Thursday, 25 July 2019
Volume 739
Sitting date: 25 July 2019
THURSDAY, 25 JULY 2019
THURSDAY, 25 JULY 2019
The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.
Prayers.
Speaker’s Rulings
Personal Votes—Proxy Voting
SPEAKER: Members, I’ve got a ruling that I’m going to make in anticipation of the next members’ day. I have been considering the issue of proxy voting. There is no limit on the number of members that can vote by proxy in a personal vote. However, given the likely complexity of the issues before the committee of the whole House next week—and possibly the fortnight after—I strongly encourage members to vote in person if they are in the buildings. Every member present in the Chamber when the doors are locked must vote—Aye, No, or abstain.
Standing Order 154(2) sets out the matters that a proxy must contain. Instructions about how to exercise a proxy may be as specific or general as a member giving the proxy wishes. Responsibility for interpreting a proxy rests with the member exercising it and a member must do so and must be satisfied that he or she has direct instructions about how to cast it or general authority to do so, in relation to each question before the committee of the whole House.
Speakers’ rulings on pages 69 and 70 make it clear that personal votes are final, even when they are inadvertently cast incorrectly. The vote cast will stand, regardless of voting intentions. The Speaker will allow the correction of an error on the voting sheet where it is detected before a result is announced—Speaker’s ruling 70/3. But, otherwise, votes are final and the Speaker will not consider later objections to the way a proxy was exercised or recorded, where it has been exercised in good faith.
I am making this ruling some days in advance of the next members’ day to enable members to get their proxies in order.
A number of other matters related to the End of Life Choice Bill are also worth ruling on in advance of next Wednesday.
I have determined that the bill is a conscience issue and that the substantive votes on it will be personal votes. However, votes on procedural matters such as closures and the recall of the Speaker are not matters of conscience, so those will be party votes. If a party does not have an agreed view on such motions, split party voting can be used to record the differing views.
As members know, amendments can be tabled up until the point that voting commences. I would encourage members to lodge their amendments as early as possible so that members can be familiar with the issues on which they will vote. While the Chairperson in committee always decides who gets the call in debate, I have encouraged them to give precedence to those whose amendments are lodged 24 hours before the debate commences. There is no right to a call on the basis of tabling an amendment.
To date, several amendments have been lodged with the Clerk and they are all in order at this point. I would remind members that the member in charge of the bill always has the option to have the question on his amendments put first, under Standing Order 308. If those amendments are agreed, they will have the likely effect of rendering out of order many further amendments to the same provisions.
Finally, I have considered the matters that the House has already agreed in relation to the bill. The purpose of the second reading is to debate the broad principles of a bill. Once a bill has a second reading, the House has agreed to those principles. In the case of the End of Life Choice Bill, the principles agreed at second reading are: (1) some form of assisted dying will be available to New Zealanders; (2) qualified medical personnel will be involved in assisted dying; (3) the assisted dying system will be State-controlled; and (4) instances of assisted dying will be recorded and reported on.
The job of the committee of the whole House is to consider whether the bill properly incorporates the principles or objects of the bill as read a second time by the House—Standing Order 302(1). Ultimately, the House will decide whether it wishes to accept the bill or not at the time of the third reading.
I will ask for this ruling to be circulated in order for members to be prepared for it.
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you, Mr Speaker, for that thorough ruling. Standing Order 154(2) provides for the information that needs to be contained in the proxy in order for it to be cast. Speaker’s ruling 69/1 talks about the communication of withdrawal or amendment of that proxy that need not be in writing—it could be a telephone. As far as I can tell, there is no ruling or standing order about the original proxy being cast in a manner other than by written piece of paper. I wonder if you could clarify whether that is the case and then consider—given the fact that Supplementary Order Papers may be tabled at a reasonably frequent rate through the committee of the whole House—whether it would be in order for somebody receiving a proxy to get that via an electronic means or verbal means, as is available for amendment or withdrawal?
SPEAKER: The short answer is that that is certainly an option for people doing it to get that sort of direction. It may be that if people feel that they will not be in a position to be constantly communicated with, they may want to give a proxy indicating their views on some of the substantive issues, and either say, “That’s all I want to vote on.”, or they might want to give a more general authority to an individual—probably of like mind, but not necessary—to exercise their proxy.
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think it is important that we take some time to get this right, given that there’s some high stakes involved here, potentially. With regard to proxy voting, the other example of where I think there has been challenges in the past is where a member has come to the House—having given someone a proxy—and changed their mind. And therefore their vote has been cast twice: by the person who had their proxy voting one way and by them voting the other way. I just wanted seek some reassurance that it will be the in-person vote that takes precedence should that happen.
The second part, which you may also want to comment on, is just an urging, really, that we take some time in the counting of the votes to be very careful. We saw an example in the most recent time this was voted on where an error was made, where someone ended up voting, in this case, in the same way twice by error of counting. I just want to make sure that we don’t rush the count of votes for the efficiency of the House, and we take time to get it right, given the ruling that you’ve just made.
SPEAKER: Sure. And both of those, I think, are going to be fairly answered in the first way. I will say that since that time, the member’s name has been slightly reduced in size so it fits on one line and there’s less likely to be confusion of that sort again. I won’t make the same mistake again. The other thing that I have asked is that we do take a little bit more time when considering the amendments and check very carefully for dual-voting, which, when you have some members not voting—the fact that we had 121 should have been a pretty clear signal, but there will be occasions where the numbers are below 120, and there’s still a possibility of being on both sides. That is a specific check that I have asked to be done by the clerks and by the Chairs before votes are declared.
I just hope that there’ll be tolerance from members, because it will take longer than members are used to, to have votes. But this is another reason why I think it’s particularly important that people do come and do it in person, and, if they have a proxy issued that is not being used, that they make it very clear to the individual to whom they’ve given the proxy that they are there and voting physically.
The one other point that I’ll make is to reiterate a view which I’ve given quietly to some members, and that is to make it clear that this is a conscience vote, and personal votes. I don’t think it is a good look to have whips from particular parties—especially the major parties—exercising the proxy votes during that time. It’s better for people who have views on the issues to get like-minded people to exercise the votes so that the public are aware of the fact that there is a conscience vote. Obviously, with the procedural votes, that’s not the case.
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you for your indulgence. This is a very important issue, and I think we do need to understand what we’re going into next Wednesday. I think, at the latter part of your ruling, you indicated that there were a number of principles—basically, a principles framework within which the bill will proceed—and I just want to test how that might work. One of them was that the management of end of life choice can only be by a—I’m paraphrasing—qualified medical practitioner. That was one of the ones you raised, is that right? My question is this: does that mean that an amendment by Supplementary Order Paper in the committee of the whole House that may offer an alternative to that will automatically be ruled out?
SPEAKER: The short answer to that is yes. If there is a suggestion that medical practitioners of some type get—and, you know, there are discussions around the types of medical practitioners involved—taken out completely from the process, then I would consider that that is inconsistent with the bill that has received a second reading.
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Speaking to that point, I think, perhaps, this may be an issue that needs to be canvassed at the Business Committee, because I am concerned that this marks a pretty significant constitutional departure from the powers of the committee of the whole House to work within the purposes of the bill. The pillars that you have articulated, I’m not convinced—and I’ll need to look at it some more—they actually work outside of the purposes of the bill, in which case this could be somewhat without precedent. I would encourage members of the Business Committee to consider whether that requires further discussion.
SPEAKER: OK, I’m always happy to have discussions with individual members, or at the Business Committee, but I will refer the House to Standing Order 302(1): “A committee of the whole House considers a bill to determine whether the bill properly incorporates the principles or objects of the bill as read a second time by the House.” So there’s an acceptance, as part of that, that the general principles have been accepted, and, you know, while I am willing to listen to discussion as to whether I have properly described those principles, it is something which I haven’t given some thought to. But, as I say, I’m happy to have further discussions with individual members and the Business Committee. The purpose of this exercise is to make sure that members have a fair indication of how things are going to work next Wednesday and that people are properly prepared for that and not surprised by rulings which might occur.
Rt Hon DAVID CARTER (National): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just want take the opportunity of thanking you for setting out the rules but express my concern that you’re saying the principles have been established. I look at Standing Order 302; I don’t think that reinforces your position at all. I wasn’t here for the debate, but I’m aware that a number of people actually stated in their contributions that they were prepared to vote for it to proceed for the opportunity then to discuss it further in committee stages, and they reserved their right to change their position completely for the third reading. With you establishing those principles by which you’re operating and saying already this House has determined in principle that we will have assisted dying, I strongly disagree with that, and I’m happy to raise that point with you privately.
SPEAKER: Sorry—if I’ve been confusing, I apologise. I did try and make clear right at the end that the House will make a decision on the third reading on the bill that emerges. I’m as aware as any other member that there’s a range of views on this bill and that there are a lot of individuals, and some groups of individuals, whose further support of the bill is contingent on changes being made. As far as I’m aware, none of those changes involve the principles as I outlined them.
Hon DAVID PARKER (Attorney-General): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Yes, I’m one of the members who came to see you to clarify proxies because I’m overseas next week for Government business. I just want to be clear that if I complete a proxy only in respect of substantive votes, there is no risk that in respect of procedural motions I can’t rely upon a party vote, because if there is, I have to give that proxy before I leave.
SPEAKER: No. As far as party votes are concerned, the normal proxy arrangements will pertain, and those are the 25 percent limit for a party. If a member has a view on any procedural matter which differs from his party, then he or she should indicate that to the party whip so that the party whip can exercise a split vote.
Hon DAVID PARKER (Attorney-General): So do I have to give a proxy to my whip in respect of procedural motions, or can I just rely upon the party to take—
SPEAKER: They are party votes of the normal sort. They don’t require proxies to be given, over and above the standard arrangements.
SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Firstly, thank you, Mr Speaker, for these considerations, and I’ll certainly take up, as I’m sure other members will, a more personal conversation. I think I’m somewhat echoing what the Rt Hon David Carter has raised, but I’d just like to signal to you and to the House that we may be conflating the ideas of concept and principle. I’m in complete agreeance that this House, through second reading, has agreed in concept to the idea of the bill, but when you move in to elements of principles, you may be unwittingly or unfairly narrowing the scope without consideration. You’ve raised the issue around, obviously, health practitioners—sorry, medical practitioners, I think, are the words that you—
SPEAKER: Medical personnel.
SIMON O’CONNOR: Excellent—medical personnel. If I may, then, just as an example of what that has now achieved: “medical personnel” is actually only doctors, and so we’re no longer allowed to actually discuss the notion of, say, nurses or other professionals, but—
SPEAKER: No, I am going to interrupt the member. I think the member is over-interpreting what I’ve said. I advise members to read carefully the ruling. If there is an issue with it that they think is inconsistent with the Standing Orders or previous Speakers’ rulings or McGee or Erskine May, we’ll have a discussion about that. This is meant to be, very deliberately, a ruling of current precedent and not an indication of any sort of new ruling or change in Speakers’ rulings. It’s more a matter of clarifying and bringing together some of the various Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings that I’m sure not all of us are fully acquainted with.
Business Statement
Business Statement
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): The legislation to be considered next week will include the first reading of the National Animal Identification and Tracing Amendment Bill (No 2), the second reading of the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill, and the Financial Markets (Derivatives Margin and Benchmarking) Reform Amendment Bill, and the remaining stages of the Copyright (Marrakesh Treaty Implementation) Amendment Bill. The Parihaka Reconciliation Bill will receive its second reading on Thursday, 1 August, and Wednesday, 31 July, will be a members’ day.
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): I thank the Leader of the House for the update. I wonder if he could inform the House whether he has considered curtailing this session or increasing the number of members’ days, given the very light Government business on the Order Paper right now.
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): There’s certainly no intention on the part of the Government to curtail the business of the House or the sitting of the House—we’re having too much fun. I would point out to the member, however, that as at the end of June this year, the Parliament has passed more legislation than at any point at this time of the year over the last decade. Of course, I would point out, though, that in those previous years, however, we haven’t ever had an Opposition quite as distracted and divided as the current Opposition are.
DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Has the Leader of the House considered adding to the fun by bringing the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary Bill up the Order Paper?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): There’s only so much fun I can tolerate at any given time.
Oral Questions
Questions to Ministers
Question No. 1—Prime Minister
1. Hon PAULA BENNETT (Deputy Leader—National) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all her Government’s statements, policies, and actions?
Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Deputy Leader—Labour) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes.
SPEAKER: The smile’s not quite as good, though.
Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Sorry?
SPEAKER: The smile wasn’t as good.
Hon Paula Bennett: Will New Zealand have a legal drug-testing regime at music festivals in place for the upcoming summer?
Hon KELVIN DAVIS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, I don’t have that level of detail, and it would be good if the member could put the question on notice so that we could actually give a detailed answer. The thing is that this Government does take the drug issue very seriously, and we hope that the Opposition does too.
Hon Paula Bennett: Does she agree with Stuart Nash, who said he thought drug testing at festivals was—and I quote—“a fantastic idea and should be installed at all … festivals”, or does she agree with David Clark, who said, “There is a danger with such approaches that they encourage or are seen to encourage drug use.”?
Hon KELVIN DAVIS: I have to say that I get on and agree with both of my colleagues because they’re very hard-working Ministers in both the police realm and also in health.
Hon Paula Bennett: Does she agree with New Zealand First’s Darroch Ball, who said that allowing drug testing at festivals was “blurring the lines between right and wrong and what’s illegal and not illegal”?
Hon KELVIN DAVIS: What I would like to say in terms of the wider work that we do on drugs is that Budget 2019 included significant funding for drugs. In terms of what Mr—
Hon Nathan Guy: What a shambles.
SPEAKER: Order!
Hon KELVIN DAVIS: In terms of what the member—
SPEAKER: Sorry, I’m just indicating to the member down there that his interjections are coming through my mike, which are echoing back very loud in my ears.
Hon KELVIN DAVIS: In terms of what the member from New Zealand First said, I tend to agree—like I said in the previous answer—with my ministerial colleagues.
Hon Paula Bennett: Does she think that, when testing drugs at festivals and it proves to be 100 percent authentic, the drugs should then be given back to individuals who can take them?
Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Those are matters of detail that will be worked out in time.
Hon Paula Bennett: Has she seen the advice from officials that marijuana edibles “are often much more appealing to new and young users and could, therefore, increase cannabis use” and the subsequent recommendation that these products should not be manufactured commercially; if so, why has her Government decided to allow the commercial manufacture of edibles in the recreation cannabis proposals?
Hon KELVIN DAVIS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, this is all a matter for the referendum. It will all be dealt with over time.
Hon Paula Bennett: So does she think it is right that active gang members can get a licence to grow cannabis under the proposed medicinal cannabis scheme?
Hon KELVIN DAVIS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, anybody who’s working in that field will need to be police vetted, and it will be looked after in that instance.
Hon Paula Bennett: How does she expect New Zealanders to understand the Government’s proposed medicinal cannabis scheme or their proposals for recreational cannabis use if she can’t even explain the detail of it?
Hon KELVIN DAVIS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, there’s plenty of time for New Zealanders to get to understand what is going to happen in this area.
Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the Prime Minister aware that there is currently public consultation out on the proposed 98-page medicinal cannabis scheme that is available for public submissions until 9 August?
Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Yes, and that’s exactly the point I’ve been making. There is the discussion document; there is plenty of time for New Zealanders to get to grips with what’s going to happen.
Hon Paula Bennett: Does she accept that these are the proposals put forward for the Government and, as such, they have responsibility for what they are putting forward?
Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Sorry, Mr Speaker, could she repeat the question?
Hon Paula Bennett: Does she accept that these are proposals put forward by the Government and, as a consequence, they have responsibility for them?
Hon KELVIN DAVIS: In terms of the whole issue, we have put out the consultation document. We know people have views, and we welcome their submissions; that’s the point of consultation. We don’t want to pre-empt the outcome of the consultation, so we’ll be working with industry and stakeholders following consultation. And, in terms of police vetting, which we’ve already spoken about, police vetting would be required of the producers. Any criminal history will be considered, and approval is explicitly ruled out if they have been convicted of a drug-related or dishonesty-based offence.
Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the Prime Minister aware of whether or not the Opposition National Party has taken up the opportunity to be engaged in cross-party work on cannabis reform?
Hon KELVIN DAVIS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, I’m not responsible for the attitude or the work of the Opposition.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Word for word, that question started with a phrase that is ruled out by Speaker’s ruling 175/4, an area we traversed at length yesterday, and I just draw that to your attention.
SPEAKER: No, I’m going to pull out 175/4 again, and after our problems with having it read yesterday, I will read it: “It is irregular to preface a supplementary question with the words ‘Is the Minister aware’ and then proceed with a massive statement of fact.” I think I’m absolutely happy to rule that there was no massive statement of fact in this case, which is in absolute contrast to yesterday.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Speaking to that point, Mr Speaker, in that case, I would draw your attention to 175/5, which does not require a “massive statement of fact”, as you put it—albeit that I would question the definition of that; it is a value judgment—but Speakers Jack and Wilson simply described the prefacing statement “Is the Minister aware” as not appropriate.
Hon Chris Hipkins: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker, 175/5 says that they are “Seeking to inject information or propaganda a member wishes to be heard”, but it doesn’t rule the questions out.
SPEAKER: Well, I think it all depends on whether the members are seeking elucidation or not, and that was occurring now. [Interruption] Is this a supplementary?
Chlöe Swarbrick: It’s a point of order.
SPEAKER: No, I don’t want any more on the point of order.
Hon Paula Bennett: Would she be surprised to hear that New Zealand First is not taking up the offer to join a cross-party group on drug reform?
Hon KELVIN DAVIS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, it is up to each party to make their own decisions.
Hon Stuart Nash: Would she be surprised to learn that when I, as police Minister, came out in favour of drug checking at festivals at the beginning of this year, a number of National Party MPs came out in support of that stance?
Hon KELVIN DAVIS: No, I wouldn’t be surprised at all.
Hon Tracey Martin: Can the Prime Minister confirm that New Zealand First backbench MPs and Ministers have worked constructively with both Government coalition partners and supply and confidence partners on many areas that this Government is addressing, including around drug reform?
Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Yes, I can confirm that New Zealand First has been most constructive in many, many areas of policy work.
Question No. 2—Energy and Resources
2. PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: What announcements has she made about energy-efficient heating sources as part of the Government’s Warmer Kiwi Homes programme?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources): Last Thursday, I was pleased to announce that grants are now available for energy-efficient heating sources as part of the Government’s Warmer Kiwi Homes programme. The grants cover two-thirds of the cost of efficient wood burners and heat pumps up to a maximum of $2,500. This latest announcement follows the launch of the targeted insulation programme last year, and I am happy to inform members that the first heat pump has been installed, and thousands of Kiwis have already had their homes insulated.
Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Who’s eligible for the grants?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Owner-occupiers with a Community Services Card or who live in a lower-income area are eligible to receive a grant for an energy-efficient heat source. Homeowners can be referred via the Ministry of Health’s Healthy Homes Initiative. In most cases, the house will need to have ceiling and underfloor insulation already installed to ensure the homeowner gains maximum benefit from the heating source.
Priyanca Radhakrishnan: How does this fit with the Government’s broader ambition to keep Kiwis healthy and warm over winter?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Helping insulate homes and installing energy-efficient heat sources will mean thousands of Kiwis can stay warm and healthy over winter and they’ll use less electricity. This Government is also providing the winter energy payment to help nearly a million New Zealanders with their electricity bills. In the coming months, I’ll be releasing the Government’s response to the Electricity Price Review to make sure power bills are kept in check.
Question No. 3—Finance
3. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by all of the Government’s policies, statements, and actions in relation to the economy?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Yes, in the context in which they were given and undertaken.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does the average household in New Zealand pay more or less tax now compared to when the Government took office, as a result of his Government’s policies?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I don’t have that information, precisely, to hand. What I do know is that we very proudly campaigned on withdrawing the tax cuts that the previous Government was going to impose that would have disproportionately benefited the wealthy in New Zealand, and instead put that money towards making sure that low and middle income families are better off, and we’re very proud of that.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he think the average wage earner with no kids pays a fair amount of tax?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I believe that our tax system, by and large, is fair. There is always room for improvement, but in New Zealand we have relatively low rates of income tax compared to the rest of the world. In fact, most New Zealanders receive excellent value for money from the tax they pay and the public services they get.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Just in rough terms, when he refers to low rates of income tax, how much income tax does the average wage earner with no kids pay?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Again, I’m not going to stand in the House and give an inaccurate statement. What I am going to say is that when we compare ourselves to other countries around the world, we have overall relatively low rates of tax. We don’t have, as other countries have, state taxes that get in between central government and the taxpayer. So, overall, I believe we’ve got a tax system that’s fair. If the member wants to put down in writing a very specific question like that, I’m very happy to answer it.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he accept that the increase in petrol taxes has contributed to pressure on New Zealand families?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Obviously, all New Zealanders who use cars and put petrol in them have to pay for that petrol, and if the member wants to define that as pressure, he can. But what I note about the increases that the Government has made in fuel tax, in 2018 it was exactly the same percentage increase as made by the National Government in 2013; the percentage increase this year is exactly the same as the percentage increase made by National in 2014; the percentage increase for 2020 is exactly the same as the percentage increase National made in 2015. The way that we pay for our roads and our transport system in New Zealand is through petrol tax, and that is what the previous Government did and it’s what this Government’s doing.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Is he sure that the Kiwi motorist will get good value for the extra fuel taxes, given the transport Minister’s assertion that we have over-invested in roads?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I’m extremely confident that New Zealanders will see the investment from this Government in the whole of the transport system—in public transport, in roads; not just in big highways but roads in the regions, making sure that we actually take safety on the road seriously. On this side of the House, we have a transport plan that covers all modes, and, yes, I’m confident that’s value for money.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he accept that the proposed new car tax will increase the cost of buying a car, for most New Zealanders?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I reject the premise of the member’s question. The Crosby/Textor - style spin doesn’t actually work so well in New Zealand. New Zealanders know that we need to make some transitions in our vehicle fleet. Also, I note that he might just want to check that position with Todd Muller, who’s actually very comfortable with the Government’s policy, as opposed to perhaps him or his leader.
Question No. 4—Housing
4. Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura) to the Minister of Housing: Does the KiwiBuild programme remain a policy for the Government to build affordable homes over the next 10 years, as stated in the Speech from the Throne?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): Yes. As the Prime Minister stated in the Speech from the Throne, housing is a top priority for this Government. Action will be taken to address homelessness, State house sell-offs will stop, and the State will take the lead in building affordable houses. Our Government remains committed to all these housing priorities, including getting New Zealanders into affordable homes over the next 10 years. As I’ve publicly indicated, the KiwiBuild programme hasn’t worked the way we wanted it to and I’m currently resetting the policies. Targets and time lines could be part of this reset. I’ll be taking a paper through the Cabinet process later next month.
Hon Judith Collins: In what way does she consider the purchase of 10 already completed houses in Ōtāhuhu by KiwiBuild is evidence of a Government building houses rather than just buying some?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Over the last two days, I have explained to the member the way in which that purchase can work. But one thing I would like that member to understand is that on this side of the House, we do not consider that KiwiBuild has worked the way we wanted it to. That is why we are resetting it. This is not easy, and we have the courage to admit that. That party should know that. They tried to build 39,000 houses in the special housing areas over three years. They only achieved 3,100 of those houses and, of those, only 100 were affordable.
Hon Judith Collins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Well, that was very interesting, but I asked specifically: in what way does she consider the purchase of 10 already completed houses in Ōtāhuhu by KiwiBuild is evidence of a Government building houses? That was not addressed, in my opinion.
SPEAKER: And I think, at the very first line—I probably let the Minister run on a bit long—I inferred that she indicated that she didn’t think that.
Hon Judith Collins: Excellent. Was NZ Living’s agreement to provide houses to KiwiBuild at Northcote contingent on the Government buying unsold houses at Ōtāhuhu?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: As, again, we’ve previously discussed during the course of the week in this House, the developer of the Northcote development has publicly said that there is a chain in terms of the three developments, and that the Northcote development would have only been a twinkle in his eye without KiwiBuild. But let me repeat: on this side of the House, we do not consider that KiwiBuild has been operating in a way that we are satisfied with. This is not easy; that is why we are resetting it. That party failed, when they were in Government, to deliver affordable housing in the volumes required. We in this Government are not prepared to give up.
Hon Judith Collins: Is it appropriate for KiwiBuild to buy houses off developers on a “we’ll scratch your back; you scratch ours” basis, as seems to have happened between Ōtāhuhu and Northcote?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I reject the premise of that question.
Hon Judith Collins: What third-party verification, if any, has she received for the claims of developers that the Government purchasing already built houses in one place has driven them to build houses in another place?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The developer has publicly spoken about it. I’m happy to forward the information through to the member if she would like to see it.
Hon Judith Collins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you so much. I asked what third-party verification, if any, had she received for the developers’ claim. Simply telling me the developers have claimed it—
SPEAKER: Order! I think it’s fair to say that that part of the question was not addressed, and the Minister will address it.
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: What we do have are public comments from the developer saying his opinion of what his actions would have been. In answer to that question: no—someone hasn’t come out and said, “What he said is right.”
Hon Judith Collins: So, then, is the Minister saying that she’s simply taken the word of the property developer, without any verification—any third party—that new housing got to be built because KiwiBuild came along and bought up houses that hadn’t sold in Ōtāhuhu from them?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: We actually do live in a world where people do say what a consequence of their actions was, and we take it as read. I know that people on that side of the House there do as well. But let me remind that member again: we do not think KiwiBuild has been delivering in a way that we are happy with. We are resetting the policy settings because housing is too important. That member might want to come to this House and play political games; I have yet to hear a positive suggestion in the 501 days she has been the Opposition housing spokesperson about what she would do to fix this. We will not give up on this. I’ve been the housing Minister for 28 days, and I’m giving it a lot of thought.
Question No. 5—Defence
5. MARK PATTERSON (NZ First) to the Minister of Defence: What support is the New Zealand Defence Force providing to the Fox River clean-up effort?
Hon RON MARK (Minister of Defence): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Since 20 June, the New Zealand Defence Force has been supporting a Department of Conservation - led clean-up, under the code name Operation Tidy Fox, in the Fox River area of the West Coast that was impacted by severe flooding. With tonnes of rubbish strewn across two of the region’s pristine rivers and coastline, over an area equivalent to 3,000 rugby fields, the need for the Defence Force to respond alongside of the Department of Conservation volunteers, in support of the West Coast community, was clear. Accordingly, in mid-August, the New Zealand Defence Force is deploying, in phases, up to 70 personnel, vehicles, and aircraft to support the Fox River clean-up, with further helicopter support planned to help remove rubbish from more remote locations later.
Mark Patterson: How does this effort support the coalition Government’s defence policy?
Hon RON MARK: Fifty-three personnel are currently—I’m sorry, did I get the wrong supplementary?
SPEAKER: While the member’s doing it, can he tell the House why the operation was named after him?
Hon RON MARK: After—ha, ha! Sorry, Mr Speaker; I’ll start the question again. As part of the Strategic Defence Policy Statement 2018, the coalition Government reshaped New Zealand’s defence policy in the context of delivering value to the community, the nation, and the world. Defence now has a specific outcome to support New Zealand’s communities, their environmental wellbeing, and their resilience. This recognises the Defence Force’s role to communities—the communities from which it draws its personnel, and the communities from which it needs and accrues support.
SPEAKER: Order! Order! That’s enough, thank you.
Mark Patterson: How many New Zealand Defence Force personnel are currently operating in the area, and what tasks are they undertaking?
Hon RON MARK: Currently, there are 53 personnel deployed in the area taking part in the clean-up itself and supporting the Department of Conservation’s incident management team, with a further 11 personnel deploying by tomorrow. Eight vehicles are deployed, including light operational vehicles to transport personnel and the medium heavy operational vehicles affectionately known as MHOVs, which have been used to transport the collected rubbish.
Question No. 6—Health
6. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister of Health: What dollar amount was expended on pharmaceuticals for the year ended 30 June 2009 according to Pharmac’s 2008-09 annual report, and how does that compare with Pharmac’s expenditure on pharmaceuticals reported in Pharmac’s 2018 annual report?
Hon JENNY SALESA (Associate Minister of Health) on behalf of the Minister of Health: I’m surprised the member is asking about two Budgets delivered by the previous Government. According to its annual report in 2008-09, Pharmac spent $653 million on pharmaceuticals. In 2017-19, Pharmac spent $870.8 million on combined pharmaceuticals. I’d also note that the combined pharmaceutical budget for 2019-20 is $995 million.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: So can she confirm, then, that the budget for pharmaceutical funding increased by an average of $24 million per year for the nine years since 2008-09?
Hon JENNY SALESA: As I said in my primary answer, the budget was $653 million and then, in 2017-2018, $870.0 million. In terms of the annual increase per year, I do not have that level of figure, but the member is most welcome to put that level of question to the Minister of Health, who’ll be happy to answer it.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: How can she stand by her part of the answer to the primary question that Pharmac funding this year is $995 million, when since 2018 the Government has appropriated zero dollars in the 2018 Budget and $10 million only in Budget 2019?
Hon JENNY SALESA: There was an increase of $10 million in this year’s Pharmac budget, but I can say this: Pharmac’s budget is now at an increased record level at $995 million—close to $1 billion. That is up from $884.3 million in the last Budget delivered by that member’s Government. Every year, as drugs come off patent and Pharmac is able to make savings, it means that it can purchase more drugs for more people—that is, in terms of the advantages of that Pharmac model and this is one of the reasons why other countries are looking at the model we have here in New Zealand in terms of how we purchase drugs.
SPEAKER: Order! Order! That’s well past answering the supplementary.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: By what mathematical alchemy does $884.3 million plus $10 million equal $995 million?
Hon JENNY SALESA: The amount of funding in terms of Pharmac’s funding right now is $995 million.
Hon Amy Adams: Are you sure about that?
Hon JENNY SALESA: Yes, this is the advice from Pharmac. In the last Budget delivered by that member’s Government, it was $884.3 million. Mr Speaker—
SPEAKER: Order! The member has answered the question.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Is it that kind of financial—
SPEAKER: Sorry—which member is making those noises? Well, if it’s hiccups, go and get some water—
Hon Amy Adams: Oh, that wasn’t me, sir. Sorry. I don’t want to claim responsibility!
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Is it that kind of financial acumen that means cancer sufferers like Blair Vining, Wiki Mulholland, Terre Maize, and many thousands of other New Zealanders are resorting to family charity and Givealittle pages in order to fund medicines under this Government?
Hon JENNY SALESA: My heart goes out to Blair and his family, and I thank him for his advocacy and campaigning on the issue of cancer care. In terms of Pharmac’s role, as defined under the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act 2000, it is “to secure for eligible people in need of pharmaceuticals, the best health outcomes that are reasonably achievable from pharmaceutical treatment and from within the amount of funding provided;”. While there are a range of factors affecting life expectancy, New Zealand has a high life expectancy relative to the amount of funding that we spend on pharmaceuticals. In particular, when we compare to the UK, to Canada, and to the USA, Pharmac is a really good model.
SPEAKER: Order! Much more than necessary.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Does he accept that Pharmac can only purchase medicines if they are given the extra funding to do so?
Hon JENNY SALESA: The Pharmac model was established in 1993. This is a model that works very well for New Zealanders. Decisions on drugs and which drugs are funded are taken at arm’s length from Ministers by Pharmac and they are based on solid evidence. We cannot have politicians second-guessing clinical experts.
SPEAKER: No, the member will have another go because she didn’t address the question. Do you want the question repeated?
Hon JENNY SALESA: Yes please.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Does he accept that Pharmac can only purchase extra medicines if they are given extra funding?
Hon JENNY SALESA: I accept that Pharmac has that role, and I want to reiterate that Pharmac has $995 million right now in order to do their role.
Question No. 7—Transport
7. CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South) to the Associate Minister of Transport: Is it correct that “despite being previously funded, two roundabouts on State Highway 58 in Porirua won’t be built until more money becomes available, which means they won’t make their planned 2020 completion date”, as reported by Stuff on 21 May 2019, and is she concerned that these safety upgrades have been delayed on what NZTA has described as “Wellington region’s most dangerous road”?
Hon JAMES SHAW (Minister for Climate Change) on behalf of the Associate Minister of Transport: On behalf of the Minister, I’m advised that funding for the State Highway 58 programme, including the two roundabouts that Mr Bishop refers to, was set aside in late 2017 based on early estimates. Subsequent analysis showed that the project would cost more than first estimated, and it was split into two stages. In the next few months, work will begin on the stage one safety upgrades. This will include extending median barriers, installing side barriers in high-risk spots, adding an uphill crawler lane, and adding sealed shoulders. I’m advised that the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) has approved funding to progress preparatory work for stage two upgrades. This includes funding to progress land acquisitions and consenting for work on the two roundabouts. NZTA will consider funding for the two roundabouts once Transmission Gully has been completed, simply because starting earlier would create disruption on the roads. This is just one component of the Government’s $1.4 billion road safety programme that will upgrade over 3,300 kilometres of State highways by 2021.
Chris Bishop: Why have these safety improvements been delayed when there have been four accidents on State Highway 58 in the last week alone, including this morning?
Hon JAMES SHAW: As I said in response to the primary question, there was funding for the entire State Highway 58 programme allocated based on earlier estimates, but subsequent analysis showed that the project would cost more than first estimated and it was split into two stages. Therefore, in the next few months, work will begin on the stage one safety upgrades. That includes the median barriers, installing side barriers in high-risk spots, adding an uphill crawler lane, and adding sealed shoulders. Having done that work, and once Transmission Gully has been completed, work will begin on stage two.
Chris Bishop: Will phase two of the safety improvements to State Highway 58 be in place by the time Transmission Gully opens?
Hon JAMES SHAW: As I said in response to the primary question, NZTA will consider funding for the two roundabouts that Mr Bishop refers to once Transmissions Gully has been completed, simply because [Interruption] starting earlier would create disruption on the roads.
SPEAKER: Order! I’m going to ask the member to repeat it. Some of us have quite a lot of interest in this, and interjecting on these safety matters, I think, shows a bit of lack of taste.
Hon JAMES SHAW: As I said in response to the primary question, NZTA will consider funding for the two roundabouts once Transmission Gully has been completed, simply because starting earlier would create additional disruption on the roads.
Chris Bishop: Is she concerned that deaths and serious injuries on State Highway 58 could nearly double once Transmission Gully opens, according to the AA, and why has the Government not prioritised these safety upgrades earlier to make sure they’re in place by the time Transmission Gully opens?
Hon JAMES SHAW: Well, as I said, under the previous Government there was an initial estimate of the amount of funding it would take to do the safety upgrades. Subsequent analysis under the current Government showed that it was going to be more expensive than the early initial estimates, and that’s why the programme was broken into two halves. We’re extremely concerned about road safety, particularly on State Highway 58. That’s why this Government has created a $1.4 billion road safety programme to upgrade 3,300 kilometres of roads around New Zealand by 2021.
Chris Bishop: Why is she using funding constraints as an excuse when she is happy to trumpet in the House and around the country that the Government is making road safety a priority and that they’re spending $1.4 billion on road safety?
Hon JAMES SHAW: Quite simply because the previous Government didn’t put enough money into this project.
Chris Bishop: What changed between March 2018, when the NZTA said “it’s a priority for the Agency to make significant safety improvements as soon as possible,” and May 2019, when the NZTA confirmed that these much-needed safety improvements would not be in place?
Hon JAMES SHAW: As I said in response to the primary question, subsequent analysis on the package that was put together in late 2017 showed that the overall State Highway 58 programme was going to be more expensive than initially indicated, and therefore it was split into two halves. I know that the member is extremely familiar with the process of project planning and budgeting for highway projects, including road safety projects. The process was followed, and each part of that project has to go through its own business case.
Question No. 8—Education
8. JAN TINETTI (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What announcements has the Government made about providing a long-term plan for building classrooms to meet student growth?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Good news: earlier this month, the Government released the overview of the National Education Growth Plan, showing how the Government is planning for 100,000 additional places for students in high-growth areas out to 2030. It’s supported by the largest investment ever by a New Zealand Government in school property. The $1.2 billion that we’ve put in, coupled with the additional funding that we already have, gets us half way to meeting the forecasted growth out to 2030. The National Education Growth Plan is a first for New Zealand. It is the first time that a national plan has identified where new schools might be needed to be built, and the additional classrooms needed in current schools, providing certainty to parents, communities, and, of course, the building and construction sector.
Jan Tinetti: How does the National Education Growth Plan show parents and communities the additional students coming into their regions to 2030, and are planning for it?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: There are 39 individualised plans for around the country that provide high-level time lines out to 2030, showing how additional students coming into high-growth areas will be catered for, indicating where investment in school property is likely to be. The plan that we announced last week included the individual growth plans for Auckland and for Te Tai Tokerau, and we’ll be releasing further plans over the coming months.
Jan Tinetti: What announcements have been made to deliver modern, warm classrooms in Auckland and Tai Tokerau as part of the National Education Growth Plan?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: When we announced the regional plans for Auckland and Te Tai Tokerau, we announced an additional $200 million investment from the $1.2 billion fund. This investment sees $20 million for the construction of a new primary school in Milldale Wainui, which will cater for 370 additional students; $155 million for 228 additional roll growth classrooms across 42 different schools in Auckland, catering for around 4,700 additional students; and $5 million for the expansion of an existing primary school, catering for 250 additional student places. Around $20 million will provide 27 additional roll growth classrooms to nine schools across the north, catering for 500 additional student places.
Question No. 9—Police
9. BRETT HUDSON (National) to the Minister of Police: Does he stand by all the Government’s statements, actions, and policies in relation to firearm law reform?
Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Police): Yes, in the context they were made.
Brett Hudson: Does the Government support the introduction of firearm prohibition orders to target illegal firearm use by gangs and violent offenders?
Hon STUART NASH: It wasn’t that long ago that a previous Prime Minister, Bill English, had to correct one of his senior colleagues when it came to firearms prohibition orders, because they do raise human rights issues. As I have said, though, I am open to firearm prohibition orders, and I have asked police to undertake work on the possible design of this regime to further restrict serious violent offenders’ access to firearms. We’ll look to consult more widely on this outside of the bill.
Brett Hudson: Why, after almost a year since opposing National’s firearm prohibition bill, is the Government still not ready to even start consultation on firearm prohibition orders?
Hon STUART NASH: Two things I would say—and I’ll just repeat that in the previous Government, the Rt Hon Bill English actually had to chastise the then Minister of Police for a flawed bill because of the human rights issues. What I have said, and I will repeat, is that I am open to firearm prohibition orders. I have asked the police to do some work in this area, and we will consult in due time.
Brett Hudson: Why isn’t he introducing reforms targeting gangs and criminal firearm use, and instead focusing on law-abiding New Zealanders?
Hon STUART NASH: The Cabinet minute that will be proactively released shortly, in summary, will confirm that if a person is a member of, or has close affiliations with, an organised crime group or a gang, this will be an indicator of their likelihood of being a fit and proper licence holder. There is one other point I’d like to make: in our 1,800 additional officers that we are delivering to our communities, 700 of those are going to be in organised crime squads. We are doing a lot of work to go after organised crime.
Brett Hudson: What members of Parliament or their offices have made representations to him advising against introducing firearms prohibition orders?
Hon STUART NASH: No members of Parliament have advised against introducing firearm prohibition orders. But I would reiterate that I am not against firearm prohibition orders. I have asked the police to do some work around this, and we will consult.
Brett Hudson: Why is the Government undermining the ability for New Zealanders to have their say on his reforms by only permitting a three-month select committee process?
SPEAKER: Order! The Minister does not decide a select committee process.
Brett Hudson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It was noted in the Government’s announcements the other day.
SPEAKER: Yes, but the Parliament makes that decision. I don’t care what the Government wants to do—that’s not relevant; they can’t.
Brett Hudson: Why is the Government seeking to undermine the ability for New Zealanders to have their say on his reforms by proposing a three-month select committee process?
Hon STUART NASH: What I would say is the changes that we are making should come as no surprise to anyone. There has been no meaningful change to firearms legislation in 36 years. In fact, if that member did his research, he would find that a number of the recommendations made were outlined in the Thorp report in 1997.
Question No. 10—Social Development
10. Hon PAULA BENNETT (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister for Social Development: How many working-age people are on the jobseeker support benefit at the end of June 2019 compared to June 2018, and how many more working-age people are on the jobseeker support benefit in June 2019 compared to September 2017?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): The number of people receiving jobseeker support as at the end of June 2019 was 136,233. As at the end of June 2018, it was 122,513. At the end of September 2017, it was 120,726. This includes people who are actively seeking work and those who are unable to look for work due to a health condition or disability. The difference is 13,720 and 15,507 respectively. As a percentage of the working-age population, this is a 0.4 percent increase from September 2017 to June 2019.
Hon Paula Bennett: Why does she keep blaming population growth, as she has previously, as a primary reason for the increase in jobseeker support benefit recipients, when other benefits have not increased at the same rate?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The member is being disingenuous. I was very clear in the House yesterday that population growth is one of the reasons, but the other reasons are that there has been softening in particular sectors—and I’ve referred to a couple of those, manufacturing and retail being two examples. Also, employers are looking for a level of skill that our Ministry of Social Development clients aren’t always equipped with. That is why this Government is focused on upskilling and training, so that people can get into meaningful and sustainable employment, and so we don’t see the churn on and off benefit that we saw under them.
Hon Paula Bennett: If the Minister is so interested in training and support, would she be surprised to hear that there are an extra 5,000 18- to 24-year-olds on the jobseeker support benefit since September 2017, and that the Mana in Mahi programme has completely failed them?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: What we have seen is a reduction of young people going on to the youth payment, which is very positive. Mana in Mahi has not been a failure at all. A 70 percent retention rate for young people, who often have very complex needs, is actually very positive. That 70 percent retention rate is much more positive than what we saw under the previous Government, when nearly 50 percent of those who went off benefit, after their welfare reforms, were back on within 18 months.
Hon Paula Bennett: So when there are 5,000 more young people on the jobseeker support, how many young people have gone through the Mana in Mahi programme?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: We have reached our target of making sure that in the first tranche, there would be 150. But, as we saw at the Budget, we have budgeted for 2,000 places. We see this as a real opportunity. The Ministry of Social Development is about providing financial support but also supporting people into meaningful and sustainable employment, and we’re taking that opportunity and working with these young people in their aspirations.
SPEAKER: Just before we have the next supplementary, I’m going to do something which occurred in the House yesterday, and remind the member that there is a microphone system.
Hon Paula Bennett: What role do place-based initiatives—or PBIs, as they’re often called in emails—have to play with helping vulnerable New Zealanders up to the age of 24 into meaningful employment?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: There’s some wonderful work going on with the place-based initiatives. If I refer to the Manukau one, they’re looking at the complex needs that many of these families are encountering, and, obviously, employment is one of those areas. We understand that, actually, for many of these families, there are a range of challenges that they might encounter, and that’s why, with regards to those that come through the welfare system, it’s about not just what we’re able to provide through the welfare system but the support that we’re providing across Government, including—can I refer to—the $1.9 billion investment into mental health.
Question No. 11—Small Business
11. MARJA LUBECK (Labour) to the Minister for Small Business: What recent announcements has he made about making it easier for small businesses to access services from multiple Government agencies?
Hon STUART NASH (Minister for Small Business): One of Budget 2019’s priorities was to create opportunities for productive businesses, and to support them to thrive in the digital age. Last week, I was pleased to announce that $7.1 million had been dedicated to a new digital service to make dealing with Government easier. Business Connect is a new digital platform that will be available later this year to allow small businesses to interact seamlessly via a single portal. In time, it will streamline the way central and local government services can be applied for, managed, and tracked. New Zealand consistently ranks number one as the easiest country to do business, but there is still progress to be made, and this Government is committed to finding and funding those ways.
Marja Lubeck: How will the new platform Business Connect help small businesses?
Hon STUART NASH: Small businesses and businesses in general tell us that they sometimes find public services complex to navigate and fragmented, and it takes more time than it should to deal with repetitive paperwork. We have heard their appeals and are responding. By integrating access to multiple services and agencies, Business Connect will cut out repetitive paperwork. In time, businesses will be able to apply for a range of permits, licences, and consents without having to repeat the same information and documentation over and over again. Examples could include services that help make it easier to comply with food safety regulations. They will also be able to track the status of their applications, and be notified online of approvals and renewals.
Marja Lubeck: What Government agencies are currently signed up to the Business Connect, and will this be extended to other agencies?
Hon STUART NASH: Business Connect has two major phases. Phase one will initially trial services from three agencies. These are the Ministry of Primary Industries, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, and the New Zealand Customs Service. Phase two is likely to include other agencies who are in the Better for Business programme, such as Inland Revenue, the Accident Compensation Corporation, the New Zealand Transport Agency, and Statistics New Zealand. Officials are in active discussions with some local councils as well. The agencies in this programme account for around 93 percent of business interactions with Government and local government. We will be actively working with these agencies and local government on the services that make the biggest difference to businesses. Officials estimate the potential benefit to businesses and Government agencies from Business Connect is worth about $300 million per year. New Zealand, as mentioned, consistently ranks number one as the easiest country to do business—
SPEAKER: Order! Order! I think I’ve heard that a few times recently.
Question No. 12—Environment
12. Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National) to the Minister for the Environment: Does he stand by his statement about regulation of genetic engineering, “I think that the precautionary approach hasn’t done us any harm so far, either economically or environmentally”; if so, why?
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Yes, because it has benefited New Zealand, which explains why GM regulation did not substantially change over the last nine years of the previous Government.
Dr Parmjeet Parmar: Does he believe the Ministry for the Environment is incorrect to have concluded that New Zealand’s regulatory framework for genetic modification, under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act, is increasingly difficult to enforce and may be limiting the country’s competitiveness?
Hon DAVID PARKER: No.
Dr Parmjeet Parmar: Has he asked for any further advice on the economic or environmental impact of continuing his precautionary approach in light of his colleague the Hon James Shaw’s willingness to take a fresh look at the genetic engineering regulations in New Zealand?
Hon DAVID PARKER: I don’t understand that the Hon James Shaw was proposing to abandon a precautionary approach in respect of GM. I did say to the Environment Committee last month that there is a rising issue as to whether or not some new genetically modified organism (GMO) techniques are distinguishable from other non-GMO changes. That issue is not quite upon us but may arise in the future, and the Prime Minister’s chief science officer is bringing forward some advice in respect of that issue.
Dr Parmjeet Parmar: Does he believe organisms created using gene editing technology present greater risk than naturally occurring organisms?
Hon DAVID PARKER: I’m not satisfied that that is yet sufficiently clear to allow those techniques to be unregulated.
Dr Parmjeet Parmar: Does he agree with the Ministry for the Environment’s advice that failing to update our legislation may result in organisms being regulated at a level not proportionate to the risk they pose and New Zealand missing out on the benefits they could provide, such as advancing success in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and pests?
Hon DAVID PARKER: If there was a miracle cure for climate change brought about by a GM crop, I’m sure that any Government would consider it. At the moment, it could be considered under the existing regulatory framework.
Bills
Ngāti Rangi Claims Settlement Bill
In Committee
Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one debate.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): That leave is sought; I’ll put that to the committee. Any objection? There is none.
Parts 1 to 4, Schedules 1 to 9, and clauses 1 and 2
Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): Following the Māori Affairs Committee’s consideration of the Ngāti Rangi Claims Settlement Bill, there have been some minor technical amendments required to bring the bill into order. Supplementary Order Paper 256 makes technical amendments to the bill, largely to correct the legal description of a reserve site listed in Schedule 4, Part 1, of the bill. These amendments are minor; they do not change the redress package. For the benefit of Ngāti Rangi members who are in the gallery, we are just going through a bit of a tidy-up so the bill is absolutely pristine and perfect by the time we get to the third reading, which should be in a matter of minutes, and then we will be all go for that final step, the last hurdle, and then a cause for a great celebration.
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 256 in the name of the Hon Andrew Little be agreed to.
Amendments agreed to.
Parts 1 to 4, Schedules 1 to 9, and clauses 1 and 2
as amended agreed to.
House resumed.
Bill reported with amendment.
Report adopted.
Third Reading
Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I move, That the Ngāti Rangi Claims Settlement Bill be now read a third time.
Te Whare e tū nei, te marae e takoto nei, tēnā kōrua. E ngā mate i te wā, haere atu rā. Ki a koutou te hunga ora, tēnā koutou. Ki a koutou hoki Ngāti Rangi, nau mai, haere mai, whakatau mai. Nā koutou tēnei rangi, nā reira rau rangatira mā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.
[I greet both the House which stands here, and the marae which lies before us. To the deceased of this time, go well. To the living people, I greet you. And to you Ngāti Rangi, welcome, welcome, thrice welcome. This is your day, therefore my esteemed ones, greetings, greetings, greetings to all.]
This is an immense day, and as I stand here, I am accompanied by this mauri stone that was gifted to me and to the Crown when we did the deed of settlement signing at the marae in the shadow of the great maunga Ruapehu in March last year. I’m honoured to move for this bill to be enacted into law and for Ngāti Rangi to finally receive the benefits of a settlement which are long overdue.
We are joined in the House by Ngāti Rangi, and I extend the warmest of welcomes to you all and thank you for making the journey to witness this, the final reading of your settlement bill. That you are here in such force is testament to the near unanimous support this settlement has amongst your iwi. Today, we can all be very proud of what has been achieved through this bill and celebrate the new beginning it promises for both Ngāti Rangi and the Crown.
We have come very far since 1840. When Ngāti Rangi tūpuna signed the Treaty of Waitangi, they envisioned a partnership. They made a commitment to work with the Crown for the betterment of their people, and the iwi has remained true to this commitment since 1840. But it is with profound remorse that I acknowledge that the Crown did not do the same. The Crown, in breach of the Treaty of Waitangi, treated Ngāti Rangi with indifference and failed to honour the Treaty partnership. Instead, the Crown started a war in the 1860s which ultimately forced Ngāti Rangi to make a stark choice: to join their whanaunga, who were resisting the Crown, or to join the Crown’s forces. Ngāti Rangi tūpuna fought in the Whanganui native contingent of the Crown’s forces. They did not make this choice lightly, and the impacts of their decision have reverberated through the generations of Ngāti Rangi uri. They made this sacrifice because they wanted their future generations to prosper as allies of the Crown.
Ngāti Rangi tūpuna believed that alliance with the Crown would limit the harm of the colonial system, but this was not to be so. The Crown accepted the support of Ngāti Rangi willingly but did not reciprocate their generosity. The Crown introduced the native land laws in 1865, which enforced the conversion of communally owned land into individual private property, undermining the communal social structures Māori had held for centuries. The requirement for Ngāti Rangi to defend their interests in land or risk being excluded from its ownership further damaged the relationship between the iwi and their whanaunga.
Ngāti Rangi wanted to maintain their mana over their land, mana which had been held by the descendants of Paerangi since the first people came to the central North Island. However, the Crown purchased large areas of land that Ngāti Rangi sought to protect for their mokopuna. Ngāti Rangi made multiple attempts to protect their land over the 19th and 20th centuries, but the Crown did not support Ngāti Rangi’s attempts to retain control.
Ngāti Rangi’s association with their land is central to their history. Ngāti Rangi, along with their whanaunga, have a deeply felt responsibility as kaitiaki in the rohe that has been passed down through the generations. The Crown’s Treaty breaches have caused Ngāti Rangi to endure significant socioeconomic disparity. Their language, culture, economy, health, and connection to the tūrangawaewae have all suffered from the Crown’s colonial regime.
With $17 million in financial redress and the option to buy the Karioi Forest, I’m confident that Ngāti Rangi and, indeed, the entire community living at the foot of Matua te mana—Mount Ruapehu—will see the benefits of this settlement. This bill contains the Te Waiū-o-Te-Ika framework, which will establish a joint river entity comprised of all iwi connected to the Whangaehu River to work together for the benefit of the awa. With statutory recognition for the river and the mechanism to anchor the Crown in the arrangement, this bill provides for Ngāti Rangi and their whanaunga to practise their kaitiakitanga over the river mō āke tonu atu—for evermore.
The bill establishes Te Pae Ao, a joint management committee for 10 reserve sites. The Crown will also return land to Ngāti Rangi in six cultural sites, including the beds of the sacred Rotokura Lakes. This bill will vest defence lands at Te Onetapu in Ngāti Rangi. In a gesture of their continued generosity and sacrifice for this country, Ngāti Rangi will then gift this land back to the people of Aotearoa.
While today signifies the conclusion of settlement negotiations for Ngāti Rangi, the iwi and the Crown will have work to do regarding the future arrangements of the Tongariro National Park. The Crown established the park in 1907 without any consultation with Ngāti Rangi, and failed for almost a century to provide any meaningful role for Ngāti Rangi over their most treasured maunga. Ngāti Rangi will play an essential part in these future negotiations.
I’d like to acknowledge all of the people who have helped to realise this settlement between Ngāti Rangi and the Crown. Firstly, I express gratitude to the Ngāti Rangi kaumātua and tūpuna who took the first steps on this very long road towards reconciliation, with the submission of your first Wai claim in 1990. Those kaumātua and your tūpuna had a clear vision for your future, and I deeply regret that many are no longer with us to witness this momentous occasion where their vision becomes a reality.
I must also acknowledge the hard work of the Ngāti Rangi Trust. You took a risk in being the first iwi of your district to settle, and to settle in accelerated time frames. You worked tirelessly and held the Crown to account in every detail of the settlement. You did not compromise on the values and aspirations at the heart of this settlement. It is because of your work that this settlement is so comprehensive. I have absolute faith that Te Tōtarahoe o Paerangi will continue to lead Ngāti Rangi into the future with the same foresight and integrity.
I also thank all the Crown agencies that have contributed to this bill. The depth of relationship agreements in this bill is a testament to the commitment of the entire Crown to be a Treaty partner to Ngāti Rangi. In particular, I acknowledge Dr John Wood for leading the Crown team; Briar Gordon from the Parliamentary Counsel Office, who led the drafting of this bill; my officials at Te Arawhiti; and the officials across all agencies who worked on this settlement. This is a day on which all of you also can be very proud.
Lastly, I thank all of the people of Ngāti Rangi, those who have come today to see this bill enacted and those who are not able to join us. Thank you also for receiving the Crown’s apology at Raketapauma Marae last year. You have patiently led the Crown to understand how it has hurt your iwi and how it can change. Your courage to confront the past and your endless generosity to allow the Crown a second chance is inspiring. I believe that your faith in the Crown and our new partnership is justified, and it will be reciprocated and will be rewarding for both sides. I thank you all.
When the Ngāti Rangi deed of settlement was signed in March last year at the Raketapauma Marae, the Ngāti Rangi lead negotiator, Che Wilson, likened it to a new Treaty between Ngāti Rangi and the Crown, and in many ways that is true. Today, we are reaffirming our relationship with hope and a vision for the future generations of Ngāti Rangi, but it is also very different because on this occasion, unlike with the Treaty of Waitangi, the Crown intends to honour, and will be legally bound to honour, the new Treaty that we are making. Now, the Crown is making commitments in this bill that it will honour for ever.
Just as this settlement signifies a new phase of our partnership, today symbolises a new beginning for Ngāti Rangi and the Crown. Where we go, we will go together, like that of waka hourua: two hulls working as one. I commend the Ngāti Rangi Claims Settlement Bill to the House. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.
JO HAYES (National): Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā. Ka nui te mihi atu ki a koutou ngā whānau whānui o Ngāti Rangi. Nau mai haere mai ki Te Whare Pāremata i te rā whakahirahira. Kia ora.
[Greetings, Madam Speaker. Many greetings to you the extended families of Ngāti Rangi. Welcome to Parliament House on this important day. Greetings.]
I stand here, humbled to be able to speak in the third reading of the Ngāti Rangi Claims Settlement Bill.
It is always a joy in my heart when I stand here especially to speak to whānau and hapū of my mother’s side of our family, our iwi, and to be here today to acknowledge the hard work of Ngāti Rangi tūpuna that I want to mention: John Tahupārae, the māngai for the whānau whāngai, for the hard work that they did in getting to this place and in supporting the rangatahi to actually bring the claim here and complete it today.
I too want to acknowledge the Ngāti Rangi chief negotiators Che Wilson, Carl Wilson, Kemp Dryden, Cassandra Reid, Shar Amner, and Toni Waho, who’ve done an amazing job. I know that for many who are sitting in the gallery today who have travelled a long way, all the way from the from the hills of Ōhākune, in Ngāti Rangi rohe, this is going to be the start of an amazing journey for you. I know that you’ve already started one, but this is actually going to really lift it right up with the ascension of the bill.
I want to acknowledge the Minister Andrew Little and also the Hon Chris Finlayson, who started the discussions with Che and team back before he left Parliament. I think the Hon Andrew Little has done a very good job at making sure that all the i’s are dotted and t’s are crossed, especially around the legislation and the various clauses that had to come back to the Māori Affairs Committee so that we could make sure that your journey through to this point was going to be a very smooth one.
In saying that, I also want to thank my colleagues on the Māori Affairs Committee, ably lead by Rino Tirikatene, who worked hard on being able to get up to the maunga. I was very—how would you put it? My heart sang, actually, when we walked into that room for the submissions, when I saw the maunga Ruapehu streaming in through that window. It was almost like it was overlooking us, making sure that we did the right thing all the way through. To have that feeling, you just cannot put words in action about that feeling that I felt that day sitting in that room.
I want to also acknowledge our Crown negotiators, and I also want to send out a great big welcome to the Awa Tupua, who are sitting here, who are supporting you, Ngāti Rangi. We are all related, at the end of the day, so I’ll most probably see you here on a number of occasions when we start getting through some of the Whanganui whenua claims as well. So I just want to acknowledge all of you who have come from Te Awa Tupua as well.
We all know I’ve stood in this House many times talking about the quantum that iwi get through this claims process, and I’ve always said that it is always never enough—never enough—but, actually, there isn’t enough pūtea in the coffers of the Crown or many businesses to be able to compensate for the atrocities that the tūpuna of Ngāti Rangi faced. You wouldn’t think that it would take this long to actually get to this point, considering Ngāti Rangi tūpuna fought for the Crown on many levels. So to be here today is, as I said, a humbling moment for me.
I want to acknowledge the framework for the Whangaehu Awa—Te Waiū-o-Te-Ika—the governance framework. That has been a coup for Ngāti Rangi to actually have that as a governing framework for the Whangaehu Awa. I think that, for me, a lot of the kōrero that’s been said, that’s been negotiated—we have heard people who have been for the bill, people who have been against the bill, people who were going to try and come back over this bill, but today is the day that all of that will stop. And, as I look around the gallery, I see a number of tamariki and rangatahi sitting here. The bill is actually for you. This is your future. This is what your tūpuna fought for. This is what your pakeke got here today, and this is for you. And one day, when the trust managers and the board decide to step away, they will step away and leave for you a legacy for your future, for your children.
So, as I stand here today, I just want to say congratulations to Ngāti Rangi, congratulations to the mokopuna and the tamariki. I want to acknowledge and pay tribute to those who fought to get here—the tūpuna—and I am very proud and honoured to commend this bill to the House. Tēnā koutou katoa.
RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Ā, tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Tēnā koutou ōku rangatira, tēnā koutou Ngāti Rangi, Ngā Uri o Paerangi i Te Whare Toka. Tēnā koutou, nau mai, whakatau mai. Nau mai, whakatau mai ki Te Whare Pāremata. Nō koutou tēnei pire, tēnei rā. Āe, harikoa te ngākau ki te tu ki te mihi atu ki a koutou.
Ngā mate huhua o te wā, haere, haere atu rā, hoki mai ki a tātou te kanohi ora e pae nei, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.
[So, greetings Madam Speaker. Greetings my leaders, and greetings to you Ngāti Rangi, the descendants of Paerangi i Te Whare Toka. Greetings, welcome, welcome. Welcome, welcome to Parliament House. This is your bill, your day. Yes, my heart is happy to stand and greet you.
To those who have passed on, go in peace. Returning to the living, greetings to one and all.]
It is truly a delight to be able to speak in support of this bill at this third reading, and I want to add my welcome to Ngāti Rangi, who have travelled from far and wide to be here on this very historic occasion. I want to acknowledge all the dignitaries, the chiefs, and I want to acknowledge my fellow members of the House who are Ngāti Rangi—Joanne Hayes, who has just spoken, and many others who will follow after me.
It was truly an honour to chair the Māori Affairs Committee, as it is for all settlements, but to work through the Ngāti Rangi settlement was a real highlight because this is such a vibrant and forward- and future-focused iwi. It was evidenced by just the way things flowed through this settlement, whether it was the passage of the deeds and certain amendments that had to be made, but also in terms of working our way through some of the technical matters in the bill. But, all the while, Ngāti Rangi has a very clear plan; they know who they are, where they descend from, and we have recorded through Rukutia Te Mana, through this settlement, the historical redress and settlement matters, but it’s also looking very much forward into the future for Ngāti Rangi.
I’ve been wondering as to—there’s an extra dimension to this settlement, and I was just sitting in my seat and it came upon me that it really goes back to Ngāti Rangi, ngā uri o Paerangi i Te Whare Toka [the descendants of Paerangi i Te Whare Toka].
This is more than just a temporal matter; this is more than just an earthly bill that we are considering here, because Ngāti Rangi is celestial. They descend from Paerangi. If I may, I want to—well, I don’t have the time but there’s a beautiful kōrero of the celestial stars of the Milky Way and how it was descended upon and created the fires within the sacred maunga, and the descendants from that, Paerangi. All of the people of Ngāti Rangi here are the descendants of Paerangi. So we are literally among the stars today, because of the extra dimension that I’ve certainly been privy to and we have all shared by working on the settlement. And so I want to acknowledge the rangatira because, on occasions like this, it doesn’t happen overnight, and we know that this day has been decades in the making. We pay tribute and we remember those that led the way for Ngāti Rangi, fought and supported the kaupapa all the way through, just as I acknowledge the current negotiating team, led by Che Wilson and all of the wonderful team that have continued the mahi and led us through to this point. So we certainly do remember as well as celebrate such a very happy occasion.
So, as has been traversed by Minister Little, there has been a lot of mamae, there are a lot of grievances which the Crown inflicted through acts or omissions on Ngāti Rangi, and they have been addressed through Rukutia Te Mana, through this settlement, which we are completing through the passage of this bill through the House today.
It’s sort of common for me to do this on Treaty settlement speeches, but when I mention Ngāti Rangi I want to be all inclusive, and of course, from those celestial origins and passage, through Ngāti Rangi today, are all our beautiful whānau that are up in the gallery today, and also all of those individuals that descend from Paerangi and all of these groups—which I’ll just quickly read out—and all of the Ngāti Rangi ancestors: Ngāi Tuhi Ariki, Ngāti Hioi, Ngāti Parenga, Ngāti Rangi-ki-tai, Ngāti Rangihaereroa, Ngāti Rangipoutaka, Ngāti Rangiteauria, Ngāti Rangituhia, Ngāti Tongaiti, Ngāti Tui-o-nuku, Uenukumanawawiri, Ngāti Patutokotoko.
There are also other, essentially, descendants who’ve exercised customary rights that descend from the tūpuna and, ultimately, to Paerangi. So that is Ngāti Rangi. I too, fondly—vividly, actually, it’s vivid in my mind the day when our select committee travelled up to Ōhākune and just the majestic splendour of koro Ruapehu that was smiling upon us that day. It was truly a memorable day, and I’ll never forget it. That work has continued on through the passage of this bill. There’s a lot that I could go on and mention but, I guess, when looking back at my earlier readings on this bill I laid down a wero to Mr McKelvie, as he may recall, around the pronunciation of Ngāti Rangi, and all of those beautiful Māori kupu, the Reo Māori that flows all the way through in every name of all the entities and all of the principles and the pillars upon which Rukutia Te Mana rests; it’s such beautiful reo, and the stories that go with it. So Mr McKelvie, I’m looking forward to hearing that beautiful “Ngāti Rangi” coming forth as the member for Rangitīkei.
Without further ado, I just want to, finally, just end my sincere mihi to all who have travelled today, to all of our rangatira and our kaumātua and kuia. This is a very significant day. I have every confidence in Ngāti Rangi that—we are so lucky in Aotearoa to have the richness and the history and the vibrancy of our iwi. Ngāti Rangi is very much leading the way in that regard, I’m happy to say that: leading the way. I know all the way through the passage of this bill and the whole process, we have hit home base. This has been a home run. We’ve gone round all the bases and I’m certainly pleased that I’ve been able to help, and that we will, as a House, be able to bring it on home this afternoon.
So without further ado, e aku rangatira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa [my leaders, greetings, greetings, greetings to us all].
Hon NICKY WAGNER (National): Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā. Ki ngā uri o Ngāti Rangi, tēnā koutou katoa. He nui aku mihi mahana, ngā mihi maioha, me ngā mihi aroha hoki ki a koutou. Nau mai ki tēnei Whare, ki Te Whare Pāremata.
[Greetings, Madam Speaker. To the descendants of Ngāti Rangi, greetings to you all. I have many warm greetings, affectionate greetings, and loving greetings to you.]
Today is a celebration. It’s a huge milestone for Ngāti Rangi, but it’s also a huge milestone for the Crown and a huge milestone for New Zealand. It’s a culmination of 28 years of negotiations, but, more importantly, it’s a stepping off point for Ngāti Rangi to a new relationship with the Crown after nearly 180 years.
Like everyone today, I want to welcome you warmly to Parliament. It’s wonderful to see so many of you here, and to see you in the legislative Chamber—all sizes, all shapes, all ages. From the most respected elders to the youngest, it’s fabulous to have you all here. I really want to acknowledge every single person, those that are here with us today and those that have passed, who have been involved over those 180 years on this journey to get here today. You know, when there’s a long road of struggle we often talk about standing on the shoulders of those who have gone before. We talk about drawing strength from our ancestors, from our tīpuna. Today, we recognise that and we thank every single one of them for the contributions that they’ve made.
I want to think back to the strength of those first rangatira, those rangatira who signed the Treaty back in 1840. Those rangatira who signed that Treaty, they signed it with mana and with good faith. Their signatures reflected their powerful position. They were leading a prosperous community; they were embracing the future with confidence, and preparing to work with the Crown as equals. As leaders, they could see the benefits in a strong partnership with the Crown; the strong partnership that was promised by the Crown. And, in good faith, they saw opportunities of welcoming new settlers to the rohe, of leasing their land to them. From the very beginning, they had a very strategic and forward-thinking way of how they would manage the whenua, but they were let down. They were let down and sorely disappointed. During the difficult times of the 1860s and 1870s, they maintained their mana motuhake, they protected the rohe, and, strategically, they aligned themselves with the Crown. But the Crown did not repay their loyalty.
The failures of the Crown have been well-documented—the stripping of land rights, the fraudulent use of compulsory acquisition, the lack of compensation, and the lack of consultation, all of which resulted with a decimation of landholdings; hundreds and thousands of acres were reduced to 13,500. Today, in Parliament, the Crown publicly acknowledges all those betrayals and the Crown apologises for the many years of distress. So, today, as we pass the bill, Ngāti Rangi and the Crown look to a new relationship and look to a new future. At last, Ngāti Rangi will be able to exercise their kaitiakitanga, their manaakitanga, and their whanaungatanga, and all their customary rights and responsibilities over the land and their resources, now, and for the many years to come.
I just want to conclude by acknowledging the work of the Ngāti Rangi Trust who have worked so diligently for this settlement right through the 28 years, and the leaders and the negotiators—in particular, Che Wilson and his negotiating team, and for the Crown, Dr John Wood and his team. I’d also just like to make comment and support the Ministers who have supported this bill, from the Hon Chris Finlayson who got the ball rolling, to the Hon Andrew Little who has completed it, and everybody, actually, for completing it in record time once they started that negotiation.
So today, we celebrate. We celebrate, in the words of Shar Amner, another step towards healing the mamae between Ngāti Rangi and the Crown. We celebrate a negotiation well done by so many and, best of all, we celebrate a vision of an exciting future for Ngāti Rangi starting today—starting today for this generation and for many more generations to come.
Ka nui te mihi atu ki a koutou a Ngāti Rangi, e te rōpū rangatira, huri rauna i tēnei Whare, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.
[Many greetings to you Ngāti Rangi, the esteemed group, right around this House, greetings, greetings, greetings to us all.]
Kia ora.
Hon SHANE JONES (Minister of Forestry): E ngā mātua, e ngā pūkenga, e ngā mārohirohi, mai i Te Mānia Roa, Te Kāhui Maunga, māku te kī ko te whenua anuanu, haere mai, haere mai, haere mai. Tēnei mātou te mihi atu ki a koutou, atu i ngā kanohi Māori me ō mātou hoa Pākehā mō te kaupapa i whakarauika mai ai tātou ki konei i tēnei rā. Hei whakatatū i tēnei wahanga o te hīkoi, hei muhu i tētahi hara i utaina ki runga i te whenua, i utaina anō hoki ki runga i ngā pakihiwi o ō koutou mātua.
I ahau i tamariki, koinā anō tā mātou i mōhio ai mō tō koutou rohe, he whenua makariri. Me te mātau ētahi o ō mātou kaumātua o Ngā Puhi, i haere ki te ako i a koutou me pēhea te tope rākau. Pērā i a Sonny Pēhi, wēnā tāngata kuhukuhu i tō rātou wā.
Nā reira me mihi atu ahau ki a koutou, tōku rangatira, te hōnore Winitana e tautoko ana, me whakatutuki e tātou tahi i roto i tēnei Whare, te kaupapa i tēnei ahiahi. Nō reira tēnā koutou kata.
[To the elders, the skilled ones, the tenacious ones, from the central plateau, Te Kāhui Maunga, and I would say from the cold lands, welcome, welcome, thrice welcome. We acknowledge you, from both the Māori members and our Pākehā colleagues for the purpose which has brought us all together here today; to complete this part of the journey, to correct a wrong which was imposed on the land, and imposed on the shoulders of your forefathers.
When I was a child, that was all we knew about your tribal area; it is a cold place. And we also knew that some of our elders from Ngā Puhi went to teach you how to chop trees down. The likes of Sonny Pēhi, those people who were involved in their time.
Therefore, I rightly acknowledge you, my leader, the honourable Winston for supporting; it should be executed in this House, the focus of this afternoon. Therefore, greetings to you all.]
A few Māori words to welcome and acknowledge the turnout today by Ngāti Rangi. A number of us were brought up on various stories, and one story—you’ve got to be careful when you’re a Māori from the north talking about Māoris from the south, but I’m a politician today so I’ll say what I like. A story is that a cluster of maunga existed in a slightly unhappy state of being in the centre of Te Ika-a-Māui. Depending on what story you tell, either Pīhanga Maunga, a beautiful maiden, or another story, Ruapehu. Taranaki was feisty, unsuccessful in capturing the affections of the female maunga—something I do not hope to experience in an electoral sense. Taranaki paved its way, thus leaving the current natural landscape features of the Wanganui River, the Te Ngaere wetlands and Tongariro was victorious. Ruapehu, according to this story, looks still with a great deal of affection to Taranaki. Pīhanga, in another story, was eventually won over by Tongariro and actually retained and passed on, in the words of the waiata very famous in this part of Aotearoa around what we call in English the volcanic plateau, broadly speaking, o Te Mānia Roa,
E hū rā i Tongariro
Ka mahana i taku kiri
Nā Rangi mai anō i mārena
Ko Pīhanga te wahine
Ai pua ai hau, ai marangai
Kōkiri e
[Bubbling up at Tongariro
To warm my body.
It was our father the Sky who married
Pihanga as his wife
Making the rain, the winds and the western storms.
Go forth, my love.]
I sing with a somewhat sketchy memory from my time at St Stephen’s the final verse of that waiata because kōkiri means “charge forward”, and that’s the challenge as we stand shoulder to shoulder with Ngāti Rangi and their whanaunga, that whilst we as Māori have had a proud history of protest, of resistance, we’ve also learnt to cope with the politics of compromise. This most certainly, as Mr Tirikatene has said, was a compromise. It’s a compromise that reflects the cultural, political, and economic reality that besets those of us who do still support the Treaty of Waitangi settlement process.
I think all New Zealanders should doff their caps. Part of the whenua was gifted to Ngāti Rangi and then as part of the compromise it was gifted back to Aotearoa. We’ve seen this gesture on numerous occasions, but despite frequently being written about in Government reports, it is very infrequently spoken about on talkback radio. This, in many respects, is the essence of how this House helps enact this legislation after the various negotiations, select committee process, voluminous accounts of departmental reports—that it’s an affirmation of mana whenua, it’s an affirmation of indigenous identity, and it’s an affirmation of spirit.
So our party, we most certainly support the passage of this legislation. It ought to be something that enjoys a bipartisan spirit, a spirit of collaboration and companionship. I know that you’re all very, very industrious Catholics, so with that spirit of collaboration, pray for my tribe Ngāpuhi. Thank you very much.
MATT KING (National—Northland): Tēnā koutou katoa Ngāti Rangi, nau mai haere mai ki Te Whare Pāremata mō tana pire, [Greetings to you all Ngāti Rangi, welcome to Parliament House for this bill,] the Ngāti Rangi Claims Settlement Bill.
This is my first Treaty settlement speech. I’m new to the Māori Affairs Committee and I asked my colleague, the good-looking blonde behind me, Harete Hipango, for an opening in Te Reo, and she gave me those lines. Then when I was in the select committee today, I asked Meka Whaitiri for some closing words—over there. I said, “Please give me some appropriate words because I want to show respect and I want to speak in Te Reo.” She’s from Labour and I said, “Please don’t let me look stupid, because I can do that quite well myself.”
What a great day for Ngāti Rangi—a great day and it’s been a long time coming. I’m really happy for the iwi; I really am. As I said before, this is my first speech on the Treaty settlement and I’m new to the Māori Affairs Committee. It’s a select committee like no other. It begins with a mihi, ends with a karakia, and in the middle we have a lot of laughs and we try and get a bit of work done. Our political differences are put to one side and we get on with it. My friend and colleague over there, Rino Tirikatene, is the chair of this committee, and you can’t help but like the man. He’s the only one in Parliament that I see eye to eye with, because we’re both 6 foot 5 inches tall. We’re the tallest in Parliament.
The Crown signed a deed of settlement with Ngāti Rangi, settling the historical Treaty of Waitangi claims in March 2018. I understand, and I know, that they gathered at an emotional deed signing ceremony at a marae in the Ruapehu district to mark the occasion. The settlement is significant and, more importantly, it includes a Crown apology and acknowledgment. It includes financial and commercial redress; cultural redress, including a statutory recognition of the Whangaehu—am I right?—River; and shared governance arrangements for this treasured awa.
I am told that the principle of cooperation is strong with Ngāti Rangi in their approach to their relationship with the Crown. This is significant and I live in eternal hope that, in my beloved Northland, Ngāpuhi may take a leaf out of the Ngāti Rangi playbook, agree on their leadership, and get around their negotiating table.
The historical claims of Ngāti Rangi are wide ranging. I’m pleased to note that the deed of settlement was formally recognised by the Crown back in August 2014, under the previous National Government. I acknowledge the current Government for seeing it through to the end—it’s complex and with many moving parts and overlapping claims.
I see, in the settlement, that Ngāti Rangi have invested some NZ Defence Force land in Waiōuru and then seven days later, it’s gifted back to the people of New Zealand.
So the Ngāti Rangi deed of settlement is the final settlement for all historical Treaty of Waitangi claims resulting from acts and omissions by the Crown prior to 21 September 1992. It includes the agreed historical account, which is important. It includes the acknowledgment, the apology, cultural, conservation, Crown mineral redress, a cultural fund, relationship redress, and financial and commercial redress. More importantly, it includes recognition of the traditional, historical, cultural, and spiritual associations of Ngāti Rangi with places and sites owned by the Crown, within their area of interest; agreement to protect and enhance conservation areas associated with these sites. The iwi will benefit from this settlement physically, spiritually, culturally, and economically. It will be available to members of Ngāti Rangi, wherever they may live.
Under the previous National Government, we had 56 agreements in principle and 58 deeds of settlement. This is a record that we are incredibly proud of. I encourage this Government to carry on and settle as many as they can. Settlements help iwi unlock economic potential and boost regional and provincial areas, making them more competitive in a productive economy. The sooner we settle the Treaty of Waitangi claims, the sooner iwi—and, indeed, all New Zealanders—will see the benefits that settlements bring to iwi, communities, regional New Zealand, and the country as a whole.
In closing: again, I would love it if Ngāti Rangi could see their way clear to pass on some of the valuable lessons that they have learnt to Ngāpuhi up north. In my beloved Northland, a relatively deprived but improving region, I welcome the long-overdue Treaty settlement, and sincerely hope that one day we can settle while I’m still their MP.
Nō reira e te iwi, kua tae mai he rangaiti kaupapa. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.
[Therefore, to the tribes, an important initiative has arrived. Greetings, greetings, greetings to you all.]
JAN LOGIE (Green): E Te Māngai o Te Whare, tēnā koe. Nei rā taku mihi aroha e ngā uri o Ngāti Rangi i roto i tēnei Whare, tēnei te mihi mahana ki a koutou katoa, kia ora.
[This is my loving greeting to the descandants of Ngāti Rangi in this House, this is a warm greeting to you all, welcome.]
It’s my great privilege to stand on behalf of the Green Party and acknowledge your achievement in this settlement, and the significance of this third reading today. I acknowledge that this has been 29 years of work to get to this point. While we call this the Ngāti Rangi Claims Settlement Bill, it may be better named as the “Ngāti Rangi Legacy and Act of Generosity Bill”. I want to acknowledge all of you for your perseverance, your resilience, and what you have given up for this day, and all of the 179 years of the Crown’s treachery and mistreatment and theft from you as a people.
I do just want to acknowledge how easy it is to stand in this House and read papers, and how difficult it is for me, as Pākehā, to understand the depth of pain that must be held by Māori, and how much has been taken. In reading your history, I feel that in terms of the signing of Te Tiriti o Waitangi—and, again, acknowledging the difference between the Treaty of Waitangi and Te Tiriti—that was an act that was so astute in terms of a vision of managing those colonists who were running rampant, and the sense of that being founded on the belief of the integrity of the Crown that it would match your integrity, and how we stand in this House speaking as the Crown, and the importance of acknowledging the fact that there was no integrity on the Crown’s side.
Clearly, the actions that followed showed an intent from the Crown to steal and an undermining and a lack of recognition of your tino rangatiratanga, and the fact that the Crown was coming on to your land and that they were coming into a formed society with rules and laws and a deep, rich culture that we could have all learnt so much from, and that in that signing, while it committed to a partnership, it also guaranteed peace and justice for all, and for the Crown to have honourable kāwanatanga while recognising your tino rangatiratanga. I see that that sense of what that meant for Ngāti Rangi was in the fact that following that signing, rangatira sold land for the establishment of the township and the whare for the European arrivals that they were expecting and welcomed settlers. In that, just that small thing for me, I see the potential of what we all could have had as a country, of respect and thriving mutual benefit if the Crown had not undermined that, and had not stolen and lied, which we saw for the next few decades where Ngāti Rangi had to negotiate that continual shifting of the sands from the Crown, and that the decisions of rangatira to align with the Crown during the wars as a strategy in the context of those shifting sands, to be able to try and maintain the lands and the mana of the people. Yet, then, even that is a strategy the Crown, again, undermined by labelling upriver Whanganui Māori as the enemy, after you did whatever you could to negotiate for your people, and it kept going.
I’m looking up at you now and feeling bad for repeating all of this, because I know that Ngāti Rangi people and descendants are carrying this reality every day, and the consequences of that, of losing the people to urban cities—the children—losing the language, losing your culture, losing your society, and losing your laws, the taking of the lands and how they were polluted and destroyed, and that the spirit of that place was desecrated on so many levels. As a country, we are still dealing with the consequences of that now, as we all express our concern about the health of our waterways.
I want to thank you in this settlement, for the fact that you acknowledge the spirit of the awa and you have given us a vehicle to restore that for all of us. That is a gift in itself from Te Ao Māori to this country. I want to acknowledge you for that, and thank you for it.
And also I will say it’s been acknowledged where Ngāti Rangi—that Waiōuru and parts of the base have returned and you, in turn, gifted it back and from a Greens perspective and our position on non-violence we may have wished you’d kept it. But we hear from my colleagues in the House that there’s general support and recognition of your generosity in returning it. I may not personally share that view but I acknowledge that that is the general view.
Again, within this I also want to acknowledge the relationships that are being set up in this settlement process with the Department of Conservation, the Ministry of Education, the Ministry for the Environment, the Ministry of Social Development, Oranga Tamariki, the Defence Force, Te Puni Kōkiri, and the justice sector relationship. I want to acknowledge that those—I suspect the reason for choosing those agencies didn’t come out of nowhere, that it came out of a sense of a not having a partnership with those agencies and for you to clearly put down the mantle that for that future for your hapū and your iwi—that to restore the relationship that that needed, that relationships needed to change with those agencies. It was encouraging for me to hear from the Minister in his first reading speech the commitment from the Crown to ensure that this time we would do our part. And I know that that is on every member and party in this House now and into future generations to ensure that we hold to our agreement in this settlement and that absolute commitment to partnership and recognising your tino rangatiratanga.
Finally, I do want to just acknowledge that, for all of those New Zealanders who listen to talkback radio, the financial settlement in this is only $17 million and this is one of the areas of the country of the most fertile land, booming tourism, innovative resilience, resilient people—that this is hard-fought for and you should be so proud of yourselves but still, I think, sitting with us there should be a sense of shame. Kia ora koutou katoa.
HARETE HIPANGO (National—Whanganui): Ka huri ki ngā manuwhiri i tēnei Whare.
[May I turn to acknowledge our gathered guests here in this Whare.]
Ki ōku whanaunga, ki ngā uri o Ngāti Rangi, i huihui mai nei i tēnei wā i roto i te korowai o tēnei Whare Mīere. Nau mai, haere mai. Mauria mai mō te pānuitanga tuatoru o koutou pire, Te Rukutia Te Mana. Mauria mai, maranga ake, tū tonu mai, ake, ake.
[To my relatives, the descendants of Ngāti Rangi, who have gathered here at this time under the mantle of this Beehive. Welcome, welcome. You have come for the third reading of your bill, Rukutia Te Mana. Bring here, stand up, stand strong, for ever more.]
To my relations, descendants, Ngāti Rangi—today embraced by the cloak of this Parliament for the third reading and the final reading of your bill—take up, rise up, stand up.
Tū tonu, ake, ake.
[Stand up. Stand tall, for ever after.]
For today, I remember their smiles. For today, a world never more than ever of unfulfilled potential and hope, to dance in the glow and the light of a soon to be fulfilled potential and hope, no longer toying with the hope or an aspiration—a whole new world soon to be realised with the Ngāti Rangi Claims Settlement Bill, fulfilling and realising the hopes, aspirations, and potential of Ngāti Rangi. For today, I remember their smiles. For today, I celebrate here with you all.
Again, I turn to look to my whanaunga and I reflect on those who have gone—their smiles, their presence, and through each of you, I see them. They remain with us through you; a fond recollection of their hope for our future. A sad recollection of their collective intergenerational struggles yet hope filled for our future, for the fond recollection of their vision, dedication, passion, and aroha. And all in this moment, I remember their smiles. Uncle Matiu Mareikura, whom I as a young woman looked to with the fondest regard, the greatest admiration, respect, and esteem—an uncle who influenced so much of how I aspired to be. His constant and lifetime support, Auntie Lei, Auntie Joan and Uncle Richie Akapita, Uncle Rangitihi Rangiwata John Tahupārae, former kaumātua of this Parliament, Auntie Uta Murphy Peehi.
These are only a few of the many more who persevered, endured, and maintained, mana tangata, mana whenua, mana motuhake,
[the authority of people, the authority of land, the authority of independence.]
for we today and tomorrow into the future to fulfil and realise. For today, Ngāti Rangi, we each pause in a moment to reflect on them, for today to seize the moment, to seize the day, to seize the potential and to harness and realise that potential, with eyes real to that potential, with eyes real to the gift of this presence to tomorrow, to fulfil that potential and the future that their smiles, their passion, their dedication had in mind and vision for us today and tomorrow.
For today, we remember their smiles. For today, is the time we celebrate and leading to this moment now, the passage of Ngāti Rangi’s claims settlement bill, this third reading, soon into law.
Madam Speaker, please indulge me a brief explanation of the tikanga, the process, for the benefit and acknowledgment to our manuhiri. Today, with the third reading of this bill, it is the final debate. Today is a moment in history, a moment that has taken too long to be here, yet here we are in this moment, and therefore we celebrate. I reflect on the passage and the pathway as to how we have arrived here today. May 1840, Ngāti Rangi committed to a relationship with the Crown in signing the Treaty of Waitangi. Ngāti Rangi has endured adversity, atrocity, anguish, and survived in this relationship with the Crown—178 years. In 1990, Ngāti Rangi’s claim with the Waitangi Tribunal was filed. In 2015, your negotiations commenced. Over a 28-year period an agreement in principle signed 15 March 2017. Rukutia Te Mana—your deed of settlement signed 10 March 2018. The first reading of this bill in the House on 9 August 2018, the second reading on 14 March 2019, for both of which I had the distinct privilege to address the House and Ngāti Rangi supported by our whanaunga of Whanganui.
Today, at the third reading, today, not at lightning speed but with care-filled, considered reasoning and resonance of those and that from times before, seeking and reaching to fulfil the potential of what today’s, tomorrow’s, future is to be.
At the first reading on 1 August, I was early into my term as the elected member of Parliament for Whanganui, and I reflected then on Ngāti Rangi’s journey—the ebbs, the flows, the currents, and the woes of successive generations of Ngāti Rangi. I reflected on what the bill is about—Part 1—and I spoke to clause 8, a summary of the historical account; clauses 9 and 10, the Crown’s apology to Ngāti Rangi, and its acknowledgments, particularly, of tino rangatiratanga being well overdue. The apology: “deeply sorry that its acts and omissions have caused” the significant losses—significant losses—and the Crown’s “failure to recognise, acknowledge, and thank Ngāti Rangi” not only for the endurance and perseverance but also for the generosity and the grace. I hearken to the words of our Minister of Defence, the Hon Ron Mark, in acknowledging Ngāti Rangi with the gifting back of the military lands, Ngāti Rangi lands, and those lands on which many of our own have been nurtured and looked after during their years of training and service in the military.
Time has quickly passed by. I had intended to speak further, but Ngāti Rangi, this is your bill. You know you toiled and you persevered—the sweat, the blood, the tears. I wish, importantly, to acknowledge whanaunga. I look at you, cousin Che, with dignity and mana, entrusted and cloaked you with the mantle of servitude and leadership which you have ever so responsibly and will continue to lead. To your mother, Auntie Vera; father, Uncle Willie; your siblings—you’re flanked by your whanaunga, your loved ones, all of us here in support. To our many aunties, uncles, cousins, rangatahi mokopuna, looking into the future.
It’s important and significant also to acknowledge those of the Crown who’ve given service. But in the brief time I have left, to the legal advisers, advocates. Paranihia Walker, you were flanked and supported by your man Gerrard Albert. You’ve walked this journey together. To your colleague Nathan Milner. Again, to my cousins, your names imprinted at section 12 of the Act soon to be: Shar, Raana, Darnielle, Brendon, Soraya, Keria—all entrusted trustees. And negotiators Che, Toni Waho, Carl Wilson, Kemp Dryden, Cassandra Reid—I acknowledge, I applaud, you.
Ngāti Rangi, for today I remember the smiles of those who have gone before. I remember now your smiles, and for today this is a future to infinity and beyond. I celebrate with you with a smile, and we will, in time, hold fast to the smiles of those who have gone before and those of us here to come. It is with joy in my heart and a smile etched into my memory that I commend this bill, the Ngāti Rangi Claims Settlement Bill, to the House. Tēnā tātou katoa.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): The next call is a split call.
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister for Māori Development): Ngāti Rangi, tēnā koutou. E kore e warewaretia rātou kua wehe ki tua o te ārai, kei te heke tonu ngā roimata i taua maharatanga. Ki a koutou katoa ngā mahuetanga iho hei whakakanohi mai i a rātou katoa. Tēnei e whakatata atu ki a koutou i tēnei wā me taku rourou iti.
[Greetings to you, Ngāti Rangi. Those who have passed beyond the veil will never be forgotten, the tears are still flowing in response to that memory. To all of you who remain with us to represent them. I approach you at this time with my small contribution.]
I just wanted to express the privilege that I have to make a short contribution in the third reading and the final passage of this bill today. Much has been said in the House about the substance of the settlement, the enduring legacy that was created by the many who have walked the path for Ngāti Rangi in holding the torch of wanting to reach some kind of settlement. But you know what? The settlement process is imperfect in and of itself. Many tribes know that and have still come here today with the intent to do something more, from an imperfect process. Hurt has been caused, and when we think about the conversations—the many conversations—preceding this point by claimant groups, by whānau, who have had to confront “What would the opportunity be to get to settlement?” and “What would we have to do to come together to realise the potential of a settlement?”, I am under no shadow of a doubt that that has caused you time to reflect on what the aspiration is for your people. I say this to you: you have not needed a settlement to hold on to the very best things of what Ngāti Rangi represents, and we recognise that in this House.
Many Treaty settlements hold the aspiration of an enduring partnership, but the challenge for us here in this House, for our time that we serve the good people of New Zealand, is to ensure that we commit to making a settlement on paper real in active ways. When I look at this settlement, I see imprinted all over it the desire to reflect a relationship between Ngāti Rangi and its lands, its relationship to its waters, its relationship to all things that live within its domain. Then there are some subtle but useful insights that we can gain as parliamentarians about the nature of that relationship: the conversation around kawa ora and mauri ora. It wouldn’t be, unless you were actively reflecting what that means in practice as kaitiaki within your rohe, that you could gain the true meaning of the intent of this settlement. But the relationship, firstly, of the people themselves to each other becomes fundamental, and I am encouraged by the leadership demonstrated within Ngāti Rangi, notwithstanding a settlement, to gain some support and harness the relationships that they have in their rohe around tourism, around the maunga, to ensure that none of that would be lost to them, and they are engaging positively in this space and I applaud them. They have not needed a settlement to achieve that.
But what the settlement does enable is a bigger conversation with the Crown about intent. When I think about the relationship to the maunga, the crater, and what is happening there from a civil defence point of view, and the long-term role that Ngāti Rangi must play in enduring solutions to the bigger challenges that we face as a nation in terms of climate change, in terms of protecting our natural heritage and estate—that is imprinted all throughout the settlement in very subtle but substantial ways, and I want to just acknowledge that.
The second thing I want to acknowledge is Minister Finlayson, who started this process, because it was his intent to make sure that Ngāti Rangi got to the table and resolved for themselves a way forward that we’re having this conversation, and I certainly applaud Minister Little for picking up that challenge and furthering the aspiration, within a very short time frame, to not only reach an agreement in principle but a deed of settlement where there was a clear vision that could be articulated in the settlement we have here today.
I also want to recognise the negotiating team. You know, by median age, I think they felt the full weight of the generations who they follow to be able to get to settlement point, but this is a fine representation of what those kaumātua had envisioned for the next generation, that they had the tenacity and the courage to pick up all the things that have been gifted from many generations to this time to be able to say, “We can move forward, we do have a vision, we can take our people and certainly the next generation to another place.”
I want to also acknowledge the subtleties of some of the aspects in relation to natural resources. Because I’m doing some work on the Wai 262, I see some very key relationship elements that will no doubt put you in good stead going forward.
Heoi anō, he iti tāku hei tāpiri atu ki te kete kōrero e wānangahia e Ngāti Rangi, kia waihotia mā tātou he whakaaetia, ā, ki te tautoko ā rātou nei hiahia, ā rātou nei wawata mō te āpōpō. Nō reira tēnā koutou Ngāti Rangi, tēnā tātou katoa.
[However, I only have a little to add to the collective discussion that has been held by Ngāti Rangi, to leave us free to assent, and to support their desire, their dreams for the tomorrow. Therefore, greetings Ngāti Rangi, greetings to us all.]
I support the bill.
IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Tēnā koutou katoa, Ngāti Rangi—I’ve had a lot of lessons from the other side of the House on that. Nau mai, haere mai ki Te Whare Pāremata. I want to welcome you all here. Such a massive turnout of you—there can’t be anyone left up on the central plateau! I think it’s an exciting day, and the thing I think is so exciting about this is it’s an opportunity to move forward from wherever we’ve been. I think it’s pretty special.
I want to acknowledge a few people, because I’ve only got a very short time. I want to particularly acknowledge the Treaty negotiators. I think you’re extraordinarily brave, because when you think about it, you’re taking 180-odd years and you’re moving it forward and hoping you’ve made the right decision for the rest of time, I guess, in effect. I think that’s a very brave place to be, and I congratulate you all on the work you’ve done on getting to that point and where it’ll get to in the future. I think it’s amazing.
Ngāti Rangi always reminds me, I guess, when you go there—and Rino Tirikatene sort of referred to the majestic splendour of the place, and it sort of is like that on a nice day. It’s not always a nice day, so you were lucky you turned up there on a nice day. But it is an amazing place, and you think of the mountain, you think of the Whangaehu River, and you think of that amazing soil. People don’t realise what amazing volcanic soil that is, with the potential to feed so many people, and it all resides in your part of New Zealand—pretty special, I think.
I want to also acknowledge the mayors. I think it’s a tribute to Ngāti Rangi, the fact that there are so many people here from the regional council. You’ve got two mayors here: Don Cameron, who is a great representative of the Ruapehu district, but I notice Andy Watson’s tagged along, and I think he must be trying to drag a bit of the pūtea south—watch it, Don! But I think that’s a tribute to Ngāti Rangi, the fact that you’ve got such strong support, and I think the contribution that you make to your community and to the broader community in the Ruapehu district and the northern Rangitīkei is pretty special.
I think, to follow on from Nanaia Mahuta and the comments she made about the fact that you’ve got on with the job irrespective of the Treaty settlement, you’ve gone on and done a whole lot of things in your area to improve the lot of your young people and of the future generations. I think that’s also very special, and I congratulate you on that. The things like the transformation project, which I think started about six or seven years ago, have made great progress. You’ve got partnerships with Ruapehu College, which at times in the past has struggled as a school. You’ve made that school into something special, and I think it will go on and on from there. You’ve got Ruapehu Alpine Lifts, who are investing heavily in the area, and you’re a great support to them. They’ll create a whole lot of opportunity for you, I think, in the future, so it’s pretty special.
There are a lot of things going on in your area that are particular to you, and you have played such an important part in all of those. The Tongariro National Park, for me, is quite an exciting opportunity in the future, and it’s going to be very interesting to see where that gets to as future negotiations take place. Also, I think the tourism opportunities in that area are immense as well, and we need to be careful how we manage those—and people have made mention of the Waiōuru army base and the opportunities that that creates as well. So I think it’s pretty special. Well done everybody—great effort.
I want to finally finish by acknowledging all those who have made this possible: Minister Finlayson, who played such a large role in the early days of this settlement process, and the many other settlements that he put through this Parliament; also Minister Little, who I think is following on as best he can, given the testing nature of some of these agreements, and they will eventuate as they go along. I also want to congratulate the Government team that puts such a lot of work into the back of these projects and these settlements, because it is an onerous job, and I think they do such a great job. I will finish by wishing you all a very safe trip home—and I’m sure you will tonight. Thank you.
Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): E Te Māngai o Te Whare, tēnā koe. E ngā mema o Te Whare nei, tēnā tātou katoa. It is indeed my honour to take a call on the third and final reading of this Ngāti Rangi Claims Settlement Bill. Can I please add my warm welcome.
E ngā mana, Ngāti Rangi mana, Ngāti Rangi reo, Ngāti Rangi tāngata, kua tae mai i runga i te kaupapa whakahirahira, anei ngā mihi ki a koutou katoa. Ōku rau rangatira mā, e kui mā, e koro mā, tēnā koutou, nau mai, tēnā koutou, nau mai, tēnā koutou katoa.
[To the authorities, Ngāti Rangi authorities, Ngāti Rangi voices, Ngāti Rangi people, who have come here because of this important occasion, these greetings are to you. My esteemed leaders and elders, greetings, welcome, greetings, welcome, greetings to you all.]
I’ve heard the previous speakers on this bill, and I’d like to join in in supporting this third and final reading, and can I acknowledge those that have travelled near and far to pay witness to this significant event. I want to acknowledge, as is our custom, the recent passing of people from my electorate of Ikaroa-Rāwhiti. I want to particularly acknowledge Ken Eruera, a renowned sports broadcaster from the iwi radio of Ngāti Porou. I want to acknowledge Ruruhira Tawhai, a woman that worked very hard in Kahungunu around sexual violence and women’s refuge; and, of course, our centenarian Nanny Noa Nicholson of Muaūpoko Rangitane, who recently passed.
E ngā mate huhua ko waenganui i a tātou, haere, haere, haere atu rā.
[To the many deceased amongst us, go, go, go well.]
Like I said, I join in the chorus of the House in supporting this third and final reading. Can I too acknowledge the hard work of the Ngāti Rangi Trust, their negotiators, the Ministers, and the officials that have brought this bill to the House.
It’s often an important occasion on the third reading to try and find a hononga with Ngāti Rangi, and so I’m going to share a story. When I was very young, many, many years ago, my uncle Gaga Robin and his wife at the time, Dana Robin, were members of the Waipatu Catholic Māori Club, and I want to mihi to the Mareikura whānau that are up in the public gallery—I saw some of them come through. But even though I was a staunch Anglican—very staunch to this day—I travelled with my uncle and became a member of Waipatu’s junior kapa haka, and that’s where, in all honesty and humility, I came across the Mareikura whānau, who descend from the people who are in the gallery here to us today. Of course, I want to reflect on the recent passing of Porky Mareikura this year, another descendant of the famous Mareikura whānau.
So, something about Kahungunu: that we were able to attract whānau from around the motu who married beautiful Kahungunu women or beautiful Kahungunu men and forgot to go home. But we are honoured as an iwi of Kahungunu to have our Ngāti Rangi whānau and the descendants who continue to contribute to both our iwi, and so I want to acknowledge the hononga between the Mareikura whānau and the Ngāti Kahungunu whānau o Heretaunga.
There was much talk in this House around, I guess, a comparison with what’s been achieved in Ngāti Rangi and what they hope to achieve in Ngāpuhi. Can I say that the solution is very simple: send in a woman to do the job—send in a woman to do the job. And I think I’ve got that woman. Her name is Noeline Taurua—that’s right. Send a woman in to do the job, because if someone can turn around the Silver Ferns in 11 months, then surely Noeline has something to add. But in all humility, in celebrating this momentous occasion, can we say congratulations to the Silver Ferns. Congratulations to the Black Caps. It is, in all honesty, a time to celebrate, as this reading is for the people.
I can’t help but think of when the Minister, the Hon Andrew Little, shared some of the history of the Ngāti Rangi people, particularly at the time when we had an influx of settlers to our country. The demand for land was high. Calls were made on the Crown to send in troops to try and obtain land. I can never ever think about the decision the tīpunas of these people had to endure about whether to join the colonial forces or not. Let’s just think about that: join the colonial forces or not. So the decision was made, as we heard the Minister say, with a heavy heart, and there have been many occasions in this country where iwi have laid down their lives. They have served this nation, and yet, like he said, the reciprocation wasn’t there.
So I just wanted to reinforce what Minister Little said in acknowledging the sacrifice, the hard decision, Ngāti Rangi made to ensure the ongoing survival of their people. I want to acknowledge it wasn’t done easily. I want to acknowledge the sacrifice that they made. In some small way, in the third and final reading of this bill, we’re acknowledging that sacrifice.
We are in the 179th year since the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840. I do hope that we do not take 179 years to enable the Treaty—the Tiriti o Waitangi—to actually contribute to the fabric of this country. Just last week, we had this Parliament full of Youth MPs, and I want to acknowledge my Youth MP, Rebekah Raihānia, who talked about the importance of including Treaty clauses, kaupapa Māori, and mātauranga Māori in legislation passed in this House. If we as a nation are going to benefit, we must give due consideration to that possibility.
So I am pleased, like I said, to stand in support and to acknowledge the people of Ngāti Rangi. I want to acknowledge particularly our rangatahi that joined us here in the gallery. We’ll be long gone, but your people’s legacy will be just beginning, and I wanted to acknowledge our rangatahi that are here today. I want to acknowledge our kaumātua and our kuia for your guidance, your wisdom, and your patience. This is a day to celebrate. It is a day to move, to foresee the vision that I know many of our tīpuna that aren’t here today have for your people, for our people, and for the nation as a whole. I’m proud to stand in support of the third and final reading of the Ngāti Rangi Claims Settlement Bill. I commend it to the House.
Hon ALFRED NGARO (National): Tēnā koe Ruapehu te maunga, tēnā koe Ngā Turi o Murimotu te maunga tapu, tēnā koe Whangaehu te awa, tēnā koutou Ngāti Rangi te iwi.
Ko au tangata nō Moana Nui a Kiwa. Ko au te tangata, te tuakana no Auau Enua, ko Rarotonga ki maunga ki Mangaia, ko Aitutaki.
[Greetings to the ancestral mountain Ruapehu, greetings to the sacred mountain Ngā Turi o Murimotu, greetings to the ancestral river Whangaehu, greetings to the tribe of Ngāti Rangi.
I am a person from the Pacific Ocean. I am the elder kinsman from Auau Enua, Rarotonga to the mountain to Mangaia, to Aitutaki.]
It’s an honour to be here—to be the last speaker for Kahurangi, for National, and it’s an honour to be able to acknowledge this day. When I was sitting here with my good friend and colleague and we were chatting away about what it means to be here on these Treaty addresses and to be here on the third reading, we said to ourselves—because we’ve been here for eight years—that on a day like this is the best of days to be a member of Parliament. The reason is because it’s the opportunity where justice once denied can be delivered. So we sit here today, honoured to be members of Parliament and that today Ngāti Rangi can see its redress fulfilled, and I want to acknowledge all of those that have been a part of that.
I don’t want to cover all the other issues, because they’ve already been covered many times over in regards to the apology which has been declared and in regards to the financial and commercial redress of $70 million as a way of going into the pūtea to go some way to addressing the issues and providing financial support for the future. Already addressed are the cultural redress and the kaitiaki roles that Ngāti Rangi will play and so forth.
So what is it that I believe that I can bring to this time? My grandmother was part Jewish and part Cook Island Māori. Her name was Rite Goldstein Tepaki. As she raised me, she would often tell me these stories, and I would sit as a little boy when our people were arguing over the land back home, anywhere in Aitutaki, and the villages of Arutanga and Tautu. She would say things like, kāre kotou ‘ē riri tikāi ‘i te tangata no te ‘enua—don’t get so angry about the land—no Te Atua te ‘enua—because the land, in the end, belongs to God.
The whole word of kaitiaki, that sometimes we forget in this place and in this country, is to be a guardian of that which does not belong to us. We must remember that constantly. The land, in the end—the whenua—does not belong to us. Our role of responsibility is to guard it, is to benefit from it, and is to allow the prosperity of all that it has to offer for our people. That’s what it offers.
Today is a day in which, again, the role Ngāti Rangi can take up that role as the kaitiaki, and that is the role of responsibility. We hope that in this end, it will be able to fulfil its desires and its dreams as well.
My grandmother always used to say to me, “Always remember, when you want to find the answer, go back to the beginning.” So, as I thought about it—and I want to acknowledge, as Meka was talking about, it’s 179 years since 1840—I began to research and look into what was happening at that time. There was a missionary by the name of Henry Williams, who was, at that time, given the role to help to translate. In fact, many missionaries at that time—Pākehā missionaries—were part of that role.
In that, I read in some of his diary readings, he sought divine guidance from God above, and what he was given was from Ephesians 2: 14-18, which simply says this: in order for both Jew and gentile to come together, to break down the wall is but by the blood of Christ. In other words, there’s a covenant relationship that has been forged.
Kawenata is a covenant relationship. The Treaty of Waitangi was understood as a kawenata—as a covenant relationship. Our hope is that today that covenant will be restored, and all the elements of it are more than just commercial, are more than just cultural, and are more than just, in a sense, financial; they are truly a covenant that’s seeped in blood—the toto that is important to ensure that.
So today, when this agreement is being made, when this covenant is being restored, we hope that that’s what it would be. I finish with the words of Kāwiti, when, at Ruapekapeka, at the fight, one of the final battles that was there—unfortunately, in the North. When he was there, he held up this axe, this adze that was there. In some cases, it could be translated or paraphrased where some would have said, “Why are you bringing a knife to a gun fight”—why are you bringing this axe to this gun fight, where there were canons and muskets all around. He said, “This is not for us to fight with; this is for us to remember what we’re fighting for.”—to remember what we’re fighting for.
This agreement here should remind us: what are we fighting for? We’re fighting for a covenant relationship—more than just between Māori and the Crown but also too for our future. I want to acknowledge Ngāti Rangi, because, in a spirit of generosity, it has gone again even further. The gifting of whenua back to Aotearoa is about the covenant to remind New Zealand and to remind us that is what we are fighting for; that is the reason why we’re here today.
In the ancient words of our people, I finish with this pe’e:
Seki e lua seki e lue-e-e no te aʻa te mea na i kite ei au?
Seki e lua seki e lue-e-e no te aʻa te mea na i kite ei au?
No te manu a ivi a mau-u-u.
No te manu a ivi a mau-u-u.
This was once a man called Ezekiel, who asked to God—what he saw before him was a valley of dry bones. And the Spirit of God said to him, “Speak life into those bones.”, and he simply said this: “But who am I? I am simply but a man.” Then the Spirit of God said to him, “Then allow me to breathe through you, so that life will come into those bones. Tihei mauri ora is the life that will be breathed through this covenant, so that what once was dry bones in a valley of despair will now become a place of life, of mana, of kaha, of our people. Kia manuia [Inaudible].
ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): Kororia hariruia ki a Ihowā ngā mano tuauriuri, whāioio, kī tonu te rangi me te whenua i te nui o tōna kororia, nō reira mā te māngai hei tautoko mai, āianei, ake nei, āe.
E tika ana kia huri atu ki a rātou mā i nā mai nā puta noa i ngā moutere nei. Te tokomaha o rātou kua wehe atu ki tua o te ārai, ki te kāinga tūturu mō tātou, mō te tangata. Tae atu ki a rātou i tuku atu ngā kerēme tuatahi mō Ngāti Rangi. Arā, Matiu Māreikura, Whiti Akapita, Richard Pīrere, Noel Akapita, Colin Richards, Pita Reo, Miller Waho, Pop Wīari, tae atu ana hoki ki te kaumātua tuatahi o Te Whare e tū ake nei a Rangiwaiata Rangitihi Tahu Paerau. Nō reira koutou mā, ka huri atu ā mātou whakaaro ki a koutou. E oke, e moe, e moe, ā, kāti mō tēnā.
Nō reira ki a tātou ngā kanohi ora, e tika ana kia tuku mihi atu ki a rātou ngā whānau, ngā hapū katoa o Ngāti Rangi kua tae mai ki Te Whare nei. Nō reira koutou mā, aku whanaunga, tēnei au i whakapiri taku mihi ki te mihi o aku tuahine, o Jo Hayes, o Harete Hipango ki a koutou. Anei mātou, i mahia ngā mahi i roto i Te Whare nei, hei painga mō tātou, mō ā tātou whānau katoa. Nō reira koutou mā, aku whanaunga, tēnei te mihi ake ki a koutou. Nau mai, haere mai, whakatau mai rā.
I te wā, kua rongo kē a mātou ngā kōrero puta noa i Te Whare nei, kua rongo ngā kōrero o aku hoa i runga i Te Komiti Whiriwhiri i ngā Take Māori, e pā ana ki ā mātou haerenga ki Ōhākune. Kua kōrero ngā kōrero. He rā ātaahua i te wā i haere mātou ki reira. Kei reira te kitenga o te ātaahuatanga o Koro Ruapehu, hei, kāore e kore hei ārahi i a mātou i roto i ā mātou mahi o te komiti. Nō reira, e tika ana kia tū ake ki te tautoko aua kōrero.
[Glory and halleluiah to Jehovah, Lord of hosts, Lord of ancient and infinite times, heaven and earth is filled with His glory. And so, the Mouthpiece of lords provides support now and forever, yes.
It is right to turn to those who have come from these islands. Most of them have passed beyond the veil, to the original place from whence we, the people, originated. Including those who lodged the first claims for Ngāti Rangi. Namely, Matiu Māreikura, Whiti Akapita, Richard Pīrere, Noel Akapita, Colin Richards, Pita Reo, Miller Waho, Pop Wīari, and including the first elder of the House standing here Rangiwaiata Rangitihi Tahu Parae. Therefore to you all, our thoughts are with you. Return, rest, rest, and that is complete.
Therefore, to you the living people, it is right to greet those families and all the subtribes of Ngāti Rangi who have come to this House. Therefore to you, my kinsmen, I append my acknowledgments to you to those of my sisters, Jo Hayes and Harete Hipango. This is us, doing our work in this House, for all of our benefit, for all of our families. Therefore to you, my kinsmen, I greet you. Welcome, welcome, thrice welcome.
At the time, we had already heard the speeches throughout this House, had heard what had been said by my colleagues on the Māori Affairs Committee, about our trip to Ōhākune. The speeches had been made. It was a beautiful day when we went there. There was Grandfather Ruapehu visible in all his glory, no doubt to lead us in our committee work. Therefore, it is apt to stand and support what was said.]
It’s a real pleasure for me to speak in this final debate on the settlement of the Ngāti Rangi claim. As I said, we had a magnificent day in Ōhākune for the select committee hearings, and we heard so many valuable contributions from everyone that participated in that process. I always like to talk about the future, but, before I do that, I want to touch on an aspect of the bill: the apology, the historical account, in particular. We’ve heard from many other members in the House today about the harrowing stories that are recorded in the historical account, and the bill records only a brief history. The real history—the full korero—is in the deed of settlement, and I encourage all members to read at least one of those in their time as members of this House, because all we get is part of the story, an overview.
We heard it eloquently, I thought, talked about by Jan Logie in her contribution, and I want I want to pick up on something that she actually said in her contribution: how can we accept what has happened to us with such grace and dignity? I think about a couple of things. On the day that the deed was signed, my cousin Che Wilson, who was the lead negotiator for Ngāti Rangi, gave a korero about two young people in the future by the name of Mere and Tane. He talked about the hopes and dreams of the future, and what their lives as Ngāti Rangi would be like. So despite all of the things that have happened to Ngāti Rangi, they show the strength and resolve, and there’s no better way that I can express that strength and resolve than to quote a few lines from a waiata:
E te iwi Māori, puritia kia mau, utaina, ki runga i te waka o te ora, ka hoe ai ki te tauranga
[To the Māori people, hold fast to it, load it, onto the canoe of life, and paddle to the anchorage.]
We might hear that song later on, I’m hoping. But what it shows is that despite all of these things, there is hope for the future, and what was said on the marae at Raketapauma expressed that no better than Che Wilson’s description of what that might be for Ngāti Rangi in the future. I want to acknowledge the strength and the tenacity that the negotiation team had for permeating the values and everything about Ngāti Rangi into that deed of settlement. There are your stock-standard deeds of settlement. They’re the ones, because the Government has its framework—and we heard from the Hon Nanaia Mahuta about the flaws within that. It’s a difficult thing to be able to make that deed of settlement their very own. But this deed of settlement; there’s no doubt about it that it is for Ngāti Rangi within the framework that was available for them, through this flawed process that the Hon Nanaia Mahuta talked about.
So I think it’s really important that in expressing everything that’s wrong with the world, we also knowledge that huge generosity of, actually, not letting that be a barrier to future development. That’s where the value—the real, true value—of this settlement will be for Ngāti Rangi, not because of the commercial redress, or not because of those things, but because it means that Ngāti Rangi has said—and, by the way, 99.51 percent of those who participated in the mandating process supported that Ngāti Rangi settlement. That’s so close to being unanimous, it’s way more than emphatic. But going back to what I was going to say, it talks about what the future will be for Ngāti Rangi: an exciting one.
We’ve already heard also, and I absolutely support, that the settlement process has never been the driver for their own development. We are quite capable of doing that for ourselves. But this is a tool that will help for the future. There’s no doubt about that, and, as my whanaunga Jo Hayes said, this settlement is about the future for the tamariki and the mokopuna. So Madam Speaker, I’m about to run out of time to say everything that I really wanted to say. I support my colleague Meka Whaitiri’s thoughts about another part of me from up north, and, as someone who has also been a negotiator for a settlement, I can well understand how difficult that that really is.
Nō reira, kāore e roa taku tū i roto i tēnei Whare, oti noa e tika ana kia tuku mihi atu anō ki a koutou katoa kua tae mai mō te pānuitanga o, mutunga mō tēnei pire, ko te tūmanako kia pai ai ā mātou haerenga ki mua i a tātou. Nō reira tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.
[Therefore, my address in this House will not take long, however it is right to again acknowledge all of you who have come for the reading, the final reading of this bill, and I hope that our journeys forward will be good. Therefore greetings, greetings to all.]
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Members, before I put the question, I’d just like to advise you that permission has been granted for a waiata, and the House has high expectations in that regard and I’m sure we won’t be disappointed.
Bill read a third time.
Waiata
Bills
Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill
Third Reading
Debate resumed from 24 July.
PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I think when I began my contribution yesterday, I pretty much ended with “water is life”, so I’ll begin there. I said it because, for obvious reasons, it sustains us, and yet so many people have an issue with both the quantity and the quality of the water that they’re able to access. By some accounts, the water crisis has touched virtually every continent, with some 844 million people around the world lacking access to clean drinking-water. I pick up on the point also made by my Green Party colleague the Hon Eugenie Sage, who talked about the importance or the need to safeguard the sources of our drinking water.
Never has the importance, I guess, of this water crisis been more clear to me than when I was recently in India. I was in a city that’s home to about 10 million people, where a very prominent Government thinktank has said that due to the water scarcity, the acute water shortage that they’re facing, they could completely run out of water by next year. That really brings it home, and I highlight this because it’s an issue that’s facing so many countries, and it brings home the point of the need for water management. It also brings home the point about needing to mitigate climate change, but that’s a completely different topic, one that was highlighted very well by our youth parliamentarians who were here just last week.
But in terms of water management, this is something the need for which we’ve seen in our own country—in Havelock North, more specifically, when the gastro bug affected over 5,000 people, resulting in about 45 hospitalisations and the death of about four people. This bill gives effect to some of the recommendations that have come out of the Government inquiry into the Havelock North drinking-water outbreak. There were two stages of that inquiry: the first stage, which identified the direct causes of the gastro outbreak that we saw a few years back, and stage two, which provided recommendations to reduce the likelihood of such an outbreak happening again.
In terms of this specific bill, the main change is about removing requirements for specific periods of consultation—so three years in advance notice, that is needed to be published in the Gazette prior to making any changes to the drinking-water standards. This just means that there would be an ability for these standards to progress much more quickly where appropriate and for action to be taken in a way that’s much quicker as well. It also then takes into recognition some of the new technologies that are available as well. Section 69P of the Act retains the existing obligation on the Minister to be satisfied, though, that there has been adequate consultation before issuing new or amended standards.
The provisions in the bill that we’re debating today are a mix of matters that were identified by the inquiry as requiring some urgent attention and some other minor amendments that were recommended by the ministry as well. I won’t go into some of the minor ones, because there are lots of amendments that are mainly technical in nature, but I guess at the heart of this bill is the fact that we all have the right to safe drinking-water and to public health. It’s a public health issue. This is a bill that will ensure that we have much better standards and that takes steps towards ensuring that such an outbreak doesn’t happen again, or limits the possibility of such an outbreak happening again.
I want to commend the Minister, the Health Committee members who were involved in this process, and all, actually, who were involved in the process, for getting us to where we are here today. I commend the bill to the House.
JAN TINETTI (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I probably will stand here for a short time, I think, this afternoon. I wasn’t on the select committee that considered this bill or did the work, but it’s one that I have taken quite a great interest in, because in this country, we have taken water for granted for so long. Growing up here, I had no qualms about the safety of our water. I believed that water was something that was a God-given right in our country, but then, in recent years, we’ve learnt that that’s not how it is in this country with our water supply and that water isn’t something that we can take for granted. The safety of our water is something that we need to consider quite carefully, and what we do around that safety to ensure its future and to ensure that our future generations have a safe water supply is something that we need to consider extremely carefully.
We’ve heard throughout this debate over the past two evenings that this really did stem from the Havelock North gastro outbreak. It was something that gave us a wake-up call in this country. We’ve heard from other speakers in this debate that elsewhere in the world, water safety has been an area that has been considered for those countries for quite some time, and yet here it is: it wasn’t until 2016 that we were given that wake-up call.
In this country—and actually, I believe, in any country, but particularly in this wonderful country of Aotearoa—we should expect and we deserve a safe drinking-water supply, and that’s exactly what this bill has done and is about. This bill builds on and strengthens and improves several features of the existing frameworks in this area. Like the speakers before me, I do want to say thank you very much for the hard and considered work of those members of the Health Committee. I want to say thank you to our Minister of Health, the Hon David Clark, who brought this bill to the House, and we see it going through in its final reading here this evening.
I’d like to point out to the previous speaker, my colleague Priyanca Radhakrishnan, that she’s kind of stolen some of my speech notes there, where I was going to point out the key features that really stood out to me in this particular bill. But I know I’ve heard them from other people as well, and I think it’s important that we do just keep acknowledging that the main change and what’s happening in this particular bill is we’re removing the requirements for the specified periods of consultation—and that’s currently the three years—and advance notice published in the Gazette. We’ve heard about how that will allow amendments to the standards and it will progress these more quickly where that is appropriate. That will mean—and I think this is really important—that as advanced technologies do come online, it will allow for improved recognition of those advanced technologies, and we know that in that space, that is changing constantly. So that is a really, really important point.
Looking through the work of the Health Committee, I was very impressed with the consideration that they gave to the concerns that some of the submitters brought forward, and what they did around those concerns was to change the ideas around the practicable steps towards complying with the drinking-water standards. I think that the work that they did—I know that my colleague Louisa Wall will probably talk about that next, so I’m not going to steal her thunder on it—was a good example of how a select committee should work in that area.
So, as I said, it was a short call here this afternoon. I don’t want to take up any more time, and I am really honoured to be commending this bill to the House.
LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Kia ora; thank you. I was expecting somebody from the opposite side to get up, but, nevertheless, it’s my absolute pleasure to speak in the third reading of the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill. I do have to say that if it was to have a different title, it would be the “Health (Guarantee of Safe Drinking Water) Amendment Bill”, because, essentially, that’s what this piece of legislation does. I think it is explicit about our right as New Zealanders to have water sources that are fit for purpose, quite frankly, and from the perspective of the Health Committee, it has been in response to the Havelock North outbreak.
People have talked about it, but I think it’s almost criminal in a community where 39 percent of the population becomes sick because of the drinking water that was supplied to them, which also resulted in deaths, hospitalisations, and health complications that people have to live with for the rest of their lives, that this was certainly the wake-up call that led to an inquiry. I think one of the issues that was highlighted in the inquiry was that, actually, 20 percent of network suppliers do not have water that meets all current standards. So this issue wasn’t just about Havelock North; what it did was enable the exposure of some of the systemic issues that we have.
This piece of legislation is phase one of a two-phase process, and, fundamentally, it’s about ensuring that suppliers now have a duty of care to ensure that the water that they are providing to New Zealand citizens is fit for purpose and will not make them sick. So one of the things I want to highlight in terms of our deliberations was about removing some of the bureaucracy that had previously been in place, where there was a three-year time frame for changing drinking-water standards. We’ve now removed that requirement, and it actually is similar to what Jan Tinetti was talking about: it’s about being responsive to new technologies and our understandings of the infrastructure that’s required.
So that was one of the major changes that we implemented, and the other was that it was not only the requirement to develop water-safety plans but it was also a requirement that the suppliers have the capacity to implement those water-safety plans. Having a water-safety plan—hello, Judith—in itself is not sufficient. You actually—
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order!
LOUISA WALL: Sorry. She’s waving at me, my Papakura buddy—
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Even then, you use her full name.
LOUISA WALL: The Hon Judith Collins. So what we made fundamental to the development of these water-safety plans was actually the ability to implement them. From the perspective of the committee and the submitters, I think everyone was pretty clear that we didn’t want a repeat of Havelock North. So there is a requirement now for those suppliers to manage and control those critical points that they’ve identified in their water-safety plans, because, fundamentally, we do not want to have a water supply to communities that was contaminated and that actually could harm them.
One of the other highlights, I think, was in the current Health Act 1956: until this piece of legislation goes through, there is a defence on the supplier if they, in their assessment, have taken “all practicable steps” to prevent what they’ve identified as these critical points in their water-safety plans. We had actually prioritised availability and affordability in that process, which meant that you could say that “Well, we didn’t do that because the technology wasn’t available.”, or “We didn’t know what to do to remediate that.”, and also it was too expensive.
So one of the things that we prioritised as a select committee was to say there are six components of that “all practicable steps” process, and I just want to read them out and highlight them. Now, no longer will you be able to say “We didn’t do it because we couldn’t afford it.”, so you have to know the nature and severity of the harm that may be suffered if the result is not achieved. You do have to have knowledge about the current state of knowledge about the likelihood that harm of that nature and severity will be suffered if the results are not achieved. You have to know the current state of knowledge about harm of that nature and the current state of knowledge about the means available to achieve the result, and about the likely efficiency of each, and then their availability and their affordability become additional factors.
And I bring that to the attention of the House because I think we’ve gone a long way to ensuring, from a systemic perspective, that the suppliers now have a framework which will enable them to deliver water in a manner that will not harm our citizens, no matter where they live.
I actually am not going to speak for very much longer; I get a feeling that this week the House has debated and discussed and talked about the situation in Havelock enough, but suffice to say I think, from my perspective, I do want to take the opportunity to thank the Ministry of Health officials and those who worked on this particular piece of legislation for their diligence. Again, I know a lot of people and I’ve actually seen the Minister’s speech commending the Health Committee’s work on this bill. I do want to say, and reiterate again, that I think within the health space it is incredibly collegial. We try our utmost best to ensure that the legislation that goes through our committee does actually meet the purpose it was designed for, and a lot of the amendments and a lot of the contributions are about making that legislation the best legislation it can be for the citizens of New Zealand. So I commend the bill to the House. Thank you.
Bill read a third time.
Bills
Copyright (Marrakesh Treaty Implementation) Amendment Bill
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 23 July.
STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, it’s a pleasure to speak on the Copyright (Marrakesh Treaty Implementation) Amendment Bill. I didn’t have the pleasure of being on the select committee that heard this bill—
Andrew Falloon: It’s a very good committee.
STUART SMITH: —but I have moved on to that committee now and, as my colleague Mr Falloon says, it is a great committee, and I’m really looking forward to a long tenure on that select committee, although I will miss Primary Production, I have to say.
This is a really important bill because there are 168,000 New Zealanders who have print disabilities. It’s kind of a strange name for that, but it isn’t just for blind people or the visually impaired; there are other impairments that can make conventional printed documents very difficult to read—books or publications.
This process started under the National Government in 2015—a very good Government, of course—with a discussion document going out. There were a number of submissions—353 people provided feedback directly to the Blind Foundation—and that set this process under way. In fact, in June of 2017, the National Government announced that we would enjoin that treaty. At the same time, the Government announced that BLENNZ, which is the Blind and Low Vision Education Network New Zealand, would become a prescribed body under that copyright regulation, which is a requirement in that treaty. So the process was well under way, and it has been a very important part of this bill.
Now, why we’re doing this is because to get a Braille copy of a book or a publication can cost $5,000, and that puts a huge impost on people who have a disability and really impairs their access to publications that we all take for granted. So this treaty allows for the very strict copyright legislation—we’ve agreed to change our very strict Copyright Act—to allow cross-border movement of publications that have been modified so that people with visual impairments can have access to them across the border in a different way than they would be for conventionally printed documents. This is a hugely important access issue that we need to get through, and we are going to do that today, or in part.
I think the main part of the bill, which I would like to turn to now, which the select committee made a recommendation on, was to replace section 69 of the Copyright Act with the new sections 69, 69A through 69D. That included provisions that permitted but didn’t require the Marrakesh Treaty. One was the commercial availability test. That’s quite an important test as part of this bill. That, in the past, was quite a steep and harsh test to meet. They could only make or import an accessible format copy of a work if they have made reasonable efforts to obtain a commercially available format copy and they have been unable to obtain an accessible format copy within a reasonable time, at an ordinary commercial price. That test was quite onerous.
It’s quite interesting to note the commercial availability test under that Marrakesh Treaty. There are a number of countries that do not have that test, including the United States and the European Union, and of the 55 Marrakesh Treaty countries as of April of this year, only four—that’s Australia, Singapore, Canada, and Japan—have that test. So it seems quite nonsensical that we would require that test when those other countries don’t. So it’s, I think, a major part of the bill, and it’s a very important part. I’m really pleased to see that go through in there. This is an important part of our people having—everyone having—the same access to documents and books and publications that we all enjoy and take for granted, quite frankly. So we should be passing this bill. So, with that, I commend it to the House.
Hon RON MARK (Minister of Defence): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m rising to indicate New Zealand First’s continued support for this piece of legislation. I think the bill’s aim, purpose, and content has been very well debated. The report back is quite clear. I’ll just acknowledge a couple of things. Firstly, this work is a continuation of work that was started under the previous Government. We acknowledge that. We acknowledged that the select committee that heard the submissions was well and ably chaired by Jonathan Young. I acknowledge Tamati Coffey, Andrew Falloon, Hon Paul Goldsmith, Gareth Hughes, Melissa Lee, Jo Luxton, Clayton Mitchell, Hon Poto Williams, and Lawrence Yule, and also Brett Hudson, who participated throughout some of the consideration, for their studiousness and their diligence in considering this piece of legislation. The aim and purpose has been well canvassed.
I just want to draw attention to one thing that’s probably a hallmark of the committee’s work. I refer to the comments made by the Hon Kris Faafoi—and congratulations to him on his most well-deserved elevation into Cabinet; a very hard-working, conscientious Minister in this coalition Government. I’m very pleased that you’ve been elevated. I want to acknowledge the comments that he made, which I think are a very good reflection on the quality of the work done by the committee. That bill was reported back from select committee with the unanimous recommendations that it be passed with amendments. Most of the amendments are minor but are intended to clarify some aspects of the bill, the most significant amendment being the removal of the commercial availability test. I think that’s something that’s been well discussed by Opposition members of the committee.
I want to say that the Minister’s acknowledgment of that work, agreement with the recommendations of the select committee report, and acceptance of all those amendments probably is a very good reflection on the quality of the work conducted by the select committee. I congratulate them. I congratulate the Minister. We support the bill.
ANDREW FALLOON (National—Rangitata): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m very pleased to take a call this afternoon on the second reading of the Copyright (Marrakesh Treaty Implementation) Amendment Bill, which, of course, gives effect to the Marrakesh Treaty. I’ve been waiting a few days for this bill, actually. It started debate on Tuesday and then I expected it to come up on Wednesday—the only person I have to blame for that, actually, is Mr Chris Penk and his enthusiasm for the Trusts Bill. So I’m pleased we’ve progressed that and we can now move on to the Copyright (Marrakesh Treaty Implementation) Amendment Bill.
I do want this bill to pass reasonably speedily because it has been in, I guess, gestation for a long time. As Ron Mark’s noted, it goes back till about October 2015, I think, when the National Government of the time put out a discussion document asking for feedback on whether or not New Zealand should join up to the Marrakesh Treaty. The overwhelming feedback from that process was positive that we should join, so that then proceeded on to June 2017, when the National Government of the time did agree to sign up to the treaty.
As Ron Mark and other members have noted, this bill has come from the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, which I do sit on. I do actually want to note the contribution, in particular, of Gareth Hughes. Some people today have talked about the removal of the commercial availability test, and, actually, a lot of that came down to Gareth Hughes’ contribution which—we’re a very collegial committee; we get on very, very well. The idea came from Gareth Hughes, and we all readily agreed with it because we thought it was a sensible thing to do. Of course, we did weigh it up at length but, ultimately, all members of the committee came to the view that Mr Hughes was correct and that it should be removed.
I do just want to finish off by noting a couple of the points of the bill. Of course, there are about 168,000 people who are, unfortunately, in some way print-disabled. So this bill will be of huge benefit to many of those people. That’s the reason that we’ll be supporting this bill, and I commend it to the House.
GARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. I thank that member, Andrew Falloon, for his kind words. Look, I’m passionate about copyright. I mean, for me, it’s a really interesting nexus of history, of intellectual property, of art, of literature—how our law interacts with our society and our cultural norms. I mean, all the way back to 1710 with the treaty of Queen Anne, it’s been something up for debate. It’s something I’ve been privileged to participate in in this House, from the old fashioned Skynet legislation through to drafting legislation for parody and satire amendments to the Copyright Act, through to this—the Marrakesh Treaty.
Now, it’s great to be, finally, in this House, debating something positive. We’ve had a big debate over the Trans-Pacific Partnership previously, but it’s great to be debating legislation which is going to assist 168,000 print-disabled Kiwis. Basically, the Marrakesh Treaty from 2013—this bill allows us to accede to the treaty, joining 51 other nations. It’s all about making sure that print-disabled Kiwis can get access to documents, because what we know and what the Blind Foundation have told us is only about 10 percent of printed materials are actually designed in such a way that print-disabled Kiwis can access them. It’s incredibly important, because I believe in the right to read, and, unfortunately, for a significant segment of New Zealand and global society, that right isn’t able to be fulfilled because of their disability. We simply aren’t providing access to the materials so they can participate in society.
Now, our original Copyright Act 1994 did have an exception for prescribed bodies to make available, with permission, accessible versions. The problem was, of course, that there’s an incredibly small number, incredibly under-resourced—but, most importantly, we couldn’t import those materials to help those Kiwis consume those materials, particularly in a globalised economy where much of our content comes in from overseas. So it’s wonderful now that through this legislation, we’re making it easier for print-disabled Kiwis to access that material. We’re broadening the definition so artistic works are also included, which will make a difference; replacing the current prescribed body with an authorised body, and that list will be made public. But as the last member said, the biggest issue that submitters made and that officials raised was around the issue of the commercial availability test. Now, I point out—we saw the Library Association, the World Blind Union, Blind Citizens New Zealand, Universities New Zealand all make quite an impassioned plea for why the commercial availability test in section 69A should be revoked.
Now, we did grill the officials on this point because it’s important to note that the commercial availability test is not required under the Marrakesh Treaty 2013. The treaty simply allows for a commercial availability test to be enacted. It’s also important to note that only four countries have enacted the commercial availability test, out of the 51 countries that have so far acceded and signed up to the Marrakesh Treaty. So this commercial availability test, we asked the officials why they had drawn the line on the side of Australia, Singapore, Canada, and Japan but not the vast bulk—most European Union countries, the United States, etc. They sort of said, “Well, there wasn’t strong evidence, and we sort of made a line call.”, effectively, was the message. So I was really glad that I was able to push—and other parties agreed—to amend the legislation in the committee to remove this section 69A, the commercial availability test, because what I clearly heard from submitters was that there were significant problems with it.
What we heard from Universities New Zealand was that according to academic research of print-disabled students, only 50 percent of them actually can access accessible materials when they start their course. In fact, what they also found is many students face substantial delays. In some cases, and in New Zealand universities, students who were enrolled in a university course can’t actually access the content of the course until the course has been complete—makes an absolute mockery of the right to read and the ability for print-disabled Kiwis to participate in university courses. What Universities New Zealand told us was that it’s incredibly onerous trying to find and access accessible content. It can take literal months, sending multiple emails to multiple providers, multiple publishers, sometimes not getting a response at all. It’s incredibly expensive to make an accessible format of an academic text or a literature book, so it’s a huge barrier for people to even participate in universities.
What we also heard was that—I’m trying to find it; it was quite a telling quote from Universities New Zealand which was how onerous the regime actually is. For example, many students, to try and access an accessible format under the current Copyright Act, buy a traditional non-accessible format because they need to have proof that they legitimately attempted to find a copy. So what you see is multiple Kiwis literally buying books which they have no intention to read; in fact, they have no ability to read, but they were forced under the current regime to buy it. So what we see is students lacking access, students are stymied, an incredible administrative burden on universities, and it actually taking, in some cases, until the course is over before they actually can access the content.
Another big challenge was there’s no actual database; there’s no shared classification regimes. So even if you’re trying to access this content, both in New Zealand or overseas—noting that you couldn’t actually import this material until this legislation passes—with the lack of shared databases, the lack of shared classification regimes, it’s incredibly hard. So I thought that argument was incredibly compelling. For me, it was a moral argument. I want to make sure that print-disabled Kiwis get access to the material, can participate in society, can participate in universities. But here I’d like to acknowledge the National Party and the contribution of Brett Hudson, who actually made quite a rational economic argument, because by removing the commercial availability test and allowing people to make their own accessible version of it, it’s acting as an economic incentive on those producers, those content producers, at the get-go to make sure when they’re publishing a book or an academic text to actually produce an accessible version. Look, people aren’t going out making print or Braille versions of academic texts for a profit. It’s incredibly time-consuming, incredibly expensive, and of course it’s always going to be cheaper to do it at the same time you’re publishing that content.
So by removing the commercial availability test, we’re not only making it easier for people to access the material—they’re not going to spend literally months trying to send multiple emails, not getting answers, trying to work out who even owns the copyright, which in some older academic texts can be essentially impossible—but it’s actually acting as an economic incentive for publishers to produce accessible versions. So I think that economic argument made a lot of sense. I really want to acknowledge the contribution there.
Actually, what we’re going to be doing is encouraging those producers—only 10 percent are making accessible versions—to get on and do the work. Now, by acceding to the Marrakesh Treaty, of course, while we allow ourselves to import material, it allows us to export material as well. So given we’ve got some skills, and Universities New Zealand told us about the work that’s already happening there, we could actually be exporting accessible formats. Of the Kiwis that are already doing the job, we can see more employed, which I think is a win-win. It’s great for Kiwis and it’s great for our economy.
It’s important to point out that new section 69A, in clause 6, which the committee has added, does require an obligation to notify the copyright owner, so I don’t think the sky’s going to fall in, which I think, quite frankly, was the copyright association’s Paula Browning’s response. By allowing this ability to make an accessible copy but with the corresponding obligation to notify the rights holder, I think it’s going to act as an incentive. What you’re going to see is more material, more jobs, and more Kiwis being able to exercise their right to read. Kia ora koutou.
LAWRENCE YULE (National—Tukituki): It’s a pleasure to take a call on this bill. I found this whole process quite fascinating really, because before I came to this House, I’d really never given this issue any consideration. I do know, though, that if you can’t read and you can’t read what’s written, it becomes quite difficult. As I get older, I find that if I leave my glasses behind or if I’ve got a speech prepared—I’ve moved up to 18 font, because otherwise I have—
Hon Maggie Barry: I’m on 22.
LAWRENCE YULE: You’re on 22. Well, it’s a progressive thing. I don’t wish to belittle what we’re trying to do here, but it does show me that, actually, how you communicate and what you read is really important. So this Marrakesh Treaty is a really good thing for this Parliament to move through the system and for us to adopt—which the National Party had started—because there are 168,000 people with print disabilities in New Zealand, and that’s projected to grow as the population of people such as myself get older. These people actually deserve the right and have a right to full access to the resources that are available in comparative countries such as Australia, Canada, Chile, and Singapore, who have already signed up. An estimated 90 percent of all the written material in the world is not published in accessible forms such as Braille, audio, or large print. It is a massive amount of the material. I know computers have helped that because you can make the screen bigger and you can extend things, but in a written form it’s really difficult for people as they get older.
The Marrakesh Treaty will make it easier to share copyright. It was concluded on 28 June 2013 and entered into force on 30 September 2016 and is now coming before this House to be signed off. It will make a real difference to people’s lives for those who use the resources, and I acknowledge the work of Gareth Hughes, the previous speaker, on the select committee who gave a very pragmatic view as to how things should be changed. We heard key organisations such as the Blind Foundation and Copyright Licensing New Zealand. They are working with the Government on initiatives to improve accessible forms of material for people with visual disabilities particularly. It’s worthwhile noting that just this year the United Nations’ first ever World Braille Day was held on 4 January, which is another significant achievement in the concept that this is really important.
This bill replaces the current concept of prescribed body with a new concept called an authorised entity. It explicitly provides for the import and export of accessible format copies from and to the authorised entities in other Marrakesh Treaty countries. It extends the definition of the works covered by the copyright exemption to include artistic works.
I do wish to talk about the removal of the commercial availability test. Once again, I acknowledge Gareth Hughes for leading us through that in the select committee. There was a debate about that as to whether that would make a real difference, but on balance we believe it does. I note that most other Marrakesh Treaty countries do not have a commercial availability test and it’s not actually a requirement; it’s an option. So the only countries that have it are Australia, Singapore, Canada, and Japan. It seemed sensible for us at the select committee, and it’s carrying through in the legislation, that given the relatively high cost of producing accessible format copies, there is actually a strong incentive for those that are producing the material to consider commercially available options to copy that. It is not easily available. It is not a real form, and it’s not a real possibility, actually, to transfer vast amounts of existing material into a format that’s available in either Braille or large print. It can be done, but it’s expensive, time-consuming, and, as the previous speaker said, in a whole lot of university material in courses, often that material is not available.
So because this is a cheaper option, going forward, it’s my hope that a lot of this material as it’s produced will now make its way into Braille, large format - type form at the time of production. This is going to take a while to work through the system, but it is my view that this is a very worthwhile thing for us to do—and I’m not trying to look after my future when I’m 90 and need something like this. But for the people who are suffering now from visual disabilities, this will make a real difference. It’s not costing us anything; it’s providing a regulatory framework across the globe and I’m happy to support this bill.
PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is actually a real pleasure to stand and take a call at the second reading of the Copyright (Marrakesh Treaty Implementation) Amendment Bill, because, at the end of the day, this bill is about equity. It’s about—
DEPUTY SPEAKER: My apologies, it is a split call.
PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: Yes, yes, it is a split call. So this bill is ultimately, at the heart of it, about equity. It’s about us as a nation being able to accede to the Marrakesh Treaty, which will then facilitate published works to be published in a format that is accessible to those with a print disability. That’s what this bill, ultimately, is about.
Now, only 10 percent of all written materials published internationally are actually published in formats that are accessible to people with a print disability. This particular bill will allow us to amend the Copyright Act 1994 that we currently have, in order for us to, as I mentioned previously, accede to this treaty, that is a multilateral treaty that was negotiated by the World Intellectual Property Organization specifically to ensure that those with a print disability have increased access to the types of materials that they need to remove some of the barriers that they experience to participation in public life, in employment opportunities, and in educational opportunities, and actually allow them to participate fully, as is their right.
As we’ve heard, 55 countries have actually signed up to this treaty. Given that this is a second reading, one of the main amendments from the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee was the removal of the commercial availability test. But my colleague Gareth Hughes has actually laid out, in a lot of detail, the rationale behind removing that, as was the recommendation of the committee and as is in this bill. So I don’t feel the need to traverse that.
I’ll just finish by saying that, once again, this is about access, it’s about reducing cost, and it’s about equity. I’m very happy to commend this bill to the House. Thank you.
Hon MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is with pleasure that I rise to speak at the second reading of the Copyright (Marrakesh Treaty Implementation) Amendment Bill. It is not a bill I’ve known a great deal about; I wasn’t on the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee. I’ve been listening to the other calls with great interest, because as the spokesperson for disabilities and as someone who has more than a passing interest in, sometimes, the plight of seniors or those who are visually impaired, this particular mechanism seems to me to be a very sensible worldwide initiative that we need to do what we’re doing with now, which is to put it into our legislation.
The fact that it has been a long time coming—it was very interesting looking back on its history, because it was, back in October 2015, that the then National Government released that first discussion document, and it was to seek feedback from New Zealanders as to whether this was worthwhile, whether we should look at it just for visual impairment or perhaps broaden it out to people who have hearing disabilities, and so forth. But the original intent of the Copyright Amendment Bill was that those matters should not be encompassed and captured within National’s—you know what I mean by that: nationwide legislation for each of the countries that want to do it. So the area around examining, for example, whether people with hearing impairment should do it—I know the select committee had nine submissions, they talked about considering and broadening those changes, but because it was so much outside the scope of the wider review of the Copyright Act that’s currently in progress, it was decided not to do it. So while that may be an ample opportunity for legislation in the future—I think it was important that it was discussed—there is still more work to be done.
But talking about the visual aspects, in particular, it does appear to me that this select committee process has really robustly tested all of the issues that might be likely to come back to bite us, as it were, as a Parliament if we did not consider them.
The commercial availability test, which was referred to by my colleague Lawrence Yule a few moments ago, was something that I thought might be a barrier and might need to be addressed. But again, the rigour of the select committee process has meant that that has been discounted—and for very good reasons, which he went into. I think the idea that it would disadvantage print-disabled people disproportionately and the copyright holders themselves would benefit from it is an extremely good reason why we would not want to go down that track. But, again, it is in the engine room of the legislation, at select committee, that a lot of this stuff is teased out and unintended consequences are explored.
I think when we look at what happened in the progress of this bill, it’s also started some very interesting conversations. So it was in June 2017 that the National Government announced that New Zealand would join the treaty with Parliament to complete the examination process. So that was duly considered, the public consultation and the analysis which was prepared by the Commerce Committee of the 51st Parliament. So this is something that has gone through a number of select committees and so probably the rigour of the process has been even more than usual.
But when you look at the number of people that have print disabilities, 168,000 of them—of course that will grow as the population ages and as the visually impaired in our societies and communities continue to grow. The fact is that they might be isolated without the access and the fairness which has underpinned a lot of the policies that we did as a National Government under the Hon Nicky Wagner and Enabling Good Lives. We want the one in four New Zealanders who have disabilities—and, you know, it is a particularly difficult disability when people are unable to see what’s going on. But this is very much at the heart of, and in keeping with, the principles that we really want to do.
So changes that are required to the Copyright Act needed to be carefully considered and I think replacing the concept of “prescribed body” with this new concept of “authorised entity” is a very sound way to futureproof this particular legislation. And as well as that, it is explicitly providing for the import and export of accessible format copies from and to the authorised entities. Again, it’s making the passage of the work more accessible and more readily able to happen electronically as well as in paper form. So I think that when we look at clarifying the definition of “print disability”, which is open to interpretation, there will be of course individuals who have a visual impairment or a perceptual or reading disability which just cannot be improved. So, you know, again we need a similar function without the impairment. It is important that as legislators we consider all of these things and on balance—
DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member’s time has lapsed.
Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): I have just joined the select committee which examined this bill and so I have just taken a look at some of the submissions that have come in. I am, in particular, looking at the submission from the Blind Foundation, where in their submission they say that one of the benefits of this bill is it will help to end the book famine that print-disabled people still face. I think that is a critical advantage of this bill.
Last year, a young woman came to see me in my electorate. She was working with the Parliamentary Champions for Accessibility Legislation and she spoke to me about the difficulties she faces as a university student trying to access textbooks which she can use. This legislation helps to address that issue in particular and that is why I commend this bill to the House.
SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Oh, look, I’m delighted to take a call, Madam Speaker, and I’m sure my colleague across the House Kieran McAnulty is as well. Look, this is a fantastic piece of legislation, and in some ways one could argue long overdue—long overdue—before the House. I don’t say it with any political shot, if you will, at any particular party, but the Marrakesh Treaty is really important both in and of itself in what it does, but I think symbolically too about New Zealand—that it actually is working as hard as it can and however it needs to to actually embrace those who have disabilities in our communities.
We term it the Marrakesh Treaty. It’s shorthand of course for the Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons Who are Blind, Visually Impaired, or Otherwise Print Disabled.
I think, for me, first and foremost, it’s actually refreshing in this House to have a treaty that we are moving through domestic legislation that actually accurately describes what it’s about. Particularly when it comes to matters of blindness, it’s always very easy for us to think that it is just, literally, completely and utterly blind, but if you engage with the likes of the Blind Foundation, you’ll understand, as I’m sure the House does, that there’s many people out there with visual impairments and otherwise. I think we’re up to—actually, I’m not going to quote the numbers because I may get that wrong, but it’s a substantial number of New Zealanders in that space.
What the bill seeks to do—and I think the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, if I understand it correctly, led by Gareth Hughes, has done a very comprehensive look over this, but not, either, slowing down the progress of the bill to bring it here today. What it’s, effectively, trying to do, and other speakers have very eloquently touched on it, is remove what’s been a copyright problem for years in New Zealand and, granted, across other jurisdictions around the world, where the cost, and, in fact, even the ability, to bring in documents which those who are blind or visually impaired can use has been prohibitive, incredibly expensive—in fact, prohibitive to the point that it’s just not feasible.
New Zealand’s existing copyright laws do allow the likes of the Blind Foundation and others to take a document and to turn it into something that is far more accessible. Of course, Braille comes to mind as one means, and I want to stress that that’s one means; we, obviously, have the, sort of, more vocally oriented texts. To do that takes time and it takes money, and particularly in our more modern world and environment, it almost goes without saying there’s an expectation that we should be able to jump online and access the world’s resources. But the major fact that we have to bring into focus here—no pun intended—is that this treaty allows now the likes of the Blind Foundation, Macular Degeneration New Zealand, and others to seek texts from overseas and not to incur the costs that go along with that and, really importantly, not to have an infringement of the Copyright Act. So that’s the heart of it.
It would go without saying, and I know it will have come through the select committee—I, sadly, as others indicated, haven’t sat on this current select committee. We did look at the Marrakesh Treaty in the previous Parliament when I was on a select committee where I particularly picked up on it. I also had the good privilege back then of sitting on the Health Committee, so the likes of the Blind Foundation, Macular Degeneration New Zealand, and others would come and talk to me about it—so somewhat familiar. What the bill is doing is—well, sorry, I’ve gone off on a different tangent briefly. The Blind Foundation, the likes of Macular Degeneration New Zealand, and copyright groups in New Zealand are all supportive of this. That’s no surprise. It’s nothing particularly new.
So I think it’s really good, again, that the committee has engaged with those views. They haven’t made any really substantial changes, and that, again, is not taking away from the work that was done. I think the treaty itself is pretty straightforward, and, as I often stress in the House, at this second reading, when there’s an international treaty, and New Zealand has signed up to the international treaty of Marrakesh, we need to put it in some domestic legislation to bring it about. So, really, what this is doing is changing section 69 of the Copyright Act to fundamentally make it legal, permissible, possible for a New Zealand individual and institution to take a written word, for example, to take a book, and turn it into something that is far more accessible. So I think that’s incredibly, incredibly positive.
I should add, actually, that the Blind Foundation’s advocacy on this has been incredibly strong. I think they’ve been, probably, and understandably, the strongest advocates for it. If I might—and it will only take me 20 seconds to—acknowledge Sandra Budd. She is actually, after 12 years, the outgoing chief executive of the Blind Foundation. Sadly, in a way, she’s resigned—or stepped away, not resigned; sorry, Sandra—only a few weeks ago from this role. She has been, in those years, a tireless, tireless advocate. So Sandra, can I acknowledge the work that you do and, obviously, those who remain, like Dianne Rogers and others.
Look, what is fundamentally important here is that we have thousands of New Zealanders whose lives will be improved solidly by this bill. As I have mentioned before, I think it’s well over time that we’ve brought this out. It’ll be a challenge beyond the treaty itself and our discussions here in the House tonight to make sure that this Parliament itself adopts, in fact, the principles of the Marrakesh Treaty. Why I say the principles is that we’re not talking about what we can and cannot do—we have the ability of this House to translate, for want of a better word, our documents into a variety of forms—but, actually, that this House becomes far more accessible for people. So what we can do symbolically is going to be very, very important—
DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am terribly sorry to interrupt that amazing speech, but the debate is interrupted and is set down for resumption next sitting day.
Debate interrupted.
The House adjourned at 6 p.m.