during the select committee process and in the committee of the whole House; you could see how—not you, Madam Deputy Speaker, but, believe me, I could—uncomfortable the officials were with some of the things in this bill. They had to do what they were told. They were deeply unhappy and deeply uncomfortable. The only one thing that was really bad in this sort of area—we tidied a whole lot up in the select committee—was around the issue of awarding damages for mental distress, which we got thrown out. The officials were deeply unhappy—it was quite entertaining, actually, but I felt sorry for them. They were doing what they were told.

Another SOP I put up was to ensure that the tribunal members had suitable knowledge and experience in this area; so that they had a law degree, several years of legal practice, or that they had arbitration experience. Unfortunately, that is not the case in the bill, and what will happen, potentially, is these highly complex matters could be decided or adjudicated on by someone who lacks the experience of someone with legal training or arbitration experience to sort out what the right and the wrong is in that argument. It is absolutely incredible that that should be put in this bill. I can’t believe it, and I know also the officials were deeply unhappy with that and very uncomfortable.

The final one I want to touch on is around the third parties. In some cases, these insurance claims will include a third party, which might be a builder who has done some earthquake repairs, and the insured is unhappy with those and has taken a claim to the tribunal. So you’ll have, potentially, the Earthquake Commission, an insurance company, and the insured, plus this third party or parties before the tribunal. Unfortunately, in the bill, the moment the insured and the insurer have reached a resolution, it’s discharged from the tribunal—it’s finished. So if those third parties haven’t reached a resolution with them, that then has to go to court. If you’re talking about fairness, if you’re talking about speed, if you’re talking about justice, why not keep it in the tribunal until they’re all tidied up and settle there? It will have a perverse effect, potentially, of encouraging the slowing down of the process because it will be like a Mexican stand-off, waiting for someone to blink, and they won’t want to settle. It may, in fact, also lead to appeals to the High Court.

I think all of those are significant issues with this bill. I think it’s untidy—I’m being very kind—legislation. It’s unnecessary. The people of Canterbury and Christchurch deserve better than this, and I don’t know why it’s been so sloppy. I think it’s unusual that the Minister of Justice would bring something that potentially impinges so badly on our New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and for that reason I oppose this bill with some vigour. Thank you.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): There’s just some incredulity and disappointment when I listen to the member for Kaikōura—someone whose constituents have been affected by an enormous earthquake of their own, and here we have a piece of legislation which, at last, is addressing the crisis of access to justice that we have in New Zealand. As I was thinking about this, I dug back in my old law books and I looked at the Statute of Westminster, The First, from 1275. This is the oldest piece of—[Interruption] Learn something, in the whip’s chair over there. Here’s a bit of law for you, the oldest bit of law we’ve got, and it says that “common right be done to all, as well poor as rich, without respect of persons”—that’s our oldest bit of law.

You know what? In New Zealand right now, the poor—and even the middle classes, the moderately wealthy—don’t have access to justice, and Christchurch is an example of that. The High Court list there, the earthquake list there, still has over 500 claims unresolved in Christchurch. We hear the member for Kaikōura saying that he doesn’t want that addressed. He thinks that, really, everything is okay. He’s not going to support this. The clearance rates on those cases—in 2018, 253 new claims were filed; seven were resolved. That is not justice working. Now, I’m not blaming the judges or even the lawyers who work in those courts. They’re working within rules and within a framework which is, simply, broken. If you think about what it costs to go to court—what it costs, even just setting down and paying the bill so the court will book your dates for a 10-day trial: $34,000.

Kieran McAnulty: How much?

Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Do you know what? Do you know what, Mr McAnulty—$34,000, and here’s the irony: to get legal aid, you have to earn less than $23,820. So it’s an absolute Kafkaesque paradox. It’s impossible. So here we have a bill, a bill which, in principle—and can I just go back a step and say that Mr Stuart Smith talks about natural justice. Well, natural justice should not be justice you can’t afford.

So what we have here is a tribunal based on four principles. Fairness—and I’m going to talk about that; I’m going to address the points raised by Mr Smith. Speedy—frankly, when you’ve got claims that have been languishing in the High Court for four years, there are people who have died waiting, and that’s not good enough. Flexible—something that looks at the size of the problem, the nature of the parties, and adjusts to fit. And cost-effective—if you’ve got a claim that’s $300,000 in dispute, it’s no good having to spend that on your experts, on your court fees, and on your lawyers’ costs, and can I just say that’s absolutely how much those experts, court fees, and lawyers’ costs add up to.

So to talk about natural justice—and, look, it’s all very nice for the member over there to say that rights of cross-examination and rights to have experts are absolute, but, you know, it’s a pity Mr Finlayson’s not still in the House, because he would be the first to haul that member in and say, “Hey, sonny Jim, you haven’t been in court. You haven’t seen the abuse by the battle of the experts, where well-funded litigants”—and here, let’s face it, I’m talking about insurers—“will just grind a matter out with a geotechnical expert, an engineer, another engineer, a building surveyor, a land surveyor, and off they go.” Of course the poor homeowner, who may be earning a goodly sum—decent, well above the average wage—may have a family income of $90,000 or $100,000, they can’t even keep up with that. They can’t borrow against their broken house any more. They can’t fund it. So it’s entirely reasonable for this tribunal, under the provisions here, including section 37, to be able to appoint its own expert.

So, look, I’m not interested in this battle of the experts. I’m not interested in generating disagreement where none need exist. I want to see an independent expert. I want to see one who isn’t beholden to either party, who isn’t on the payroll, who hasn’t had the entire last four years giving reports to the litigant party insurer and amending those reports to make sure that they fit within the budgetary constraints that the insurer imposes. That kind of expert, whilst they might still technically qualify as an independent expert, knows where their loyalties lie. So there’s absolutely nothing wrong.

I entirely agree that the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act should apply, along with the Statute of Westminster, The First, along with that good old Magna Carta that we see that we see quoted so often, 1279: “We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man justice or right.” We’ve been denying justice and right in Christchurch for far too long. The current Chief Justice, in her Ethel Benjamin lecture, gave a fantastic paper on access to justice, and she identified the fact that ordinary people—just ordinary folks who you think would never have a worry in the world—when they run into a significant problem, can’t afford to go to court. So this is a sea change in civil justice.

You know, I don’t buy into Mr Smith’s suggestion that it’s simply a rehash of the Weathertight Homes Tribunal. That’s quite wrong. You know, I had quite a lot to do with that tribunal as well; clearly, he didn’t. That tribunal got bogged down in procedure. That got bogged down in appellate procedures and in interlocutrixes.

The other thing that this does, in a fantastic way, is buy into alternate dispute resolution. It is integrated with the Greater Christchurch rebuild programme, and it will be able to use mediations where appropriate and enter into binding mediation arrangements where the parties are given a mediator and where they are encouraged to identify what’s in dispute so that they don’t have to embark on—and, let’s just remember, the costs of litigation are not just financial. They are emotional, and they consume enormous amounts of time, and if we can encourage parties to take independent technical advice and to mediate their disputes, then they will avoid that cost, that time, and all of that grief.

Just one other thing: you know, lawyers don’t have a monopoly on how to resolve disputes. Yes, a lawyer will head this tribunal, but it is absolutely imperative that we have other people with other skills alongside them, and we do that in other technical areas. The Commerce Commission is a really good idea in Commerce Act cases. So where we have technical problems, we need people with technical knowledge to help us solve them. Sure, lawyers are going to be good at ensuring process is there, understanding the legal framework, but this is a tribunal which has a fact-finding role, and to have a fact-finding role in respect of technical engineering and building disputes, you need people with those skills and that knowledge.

So, look, I’m sure the member for Kaikōura is out on his own. I’m sure the rest of his party, including Nicky Wagner, is going to vote in favour of this bill, because she, surely, with her people in Christchurch, the people she knows, knows how hard it’s been. She certainly was out there helping them, dealing with them, and still is on a daily basis, I’m sure, and she would know the tears that this has caused. I can’t imagine that she’ll stand up and say that this isn’t a fantastic idea. We know there’s a shortage of justice. We know there are 500 cases outstanding in the High Court. We know there are about 20 still in the Court of Appeal and there’s at least one in the Supreme Court. I haven’t even mentioned the District Court, where a lot of people go. So, look, I’m sure there’s going to be a heart-warming speech indicating her support for this fine bill, a change in the way we do justice. This, I’m sure, will be a template for how we do justice in the future, and I look forward to the support from the other side.

Hon NICKY WAGNER (National): I’m absolutely delighted to stand up and speak to this bill because I absolutely do not agree with Dr Webb. Now, I’ll tell you why. National was very keen to support this bill—we were very keen to support this bill. We were hopeful that it would provide an effective alternative mechanism for Christchurch’s, Canterbury’s, and maybe even Kaikōura’s outstanding earthquake claims. Of course we would support any legislation that would provide flexible, speedy, and cost-effective resolutions of earthquake claims. Of course we would support that, but this proposed tribunal will do none of that, and let me tell you why—let me tell you why; the problem is that this tribunal is not fit for purpose.

I want to note, Dr Webb, that it doesn’t matter how cheap it is dollar-wise; if it doesn’t work, it’s enormously expensive emotionally and socially. We have seen the people of Christchurch go through enormous amounts of trauma, and to put them through another process that doesn’t work is absolutely unacceptable. For example, let me tell you, this tribunal can only deal with simple cases—simple cases that are not already in the court; please note, Dr Webb. But the vast majority of the 2,233 outstanding cases—and I would like to note that there were 66,000 cases originally. Of the 2,233 outstanding claims, the vast majority of them are complex and technical. That’s why they’re outstanding. Otherwise, simple cases can be solved and have been solved—over 65,000 of them have already been solved.

This tribunal is not flexible enough to deal with complex and technical cases. Furthermore, the resolution of claims through this tribunal will not be speedy. I have a good reason to say it won’t be speedy: the regulatory impact statement said—and I’m quoting this—“Claims may take just as long, or longer, to be resolved through the new tribunal than under the status quo.” So why would you consider setting up something that would be just as long, if not longer, than the status quo? On top of that, the majority of the cases will not be able to be resolved through this new tribunal—the majority won’t be able to—and nothing will be quick. Finally, it won’t be cost-effective.

These are the three reasons why we’re putting this tribunal up. We’re going to put it up because it’s going to be flexible, it’s going to be speedy—and we’ve discounted both of those—and it’s going to be cost-effective. Actually, it’s an expensive process to set up the tribunal, particularly considering the very small number of cases that it will be able to address. Particularly, I note that the tribunal has no ability to deal with one of the most challenging problems in the claims space, and that’s the resolution of onsold-housing claims. So it’s ridiculous. This is the biggest issue and the tribunal can’t deal with that either.

In conclusion—I’ll make it short and sweet—the tribunal is not flexible enough, it does not provide a speedy service, and it won’t be cost-effective, so of course we’re not going to support the bill. However, I would like to make a more positive note. I would encourage the Government to continue to fund and support the Residential Advisory Service. Now, the Residential Advisory Service—a free service, free to claimants—was established by the National Government. It’s normally called the RAS, affectionately, and it has a strong record of successful claim resolution—a strong record—and has the confidence of the people of Christchurch. We have seen thousands of people go through this process and have their claims resolved in flexible, speedy, and cost-effective ways. So I believe supporting the RAS would be a far more intelligent thing than to set up a new tribunal. It is more flexible, it is more speedy, and it is more cost-effective than this proposed tribunal. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

MARK PATTERSON (NZ First): I rise to give New Zealand First’s strong support to this Canterbury Earthquakes Insurance Tribunal Bill—

Hon Nicky Wagner: How much time do you spend in Christchurch?

MARK PATTERSON: —which establishes the Christchurch Earthquakes Insurance Tribunal. I was actually in Christchurch on Friday, Ms Wagner.

We strongly support this. This is an absolutely common-sense piece of legislation. After nearly nine years since the September 2010 quake, the first of that massive series of quakes that so devastated Christchurch—and even if you go there, as I was on Friday, into the central city or if you go out to the eastern suburbs, there are still significant implications from those events. It is still a city with a substantial rebuild in front of it. Of course, not only have we got those 500-odd claims in the courts but we’ve got those nearly 2,500 claims sitting outside that process, still wanting to be settled.

I have listened aghast to the National Party’s position on this. All I have heard is pedantic nonsense and, frankly, it’s a shame. Nothing, I don’t think, underscores the tin ear and the leaderless, rudderless Opposition than voting against this absolutely common-sense piece of legislation. We have heard about the wellness survey with the Canterbury District Health Board that shows the significant stress and mental health issues involved for people that are still going through these processes after eight or nine years. There is an incredible power imbalance between individuals with their house insurance issues. For an example, there was one I know that was referenced in my first reading speech. There was a 93-year-old and an 82-year-old, a couple, that were still battling for their insurance payout eight years after the quake. It’s for those people that we need to bring this measure in. They’ve been thoroughly neglected.

The only issue with this bill, actually, is that it should have been brought in three or four years ago, and that is a shame. The Opposition are sitting here in this House today and railing against a thoroughly sensible measure, a long-overdue measure that will provide a circuit-breaker for those people that have been really struggling with these insurance issues for those major events that they’ve had to go through.

This bill and this tribunal will put control in the hands of the claimants. It addresses that power imbalance and it gives the policyholders, not the insurers or the Earthquake Commission (EQC), the ability to be in the driving seat. It may not settle all the claims but there is still the court process to go to. There are other avenues, but this provides a cost-effective measure that will take some of the stress and add some support around those people that have been struggling for so long with this incredibly serious issue. Of course, for the insurance companies and EQC, they’ve still got the courts there as their recourse as well.

It will be cost-effective. How can something with no fee not be cost-effective for the claimants? I note the establishment costs listed were budgeted for and provisioned in last year’s Budget at $6.5 million and the operational costs are sitting at $1.5 million. When you look at the scale of this event, and the billions and billions of dollars that have gone into rebuilding Christchurch, and the mental health issues coming at this end of the process, that money can so easily be justified and quantified by the Government to try to help some of its most vulnerable citizens deal with such a traumatic set of circumstances.

It will also unclog the courts. As we hear, there’s 500-odd claims in the District Court alone—or is it the High Court—that Duncan Webb was referring to in his earlier contribution. So if we can just take some of those out of the High Court. We know that waiting times are quite long in some cases, and justice delayed is justice denied. So New Zealand First will absolutely be supporting this bill; this is a common-sense measure, and something that we are noted for. So we absolutely will support this bill. We note the select committee and some of the changes that have been made as appropriate, and commend Brett Hudson and his stewardship of the Governance and Administration Committee in bringing this through. But it’s a pity that he could not convince his colleagues of the merits of actually putting some support round some of the most vulnerable citizens in our country that have gone through so much. So we’ve provisioned for it in the Budget, it’s a common-sense idea and time for it has long ago come, and New Zealand First has much pleasure in confirming our support for this bill. Thank you.

Hon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): National cannot support this bill. While we certainly agree with the aims and intention of this bill, and supported the bill through to the Governance and Administration Committee—and had a good select committee process over several months, heard a number of submissions, and gave it very full consideration—we can’t support this bill, because it’s not good enough.

It is my belief that the Government have taken, on face, some pretty loose provisions in this bill. It’s a blind faith, in my view, given that this tribunal is a judicial tribunal which has quite strong powers. It is independent and it is a judicial body. Yes, it does provide an alternative pathway for dispute resolution and, particularly, resolving outstanding Earthquake Commission (EQC) claims, of which there are still several thousand. But the process that the Government has settled on, in our view, is not strong enough, is not good enough, and not robust enough. I’m just going to highlight one provision which we strongly argued against in select committee and still strongly believe is a measure that has taken the Government down the wrong path, and I’ll explain why I am of that view.

So in terms of the appointment of the tribunal members, the Government has taken the view, and we argued against it, that the Governor-General, on the recommendation of the Minister of Justice, appoint members to the tribunal, only one of whom is required to be legally trained, and with seven years practice. This is, and I’ll say it again, a tribunal with judicial powers, and has the ability to make awards to the same degree that a court can order, or it can award general damages or costs against a party. So for members of the Government to say to this House that it is not necessary to have legal training to sit as a member of this tribunal, I think, is false thinking, and I also think it’s dangerous. It is putting blind faith in tribunal members, who may well be qualified in their field of engineering—most likely to be engineering, or perhaps building and construction, that sort of thing. But without the discipline of legal training, and being mindful of the power of the tribunal and its ability to award damages and costs, I think that this is failing those very people who this legislation seeks to serve, because there is not, potentially, enough rigour, enough legal nous and expertise to deal with these sometimes complex, highly emotional claims that will be brought before them.

Again I say, I think this is a matter of blind faith. I also think that, and I quote, the members must be “only people who, in the Minister’s opinion, are suitable to be appointed as members, taking into account their knowledge, skills, and experience”. Now, I know a number of lawyers—I’ve got one in my life—they’re not just lawyers, particularly lawyers who have had considerably more than seven years’ practising experience. People who are legally trained are also other things. They are also very familiar, particularly if they are domiciled in Christchurch or in the Canterbury region—they too have, potentially, vast experience in these EQC matters and claims on behalf of the clients. So to exclude them, I think, is short-sighted, and I think it is selling the people of Christchurch short.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Minister of Conservation): Tēnā koe, Madam Deputy Speaker, thank you. The Green Party’s very pleased to support the Canterbury Earthquakes Insurance Tribunal Bill. I am astounded at the National Party and their callous approach to the thousands of households where claims have not been resolved in Christchurch. Their opposition to this bill, which is seeking to put in place a speedy, flexible process recognising the attributes of tribunals—instead, the National Party is opposing it. That is just beyond belief.

They are opposing the ability of this new tribunal to actually resolve these claims—to get rid of the frustration, the exhaustion that those people who still have outstanding claims feel. It’s been developed to be homeowner initiated. It has got in place a number of safeguards. The previous speaker, Jacqui Dean, seemed to be ignoring the fact that the tribunal is able to actually get its own expert independent advisers to assist, to understand the technical aspects. The previous speaker was ignoring the fact that the tribunal can refer points of law to the High Court for advice to ensure that there is sound and consistent decision making.

But the whole point in establishing this tribunal is to give power back to homeowners, to give power back to people who’ve been frustrated by the court process, and to ensure that they can appear in a forum before a tribunal which is a little less formal than a court process, which has an ability to ask questions, to make inquiries, to call for further evidence, to bring the parties together, and to get these matters, which have gone on for years, resolved. That is the point of this tribunal: to get resolution, to put these cases to bed; and that’s why this tribunal is absolutely necessary. As Mark Patterson noted, this Government has already provided the funding in Budget 2018 to ensure that the tribunal is able to get up and running quickly, as soon as this bill is through the House.

One of the key aspects and benefits of the tribunal is that people do not need to have legal representation when they appear in front of it. That increases access to justice. So the National Party seems to be thinking that it is better to deny people justice, to require them to go to court and the expense that that can often involve. Instead, with this tribunal, people can represent themselves. Often they will be in the best position to do that because it’s their homes that have been affected. It provides access to mediation, which can involve bringing the parties around the table, finding out what are the key issues in dispute, and working collectively to resolve those.

The tribunal can be proactive. It will manage cases through the process and set time frames that must be followed so that the claims progress. That is one of the inadequacies of the current system—that things have just been left in limbo. So this is a very effective response to the several thousand cases that are still unresolved. It will be speedy, it will be flexible, and it will be cost-effective. It’s about this Government responding to real need rather than doing what the National Opposition wants—closing its ears and just requiring people to go before the courts. It will replace the Residential Advisory Service, and it is bringing everything together into one body. It will apply the existing law, and it will be effective. The Green Party is very pleased to support it, rather than, as the Opposition is doing, seeking to deny people access to justice, because it’s requiring everybody go through the court system.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to debate in this third reading of the Canterbury Earthquakes Insurance Tribunal Bill. I would like to clarify to the previous speaker, Eugenie Sage, that the National Party supported this bill on its first reading and second reading. During the committee of the whole House stage, there were some sensible Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) which were tabled by one of our colleagues from this side, Stuart Nash, which would have improved this bill. The intention of this House is always to make sure that the people get a speedy, more flexible, and cost-effective service to resolve their issues. That is the intention of this bill also.

We also want to make sure that the people in Canterbury who have been suffering—they should get these facilities. But the SOPs which were introduced by our colleague Stuart Nash, they were all rejected by the Government.

Hon Eugenie Sage: Stuart Smith, I think.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI: Stuart Smith, sorry, Stuart Smith. Stuart Nash was talking about this bill earlier, so that was on my mind—apologies. But the thing is that the bill, overall, needs to address some of the issues which are left out. They would have been like this: ensure only suitable, qualified professionals should be appointed to this tribunal. If that would have been specified in this bill, that could have been very easy for the Minister to appoint the people who are relevant, who could give a very good judgment to the issues which have been lingering on for a long time. As we heard during the submissions, some of the submitters said that some people, because there is no cost involved, will try to abuse the system, and that is not fair also.

Another thing which the SOP of Stuart Smith would have done is allow insurers and the Earthquake Commission (EQC) to continue to claim against third parties, were the tribunal to avoid the slow and costly process of going through the High Court. As has been mentioned by the other speakers also, going to the High Court is always expensive. As Dr Webb mentioned, if we want to have a court case for 10 days, at least $34,000 is required. So it is a very expensive proposition. That’s why it would have been a very good option to improve this bill by bringing this SOP into it.

The third part of the SOP was to remove any doubt that the tribunal will not restrict the ability of parties to call or cross-examine experts’ evidence. That is, again, a very wise thing, to get the people who have got expertise. We want to resolve the issue, we want to ensure that people get justice, and that can happen only if the experts are there. If a member who doesn’t have the experience is appointed to the tribunal, then there will be no justice, because he or she doesn’t have the knowledge, and that was another SOP which was rejected by the Government.

The last one which I would like to touch upon is allowing insurers and EQC to bring claims before the tribunal, to allow equal access to justice. Natural justice is very important. We want to ensure that people who are involved in these claims and disputes are able to come to the tribunal and put up their case. So it should not be one-sided; it should be available to both sides. I think we are right in opposing this bill, because there are many points which are missing in this bill, and this will not be a good outcome for the people of Canterbury. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a split call. I call Jamie Strange.

JAMIE STRANGE (Labour): Madam Deputy Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to take a call on the Canterbury Earthquakes Insurance Tribunal Bill on the third reading, and I’d like to begin with a quote that we heard. I was a member of the select committee who shepherded this bill through. We heard a quote from one of the submitters, and I think this quote really sums up what this bill is about. The submission was from a gentleman named Nigel Maxey, and he said, “This is an issue of fairness. A number of families are in limbo. This must be resolved.” He was very firm on that; he said this must be resolved—it’s been going on for too long. “It’s been eight years since the earthquake,” he said, “The tribunal won’t work unless we have the resources available.”

This is about putting resources in place in order to solve an issue that’s been going on for eight years. I think that, as a Parliament, we need to stop and just think about that point: these families have been suffering for eight years. And the Opposition are saying, “No, what we have is fine.” But what we currently have is not fine. If, after eight years, we’ve still got thousands of claims unresolved, the status quo is not working. We need some leadership, and that’s what this Government is doing. This Government’s taking leadership.

I do have a little bit of a query in my mind. We heard from the Hon Nicky Wagner. She urged us to support the Residential Advisory Service. She said, “We must fully support the Residential Advisory Service.” Well, the Residential Advisory Service ceased to exist six months ago. It’s been replaced by the Greater Christchurch Claims Resolution Service. So I’m not quite sure how we can support something that doesn’t exist. Anyway, look, I’ll just leave that one out there. Maybe we can get some clarification at some point, Madam Deputy Speaker?

We all remember where we were in 2011 when the earthquake hit. It’s a period of time that’s etched in the minds of us, but for these families, they haven’t been able to move on. They are continuing to go through this again and again, and I’m proud that we are bringing a bill to the House—and it’s at its third reading now—which will bring a change to that. I support this bill to the House. Thank you.

BRETT HUDSON (National): I rise in opposition to the Canterbury Earthquakes Insurance Tribunal Bill. It’s a real shame because the bill as introduced—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is a real shame. I’m very sorry to interrupt the member, but the debate is interrupted and set down for resumption next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 28 May 2019.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.