Thursday, 1 August 2019

THURSDAY, 1 AUGUST 2019

THURSDAY, 1 AUGUST 2019

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Business Statement

Business Statement

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Legislation to be considered next week will include the first readings of the Electoral Amendment Bill and the Parliamentary Agencies Delegations Legislation Bill, the second reading of the Conservation (Indigenous Freshwater Fish) Amendment Bill, and the remaining stages of the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill and the Copyright (Marrakesh Treaty Implementation) Amendment Bill.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): Can the shadow Leader of the House give us some indication as to whether the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister will be available during question time next week—perhaps also an indication if there is any celebration planned for their return to the country?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I can assure the member that the Prime Minister has been in the country—

Hon Grant Robertson: Realm.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: —in the Realm and that I am sure she will be available for question time in the House when she is back in Wellington.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Urban Development

1. Hon JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister for Urban Development: Does he plan to ensure that future urban development reduces New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions and responds effectively to climate change; if so, how?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister for Urban Development): Yes. While the built environment accounts for between 2 and 5 percent of New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions, urban form contributes to some of the emissions arising from transport. This Government’s committed to achieving net zero carbon emissions by 2050. We’ve rebalanced transport spending to invest more in public transport in our cities—for example, the changes to Auckland’s bus network, funded by our Government policy statement, has meant that public transport patronage has now surpassed 100 million trips in the last year. We’re reforming the planning rules to enable more quality intensification, and Minister Parker is working on reforms to the Resource Management Act. As well as preventing children from being hospitalised, the Healthy Homes Guarantee Act is expected to reduce emissions by approximately 100,000 tonnes over the next 15 years. Minister Salesa is working on how building regulation can reduce emissions and is updating the Building Act to enable the use of modern methods of construction. And, as the member knows, the Climate Change Commission will prepare emissions budgets, including for the built environment.

Hon James Shaw: What measures will he take to encourage local authorities to plan for urban growth in a way that addresses climate change, both through mitigation and adaptation?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, we’re encouraging local authorities to plan for urban growth—a radical idea. For example, through the Auckland-Hamilton corridor, the Government’s working with councils and iwi to take a long-term coordinated approach to urban growth and managing land use, setting aside areas of special value, and providing transport infrastructure focused on the existing rail network. Climate change adaptation and reducing carbon emissions will be a core part of that planning process.

Hon James Shaw: Does he agree that local authorities should ensure that new housing developments are high density, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in our cities and towns?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, we are working on reforms to the planning rules that will remove the barriers to quality intensification in our cities, and we’ll have more to say on that in the coming weeks. New Zealanders want to live close to where they work and play, and the latest consent data in Auckland shows that half of the growth in building consents currently is apartments and town houses.

Hon James Shaw: Would he support an obligation for the Government’s new urban development and housing agency, Kāinga Ora—Homes and Communities, to give effect to emissions reductions plans, future-proofing its approach to development?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: So we’re taking an all-of-Government approach to emissions reduction, and I understand that the Environment Committee is currently considering whether the Minister must have regard to the emissions reduction plans of the Climate Change Commission when setting the Government policy statement on urban development. I look forward to seeing the committee’s conclusions on that matter.

Hon James Shaw: How will he ensure that urban transport design reduces emissions whilst also promoting more livable towns and cities, especially in Auckland, where road transport contributes 35 percent of total emissions?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, whether we’re talking about existing urban locations like the Unitec development or new greenfield communities like those at Drury, the challenge is to ensure that, from the get-go, those communities have great walking and cycling infrastructure and good access to public transport. It’s only through integrated urban development and transport planning that we can actually reduce congestion—

Hon Judith Collins: We need Mill Road for it. Are we going to get Mill Road?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: —we are going to build Mill Road, Mrs Collins—and carbon emissions. This Government is committed to improving New Zealanders’ ability not only to get around their towns and cities but to reduce carbon emissions.

Hon Ron Mark: Thank you, Mr Speaker—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! Ms Collins.

Hon Ron Mark: Is he aware that, on the back of the New Zealand Defence Force’s report on the climate crisis, Defence is currently developing a plan which it will use in the development of its urban infrastructure on all of its bases, and likewise it will be looking as to how it may better specify new capabilities to ensure that their greenhouse gas emissions are likewise reduced?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I note that the Minister recently announced a review of all of the Defence Force’s assets, its real estate and capability, and how the Defence Force is configured across the country for the future. I want to recognise the leadership that that Minister has shown in actually reorienting the Defence Force, both in terms of its external capability and its internal resources, around the future of climate change. I look forward, as urban development Minister, to working with that Minister on how we can take that whole programme of work forward.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

2. Hon PAULA BENNETT (Deputy Leader—National) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his Government’s statements, policies, and actions?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Acting Prime Minister) Yes.

Hon Paula Bennett: Why will only two of the five parties in Parliament determine what question is asked when New Zealanders decide whether or not to legalise recreational marijuana?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: The big thing is that we are giving New Zealanders a choice, and every New Zealander can decide for themselves. There is going to be a “yes or no” question to the referendum. The Regulations Review Committee is going to be able to scrutinise the question. The question is going to be developed along with the Electoral Commission. So the fact of the matter is that Parliament does, through the Regulations Review Committee, have a part to play in the development of that question.

Hon Paula Bennett: How many times has Cabinet—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! Which member was that?

Chlöe Swarbrick: I withdraw and apologise.

SPEAKER: Right. I’m at somewhat of a loss at the moment, given the fact that we’ve had so many questions. I’ll reinstate the questions that were lost earlier on the part of Ms Collins, and I think the Green members will find that they won’t be thanked by their fellow Government members for that.

Hon Paula Bennett: How many times has Cabinet alone determined a referendum question without it first going through the House for approval?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: They haven’t.

Hon Paula Bennett: Sorry, could he repeat that?

SPEAKER: They haven’t.

Hon Paula Bennett: Thank you. So how is it democratic that Labour and New Zealand First get to determine the question when they represent only 55 of the 120 seats in Parliament?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: The Regulations Review Committee, as I said, but the option has been put to the member to join the cross-party group on the cannabis referendum, but instead she sits there playing politics when she can actually be involved in the decision making.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. A Minister should give an answer that is consistent with the public good. There is no Standing Order that would mean a reference of a regulation to the Standing Orders Committee means that that committee would have any say whatsoever in the question.

SPEAKER: Order! The member’s disagreeing with an answer. He knows that he can’t do that under the guise of a point of order.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: My apologies, Mr Speaker. But it’s accurate.

SPEAKER: The member will now stand, withdraw, and apologise, and I’m going to reverse the decision I just reversed.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I withdraw and apologise.

Hon Paula Bennett: Does he agree with Julie Anne Genter that paying $1,400 is a “small fee” for a new apprentice buying a Toyota Hiace so he or she can get to work?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Julie Anne Genter is a very hard-working member, and I agree with most things she says. The fact of the matter is that around electric vehicles we’re going to make sure that we cut our emissions. It’s something that those guys over there, when they signed up to the Paris Agreement, agreed to—to reduce emissions by 30 percent below 2005 levels. Instead, they had no plan, and under them, if they were still in Government, then emissions would continue to rise.

Hon Paula Bennett: Why should a young family in his own electorate have to pay up to $3,000 for a car that subsidises people in Remuera to buy new BMWs or Porsches?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: The member is trying to scaremonger around the whole situation. We know that there is an issue around climate emissions rising. We are doing something about it. That Government is sitting over there throwing stones, throwing rocks, when they had absolutely no plan to address the situation.

SPEAKER: OK, we’re going to have at least till half past two with no further interjections from either Mr Jones or Mr Brownlee.

Hon Paula Bennett: Does he expect the unemployment rate to go up or down next week when the ANZ Business Outlook says a net 6 percent of firms expect to cut jobs?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: I expect it to stay close to the historic low levels that we’ve got right now.

Hon Paula Bennett: How many nephs has he got off the couch, or are they now some of the more than 13,000 more people that are on the unemployment benefit?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: We’ve got a lot of the nephs off the couch, and the Provincial Growth Fund investment that we’ve made, investing in the regions, is creating jobs and is helping to reduce the unemployment levels as well.

Hon Paula Bennett: Could the Prime Minister explain the regulations review process and how it could change the question that’s put to it by Cabinet?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: The Regulations Review Committee is made up of members of that side and this side, and they have the ability to strike out the question.

Question No. 3—Finance

3. WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): In its labour market preview released this morning, ASB said that it expects next week’s June quarter labour market data to show the labour market in “a strong spot”. It expects employment growth and labour force participation to lift. As we enter the tail end of the business cycle and the global economy comes under pressure from the impacts of Brexit and the US-China trade war, the New Zealand economy will not be immune. However, unemployment is set to remain around historically low levels, demonstrating the solid fundamentals of the New Zealand economy.

Willow-Jean Prime: What reports has he seen on the performance of New Zealand companies in this economic context?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I’ve seen recent reports from Mainfreight that “The year ended March 2019 was an extraordinary year”. Mainfreight experienced profits up $29 million to $141 million and global sales up $330 million to $2.95 billion in the March 2019 year. Mainfreight identified external factors to keep a watch on, including Brexit, the China-US trade war, and the slowing global trade more generally. I’m pleased to see a New Zealand company thriving and recognising the important role that staff play in bringing about success against this backdrop of global uncertainty.

SPEAKER: I never thought I’d see that member praising a company run by Richard Prebble.

Willow-Jean Prime: What reports has he seen on global economic uncertainty?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Overnight, the US Federal Reserve cut interest rates by 0.25 percent, the first cut since 2008. The Fed said it had decided to cut rates in light of the implications of global developments, including weakening global growth and trade tensions. This follows US GDP data for the June quarter showing annual growth slowing to 2.1 percent from 3.1 percent in the March quarter. It is important to remember in this period of slowing global growth that the New Zealand economy continues to outperform those of countries such as Australia, Canada, the UK, the eurozone, and Japan.

Question No. 4—Finance

4. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Finance: Has he seen yesterday’s ANZ New Zealand Business Outlook Survey, and does he think the headline “Grim” reflects the outlook for the New Zealand economy under this Government?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I have seen yesterday’s ANZ Business Outlook survey, which said that “the headwinds of a global slowdown” were having an effect on business confidence in New Zealand. In response to the second part of the question, as any good economic historian would know, it is not dissimilar to the headlines of the same survey in 2015, under the previous Government, which had headlines such as “slippery slopes”, “flagging”, “heart murmur”, and “below the belt”—so, no.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he agree with Grant Robertson, who said in 2015, after a temporary slip in business confidence, that it was “a vote of no confidence in the Government by the business sector”?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I’m concerned about the member’s attention deficits given that the Leader of the Opposition asked that yesterday, and as Mr Davis said in answer to that yesterday, that was about the National Government.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he think his Government’s policies have anything to do with the confidence in the agricultural sector falling to an astonishing minus 78 at a time when prices are high and we should be doing well?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I know those in our rural sector keep a very close eye on the global economic environment because they are primarily exporters, and what they see there is uncertainty from Brexit and the US-China trade war. We are working extremely closely with the rural community in New Zealand, and I noted their endorsement of Minister Shaw and the work that he’s been doing recently. Our progressive farmers are very keen on supporting this Government.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Why does he think a net 33 percent of firms in the construction sector are intending to cut jobs when there are so many houses and roads that need to be built?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I note that the member is quoting from the ANZ Business Outlook survey—an opinion survey. What we’ve also seen is we’ve got record levels of consents in terms of the Auckland market in particular. There’s a lot of activity in the residential construction area, so I think that the actual out-turn in that sector will be significantly better than that.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: When will he accept that by adding cost to business, creating massive uncertainty, and demonstrating incompetence, his Government is contributing significantly to the grim mood?

SPEAKER: Right, I’m going to get the member to ask a question in order.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: When will he accept that his Government is contributing significantly to the grim mood?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The only person contributing to the grim mood in the House today is that member, and I would encourage him to listen to his former leader, Sir John Key, who said we should stop talking things down and be optimistic about the future.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: If the outlook for the economy is grim, is he the Reaper?

SPEAKER: Order! No, no.

Question No. 5—Education

5. Hon NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) to the Minister of Education: Does he stand by his statement that “There will not be any more money for principals in this round”, and what does he say to the 700 board of trustees chairs who have expressed support for the principals’ strike action?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): I stand by my statement that the best way to resolve the issue is for the Ministry of Education and the unions to get back around the bargaining table. I don’t think it’s in the public interest for me to provide a blow-by-blow commentary on those discussions.

Hon Nikki Kaye: Is he absolutely guaranteeing that no new funding will be provided for primary principals to resolve the strike given we’ve heard that before?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I think I addressed that in the answer to the primary question.

Hon Nikki Kaye: What does he say to the Bay of Plenty principal who was reportedly left in tears when she found out her deputy would be earning thousands more than her under his offer?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I think that I’d say to her that she should convey her concerns to the union that negotiated that offer on her behalf.

Hon Nikki Kaye: Does he take any responsibility for the fact that areas of the Curriculum such as digital technologies are not being delivered and professional development is not being delivered as a result of the strike?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: No, I believe the responsibility for industrial action and decisions around that sits with the principals and their union.

Hon Nikki Kaye: Will he absolutely guarantee to this House that he had no role in cancelling secondary principals’ collective bargaining this week, which some see as a delaying tactic to put pressure on primary principals?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes, I can give that guarantee. I had no role in that decision.

Hon Nikki Kaye: Why does he think it’s acceptable to have delays in bargaining for secondary principals, 1,900 primary principals striking, principals earning less than teachers, aspects of the Curriculum—

SPEAKER: Order! The member’s going to stop now—

Hon Nikki Kaye: —not being delivered, and under his watch—

SPEAKER: Order! The member is—

Hon Nikki Kaye: —industrial action for most—

SPEAKER: Oh, no, I was going to let the member ask it again; I won’t now. Does the member have a further supplementary?

Hon Nikki Kaye: Why does he think it’s an acceptable situation to have 1,900 primary principals striking, principals earning less than teachers, aspects of the Curriculum not delivered—

SPEAKER: Order! I’ve ruled that question out once, and I’ve done it again now.

Hon Nikki Kaye: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I actually cut the question. When you go back and have a look at the footage, you will see I deliberately—because you had criticised me for asking this question—cut an aspect of that question. So I’d like the opportunity to ask it again.

SPEAKER: Well, the member can ask another question if she wants, but her question was incorrect from the first six words.

Question No. 6—Education

6. MARJA LUBECK (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What actions, if any, is the Government taking to ensure that the vocational education system meets the needs of industry, regions, and learners?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Today, we’ve announced reforms to create a strong, unified, and sustainable system for vocational education and training. To pick just two aspects of that to highlight, industry will have greater control over all aspects of vocational education and training through new workforce development councils, and our 16 Institutes of Technology and Polytechnics (ITPs) will be brought together as a single nationwide campus network.

Marja Lubeck: Will this mean big disruption for learners and staff at polytechnics, or trainees and their employers?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: One of the ways to get the biggest disruption would be to do nothing. That would result in significant closure of programmes and courses around the country, which is what we have been seeing in recent times. We’ve given a great deal of thought to how to minimise disruption of change so there will not be big disruption in the short term, and any changes resulting from the reforms will be well signposted and well planned for.

Dr Liz Craig: So how will he ensure that successful and effective ITPs like the Southern Institute of Technology (SIT) are able to continue to innovate to meet the needs of their students and regions?

SPEAKER: Now, I’m going to ask the member to ask the question again without an assertion in it.

Dr Liz Craig: How will he ensure that successful and effective ITPs like SIT are able to continue to innovate to meet the needs of their students and region?

SPEAKER: The member’s had two cracks. She can have one more to take the assertion out of the beginning of the question.

Dr Liz Craig: How will he ensure that successful and effective ITPs like SIT are able to continue to innovate to meet the needs of their students and region?

SPEAKER: Right, that’s three strikes; that’s the end of that question.

Question No. 7—Justice

7. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) to the Minister of Justice: Is it Government policy that the topic and wording of referenda held at elections should be determined by Government by Order in Council rather than Parliament?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Acting Minister of Justice): No, the Government’s policy is to use the appropriate mechanism to set a referendum question. There is no set procedure for setting referendum questions. In the instance of any referenda held with the 2020 general election, the Government felt it was most appropriate to set the question through Order in Council, as there is the distinct possibility of multiple referendums. The Referendums Framework Bill provides greater clarity for the public and the Electoral Commission in 2020 by ensuring that the same framework and rules will apply to all referenda that will be held at the 2020 general election.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does he agree with Labour’s statement in 2015, on the flag referendum, that the wording and process must go through Parliament with a full select committee process, including public submissions, as it did; if so, why has the Government changed its tune and now taken for itself the determination of what referendum will be held, and what—

SPEAKER: Order! Look, I’m going to ask the member to have another crack at that and to get the question accurate.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does he agree with Labour’s statement in 2015, on the flag referendum, that the wording and process must go through Parliament with a full select committee process, including public submissions, as it did; if so, why is the Government not now doing the same?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I explained to the member what the process of what referenda associated with the 2020 general election will be. But what I would like to remind the member is that there will be parliamentary scrutiny of this referendum question through Parliament’s Regulations Review Committee.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Will the Government use this referendum legislation, where it alone decides on the issue and the wording, to include a referendum on abortion at election 2020, noting that the Deputy Prime Minister has indicated that is his preference for dealing with the issue?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: There are no plans to include a referendum on abortion.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Can he confirm that, under this legislation, the Government would have the power to have a referendum on New Zealand becoming a republic, abolishing the Māori seats, euthanasia, cannabis, abortion—

SPEAKER: Order! Order!

Hon Dr Nick Smith: —or anything else it decides. It’s an important issue, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Oh, well, the member can have another crack. It’s another question, though.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Can he confirm that, under this legislation, the Government would have the power to have a referendum on New Zealand becoming a republic, get rid of the Māori seats, or anything else it likes without Parliament or the public having any say?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I think the member is getting ahead of himself. The situation that we have outlined is that there is the possibility of multiple referenda. We have, of course, publicly discussed that we are in an unusual situation that we’re needing to negotiate, and there is also the possibility of a referendum on David Seymour’s End of Life Choice Bill. The member can put up a whole lot of hypothetical scenarios, but, of course, any Government could legislate for any referendum; so I think the member’s getting ahead of himself.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was whether he can confirm that, under this legislation we’re debating, the Government could have any of those referenda. The Minister did not answer that question.

SPEAKER: And it was a hypothetical question, and it was certainly addressed.

Question No. 8—Education

8. Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei) to the Minister of Education: Does he stand by all his statements, policies, and actions around the Reform of Vocational Education?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Yes, in the context in which they were made.

Dr Shane Reti: How many jobs will be lost from industry training organisations (ITOs) when the Government’s own website Education Central states, “Most of the 1,300 full-time equivalent staff in the ITOs [will] lose their jobs under the new plan”?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The website does not state that; 1,300 people work for ITOs in total. Some of them may find their jobs are affected. They might find that they’re working for a different organisation, but to suggest that all of them would overnight lose their jobs is just scaremongering.

Dr Shane Reti: How many jobs will be lost from the polytechnic sector given the Minister told TV programme The Nation earlier this year that the reforms would cause significant job losses?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Again, that is not what I said on The Nation earlier this year. What I said was that there will be change, that the change will be well managed, that there is not a target for job reductions—in fact, we want to see this sector expand, which is not what was happening under the policies adopted by the last Government.

Dr Liz Craig: Does he stand by his statement that Institutes of Technology and Polytechnics of New Zealand (ITPs) like the Southern Institute of Technology (SIT) will be able to continue to innovate to meet the needs of their students in regions?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes, I do stand by that statement and the commitments that we’ve made, including ring-fencing the cash reserves of ITPs that have significant cash reserves so that they can be reinvested back in their local communities, which is one of the ways that we can help to ensure that.

Dr Shane Reti: Will polytechnics like SIT, with the ring-fenced cash reserves the Minister has just talked about, have final decision making on how those reserves will be spent?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The way the institution will operate—the operating model of the institution in the longer term—has not yet been determined.

Dr Shane Reti: Will polytechnics like SIT, Ara, Otago, the Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology, and the Universal College of Learning have the final say on what they teach and how they teach it?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The decision-making structure of the new institution has not been determined.

Question No. 9—Regional Economic Development

9. JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First) to the Minister for Regional Economic Development: What progress, if any, has been made on Provincial Growth Fund projects across the country?

Hon Paula Bennett: Why weren’t you on TV this morning?

SPEAKER: Order! No one asked me.

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Regional Economic Development): The question requires a very focused response. Two projects in particular stick out where the New Zealand Government’s approach, unlike the other side, is fiscal sprinkling on provincial seed beds in the form of the Tairāwhiti roading package, because we are a pro-road Government. We have dedicated $137 million, and the Rakaiatane Road upgrade shows great progress has been made by working round the clock, and to demonstrate the flexibility in the regions in relation to transport, $40 million for a capacity increase in relation to the Tranz Alpine, an overdue addition to the products and the services in the tourism sector.

Jenny Marcroft: What are some other projects making good progress?

Hon SHANE JONES: Despite the verbal spray from the other side of the House, Invercargill is going to receive overdue attention. Great strides are being made in that part of the country despite the misrepresentation about a certain polytech. A million dollars has been allocated for inner-city development and, subject to quality leadership and an engagement between the Government’s imagination and the ambition of the South, we’ll see more progress there. In the Tairāwhiti, I say no more than the single young woman on the forestry course saying it has been a life changer for her and her people, training on the ground, dedicated to transforming the lives of those communities blighted by the previous nine years.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You’ve been quite firm today in preventing questions being asked that had any degree of colour to them and, similarly, asking questions that had any degree of list to them. The answer that was just given by Mr Jones had not only colourful comment in it but also potentially derogatory comment. Also, he then went on to give a very long list. Now, given that he’s being asked the question by one of his own people, it’s surprising he has to do that, but it would be pleasing for us if there could be some consistency in the rulings on questions and answers.

SPEAKER: I thank the member for his request.

Jenny Marcroft: What feedback has he heard from the regions about this good progress?

Hon SHANE JONES: A leading identity from the New Zealand renaissance economic community, Mr Mike Williams, has stated on behalf of the Howard League that, if you live in a small rural community and you have family members coming out of the hīnaki, giving them a licence—something that the last regime refused to provide the money for to this organisation—is a life changer. Mr Meng Foon, a long-term advocate for that part of New Zealand otherwise known as Tai Rāwhiti, whose voice became hoarse as he sought to attract attention from the last regime, now has had his prayers answered.

SPEAKER: OK, that’s enough, thanks.

Question No. 10—Social Development

10. Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō) to the Minister for Social Development: When will she be announcing which 26 or 27 of the 42 Welfare Expert Advisory Group recommendations she has commissioned work on, and are these in addition to the three announcements on 3 May 2019?

SPEAKER: I have been warned this is a longer-than-normal answer.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): On 8 May, Minister Henare responded to a similar question, citing a then up-to-date list of the recommendations from the Welfare Expert Advisory Group where work was already under way and other recommendations for which work had been commissioned. Since that announcement in the House, the member will be happy to know that further work is now under way to help address recommendations six, 18, 21, and 29, and work has been commissioned on a further five recommendations. These are one, two, four, 24, and 31. This brings the total number of recommendations where work is under way to 19, including announcements made on 3 May, and recommendations where work has been commissioned to 10. We will continue to commission work and consider all of the other recommendations as we develop our three- to five-year plan, that will sensibly address recommendations in the report through a systematic overhaul of the welfare system that is effective and enduring and that ensures those who need to access Ministry of Social Development (MSD) support are actually better off.

Hon Louise Upston: Is the Government considering changing the principles of the Social Security Act, which include the principle that “work in paid employment offers the best opportunity for people to achieve social and economic well-being”.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The overall phase two of the plan is something that the member will have to wait for. I’ve already announced in the House that that will be something that we will discuss more fulsomely and publicly later on in the year, but, with regards to the principles and the way in which they could potentially guide our system better than what we’ve had in the past, I think all of us should be open to considering those things. On this side of the House, we’re very focused on making sure that those that need financial hardship support get it but that also they get support to go into meaningful and sustainable employment.

Hon Louise Upston: Why did the Government decide to index benefits to wages rather than the Consumers Price Index (CPI)?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: That’s a very good question. The answer to that question is that, clearly, wages have increased at a greater rate than what they have to CPI. So this is an indication of a fairer welfare system that this Government is committed to. We don’t want to see people thrown into further hardship. We don’t want New Zealanders who access the welfare system to be left further behind. It was a very important systematic change and something that I and this side of the House are very proud of.

Hon Louise Upston: If indexing benefits to wages means an extra $11 per week per family on average by 1 April 2023, how much would CPI have provided in comparison?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: It would’ve provided less, but I don’t have that actual figure in the House, and if she wants to put it in writing I’d be more than happy to respond to that.

Priyanca Radhakrishnan: What work, if any, is under way to address recommendations related to Māori and the welfare system?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Around a quarter of MSD staff and over one-third of MSD clients are Māori. Getting things right with and for Māori is important to the whole of the Ministry of Social Development, so we rolled out Te Pae Tata, MSD’s Māori strategy and action plan. It focuses on earning the respect and trust of Māori, forming genuine partnerships with Māori, and supporting Māori aspirations. Māori reference groups have been actively engaged in the roll-out of our front-of-house design changes, and we continue working on things like engagement plans for iwi, new models of case management, and reviewing the procurement of services to better meet the needs of Māori. This is not a tick-box exercise for us; this is about systematic change and genuine ongoing engagement, and we are committed to doing the work and getting it right.

Hon Louise Upston: What is CPI?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Consumer—[Interruption] Consumers Price Index, thank you very much, member. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Yeah—no, we will keep going, but I’m just contemplating the quality of that.

Question No. 11—Transport

11. CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South) to the Associate Minister of Transport: Does she stand by all her statements, policies, and actions?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Transport) on behalf of the Associate Minister of Transport: Yes, in their original context.

Chris Bishop: Has she or her staff talked to the Minister of Transport, Phil Twyford, or his staff about the release of her 26 March 2019 letter to him?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: On behalf of the Associate Minister, yes. We talk about almost everything in relation to the transport portfolio, including requests for correspondence that passed between us.

Chris Bishop: Does she think her letter to Phil Twyford of 26 March 2019 had any influence on the final Let’s Get Wellington Moving package agreed by Cabinet; if so, what was that influence?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: On behalf of the Associate Minister, the way that we run the transport portfolio is to have frank and robust exchanges of views on all these things. I’ll say this about the Minister. He doesn’t always agree with the views of the Green Party, he often doesn’t agree with his own officials, but he does make sure we have a frank exchange of views to inform the best possible decision-making.

Chris Bishop: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That was a very specifically worded question about influence on the final package that went to Cabinet. There was a lot of material there about robust conversations, but not a lot about whether or not the Associate Minister considered that her letter had any influence on the Minister and the final Cabinet consideration.

SPEAKER: Yeah, I can see what the member’s getting at, but I think the question was addressed.

Chris Bishop: Does her 26 March 2019 letter to Minister Twyford implicitly or explicitly refer to her considering her position as a Minister if the project sequencing in the draft Cabinet paper went ahead?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: On behalf of the Associate Minister, no, not in any way.

Chris Bishop: What is her response to Daran Ponter, deputy chair of the Wellington Regional Council Sustainable Transport Committee, who said this morning, “Let’s see what it is she had pushed for and the direction that she has changed, because the things that have arrived on Wellingtonians’ plate in relation to Let’s Get Welly Moving are certainly not the things that they identified as projects they wanted when it went into the parliamentary process.”?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: On behalf the Associate Minister, no, I disagree with Daran Ponter. I think he’s suffering from election fever. I agree with the comments of Wellington City Mayor—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! I think there’s two points that I want to make: first, to remind the Minister answering the question that he is answering it on behalf of another Minister and should be using her voice as he does that, and the second point is the Minister should be careful about reflections on persons outside the House who cannot answer.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: On behalf of the Associate Minister, I don’t agree with councillor Daran Ponter, but I do agree with Mayor Justin Lester, who said that Wellingtonians wanted to get on with the project, and that’s what they’re doing. In response to the second part of the member’s question, the overwhelming tenor of the public responses to the public engagement carried out for Let’s Get Wellington Moving was that the people of Wellington wanted to see a project that delivered walking and cycling, rapid transit, public transport. We’ve landed a $6.4 billion transport investment that will unlock the growth potential of this city—something that that party failed to do for nine years.

Chris Bishop: When she quoted the Chief Ombudsman’s comments about political consultation yesterday as a rationale for not releasing her letter to Minister Twyford, was she implying she wrote that letter not as an Associate Minister of Transport but merely as a Green Party MP?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: On behalf of the Minister, no. It’s the convention of Government that letters between Ministers and, indeed, letters between governing parties are not released. We don’t intend to change that convention.

SPEAKER: Well, I’m prepared to let the member have another question.

Chris Bishop: Is she seriously saying to the House that letters between Ministers about matters such as a $6.4 billion, 20-year plus transport project for Wellington are not, by convention, released for public comment and consideration?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: On behalf of the Minister, what I was saying when I cited the Chief Ombudsman’s recent opinion on political consultation is that political consultation is vital to good governance and good decision-making, and that’s even more the case in the MMP era. That’s what the Ombudsman said.

Chris Bishop: Can I have another one, Mr Speaker?

SPEAKER: Well, you’re allowed another one but you’ve probably—no. I’ve given you one extra.

Question No. 12—Health

12. ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour) to the Minister of Health: What progress, if any, is the Government making on ensuring New Zealanders have safe drinking water?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): All New Zealanders have the right to expect their tap water to be safe to drink. We know from the experience in Havelock North in 2016, where 5,000 people got sick, that, unfortunately, this has not always been the case. Yesterday, the local government Minister and I were pleased to announce approval for a dedicated water regulator to ensure we can have confidence in the safety of our drinking water. This was one of the key recommendations of the Havelock North Drinking Water Inquiry Stage 2 report.

Angie Warren-Clark: How will a dedicated water regulator prevent outbreaks of water-borne disease, like the Havelock North outbreak, from happening again?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: For too long, drinking-water quality and safety has been covered by a number of pieces of legislation, and responsibilities have been split between a number of agencies. As a result, oversight has been fractured and ineffective. The new regulator will ensure coherent oversight of the entire drinking-water supply system. They will also ensure compliance with standards through monitoring and enforcement. Furthermore, they will provide leadership to the sector; help build capability; provide information, advice, and education; and report on the performance of the sector.

Angie Warren-Clark: What powers will the new water regulator have?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The new water regulator will have the final say on drinking water. Its powers will be set out in the new water services bill the Government intends introducing this year. This legislation will clearly set out all of the obligations to suppliers to provide safe drinking water to their communities. It’ll strengthen the compliance, monitoring, and enforcement of drinking-water regulations. This is a critical milestone for drinking-water safety in this country.

Urgent Debates Declined

Vocational Education—Reform

SPEAKER: I have received a letter from Dr Shane Reti seeking to debate under Standing Order 389 the Government’s announcement today of its plan to reform vocational education. It is a particular case of recent occurrence. It involves ministerial responsibility. The test for whether a particular matter requires the immediate attention of the House is a high one. One relevant consideration is whether the matter proposed to be discussed must come before the House soon in the form of legislation—Speakers’ ruling 196/2. The Minister has indicated in today’s announcement, actually, the links that the member provided to me, that legislation to give the effect to the reforms will be introduced this month. I am not convinced that the application meets the test for urgency; therefore the application is declined.

Voting

Correction—End of Life Choice Bill

SPEAKER: Last night, when the committee of the whole House was considering the End of Life Choice Bill, the result of the vote on Supplementary Order Paper 272 was incorrectly recorded as Ayes 32, Noes 87. The correct result is Ayes 31, Noes 87. The record will be corrected accordingly. I have indicated, previously, that care will be taken to try and avoid the duplication of votes, but I do want to seriously remind members that when they grant a proxy, they should ensure the proxy holder knows if they’re there, especially if they intend to change their mind on the way that they’re voting.

Points of Order

Tabling of Documents—Chief Ombudsman’s Ruling on Official Information Act

CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your guidance and help, Mr Speaker. Yesterday, the Associate Minister of Transport Julie Anne Genter referred to the Chief Ombudsman’s ruling in relation to political consultation being grounds for withholding information under the Official Information Act. It’s also been referred to by the Minister of Transport, answering on her behalf this afternoon. In the interim period, I sought from the Parliamentary Library a copy of that ruling. The library’s been unable to find a public copy of that ruling. We can’t have access to it. Given what’s happened in the last couple of days, it is extremely important that we have access to that. I was just wondering whether or not the Government could table that advice, so that we can all have it.

SPEAKER: Well, whether or not the Government tables the advice is a matter for the Government. I must say that I found one of the answers today surprising. As a result of that, I will be consulting with the Chief Ombudsman as to rulings that he has made in the area. If I have anything to report, I will report. But I think that, as a matter of general principle, other members can approach the Ombudsman not for a specific ruling on a specific matter—but I know that I had, as an Opposition member, regularly received copies of letters between Ministers.

Amended Answers to Oral Questions

Question No. 11 to Minister

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Transport): I seek leave to clarify or correct the answer that I gave that you referred to.

SPEAKER: The member seeks leave to correct an answer that he made earlier. Is there any objection to that? There appears to be none.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: So the principle that I was trying to articulate was reflected in the Chief Ombudsman’s recent opinion. In relation to political consultation between parties, I agree that it is not the political convention that correspondence between Ministers is never released, but, when it’s an inter-party consultation between Ministers, then the convention set out by the Chief Ombudsman applies. If I may read the paragraph from the Chief Ombudsman’s advice, he says, “There is a strong interest in maintaining the Government’s ability to undertake effective and efficient political consultation with political parties, and to receive free and frank opinions from the political parties that have been consulted. This interest is heightened in the MMP environment, where the relationships and agreements between parties are complex. It is vital, in this environment, that these parties are able to conduct free and frank discussions in a relationship of trust and confidence, and in a timely manner.”

SPEAKER: The member was quoting from a document then? Was the member quoting from the letter?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: It’s an excerpt from a letter.

NICOLA WILLIS (National): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, I seek your guidance. In the questions that have been answered in the House today, the Minister answered those in the capacity as the Associate Minister of Transport. The Minister is now referring to the role of being a Green Party member or the role of being a Green Party representative. It’s my understanding that when questions are answered by Ministers in this House they are answered in their capacity as Ministers, and I question the relevance of this ruling to answers in this House.

SPEAKER: Yes, and I will go back because what may be the case is that I should not have accepted the original question yesterday. If that is the case—if in fact it was a question about a letter that was not written as a Minister, then it is my responsibility for asking it. But that is something that we will not be able to sort out now, and it is something that I will go back and look at, because, quite clearly, all members have the ability to write other than in their ministerial capacity.

People clearly, on this side of the House, have spokespersonship responsibilities. It can get complicated with Ministers who act both as spokespeople for their parties and as Ministers, and often there are the same roles, the same areas that are being covered. It behoves members who do have those complicated responsibilities to make it very clear in correspondence that they write the capacity in which they are writing. Now, in this particular case, I had worked on the assumption—the question could have originally been knocked out if there was a suggestion that it was a Green Party letter as opposed to a letter written as a Minister.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think your initial assessment of this is probably going to be proved correct because, in the end, if it were a Green Party letter to a Labour Party spokesman on the same area, it would not be subject to the Official Information Act (OIA). It was released under the OIA because those who—

SPEAKER: No. I don’t think it was released. I think that’s the whole point.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Sorry, I meant “referred to” in the OIA and referred to again in the House by Ms Genter. I would have thought it would have been easy for Ms Genter to make the statement at the time that it was a non-ministerial communication. That has not been done.

SPEAKER: And, as I indicated, I will have a bit more of a look at this question, and, if there is anything further to report, I will.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is important that we note that the Official Information Act does not only cover written documentation. Therefore, the House and members have to accept the views of those who are undertaking an exchange—whether it’s a written one or a verbal one—about the capacity in which they were undertaking it. If I have a conversation with Tracey Martin, for example, sometimes it will be in our ministerial capacity around education and sometimes it will be in a party-to-party nature about an education matter. I don’t say to Tracey Martin when I ring her up, “I’m ringing you now in my capacity as the Labour Party spokesperson for education.”, but I could still be questioned on the interactions that I have, and, if I say that I was having a particular conversation in my capacity as the Labour Party spokesperson and Tracey Martin was responding in her capacity as the New Zealand First spokesperson, we have to be taken at our word for that. Otherwise the conventions that this House operates under are going to start to crumble.

Hon Paula Bennett: Point of order.

Nicola Willis: Speaking to the point of order.

SPEAKER: Well, I’m going to take the Hon Paula Bennett as the last contribution on this, because, if people do have extra points that they want to make, then they can send me a note.

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Deputy Leader—National): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Further to the point of order, I also ask you to consider the answers in the House today from the Minister acting, in that there was a very specific question from Chris Bishop saying in what capacity did she write the letter and it was very clear that it was in the capacity as the Associate Minister.

SPEAKER: That’s certainly an impression that I got, but I think it was just slightly confused towards the end.

Nicola Willis: Speaking to a new point of order.

SPEAKER: On a different matter?

NICOLA WILLIS (National): On a different matter. This relates to the document that the Minister quoted from and I’m asking that that document be tabled as an official document.

SPEAKER: Order! And I’m suggesting that the member listen.

Bills

Te Pire Haeata ki Parihaka / Parihaka Reconciliation Bill

Second Reading

Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister for Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti): I move, That Te Pire Haeata ki Parihaka / Parihaka Reconciliation Bill be now read a second time.

E te Taranaki maunga, nau mai haere mai, whakatau mai. Kua kōrero, kua whakatau tātou ki waho rā, kua roa koutou e tatari ana mō ngā pātai heahea o tērā taha ki a mātou kia haere me ngā, me ngā whakautu matatau o mātou ki a rātou kia haere, engari, kua tae tātou ki te kaupapa matua o tēnei ahiahi, nā reira, nau mai, haere mai, whakatau mai.

[To the mountain of Taranaki, welcome, welcome, welcome. We have spoken, we have decided outside, you have been waiting a long time to go because of the frivolous questions of the opposition to us, and our brilliant responses to them; however, we have now arrived at the most important matter of this afternoon, therefore, welcome, welcome, welcome.]

I want to extend a warm welcome to the members of the Parihaka community who have come back to Parliament for the second reading of this bill today. I also acknowledge the many generations of the Parihaka community who have passed on before we’ve been able to reach this point, and those who could not be here today. This bill is the work of many and so I acknowledge the tireless efforts of the Parihaka Papakāinga Trust and all the agencies who have contributed to this bill.

I also want to acknowledge the members of Kawe Tutaki, the group set up to understand the aspirations of the Parihaka community and provide direction to the Crown. In 2015, Dame Tariana Turia, the Rt Hon Jim Bolger, the Hon Mahara Okeroa, Amokura Panoho, and Ruakere Hond made bold recommendations to the Crown, and, alongside the Parihaka community, they were a catalyst for reconciliation. Lastly, as I mentioned during the first reading in May last year, today would not have been possible without the support and commitment of previous Minister for Māori Development, the Hon Te Ururoa Flavell, and the previous Attorney-General, the Hon Christopher Finlayson.

This bill gives effect to Te Kawenata ō Rongo, the deed of reconciliation, signed on 9 June 2017. Te Kawenata ō Rongo formally recorded the arrangements made by Parihaka and the Crown to reconcile a troubled historical relationship. It seeks to improve understanding of the history of Parihaka, provide support for the future development of the Parihaka community, and promote their legacy. Te Kawenata ō Rongo also enshrines the commitment of the Crown and Parihaka to build a new relationship based on trust, on partnership, and cooperation.

The bill, which is in both Te Reo Māori and English, contains the legacy statement, drafted by members of the Parihaka community, and the Crown apology. The bill is symbolic of a renewed dialogue that is long overdue. Through the legacy statement, the community is telling the story of Parihaka in their own voice. The legacy statement summarises the origins of the Parihaka community and their principles, describes their history, and sets out their aspirations for the future. Through its apology, the Crown is speaking not just to the Parihaka community of today but, importantly, to their tūpuna—those who have passed. The Crown formally acknowledges not only its utter failure to respect the right of the Parihaka community to develop and be sustained on their own terms but, critically, it acknowledges the Crown’s failure to respect the basic human rights of the Parihaka community.

Facing a community that refused to accept the Crown’s confiscation of their traditional lands, a community—or should I say hapori—who were committed to asserting their rights to that land through peaceful means, the Crown responded with extreme measures. To quote from the apology, “The Crown responded to peace with tyranny, to unity with division, and to autonomy with oppression.” The Crown sought to discredit the community’s leaders by labelling them fanatics and by twisting their messages of peace—ko te rongomau—into threats. The Crown arrested hundreds of protesters and passed laws that enabled Parihaka whānau to be held as political prisoners, to be deprived of their right to trial. Military force was used to invade and destroy the Parihaka community. The Crown arrested and exiled Parihaka leaders and then passed further laws to prevent people from returning to their ruined homes.

The Crown’s apology expresses its deepest regret for these actions, acknowledges the discipline and courage of the men, women, and children of Parihaka, and records a commitment to work with Parihaka to fulfil the vision of peaceful coexistence that the community represented and continues to represent today. As such, the legacy statement and the Crown’s apology serve as markers both of a shared past and of a shared future.

The bill was referred to the Māori Affairs Committee on 22 March 2018. Thirty-nine submissions were received from interested groups and individuals, and the committee heard 23 submissions at Parihaka and in Wellington in May 2018. As a result, some amendments were made to the bill which I want to discuss briefly.

One key change was to explain the term “haeata” in Te Reo Māori title of the bill. The term “haeata” literally means “dawn”, but it is used in this context to indicate a new beginning. This is an important signal to the intent of the bill and its role in the reconciliation process.

Other changes strengthen the link between the bill and Te Kawenata ō Rongo and use stronger wording to better reflect the impacts that the historical Acts of Parliament, referred to earlier, had on the Parihaka community. Two submissions sought amendments to protect the names Parihaka, Tohu Kākahi, and Te Whiti ō Rongomai. I think it’s really important to note that the grandson of Te Whiti ō Rongomai is here and he also bears the name Te Whiti ō Rongomai—ngā mihi atu ki a koe.

As well as the history of Parihaka and the legacy statement against unregulated use, protection has been an important issue for the Parihaka community and the delay in progressing this bill has allowed us to work through this thoroughly. There is significant pressure on the Parihaka Papakāinga Trust and the wider community when they receive requests from people who want to use the name Parihaka, the name of their tūpuna, or who want to use the story of Parihaka. The trust feels a deep sense of duty and responsibility to protect and uphold the mana of their kāinga, their hapori, of their tūpuna, and of their legacy, all of which continues to be upheld by the wider community to this day. Too often, people will use the name Parihaka or the name of these tūpuna without talking to the Parihaka community or fully understanding what the names and the legacy truly mean. The subsequent use of these names is often not reflective of the history and the legacy, or it is at odds with the trust’s duty of protection. I want to thank the chair and the members of the Māori Affairs Committee, who showed great patience and allowed sufficient time to address these important issues.

The bill has been amended to include a clause to protect the name Parihaka against commercial exploitation without the authorisation of the Parihaka Papakāinga Trust. This does not prevent the use of the name Parihaka for genuine creative or educational uses, but it certainly will help prevent people using it for commercial purposes without seeking the approval and the guidance of the Parihaka Papakāinga Trust first. This is the first time in Aotearoa that a geographic place name has been given such protection. This is not a silver bullet, but in the current context and until issues regarding the protection of mātauranga and taonga Māori are addressed more broadly, this is a start. The very existence of this clause will reinforce the very special relationship that the community has with the place Parihaka. Although it is targeted at commercial exploitation, I expect that more generally it will make people question why they want to be associated with Parihaka before they decide to use the name Parihaka.

I want to thank the Parihaka community for their patience and commitment throughout the process, even if it meant delaying the second reading of the bill by almost a year. While the delay has been regrettable, I am pleased with the result. We need to take the time to get this right. I’m satisfied with the changes to the bill, as they provide further clarity to what we want to achieve through the reconciliation process. On the one hand, we know that together we must acknowledge the historical events which for too long have burdened the people of Parihaka with a legacy of grievance and deprivation and have burdened the Crown with a legacy of shame. On the other hand, together we face te haeata, the dawn of a new relationship between Parihaka and the Crown, and our commitment to work together into the future through the leaders forum, the relationship agreement, and the Parihaka fund. The Parihaka community is ready to take on this new challenge of preserving the legacy of peace and self-determination bestowed upon them by Tohu and Te Whiti. This bill demonstrates the Crown’s commitment to do the same.

I’ll close with the wisdom of Te Whiti ō Rongomai, whose words of humility and unity are still with us today: “He hōnore, he kororia ki Te Atua i runga rawa, he maungārongo ki te whenua, he whakaaro pai ki ngā tāngata katoa [Honour and glory to the God above, peace to the land, and good thoughts to all men].”

I commend this bill to the House.

JO HAYES (National): Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā. E te whānau o Parihaka, nau mai, haere mai ki Te Wharenui i tēnei rā. He rā whakahirahira. He rā whakamaumahara i ngā wā o mua. He mamae taku ngākau ki ngā tūpuna o Parihaka engari, engari, ka nui te hari, ka nui te koa ki te kitea ngā kanohi o Parihaka i tēnei rā. Tēnā koutou katoa.

[Thank you, Madam Speaker. The family of Parihaka, welcome, welcome to this House on this day. It is an important day. It is a day to remember the old days. My heart aches for the ancestors of Parihaka, but I am also very happy. I am joyful at seeing the faces of Parihaka today. Greetings to you all.]

I want to acknowledge the work of Te Kawenata ō Rongo. I want to acknowledge the whānau of Parihaka. I want to acknowledge the trust, the Parihaka Papakāinga Trust, for the work, for the patience of getting to this place today. I, like the Minister, also want to acknowledge the Hon Te Ururoa Flavell and the Hon Chris Finlayson for the work that they did in getting this deed of reconciliation document, getting the signatories, and moving the work so that it could move towards the parliamentary process. I want to acknowledge the Hon Kelvin Davis, who continues with this work and will carry it through to its final reading.

As a member of the Māori Affairs Committee, I was privileged to be part of the rōpū that went to listen to the submissions at Parihaka. It is always, always a privilege to sit in the kāinga of the whānau, of the iwi, of the hapū of Parihaka to hear their stories, and I am pleased now to see and witness and be part of the second reading of Te Pire Haeata ki Parihaka, or Parihaka Reconciliation Bill. I want to make mention of the work in the select committee, ably chaired by Rino Tirikatene, of protecting the Parihaka name, as the Minister eloquently put it—the Parihaka name, Tohu, and Te Whiti. I too want to acknowledge Te Whiti ō Rongomai’s grandson sitting in the gallery today. It is truly an honour and a privilege to have you here. Once this bill reaches its final conclusion, the name of Parihaka will be protected, as it should have been in the past; as it will be in the future.

I want to talk a little bit about the history of Parihaka, the tikanga of the legacy of hope given down by Tohu Kākahi and Te Whiti ō Rongomai, which gave rise to the Parihaka movement—the legacy of hope that had five key areas, unlike the legacy statement in this bill that has nine phases. I want to say this, because in many of the claims that we have here in the House of many of the iwi, it is this legacy of hope that actually spells out a lot of the basis for which Māori iwi, whānau, and hapū actually could have come through on their journey. So the legacy of hope starts with equality, where everybody in Parihaka was equal. There were none above the others. Those who thought they were kings or queens would muck in and wash the dishes just like everybody else. That was the first legacy. The second one was collectivity, and it’s about having everybody all together as one. Us on this side of the House know the importance of that, where it is one purpose and one purpose only. For Parihaka, it was about Parihaka. The identity: now, in Parihaka there were many people that came from many backgrounds—many whakapapas were staying in Parihaka—but Parihaka subsumed all of those identities and it became one, one of Parihaka.

The fourth legacy of hope was goodwill, and this is demonstrated whenever iwi from Taranaki extend from Parihaka and come in for pōwhiri. It is always the hongi first—always the hongi first. Finally, the fifth legacy of hope was self-sufficiency, and it is a lesson that we should all learn, self-sufficiency—to never rely on the outside world, to always have the resources available inside your world. These were the five legacy statements of hope that gave rise to the Parihaka movement.

The history of Parihaka is a sobering one. I’m only going to start from 1860, because so much happened prior to that, but these were some of the key areas. In the 1860s, the goodwill of Te Whiti and his people saving people from off a wrecked boat on the coast, taking them in and looking after them, seemed to go by the by as, by 1863, the Suppression of Rebellion Act and the New Zealand Settlement Act came into power. These were really significant pieces of legislation that started the downturn of Māori and the kaha of Māori.

In 1879, Te Whiti started non-violent resistance to Government surveying. He said “Go, put your hands to the plough. Look not back. If any come with guns and swords, be not afraid. If they [smile] you [smile] not in return. If they rend you, [do not be] discouraged. Another will take up the good work.” A lot of the resistance in Parihaka was based around the ploughing of that land.

The 1881 era of invasion and exile was horrendous—absolutely horrendous. By 5 November, invasion had started in Parihaka—1,500 volunteers, armed constabulary, entered Parihaka. Within two weeks, all the housing was gone. Within two months, all the crops were gone. Men were taken and put into jail. The story of that journey of those people, of those men, of those whānau of Parihaka was a blight on our history, and so many times, when I see and hear this, it does bring tears to my heart. The women and girls were raped by the colonial soldiers, by the volunteers. It was disgusting and it should never ever be forgotten.

By 1883, Te Whiti was returned to Parihaka. He reinstated his monthly meetings on the 18th of each month, and they continue today, a protest of confiscation of Māori land. Yet by 1886, he and Tītokowaru were re-arrested. By 1888, before his release, Te Whiti’s wife passed, Hikurangi, and yet the jailers could not see in front of them to let him go and be with his wife at her tangi.

In 1898, the Parihaka men that had been jailed were returned, to a big pōwhiri. So in 1907, when Te Whiti and Tohu passed away, they left behind a Parihaka that was stronger, that would be able to endure the many more hardships they would face. Yet their resolve to survive and rebuild Parihaka had been a testament to the legacy of their founders.

On 9 June 2017, I stood with a rōpū at the gateway of Parihaka as we were received by the whānau for the signing of the deed of reconciliation. It was a humbling experience.

Each phase of the legacy statements recounts everything that I have said today, and I think that as I close my speech, I look at all the other colonial encounters over history that have happened, and the indigenous peoples of each of those respective countries have been the ones who have paid the price—Australia, South Africa, Ireland, Scotland, India, just to name a few. They all paid a price.

In closing, I just want to utter some words of Te Whiti o Rongomai as a reminder to us all. He said “No good thing has ever been got by force. There is no good reason why force should continue to have power over us.” That is a statement that I leave in this House today. I commend the bill to the House. Tēnā koutou katoa.

ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. Otirā, ko Taranaki te maunga. Ko Waitotoroa te awa. Ko Parihaka te kāinga. Ko Tohu Kākahi rāua ko Te Whiti-o-Rongomai ngā manu e rua. Nō reira, he kororia ki Te Atua, he maungārongo ki te whenua, he whakaaro pai ki ngā tāngata katoa. Tihei mauri ora.

E tika ana kia tuku mihi atu ki te whānau kua tae mai ki Te Whare Paremata i tēnei rā, nō reira, koutou mā ka piri taku mihi ki ngā mihi kua mihia kē i tēnei rā, nō reira, koutou katoa, ki a koe e te pāpā, Te Whiti-o-Rongomai Meihana, tēnei ahau e tuku mihi atu ki a koutou katoa i tēnei rā whakahirahira. Nō reira, tēnā rā koutou katoa.

[Thank you, Madam Speaker. And so, Taranaki is the ancestral mountain. Waitotoroa the ancestral river. Parihaka is home. Tohu Kākahi and Te Whiti-o-Rongomai are the two guiding lights. Therefore, glory to God, peace to the land, and good thoughts to all men. I stand before you.

It is only right that I acknowledge the family that has arrived to Parliament on this day; therefore, to you all I add my acknowledgement to those acknowledgements that have already been made today; therefore, to you all, to you my elder, Te Whiti-o-Rongomai Meihana, here I stand to acknowledge you all on this important day. Therefore, greetings to you all.]

It is an honour and a privilege to speak in this debate today. As Jo Hayes has stated, I was also on the Māori Affairs Committee and had the honour and privilege of visiting Parihaka to hear the submissions of those 23 submitters who wanted to be heard in that process. I say that it was a privilege because we had all the different voices that represent the overall voice of Parihaka there. One I will mention in particular is a family—a mum, a dad, and they brought along their two children as well, and they all contributed to the conversation and put their point of view forward. We heard lots of different things.

One thing that I always found impressive was that despite everything that had gone on to the people of Parihaka and in that place, they continuously upheld the legacy of Tohu and Te Whiti and the values that they have left, not only for their time, but right through to now and for the future. Values which are definitely within this document: Te Kawenata ō Rongo. This document, members, I encourage everyone to read. It’s not a big document, but there’s a lot in there. There’s a lot in there that really tells us about the resilience that the people and the community of Parihaka have and why they have that ability to move past the injustices that they faced. So I recommend it to members of the House. It’s not difficult to find—just google it.

So within the submissions, I’m going to mention a couple of things. One of them was the dual language of the bill—Te Reo Māori and English. One thing that was raised was not only that it should be in both languages, but the format of it was problematic. Even now, if members look in the bill as it’s written, it’s not the best kind of format, with Te Reo Māori and then English. One of the submitters asked that the bill be produced in a way where we have Te Reo Māori on one side and English on the other. The officials told us that that was not possible because, basically, the software that is used to produce these documents would not account for a change to the conventions of the print that is used. So I wanted to mention that here today, mainly because we have three official languages, and I think it is something that the House should consider—changing the conventions of print for bills in Te Reo Māori and in English.

I also want to characterise, I guess, a number of submissions in that they were basically saying, “Make this document—the legislation—be more reflective of this document: Te Kawenata ō Rongo.” I’m happy to say that the length of time that it took, really, was about making certain that that happened. It has taken a long time, but I acknowledge all of the advisers and also the Parliamentary Counsel Office as well for the work that they have done. It hasn’t been easy to get everything in there, but I think I can honestly say that the changes that have been made do reflect what is in Te Kawenata ō Rongo more fairly, and also adds—as the Minister outlaid—the protection of the name Parihaka, which I can’t stress to the House how important that was for a number of submitters. There have been events—and other communities will know this as well—where the name of their community has been used in a way that is not appreciated by the people that actually live in that community. So I’m really pleased that another level of protection has been provided within this bill.

There also—in terms of making it more strongly represented by Te Kawenata ō Rongo—was a recommendation by the Māori Affairs Committee to have stronger language around the historical acts that are recorded in the legislation. That has been done, so I’m really pleased about that.

I am not going to speak too much longer on the changes, but really to acknowledge, again, the people of Parihaka. I want to also mention that last week we had Ngāti Rangi here for the third reading of their bill. I acknowledge an important connection to Ngāti Rangi through Ēnoka Mareikura, who was a nephew to Mere Rikiriki, who had gone to Parihaka, and at Parihaka had met with Tohu and Te Whiti, and had also received a flag that had come from King Tāwhiao. On that flag it says, “E te iwi kia ora.” The whānau in the gallery will know exactly what that means. I just want to mention that here today, because both of these groups are connected through the māramatanga, and both are connected in this House, because only one week ago their whanaunga was sitting here as well.

Nō reira, kāore e roa tēnei tū, oti noa e tika ana kia tuku mihi atu ki a koutou ngā whānau o Parihaka nō reira tēnā rā tātou katoa i runga i te tukunga iho o rātou mā i te wāhi ngaro, Te Māngai hei tautoko, āe.

[Therefore, I won’t speak for long, only finishing it is right that I acknowledged you, the families of Parihaka therefore; thank you all on the lessons passed down by those who have passed on, to support the God’s representative, yes.]

JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): Thank you, Madam Speaker. E ngā reo, e ngā mana, e ngā hau e whā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. Can I thank the previous speaker for some of the comments he has made. Can I welcome the people of Parihaka here to Parliament. This place which, long ago, worked to take away your mana—our hope and prayer is that this place restore it, and restore the autonomy and the ability for you to define and determine your future. I think, as we see here in the legacy statement just exactly, it is your story that you have and own and want to tell. It’s a story of international significance, and can I just commend what the Māori Affairs Committee have done in terms of strengthening some of the statements. You know, we live in a world that would seek to soften the hard and dark things of the past. But I think it is the truth of the past that will help us make sure that our future is strong. If we refuse to acknowledge that, we only disservice ourselves.

I think that we have, in the experiences of the people of Parihaka, something which, I think, is of international significance in that a people who sought to defend what was always—and should have been—theirs, did it in a peaceful and a willing way: to, actually, attempt to cooperate with those settlers and the Crown that had come to Taranaki. Yet they received, at the hand of the Crown, I would have to say, a tremendous affront to that spirit and attitude. It’s been recorded and acknowledged locally that Mahatma Gandhi, in terms of the peaceful resistance in India, took his inspiration from the people of Parihaka.

I believe that as the negotiations for Taranaki iwi were under way, there was consideration in the early period of time that Parihaka be included in that, but that, of course, was not to be because of the negotiators who said that the story of Parihaka is unique, and needs to stand and be recognised on its own two feet—that this place was a place where those people who had lost their land and mana, and came to a place of refuge and, indeed, was the largest settlement of Māori in Taranaki. This seemed to be the place where the Crown determined that they would try and eradicate and stamp out that resistance that was taking place.

I remember the words of Wīremu Kīngi, who was recorded in The Taranaki Report from the Waitangi Tribunal, who said, regarding the settlers who came to Taranaki, “Look, you have your part. We have our part, and love will bind us together”. There was a generous attitude of wanting to cooperate, and inclusion, and form a society together. But at that point in time, back in the 1860s through to the early 1880s and onwards, that spirit and attitude was moved against. This is why this Parliament, and the Government of past and now, have written these words of apology to the people of Parihaka.

Can I say, just in my last few moments, that I am very honoured to know many of the people of Parihaka, and to esteem you and respect you as a member of Parliament of that coastal region. My aroha goes to you, and I thank you for being here. I thank you for your generosity, for your amazing patience, and my hope and prayer is that this bill that goes through this House will be, in fact, the enablement for a stronger future. Can I acknowledge the district councils. It’s been wonderful to see them involved in coming behind the people of Parihaka to strengthen your infrastructure, and also to support you as a wider Taranaki community. Kia ora, God bless. Thank you.

JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. E tū ake ana au kei raro i te korowai aroha o ōku tupuna. I stand here embraced in the loving korowai of my ancestors, as it is an honour today for me to speak on behalf of New Zealand First on the second reading of Te Pire Haeata ki Parihaka / Parihaka Reconciliation Bill. It is a pleasure, as I have mentioned, and it is an honour, indeed, to welcome you here again to Parliament, as it was an absolute honour for me to join the Māori Affairs Committee back in May 2018 as you welcomed us to your place so we could hear your stories. It was an overcast day. It was a little drizzly. We went on a wonderful drive as we drove around the coast, past the maunga on the left, and came to Parihaka, and it was the first time that I’d been to Taranaki and gone that way around the maunga. So for me, it was like a new journey.

I have a lovely connection with Taranaki. My grandmother grew up in Kaponga. My sister lives down on the coast as well on a farm, and we often go and collect pāua, so I’m very familiar with the bounty of your moana, and I thank you for that. I was just there at Easter, and we collected enough pāua for a very good kai for the family, so that’s something I know is a prize in that area.

The Parihaka story takes us to a time when the greed for land was far greater than the recognition of our tangata whenua. The greed for land was so all-consuming that the people perished. The children, the wāhine, the men, and the land itself perished under that obsession. But today, we can look in hope to the future as we acknowledge the wrongdoings of the Crown, and acknowledge you, and restore your mana. I’m really honoured to be a tiny part of that process.

Part of the Māori Affairs Committee, for me, was a little bit like a coming home. The committee—we operate in a slightly different way to other committees in Parliament. We work very much in a collaborative way. We have the best kai ever, so it is quite disappointing to me that I’m no longer on that committee, but I was there for the opportunity to go and hear your stories, which I will talk to in just a moment. I note that there was a year’s delay since we went to visit you, and before we finally get to this second reading. Hearing your aspirations was very uplifting, so I’d just like to acknowledge today the whānau of Parihaka that are here, and also, too, the Minister the Hon Kelvin Davis, as he talked about the legal legacy statement, and also the Crown apology.

I would like to focus a little bit of my contribution today on the protection of the name Parihaka, and it is a start as the Minister announced. For me, hearing from the Parihaka Papakāinga Trust, and hearing about why you want your name protected—to me, it makes absolute sense. The Parihaka Papakāinga Trust requested that Te Pire Haeata ki Parihaka / Parihaka Reconciliation Bill be amended to include acknowledgements of the importance of Parihaka, acknowledgments of the importance of Tohu and Te Whiti, and that there be appropriate legal mechanisms, such as intellectual property provisions and intellectual property protections for the name Parihaka, for the name Tohu as well as Te Whiti, and for the history of Parihaka and the legacy statement. I am pleased to hear that the protection of the name Parihaka is part of this bill now.

Currently, there’s some filming under way. Mihingarangi Forbes is currently filming a documentary, The Stories of Taranaki, and that will be edited shortly and will have its debut on 28 October, in Taranaki—so very much looking forward to having your story interwoven into The Stories of Taranaki for us to have captured on film. They’ve just been filming last week the drama The Re-enactments. They’re going into the augmented reality phase where they rebuild the pā, and that will all get edited soon, and I’m very much looking forward to seeing that documentary, because I think it’s important not just that we tell our stories but that, for future generations, we can also recreate the past so they can see it as well.

The bill includes some parts of the apology that need to be legislated and also recommends protecting the name from commercial exploitation. So this bill will mean no person may, without a written authorisation from the trust, carry on trade activities under the names and concepts associated with Parihaka.

Another couple of submissions that we heard in May last year was that they would like 5 November—Guy Fawkes Day—to actually be renamed; so no longer call it “Guy Fawkes Day” but call it “Parihaka Day”. I was very interested to hear about that, because they believe that Parihaka is a place where they feel safe and, like many before us, Parihaka is our place of refuge—a place where we know we belong, feel safe, and are cared for, and that was a submission from one whānau. Another submission, by Dr Heather Devere, the Director of Practice of the National Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies, from the University of Otago, actually also recommended renaming Guy Fawkes Day as Parihaka Day.

So we had a various amount of submissions; 23 we heard from, including one which was really making a fiscal observation that the $9 million associated with this bill really was a bit poor, considering the various bailouts that have gone on before—$500 million for AMI, the South Canterbury Finance bailout to a very large tune—and, in light of those bailouts, the submitter felt that $9 million for destroying a thriving Māori community, for stealing their land, for imprisoning their men without trial, and for raping their women seems absolutely pathetic. So I would just like that noted: that that is from one of the submitters to this bill.

I’d also like to mention art. I’m quite a passionate friend of the arts, and I only just realised recently that the well-known New Zealand artist Colin McCahon has actually done a painting, “Monuments to Te Whiti and to Tohu”, and that’s from the 1972 “Necessary Protection” series. So I think it’s really interesting that, throughout our history in New Zealand, we have tried to capture the story of Parihaka in many different ways, and to have a notable New Zealand artist acknowledge part of the story of Parihaka, I think, is something significant, and it would be good to see those paintings, which are often stored in collections, maybe come to your home area more regularly so they can be shown and viewed by the public.

In conclusion, etched in the pages of history, Te Whiti and Tohu, the gospel of pacifism and the prophecy of Parihaka, the vision of the albatross that swept down, the feather that fluttered to the ground—the raukura, a tohu, a prophecy of peace—this unique symbol of the white raukura, the white feather, and the background, the pakō, pakō, pakō, the drumbeat of the poi becoming the beating of the heart of the people of Parihaka. The poi will be a symbol through the documentary that is currently being made, and I’d like to make note of that so that, when we do get to watch the film, we will know that drumbeat of the poi and the significance it has for the people of Parihaka.

Ko Taranaki maunga, muruhia. Taranaki mountain, confiscated. Ko Taranaki whenua, muruhia. Taranaki land, confiscated. Ko Taranaki moana, muruhia. Taranaki seas, confiscated. Ko Taranaki tangata e tū tonu nei. Tihei mauri ora. Taranaki mana still stands firm. Tihei mauri ora!

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Welcome to Parliament, and I would like to acknowledge everybody who has been involved in the process for Parihaka over a very long period of time. Of all the people in this House, I feel very close to the situation, as someone who grew up in Ōpunake, who went to Ōpunake High School, and who knows a number of people who attended that school also from Parihaka.

We know that Parliament often takes a very long time to get things done, but I don’t think that we can comprehend a very long time in terms of the process the people of Parihaka have had to endure and the process to get back to where we are today. The time frames: even my grandmother, who is going to be turning 103 next month, still would have no comprehension of the time frames of Parihaka. I was there on 9 June 2017, on that special occasion, and it was a very, very special occasion with the Minister Chris Finlayson and all the people of Parihaka. It was a fantastic day.

I’ve also been there and sat and watched the movie of Parihaka. A special memory for me is being there one day when there was a lower North Island Rotary Club there. We all sat and watched the video on that very day, and the comments that came from those members of the Rotary Club—there were about 50 or 60 of them—were that everyone in New Zealand should have the opportunity to know the story of Parihaka. So I think it’s very appropriate that Parihaka gets a geographic place name protection, because it is a special place and it will always have a special place in my heart, with a great deal of embarrassment around the events that happened at Parihaka in such tragic circumstances.

I know in the bill there’s acknowledgment of the legacy statement, so I just want to think about the value of time and that legacy statement. When I think about the various stages—“Phase 1—The upheaval. Violent upheaval 1813–1840”—the beginning of all of that process and the impact of the conflict that happened around 1860 to 1865, that awful period, it was a tragic situation for the people of Parihaka. The interesting thing is that when I look through these legacy documents, it says in here “Phase 6—The revival. The drive for revival 1886–1907”. What a long time ago, the drive for revival.

But the part that really gets me in here is the phase from 1907 to 1975: “The forgetting of Parihaka”. And, for me, the end of that time, in the 1970s, was the time when I was at Ōpunake High School and, really, Parihaka was a forgotten place, not acknowledged at all during that time. So the second revival, from 1975 to the present day, is something that I’ve been very aware of. In those earlier days around that second revival, it also was not a pleasant time, because people did not understand the story of Parihaka, they did not understand what it was about, and actually there was some resistance again to Parihaka in those early days, based on people’s lack of knowledge, through ignorance of the situation, and on not knowing what had happened. So people knew the location of Parihaka but didn’t understand the story and, actually, almost put up another form of resistance in those early days.

But I’m pleased to say that we have come a huge way since that time. It’s your time, and we are very proud, as the current politicians in this Government today, to be sharing this time with you. I want to acknowledge the Māori Affairs Committee and all of the work they did going through the process of getting this bill to this point. This is the beginning of a new time, and we welcome that. Thank you for all who are involved. Thank you for your patience. I think that’s a big, big, big understatement. But go forward. Congratulations to everybody, and we look forward to celebrating the future with you. Thank you.

JAN LOGIE (Green):

Ngā mana e rua, Tohu Kākahi, Te Whiti o Rongomai, tēnā kōrua. Ki a koutou ngā uri o Parihaka, o Taranaki iwi, nau mai, haere mai, haere mai.

[The two leaders, Tohu Kākahi, Te Whiti o Rongomai, greetings to you both. To you, the descendants of Parihaka, of the tribe of Taranaki, welcome, welcome, welcome.]

It’s my distinct honour to stand and take a call in the second reading of Te Pire Haeata ki Parihaka, the Parihaka Reconciliation Bill, on behalf of the Green Party. While second reading speeches are traditionally a recapping of the submissions and the amendments to the bill, as with everyone else who’s spoken on this piece of legislation today, I feel compelled to acknowledge the importance of this to us as a country, and particularly for the people of Parihaka. I offer, initially, my gratitude for their role in our history. It’s something that I wish more New Zealanders knew and understood and connected to, because I believe firmly that we would all be in a much better place if we could connect to the legacy and the values that have been held in that very special place.

I also want to acknowledge that I think this piece of legislation—which is not a settlement bill; it is a reconciliation bill—is another example of the Parihaka community and uri stepping out of what is the norm to offer all of us an expanded idea of what is possible. For the Crown, it’s another call for us to build relationships based on an acknowledgement of the history and to create a new beginning. This is very significant: that this was initiated by the Attorney-General—well, in response from the people of Parihaka, of course—and outside of the formal settlement process, and that it is in here.

There are many things in this piece of legislation. Its existence in itself is hugely significant. The fact that it contains the apology and the legacy statement—which is the history, as I’ve heard repeated, from inside Parihaka, rather than other people’s interpretation of that history, which is what we are so often left with in this country—and that the spirit of that is so present in reading it, is so different to what we normally are given in pieces of legislation, and I want to acknowledge the importance and the vision in that.

Of course, we can’t stand in this House representing the Crown and not, again, acknowledge the horror of the history and the importance of, actually, some of that detail, which is what this apology brings into the record. This piece of legislation is to ensure that we never forget, as a country.

The Parihaka community was established as people were being driven off their land forcibly and violently by the Crown, only so few years after the signing of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. About 3 million acres, across Taranaki and Waikato primarily, was confiscated by the Crown.

The legacy of that we see on a daily basis. Typically, the conversation—at least on talkback—blames individuals, with no acknowledgement of the benefit to Pākehā, and the Crown in particular, from that confiscation and theft and huge, huge harm and with no acknowledgment that, in the face of that, a philosophy of peace was created—a non-violent resistance that has been looked to by communities all around the world and that just offers such a different way of resolving conflict that is just so powerful and so hopeful for all of us. Yet that peace was met with doubled-down violence by the Crown.

As with others in the House, I was incredibly privileged to be at the signing of Te Kawenata ō Rongo, the deed of reconciliation, on 9 June 2017. The walk up that road, and being greeted by the food from the soil and the kumara and the kete and the children and the waiata and the stillness in the air and the mountain in the background watching us—knowing that the previous time the Crown had walked up that road had been with guns, countering children and women and men in peace, and they had mown them down—is something that I will never forget, and I wish more people in this country would understand the profound harm that lies in our history and is all too often hidden and denied.

So this bill seeks to bring that to the light. As the title of the bill states, Te Pire Haeata is the new dawn and for us to have a new beginning.

I do want to acknowledge that there were 39 submissions on this piece, which really is about just bringing the deed of reconciliation into legislation in the House but required quite a bit of work, despite the initial sense that this was quite simple. But that’s often the way of how things sometimes—the detail which really matters can be lost in translation.

So part of the changes that came through from submissions were the translation of haeata and ensuring that that was acknowledged, and the real meaning of that, and the dual meaning of that, is “dawn” and “new beginning”; ensuring that there was stronger wording to reflect the impact of, particularly, the changes in legislation that enabled the Crown to indefinitely detain the men from Parihaka after they had, in effect, kidnapped them and taken them away and separated them from their people and to reflect that there were several pieces of legislation that enabled the Crown to subvert the rule of law, which is so often spoken about as if it is always sacrosanct but was not in the early days of colonisation in this House; and to strengthen the links between the deed and the bill, including reference to the Parihaka-Crown Leaders’ Forum and Te Huanga ō Rongo, the relationship agreement, and the Parihaka Fund.

While the deed is itself legally binding, it was important to submitters that there was more clarity between bringing some aspects of the deed into the legislation so that it would be on the record in this House and from this House, moving forward. Indeed, this is as much about what is going to happen in the future and resetting our relationship as it is about the terrible horror of the past and acknowledging the Parihaka community’s authorship of the legacy statement. I suspect nobody reading it would think it had come from the Crown. It, to me, so speaks to the spirit of Parihaka and stands distinctly, but I do think clarifying that authorship is really valuable—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): I’m sorry to interrupt the member, but her time has expired. I call Dan Bidois.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā. Te Whare e tū nei, tēnā koe. Te papa e takoto nei, tēnā koe. Ngā mate, haere, haere, haere. E ngā mana, e ngā reo, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou.

[Thank you, Madam Speaker. To the House that stands before me, I greet you. To the ground beneath me, I greet you. Those who have passed on, proceed on your journey. To the leaders, to the spokespeople, greetings to you all.]

It’s a pleasure to speak in the second reading of the Parihaka Reconciliation Bill. I’d like to start out by acknowledging the people of Parihaka. Thank you for your patience in what has been a long, long process coming to the House today. I’d also like to acknowledge Te Whiti o Rongomai’s grandson who is here: kia ora to you. Also I’d like to acknowledge the Ministers of the Crown who have dealt with this bill since it’s come to the House, the former Minister for Crown-Māori relations, the Hon Chris Finlayson, and then of course the Hon Kelvin Davis.

I sit on the Māori Affairs Committee and it’s a privilege to do so. However, I have not been able to contribute to the submissions process for this bill, as I’m a relatively new member to this process. But I do want to acknowledge my colleagues on the Māori Affairs Committee, and, to echo the sentiments of Jenny Marcroft, the kai on the Māori Affairs Committee is certainly very, very good.

We are here today for this reconciliation bill in the second reading. It’s been a really good process for me, actually, to understand a little bit more about our history and, in fact, what the Crown has done in the past, and to acknowledge some of the wrongs that the Crown has done—this bill seeks to amend those wrongs. So the bill is, in effect, not a bill around a settlement, but it is a deed of reconciliation. That deed of reconciliation was signed on 9 June 2017, one year before the Northcote by-election was held in 2018.

This bill recognises and apologises for, essentially, the wrongs that were done by the Crown in the 1800s. Reading about these, I mean, it’s quite shocking, the wrongs that were done by the Crown—everything from imprisoning, fencing, breaching natural justice, invading property and homes, and detaining. It’s a dark part of New Zealand’s history and it’s a good moment in time that we are able to recognise the wrongs that were done and to apologise for those wrongs but also, hopefully, focus on the future and the relationship between the Crown and Parihaka.

So the submissions process—in the second reading we typically talk about the submissions. Some of those submissions have been canvassed, so I won’t go into detail on those, but we did receive 39 submissions of which my colleagues on the select committee heard 23 orally, and there were a bunch of amendments that came out of the select committee process. I just want to run through a couple of those.

The first is around strengthening the link between the deed and the bill and including the deed initiatives in the bill, which was certainly made in the select committee. There were suggestions that there be a review of the Crown’s relationship with Parihaka, but we didn’t recommend actually including that in the bill. There are a whole bunch of other recommendations that were made in the select committee process that my colleagues considered, and there were more changes in terms of particularly protecting the name of Parihaka, which I think is really important, and I think my colleagues acknowledged that on the select committee. There can be no use of the name “Parihaka”, particularly for commercial gain, which I think is a reflection of the importance of the name Parihaka but is also reflective of the will of the community up in the great area of the South Taranaki region.

We support the second reading of this bill and the future aspirations. The bill talks directly to an apology by the Crown to the people of Parihaka. It also expresses the future aspirations for the relationship between the Crown and the people of Parihaka, and I do hope that beyond what’s written in the actual bill itself, we can reflect on the principles and the articles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and that those values and principles and expressions are brought to the fore in the future relationship between the people of Parihaka and the Crown.

It is my desire and our party’s desire to support this bill in its second reading. I do want to acknowledge everybody who’s been a part of this process. It’s a very special day, even though it’s only the second reading. It’s very special that we can come to this stage in our Parliament where we acknowledge the wrongs that the Crown has done in the past but also focus on the future. I think that’s what we’re all about in this House: focusing on the future relationship between the Crown and Māori. This side of House has a really great track record of that, in terms of advancing the Treaty negotiations with iwi around the country, including my own iwi of Maniapoto, and it’s great to see the continuation of that in this Government.

That’s the spirit of the Māori Affairs Committee. I must say that it’s a pleasure to be on that select committee and to see how collegial the members on that select committee are, and I think that that is reflective of the combined will of this House to make a difference for Māori and to make a substantial contribution to improve the lives of Māori throughout New Zealand. I do commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): This is a split call, I understand—the Hon Meka Whaitiri.

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): E Te Māngai o Te Whare, tēnā koe. E ngā mema katoa o Te Whare nei, tēnā tātou katoa. Labour supports the second reading of Te Pire Haeata ki Parihaka / Parihaka Reconciliation Bill. Can I extend a warm welcome to our visitors here from Parihaka.

He tū, he uri ahau o Te Tai Rāwhiti, he mema Māori o te rohe pōtae o Ikaroa Rāwhiti. Anei ngā mihi ki a koutou katoa ngā uri o Parihaka, ngā hapū o Parihaka. E ngā reo, e ngā mana, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[I stand, I am a descendant of the East Coast, a Māori member of the electorate of Ikaroa-Rāwhiti. This is my acknowledgement to all of the descendants of Parihaka, the sub-tribes of Parihaka. To the spokespeople, to the leaders, greetings, greetings, greetings to us all.]

Listening to the previous speaker, our colleague Dan Bidois, who’s a member of the Māori Affairs Committee, I don’t want there to be the impression that all we do in the Māori Affairs Committee is eat. Some may—some may. Some actually come to the Māori Affairs Committee to do justice, like we are doing in the second reading of this important bill.

Can I acknowledge and join in the chorus of all the former speakers around acknowledging Parihaka’s gracefulness, their patience, and, I guess, their vision for putting to this Government in 2015—and I want to acknowledge the Kawe Tūtaki, the group, obviously led by Dame Tariana Turia, the Rt Hon Jim Bolger, the Hon Mahara Okeroa, Amokura Panoho, and Ruakere Hond, who, in 2015, petitioned the Government of the day for a special place, not only in this House but in the history of this country, and for the significance of Parihaka on this nation.

In the early 1970s—maybe the later 1970s or the 1980s when I was at school, I learnt about Mahatma Gandhi, I learnt about Mother Teresa. So that’s the 1970s, 1980s; it wasn’t till the 1990s that I was fortunate enough to visit Parihaka. At the time, the late Te Miringa Hohaia hosted myself and a former member of this House, the Hon Parekura Horomia, and, of course, Amokura Panoho—so the three of us all worked for an organisation called the Community Employment Group. I share that story because it completely opened my eyes that we had, in this nation, our own rangatira pacifists: Te Whiti o Rongomai and Tohu Kākahi. As we celebrate this second reading, let us hope that the history and the contribution of Te Whiti and Tohu is taught not only in our schools in the Taranaki area but in the schools throughout the motu.

What I learnt on those visits to Parihaka with the late Te Miringa was that Parihaka was a thriving community; it had homes, it had its own flour mill. They actually had their own currency, and it was a haven for people escaping the actions of the Crown of the day in confiscating their land. This is a people for whom it was a safe haven, and in celebrating this particular bill—and the Minister outlined both the significance and the aims of the bill and why we are here contributing to the second reading—it would be remiss of me not to share the experience I had, in not only visiting Parihaka that first time but several times after, of learning of the significance of Parihaka on this nation, the thriving strength of the community, and the welcome-ness that everyone received when they landed in Parihaka. To see that all removed by the stroke of a pen, with the actions of the Crown and their soldiers, was an absolutely devastating lesson that I learnt on those many trips to Parihaka.

I am pleased in that we are celebrating and acknowledging that this is a bill addressing the reconciliation, but it’s always important to us to acknowledge the contribution to the fabric of this nation not only of the people of Parihaka but the community of Parihaka. So I stand here, proudly, with all members. I’m almost giving my third reading speech, but in terms of the significance of this bill and every settlement bill—and this is not a settlement; this is a reconciliation bill—you look for its unique point of difference. I commend both those that petitioned the Crown at the time for the introduction of a legacy statement—the legacy statement that allows the people of Parihaka to tell their story in their own language. To tell their story—that should not be missed on any members in this House: the significance of reconciliation where the people who have suffered at the hands of the Crown are able to tell their story in their own words. This is what we see in this bill.

I am proud to be a member of the Māori Affairs Committee that doesn’t just go there to eat my lunch. I am proud of those who have preceded me—the former ministers, officials, but, more importantly, Parihaka—for having the patience and confidence in allowing us to salute you and recognise you. I commend this bill to the House.

HARETE HIPANGO (National—Whanganui): Ka huri au ki titiro ki ngā manuwhiri o tēnei Whare. Ki ngā uri o Te Whiti o Rongomai, ngā uri o Tohu Kākahi, ngā uri o Parihaka, nau mai, hoki mai, haere mai mō te pānuitanga tuarua o tēnei pire, tō koutou pire.

[I turn to look at the visitors of this House. To the descendants of Te Whiti o Rongomai, the descendants of Tohu Kākahi, the descendants of Parihaka, welcome, return, welcome to the second reading of this bill, your bill.]

I turn to acknowledge our guests who have gathered here, the people of Parihaka, for this, the second reading. In opening, I refer to my last words at the first reading, in addressing the House and our people of Parihaka with a line of lyrics from a song of Parihaka. Those lines of lyrics from that song, that waiata, were:

Look to the sky, the spirit of Te Whiti,

The endless tide is murmuring his name,

I know Te Whiti will never be defeated,

And even at the darkest hour,

His presence will remain.

I’ll sing for you a song of Parihaka.

This bill for our Parihaka people, Te Pire Haeata ki Parihaka, is, as we traverse through this process towards the third reading and the passage of this bill into law, a dawning of a new age; with the tragic, dark history of the injustices from the Crown upon our people of Parihaka.

Those who have addressed the House this afternoon have traversed part of that history. If I may share for the benefit of our manuhiri today, the purpose of a second reading of the bill is for us to come back to the House after the first reading and debate the matters, the content of the bill which have been considered after further submissions and hearings from the people. I had the distinct privilege of serving as a member of the Māori Affairs Committee at the time that we were welcomed warmly at Parihaka for the hearing of those further submissions. I had the distinct privilege of being there with whanaunga at the time of He Puanga Haeata—the ceremony with the deed of the reconciliation being signed, on 9 June 2017. Like a number of my colleagues here in the House, we have reflected on the memories, of the impact of that moment in time—a time in history as it affected us, moving into the dawning of a new age.

I am permitted only to take a brief call this afternoon, and when it comes to the third reading of this bill I hope that I am indulged to be able to, accordingly, pay acknowledgment to our people who have travelled far, our people of Parihaka, in what rightly should be accorded them more time for this matter to be spoken to before the House.

In closing, I harken to those words, again, for New Zealanders to reflect on the real history and what it means, because many of us are not affected by that. Many in our families, our sense of history, and our sensibilities are not deeply aggrieved by that. Those of us who know the mamae—we know the hurt. But the significance of the passage of this journey, this bill, is that the people of Parihaka are prepared to move into the future with the hope and the vision that was left them by their prophets Te Whiti and Tohu, and to realise that, to activate that.

So at the third reading, I will address that, in terms of what I know the people of Parihaka are implementing with the $9 million fund that has been set aside. But the money is in no way, in any means, shape, or form, a sense of compensation. This is not a Treaty settlement bill; this is a reconciliation relationship bill, and it is a bill premised on that, moving into the future. In closing, in the third reading I will seek that opportunity to address that further, and I acknowledge our people of Parihaka. Ngā mihi nui, kia koutou katoa.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Thank you, and can I also apologise to the member. I omitted to give the one-minute warning bell, but she clearly didn’t need it. But my apologies for that. I call the Hon Willie Jackson.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Associate Minister for Māori Development): Tuatahi, e ngā mōrehu o ngā manu e rua, ki a koutou ko ngā tātarakihi o Parihaka, tēnei te mihi ki a koutou i tae mai nei i tēnei wā i whakarangatira i a mātou. Ko tēnei te kaupapa tino whakahirahira mō Te Ao Māori. Tēnei te tino mihi. Ā, tēnā koutou, ā, tēnā koutou, ā, tēnā anō tātou katoa.

[Firstly, to the living remnants of the two leaders, the present-day cicadas of Parihaka, I acknowledge you all who have arrived at this time to honour us. This is the most important thing in the Māori World. My sincerest thanks. Thank you, thank you, thank you again one and all.]

First up, I do think it’s appropriate that we congratulate former Ministers—the former Minister of the Crown of Māori Development, Te Ururoa Flavell, who did a terrific job in advancing this kaupapa for his whānau. He married into the whānau, and they became his whānau, and he’s done a great job. Of course, former Minister Chris Finlayson will no doubt go down as one of the finest Treaty Ministers.

November 5 is a historic date, and one of the dates that we’ll mark in the New Zealand calendar, and should be for ever remembered. On a personal note, it remains a date that will be part of my life for ever and a day. On 5 November, my father died. On 5 November, one of my daughters was born. On 5 November, one of the sons of Parihaka, my very close friend Te Kauhoe Wano took his life. So 5 November is a hugely important day for many of us. Te Kauhoe was one of my dear friends, brothers, and, as I said, a son of Parihaka. We will never forget the tangi that the people of Parihaka held for our brother who took his life on that day. That will always remain one of the saddest days for Parihaka people and for many of the whānau and friends in Tāmaki Makaurau.

Of course, 5 November is the day that the troops marched into Parihaka, and atrocities occurred. One of the stories that will always remain—and I know we spoke about it when I was on radio and TV—is the women’s story. It is a story that was hidden in many ways, as many of our kuia know, and not expressed, because the stories of Tohu and Te Whiti—and I acknowledge our whanaunga here, and the mokopunas of the great tipuna—were always the stories that were articulated. I heard the cries of some of our women from Parihaka and Taranaki, particularly the trust chairwoman Puna Wano-Bryant. Kei konei a Puna? Kao? Kei te pai.

[Is Puna here? No? That’s ok.]

But her kōrero resonated, I think, with so many of our people, and so many of our women who had undergone atrocities. Puna cried when she described what happened to her tipuna, especially the women. How women were raped and assaulted by Crown troops—she said, “Those women were our mothers and our grandmothers from here, and the violation of whakapapa happened here in Parihaka.” That’s what she said at the ceremony that members of the House attended. I was sad that I did not attend to support, but I know there were members from both side of the House who attended, who heard what she had to say. I thought she was very brave, very courageous, and she inspired so many of our women—not just Māori women; women all around the country. The women, and the rape of the women, and their story, she said, were silenced because of the shame that goes along with the act. Puna cried when she finished telling her story, and it rained at almost the same time that Puna told this story about our wāhine, our mana wāhine of Parihaka. It is a story, I think, that should resonate for all New Zealanders, and I mihi to her. Tuku, me mihi ki a koe Puna mō tō kaha me tō māia ki te kōkiri i te kaupapa, tō kōrero.

[Send, I must acknowledge you, Puna, for your strength and courage to move this matter forward, your words.]

I also want to speak, today, about something that came out of the select committee process, in terms of the names and the protection of the Parihaka name. For Māori, our names have been plagiarised, misused; our waiata has been plagiarised, our hakas have been plagiarised for years and years and years. So I think it’s wonderful that Parihaka have been able to exercise some protection over this and around this. If you look on TV—I remember some years ago when we had a big argument with the Spice Girls. Everybody thought it was great that the Spice Girls were doing the haka; never mind that they were doing it all wrong and bungling up the language. I think that the protection that we’ve come to in terms of Parihaka—protection of name is just so important, because it should be looked at as a template in terms of protection of names, waiatas, hakas, and things that we hold dear to us at all times.

Of course, everyone likes to get pretty trendy with Parihaka now. You can go to Parihaka, you see, and do a speech and then put it online and, you know, make yourself pretty popular—as our whanaungas know. So I mihi to our whānau who have said that we must be careful with the Parihaka brand, because it’s something that can be misused and used in the wrong area—that is the case with lots of things in terms of Te Ao Māori. So intellectual property rights is an area that we are still traversing, and something that we still have to get right in terms of tikanga Māori.

Tikanga Māori is everything—and don’t we know that. That’s some of the kōrero that we are now traversing with Ihumātao, and they’re about to go through a whole tikanga process over the next two days. But I think if they want to look at how we traverse tikanga Māori, they need to look at some of the things that have come out of this agreement with Parihaka.

Madam Speaker, I want to—if I can indulge you and the House—as I come to the end of this korero, read something from this, which talks about the aspirations of Parihaka, and talks about the whole reconciliation process. So I’ll read that, if I may, Madam Speaker. I just want to read this, because I think these are some of the most beautiful words one could ever read or hear. This is about the commitment in terms of reconciliation, present and future. It reads: “Listen, for you have a role to fulfil, it is a challenge left to you by your ancestors. Though you may be overwhelmed by your neighbour, success will come, a glow will be on the mountain skyline, to be seen by all. Go out on open seas, unsettled and surging seas to find [a] new and bountiful existence. This commitment has set sail on Tangaroa of limitless paths, refraining from the arduous and boggy paths we once travelled, allowing them to pass from this world. Violence scars, while that shown care will be strong, self-assured and confident. As an ant in the burrow, as a juvenile cicada maturing in the earth, to emerge into the open. Be surrounded with the cacophony of confidence, lest you be confined to the shore, pulled by tides, swamped by waves of all that is heavy and harsh in this world. All my strength and my voice is guidance to this generation, that you be the empowerer of both peoples. Your voice cannot be smothered by the authorities. Your voice cannot be silenced by the powerful nor the turbulent events of this land. Should your voice be abolished, you will use tikanga to respond to the hatred, overcoming it with kindness.” Appropriate words, I think, to sum up the magic of Parihaka.

He hōnore nui ki te tū i mua i a koutou, koutou katoa, tēnā koutou, ā, tēnā anō tātou katoa.

[It is a great honour to stand before you, all of you, thank you, greetings one and all.]

AGNES LOHENI (National): Nei rā te mihi aroha ki ngā uri o Kurahaupō waka, ngā uri o Te Rongopai, o Tohu me Te Whiti. Tēnā koutou katoa, tū mai Taranaki.

[This is a sincere acknowledgement to the descendants of the ancestral waka of Kurahaupō, the descendants of Te Rongopai, of Tohu and Te Whiti. Greetings to you all, to the tribe of Taranaki, stand strong.]

I am privileged to have this opportunity to make a contribution to this bill, as a descendant of those later migrating iwi from Samoa. May I acknowledge the Hon Andrew Little for his work in concluding this bill with the people of Parihaka. I also paid tribute to the previous Minister, the Hon Chris Finlayson, for his work to bring this settlement to the table. To the members of the Māori Affairs Committee, and the chair, Rino Tirikatene, fa‘afetai lava mo le avanoa

I am humbled to stand and address the iwi of my children.

My Kamo-Dix children have direct whakapapa to Parihaka that culminated in their great-grand-uncle Manny Dix, who, upon hearing the call from his Taranaki iwi whānau, travelled from the Chatham Islands to assist in the building of homes post the events in 1881. He is buried at Parihaka.

Make no mistake. The first reading of the Parihaka Reconciliation Bill was a signal that the war was over—a war we the Crown lost before it even started. We lost the war the day this House decided it would be a good idea to send 1,800 soldiers in to Parihaka, unlawfully detain the ploughman of the village, rape the women, and raze their homes to the ground. How does a Government win with that sort of decision making?

My parliamentary predecessor and ancestor of my Ngāti Mutunga and Ngāi Tahu children, the Hon Hōri Kerei Taiaroa would take little satisfaction in being right if he was able to observe this legislation today. Taiaroa fought to the bitter end to have the rule of law applied in all matters pertaining to Māori. And it irked him to no end that the rule of law was ever only suspended where Māori were concerned. In this House, on 31 May 1882, Hōre Kerei Taiaroa stated, “The only way to settle this trouble is to do away with these bills. To let Te Whiti go before the court and be tried.” The bills Taiaroa referred to include the sinister Maori Prisoners’ Trials Act 1879, the unconscionable West Coast Peace Preservation Act 1882, and its evil twin, the Indemnity Act 1882—the content of which has been well rehearsed in this Chamber.

The rule of law is a mainstay of our democratic institutions, and they were suspended to subjugate the people of Taranaki and to speed up the taking of Māori land. The irony is not lost that the greatest defenders of the rule of law and democracy in New Zealand in the 1880s were Māori and not those who had imported these incredible institutions into New Zealand. But we’ve been given a second chance. And we know how rare that can be in history.

Before us is the Parihaka Reconciliation Bill. It is the start point, not an endpoint. And that is because the relationship between the people of Parihaka and us the Crown is everlasting, guaranteed under Te Tiriti o Waitangi. And this time we intend to honour that relationship. There is still some way to go and some matters to be negotiated for the Māori Affairs Committee and the people of Parihaka. Parihaka people have rightly sought protection of their tūpuna Tohu Kākahi and Te Whiti o Rongomai. The story of these two incredible men precedes that of Mahatma Gandhi, of Dr Martin Luther King, and of Nelson Mandela. There is already incredibly considerable pressure to tell the story of these two men, so the inclusion of clause 3B into this bill to prevent the commercial exploitation of the Parihaka name is a step in the right direction. It will be a challenge to try and extend those protections to the names of the prophets and their legacy, and I urge the select committee to continue to consider this.

May I finish with the most prophetic words uttered in this House—words of prophecy that some might say match Te Whiti’s. They were spoken by a former member of Parliament Hēnare Tomoana on 16 July 1880, when he stated in reference to the legislation we were passing to subjugate the people of Parihaka—and I quote—“When a Māori looks an eel in the water it seems quite still and straight. But directly you catch hold of it, it curves up, doubles and twists around you, and slimes you all over.” The Parihaka Reconciliation Bill is the step to cleansing this House of the eel slime the legislation of 1879 to 1882 left on us. I commend this bill to the House. Tēnā koutou katoa.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Tēnā koutou, te whānau o Parihaka. Tēnā koutou ngā uri o ngā tāngata. Nau mai, whakatau mai ki roto i Te Whare Paremata. Tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Thank you, Madam Speaker. Greetings to you, the family of Parihaka. Greetings to you all, the descendants of the people. Welcome, welcome to Parliament. Greetings to you, greetings one and all.]

I am very proud to stand in support of this bill at its second reading. I want to acknowledge all of the contributions that have been made by all members at this second reading. I want to acknowledge the Parihaka Papakāinga Trust and all the whānau of Parihaka, the officials, and all those that have been working on this bill.

One word we’ve heard quite a lot through this debate has been “special”. Indeed, this is a real special piece of legislation, and I am really proud and very honoured that I was able to play a part along with my fellow parliamentary colleagues in this House, just as we’re doing now through our membership on the Māori Affairs Committee. I want to acknowledge the Papakāinga Trust, who welcomed us so warmly to Parihaka when we conducted our hearings at Parihaka. It was a wonderful day, and we heard a lot of heartfelt kōrero, just as has been expressed today, from all of the community, the whānau. We heard from descendants of our wonderful tīpuna of Te Whiti o Rongomai and Tohu Kākahi. It was just very moving.

We heard from whānau. We heard from descendants of those that were on the Crown side of the invasion that took place all those years ago. But there was a lot of unity, and there was, as is reflected in the title of this bill, reconciliation. There was a lot of reconciliation occurring. I don’t have a profound Māori kōrero, but I would sum it up, that day, that there were plenty of melting Māori moments. We had a lot of waiata. We even had one of our tuahine that submitted, who shared with everyone that she was pregnant and she was going to give birth. These are the amazing things that happen when you’re on the Māori Affairs Committee, I can tell you. Along with the wonderful kai that we partake in, we do a lot of mahi. We definitely do a lot of mahi.

So it was a wonderful day of reflection and of examination of this bill. I want to acknowledge the submitters, the Parihaka Papakāinga Trust, and all of the leaders that we heard from, because I am really pleased that we were able to pick up on some of those submissions that they were presenting. In particular, I’m very proud that this bill has extended protection of the name “Parihaka”—a first of its kind. We have had similar protection in Te Awa Tupua Act—in that piece of Treaty settlement legislation—but to actually have the name of Parihaka and the significance of Parihaka given statutory protection, which means that the Parihaka Papakāinga Trust must authorise any commercial use of Parihaka—this is a landmark piece of legislation here.

So I want to acknowledge the committee; I want to acknowledge the submitters and that we were able to this. In particular, I want to acknowledge the officials that have worked tirelessly behind the scenes, who have been the go-betweens, who have been engaged in the sensitive kōrero with the hau kāinga every step of the way. I know that they’ve been really committed to this piece of legislation, and committed to the whole kaupapa of reconciliation.

So I am really proud that we have been able to insert that protection clause within this piece of legislation. Unfortunately, we couldn’t get the protection over personal names such as Te Whiti and Tohu, because we came up against what’s called the Bill of Rights and freedom of expression. Likewise, the legacy statement, which has been so carefully crafted by the whānau of Parihaka—try as we might, we couldn’t extend that protection to those areas, but it’s fair to say that we have been consistent with the Bill of Rights with where we’ve landed on this bill. It’s within the justifiable limits that are allowed, but we’ve definitely, I think, reached a very unique but very safe protection for Parihaka. So I want to especially acknowledge that.

As it should be, there have been very solemn contributions in the stories that we’ve heard today. I don’t want to prolong this debate, but I do want to just acknowledge, once again, the people of Parihaka. I want to focus on the future, because I think that’s what is really embodied in the initiatives that will be taking place into the future, based on this bill and, of course, Te Kawenata ō Rongo.

I think if anyone wants to really look into the history and to get the true essence of the story of Parihaka, I would recommend to have a really good read through Te Kawenata ō Rongo, the Crown apology, and the legacy statement that’s contained within that Te Kawenata ō Rongo—and that’s a covenant, so these are very special documents. This bill affirms that document and records the Crown’s commitment and the connection of this law, not only to that document but also the future actions that will be taking place. Again, thanks to the work of our committee, we were able to make those refinements and that added emphasis in terms of the effect of Te Kawenata ō Rongo to this bill, and also to pave the way for those future actions that will be taking place.

With that, I am very happy to commend this bill to the House at its second reading, and, once again, I thank the hau kāinga for travelling all this way.

Nō reira, āpiti hono, tātai hono, rātou te hunga wairua ki a rātou. Āpiti hono, tātai hono, tātou te hunga ora ki a tātou. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, ā, kia ora tātou katoa.

[Therefore, the lines are joined; those who have passed on remain with their kind. The lines have been joined, we, the living remain with the living. Greetings, greetings, thank you all.]

Bill read a second time.

Waiata

Bills

Referendums Framework Bill

First Reading

Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO (Associate Minister of Justice) on behalf of the Minister of Justice: I move, That the Referendums Framework Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 11 November 2019 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time except during oral questions while the House is sitting, during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 191, 193, and 194(1)(b) and (c).

As the House is aware, the Government has committed to holding a referendum on legalising the personal use of recreational cannabis, at the next general election. This bill provides the necessary legislative framework to govern the conduct of this referendum. There’s also been discussion of the possibility of another referendum being held on the End of Life Choice Bill, which is currently being considered by the committee of the whole House. With a greater likelihood of a second referendum, it is all the more prudent that this Referendums Framework Bill be introduced, as it will also facilitate, if necessary, the holding of a referendum on the End of Life Choice Bill at the next general election.

Ensuring the smooth and efficient conduct of the general election and any referendums held at that time is important. The Electoral Commission needs to be able to plan appropriately, and so this Referendums Framework Bill provides a single set of rules that govern the conduct of any referendums held alongside the general election, and ensures the same rules apply to both the general election and the referendums as far as is practical.

The bill focuses on the mechanical aspects of the conduct of any referendum held with the next election. For example, it enables the Electoral Commission to conduct the referendums using the same voting places and electoral staff as for the election. It provides for the counting of the referendum votes and the release of the results either with or following the release of the general election results, and it provides that the offence and penalty provisions in the Electoral Act apply to similar offences committed in relation to referendums. As this is a generic bill, it does not include specific referendum-related material, and I say that for my colleague across the floor. Instead, it includes two mechanisms to link to other legislation or regulations which will be the trigger for the bill to be used for a particular referendum.

Advertising is likely to be a key influencer in the public debate, informing voters and encouraging voter turnout for the referendums. To achieve the appropriate balance between freedom of expression and transparency, the bill regulates referendum advertising in much the same way as the Electoral Act regulates election advertising. These rules will require promoters of referendum advertisements to place a promoter statement on any advertisement and to register if they intend to spend over $13,200 on referendum advertising during the three-month period immediately prior to the referendums. In addition, registered promoters will also be required to submit a return on their expenses to the Electoral Commission if they spend over $100,000, and there will be an overall limit on the amount that can be spent on referendum advertising of approximately $330,000. The bill also provides that expenditure on dual advertisements covering the election and referendums will count towards both the election and referendum advertising thresholds or limits. The bill also addresses some minor areas of difference from some rules applying to the election which reflect the nature of referendums. For example, there will be no preliminary count of any referendum votes on election day, to avoid delays to the preliminary count of the general election. Referendum results will be released with or following the official results of the general election.

The select committee process is very important, and I encourage all members of the public to have their say on the bill when the committee calls for submissions. With that, I commend this bill to the House.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): One of the parts of New Zealand that is just so special and so important is the quality of our democracy, how fair it is, and how long it has existed. What grieves me with this bill is that we have a power-grab from Government to take the decision about referendums away from this Parliament and the public to solely be decided by the Government and Cabinet. It is a disgrace, and members on this side of the House will fight this bill with every bone in our body and every step along the way because, actually, democracy and democratic values matter.

This country of ours has had 20 referendums at the time of general elections—20 of those. For every single one of them, the wording, the content, has been determined by this Parliament—166 years of heritage, and the Government wants to change the rules. I want to remind members opposite of what they said when we had a flag referendum in the last term of Government. The Labour spokesperson said this, and I quote: “It is absolutely essential that the wording and the referendum be determined by Parliament”—be determined by Parliament. This is how big of a joke it gets. The bill for that referendum went to a select committee. There were 750 submissions. We wanted to have a view about the wording on the flag referendum. The submitters were given five minutes each. Labour said it was a constitutional outrage that the public had only five minutes each to comment on the wording of the flag referendum, and yet they bring this bill to the Parliament that says the public will have absolutely no opportunity to even make a written submission, to have any input into the wording of a referendum. I reflect that the mother of all Parliaments, the UK, in their 380 years of Westminster parliamentary democracy have never had—have never had—a referendum that has not been through their Parliament.

Here’s the other part: the Government is saying, “We are going to decide whatever number, whatever issues, whatever wording we like for a referendum for the 2020 election.” But if it’s such good law, why is it not permanent law? They only want this to apply to themselves; they never want a National or future Government—[Interruption]—to have this power they’re giving themselves. The Minister interjects. Well, why not make this permanent law? If it is such good law, let’s make it permanent law.

Let’s come to the issue of cannabis and look where we’ve got to on that issue. The Government was advised by officials that the proper referendum process was—as for MMP, as for the flag, as for other referendums—for it to have a comprehensive bill through the Parliament so Parliament knew exactly what it was voting for, and then for it to include a provision that said that there would be a referendum and that it would come into effect only in the event that the referendum was passed. We’re not getting that. We’re not even getting a say on the wording of the referendum that there will be on cannabis.

Let’s be serious about why the wording and the process of referendums matters. There isn’t a person in New Zealand or a member of this House that does not respect that words matter. I’ll give you an example. This bill is going to be used to have a referendum on that key issue, that life and death issue, of euthanasia. If you ask the question in the opinion poll “Do you support assisted suicide?”, 75 percent of New Zealanders in opinion polls say no. If you say “Do you support end of life choice?”, 75 percent of New Zealanders say yes. So the wording of referenda is absolutely critical.

Secondly, actually, the referendums that are held at general elections affect turnout. If the Government—and this bill would entitle them to it—were to have a referendum on “Should New Zealand declare a climate change emergency?”, well, that would ensure that more Green voters came out. If they decided to have a referendum on whether Government debt should be limited to 20 percent, that would help get National supporters out. Let’s not pretend that referendums that are held at elections do not have a constitutional and electoral effect.

Here’s the other fact that’s well written in political documentaries, and that is if you have a whole lot of referendums at the time of elections, it distracts voters away from the issues of whether the Government should be re-elected.

Chris Penk: How convenient.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: And that is so convenient, as my colleague says, and that is why this Parliament, the British Parliament, and only except for a few authoritarian States, have always insisted that the decision on what referendums are conducted and what the wording shall be is an issue for Parliament.

Greg O’Connor: Is the Hon Dr Nick Smith outraged?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Now, let’s just—well, I say to the member opposite: would it be appropriate for the Government of the day just to have a referendum on whether we declare ourselves a republic? That would be quite possible under this bill. The Government may get under pressure next year and want a distraction. Let me put it this way: let’s say National decided as a Cabinet that it was going to have a referendum to get rid of the Māori seats and not to give Parliament any say about whether such a referendum would be held—and I note that is New Zealand First policy. Would that be OK for members opposite? The reality is that Parliament has an absolute right to have a say in the conduct of elections and in the content and the wording of those referendums. What this bill is doing is taking that power away from Parliament and providing it exclusively for the Government. Let’s be clear: what the Government wants to do is deprive the 55 members on this side of the House from having any say in the wording of the referenda. Equally so, it is proposing to remove any opportunity for the public to have any say in those referenda.

I feel the interjections that are coming from the Government just show their level of ignorance and arrogance to the democratic values that go to the core of how our country should be governed. Here’s my concern: why should the Parliament and the public be bound by the outcome of a referendum in which they had no say? So why should the public and the Parliament, as the Government said, be bound to the outcome of a referendum when they have had no say in the content, the questions, or the issues that go with the referendum?

I challenge the conscience of members opposite, because the precedent that is being set here is a very dangerous one for our democracy. Every bill that has been introduced prior to this Government affecting election law and referenda has involved consultation with Opposition parties. Why is it that we now have had three bills in the term of this Parliament? The bill that gives the power for party leaders to dismiss members of Parliament from the House, an electoral law change—zero consultation. The electoral law changes, including same-day enrolment in voting, were introduced without any consultation with the Opposition, and now there’s this third issue, where, again, the Government thinks that electoral law and elections are a plaything for the Government of the day.

We are a country without a constitution. We rely on conventions and good behaviour. This is a crude power-grab that denies the right of Parliament and the public to have a say on the way in which elections and referenda are conducted. It is a disgraceful bill. It reflects incredibly poorly on the Minister and on the members of the Government, who want to deprive New Zealanders and this Parliament of their right to have a say on the way in which referenda and elections are conducted in New Zealand.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Just for the avoidance of doubt, the question is that the motion be agreed to.

Hon CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, Nick Smith has got two settings: off and full on. Everything is outrageous and disgraceful and unconstitutional—blah, blah, blah. What a pity. What this means, though, is that the opportunity to have constructive debate and discussion is compromised by the overreactions, the deliberate misreading, and, actually, I hesitate to say—and I’m trying to phrase it in a way that won’t be unparliamentary—frankly, coming to this House with information that isn’t necessarily based on fact.

I’ll start with the fact that I’ve now joined the Justice Committee, and I’m looking forward to the debate on the discussion on this bill. If there are any changes that are needed to make it a better bill, let’s have that constructive discussion at the select committee, which is a good and proper place for that to be held. I haven’t had a lot of time to do this this week, but I went in and had a little bit of a look at the referendum process in New Zealand. I understand that legislation is always required for the holding of referendums in New Zealand, regardless of whether they’re Government-initiated referendums, binding or non-binding, one-off, regular, or resulting from the process set out in the Citizens Initiated Referenda Act 1993.

In terms of the setting of questions for Government-initiated referendums, it appears to be, as the name suggests, the sole prerogative of the Government of the day, and it might be expected, where Government-initiated referendums are both binding and involve reserved provisions, that cross-party consultation takes place on the wording of referendum questions. However, when Government-initiated referendums are neither binding nor involve entrenched reserved provisions, such as with the proposed cannabis referendum, it’s more likely that such consultation on wording takes place amongst Government coalition parties rather than across Parliament as a whole.

But guess what? Almost every sitting day in this House this year, there has been a consistent request, an invitation from particularly the Green member Chlöe Swarbrick, from the Prime Minister, and from the Minister of Justice, Andrew Little, to the National Party Opposition to join in a genuine attempt at cross-party consultation on drug reform in New Zealand—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: It’s not transparent.

Hon CLARE CURRAN: —and what has been the response? What’s been the response, Dr Smith?

Hon Dr Nick Smith: It’s no substitute for Parliament—no substitute for Parliament.

Hon CLARE CURRAN: What’s been the response, Dr Smith? Well, no answer to that question. The response has been no. It’s been Paula Bennett looking down her nose at the prospect of Chlöe Swarbrick chairing such an august cross-party consultation, because she wasn’t senior enough—and why would Paula Bennett deign to be part of such a cross-party consultation? So when it was revealed that Andrew Little, as the senior Cabinet Minister, would chair it—“Oh, no, we’re still not going to be a part of it, because we haven’t seen more detail.”

Now, in order to see that detail, in order to be party to the discussions about the question about the framing of the referendum, this was and is—it still is, as far as I’m aware—the opportunity. The door is open for cross-party consultation on this matter, Dr Smith. We now have a framework bill, which can’t contain the question, because it may be that there is more than one referendum, because this Government is actually getting on with quite a lot of things and progressing those matters. We need in place, Dr Smith, the—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: This is laughable.

Hon CLARE CURRAN: Laughable? Well, Dr Smith, the laughable thing is when the Opposition claims that there has been no consultation when they have consistently been offered that around drug reform. I think the people of New Zealand would be very disappointed to hear that.

This bill is important. It’s another step in the coalition Government’s promise, delivering on its promise to hold that referendum on the legalisation of the personal use of recreational cannabis at the 2020 general election. We’ve already announced that there will be a yes/no question on that. There’s been discussion on a possible other referendum on the End of Life Choice Bill. We’ve developed this bill so that it can be used, and yet here we have the frothing-at-the-mouth Opposition spokesperson—I’m not sure what he’s the spokesperson for—talking about it as a power-grab and a disgrace, because that is basically the phraseology that he uses for pretty much everything.

So, anyway, I’m extending the invitation again today to the Opposition to please get involved. Be part of the consultation on this so that the people of New Zealand can actually feel as if their parties in Parliament are all participating in this important step forward on drug reform and how we can make it the best process possible. So, in order to do that, we need this framework bill, and we need to make it the best bill we can. It will go through a select committee process. It will also go to the Regulations Review Committee, which will be chaired by a National MP in order to provide that extra level of scrutiny.

This is fair. This is balanced. This is good process. It is not out of the ordinary. Can we—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: When has it been done before?

Hon CLARE CURRAN: Again, Nick Smith, get involved. Be part of the process. Don’t stand on the outside, because your constituents and the people of New Zealand expect you to be part of this consultation process so it can be the best it can possibly be. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): Well, that just about says it all. I can’t say that I’m proud or pleased to take a call on this Referendums Framework Bill. I have to say that the father of the House, the Hon Dr Nick Smith, stood and laid out for us in very, very clear terms—he didn’t play the person, he played the ball. He laid out for us in very clear terms how this bill is actually an attack on our democracy—and it is an attack on our democracy without a doubt. I can assure you—

Hon Member: Oh rubbish.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Someone said, “Oh rubbish.” over there. I don’t know who it was, but I don’t know if you were here in the last term or you were here when we did have the flag referendum debate. I can assure you that if we as a National Government had not taken that process, which had to be a respectful process—it had to be a process that the whole Parliament was involved in and engaged in. Actually, we didn’t need to be lobbied over that. I think there was already a decision to just get on and do that. It was the right thing to do. If we hadn’t, and if we had brought a bill like this to the House, which meant that we were going to cut the Labour Party, we were going to cut the Green Party, and we were going to cut New Zealand First out of the process, then there would have been cries of outrage. You know what? They would have been justified cries of outrage, because it would have meant that we were subverting a process that has always been carefully followed and acknowledged and observed by this Parliament for decades. This is unprecedented in terms of what’s been introduced and the process that, now, they’re trying to embark upon.

I don’t believe that Mr Greg O’Connor meant this when he said it. I think it was said in the heat of the moment. This is what he said—when the Hon Dr Nick Smith said that the Labour Party were trying to prevent 55 members of Parliament, the Opposition, in having a say on this bill, Mr O’Connor said, “That’s right.”

Marja Lubeck: Oh rubbish.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Who said that’s rubbish? Go back and check the Hansard then, Marja Lubeck. If you check the Hansard, my hearing’s pretty good, and I was looking at Mr O’Connor, because he was making a fairly verbal personal attack on Dr Smith. He said, “That’s right.” So I would have to guess that that’s probably reflective of this Government’s attitude that they do want to deny the whole Parliament in having a say on this bill.

Greg O’Connor: It’s called “verballing”.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Just remember, Mr O’Connor, yes we are an Opposition, but we do have electorate cycles, and one day you’ll be sitting over here, right? One day you’ll be sitting over here. The other thing that I’d remind you of is that the National Party is still the biggest elected party in this Parliament. We had over one million Kiwis that got behind us and supported us. You want to know what Dr Nick Smith is fighting for. He’s fighting for their right for their representatives to have a say on something that isn’t about our flag. Our flag was a very important issue—make no mistake about that—and it deserved the process.

The flag issue was an important issue, but you know what? The decriminalisation of cannabis, I think, is a fairly significant issue for this country as well. We’re talking about sending a message, as a nation, to the people of New Zealand that, actually, cannabis is going to be far more available. If you think that there won’t be any harm, and if you think there won’t be an increase in use of loose-leaf cannabis, I can assure you there will be. I take that as being deadly serious and something that is just as important as a referendum on the change of our flag.

Greg O’Connor: Let’s leave cannabis with the gangs, Mr Mitchell!

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Sorry, what was that?

Greg O’Connor: Let the Head Hunters provide all the cannabis then!

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Let the Head Hunters provide all the cannabis? So that’s the response. So that’s the nuanced response from the other side? “Let the Head Hunters provide the cannabis.” That’s the level of argument and debate that we’re going to. I’d expect more from you, Mr O’Connor. This is an extremely serious issue for our country. In fact, for me personally, I think it’s one of the most important issues that we face as a nation: whether or not we’re going to make a massive change in our approach to what is a harmful substance and what we know especially affects our young people—all those up to 25.

I wasn’t intending to talk about this, because it’s very personal to me, but I lost my brother. I lost my brother because he was suffering, yes. He was bipolar. Yes, we had enormous support around him as a family, but do you know what the real aggravating issue was for him? And you can get any member of my family up here or any of his friends and they’ll tell you that it was cannabis—it was cannabis. It was cannabis that was a contributing driver and factor for my brother, who was on the coastguard, he was outgoing. There are two years between us. We were very close. He wrote a letter to his family, and he went down to Mairangi Bay, where we grew up as kids, and he swam out and he kept swimming. We found him washed up at Rangitoto Island.

I can tell you now: the aggravating factor, the thing that made his condition worse, was the consumption and use of loose-leaf cannabis. I wish that we could have stopped that, and I wish that we could have taken it away. And, yes, the police do a great job in the “war on drugs” as you like to call it. In my view, we’re going to make a terrible, terrible decision as a country if we turn around next year and we say that we’re going to decriminalise or legalise or liberalise—whatever you want to call it—loose-leaf cannabis. I don’t know how families and parents—

Hon Member: Can we talk about the bill?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: That’s absolutely right. I’m sorry. Thank you, Mr Speaker, for letting me speak, because I have got off the bill slightly, but this is about the process. This is about the process of making that decision. The last speaker, Clare Curran—who is a senior member, and I acknowledge her, and she’s just come on to the committee—spent most of her speech making an attack on the Hon Dr Nick Smith instead of actually talking to the bill and actually explaining to us how this is going to work.

Marja Lubeck: Actually, I learned something from that speech. So far we haven’t learnt anything from your side.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: So the member at the back there, Marja Lubeck, has got a lot to say. I hope that she’s going to take a call, and I hope that she’s going to explain to us why they’re subverting the process.

They keep talking about these working groups. I’ll tell you how we feel about that on this side of the House, because we’ve got a proud history of working across party, especially when it comes to national security, foreign affairs, and defence matters. We work across party and we’ll continue to do that, but this is what we feel about these working groups: these working groups are a smokescreen to subvert the proper parliamentary process. You’re trying to use these working groups—and you put them up there as this amazing, democratic process—as a smokescreen so that you can trick the people of New Zealand into thinking that this is cross-party and there’s full engagement. You’re subverting the process. You’re subverting the ability for it to be able to come back into this Parliament and for people to be able to make a decision. That’s how we see the use of these working groups that the Government keeps standing up and promoting.

I’d like someone in the Government benches to stand up and take a call and tell us why you are not going to commit to and stick with that process. I’d like someone in the Government to tell me that the comments that the deputy leader of the Labour Party, Kelvin Davis, made in the House today, when he said that the Regulations Review Committee was going to be given the mandate to be able to veto or change any of the wording around this referendum. I don’t believe that.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: It’s not true. That’s false.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: I don’t believe that for a minute. That will not happen; that cannot happen. That was a false statement, I agree. I challenge anyone in the Government to be able to stand and take a call and explain to me how this is a stronger, a more robust, a more democratic, and a more engaging process that you’re following than every previous Government and the process that every previous Government before this Government has followed. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I stand as the newly elected chairperson of the Justice Committee. I want to thank the members for their support and, I guess, share the passion which all members on this tired committee have for something as important as this particular bill. I listened both to the speakers from the Opposition—both Dr Smith and Mark Mitchell—around their concerns around the bill, and calling on Government members to make it clear why we aren’t coming to this House with the question. I guess, in terms of this particular bill, it is required for us to, obviously, put in the legislative framework to conduct a referendum, which this Government has made very clear what we’re going to do in terms of the general election next year.

But some of the statements from that side of the House that I need to correct are this belief that apparently there’s a convention that we, actually, bring the referendum question to this House. There isn’t one. There is no conventional way in setting referendum questions to the House. There isn’t. But despite that, we reached out to all parties in this House, and we reached out to all parties in the House to participate in the referendum around recreational use of marijuana—not once, not twice, not three times, but multiple times. The offer is still open to members on that side of the House to participate.

We all make decisions as members of this House whether to participate in decision-making processes of this Government or not, but you cannot come to this House and say you were not involved. You cannot claim an innocent position of having no knowledge of us doing this question behind closed doors. You cannot come to this House, Mr Speaker, and claim that—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I think I need to come to the House.

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI: —sorry, Mr Speaker. No members in this House can claim that they have been left out of the designing of the law reforms that this Government is presenting.

So I stand, obviously, on this side of the House, to support the bill that the Minister has put in front of us, and it makes complete sense that we look at rationalising the general election in terms of laying out the expectations of this bill. It also makes it clear around the advertising expectations of the bill passing. But it’s 1 August today. The Minister, in his speech, said that he was looking forward to it coming back on 11 November. That’s 3½ months. That’s 3½ months’ time where we will canvass the views of submitters, and we look forward—I do, as the chair of the Justice Committee—to making sure that we are hearing from people around the importance of setting a framework to enable the referendum around recreational use of marijuana.

We’ve also flagged what’s in the House at the moment, the whole committee of the House, in terms of the End of Life Choice Bill, which, potentially, also could be engaged in that. On this side of the House, we’re a hard-working Government. We want to ensure that we enable the general public to have their say on two very critical issues that we are debating, and I think no one—nobody in this House—should actually have an issue with going to the general public and seeking their views. So this to me is quite a simple bill, and we are going to have different views—we’ve heard it from both sides—but all I want to address, as a member of this House, and as the chair of the committee, is we cannot say that we weren’t involved. That’s all I’m saying, and we’ve had debates on that side of House that claim there is a convention; there isn’t one. They claim that they haven’t been involved; they’ve been invited, and, like I said, like our previous speakers have said, the door is still open. Dr Smith, Mr Mitchell, the Hon Paula Bennett; they can name whoever they want. They can bring all three of them if they want, because it’s important, like I said, for the coalition Government to make sure that all parties’ views have been canvassed when it comes to our law reforms and, particularly, around this referendum question.

It is a simple bill. I am looking forward to it going out for wider consultation. I’m looking forward to the heated debate that’s absolutely going to come from this select committee—absolutely going to look forward to it. It is the passion of the members to ensure that we scrutinise this particular bill, but it’s also an important process on ensuring the public have their say on a critical issue. I’m really pleased and stand in support of this. I’m looking forward to it being advertised widely throughout the country, and if that side feels that it’s not adequate, then I look forward to them promoting it and getting people in front of the select committee. It’s a time to have the voices of the public.

This bill is a simple bill. I’m looking forward to people submitting and to getting to a position where we can come back to this House to enable the general public to have a say on the critical issue around the recreational use of marijuana and, potentially, the End of Life Choice Bill. We stand for democracy on this side. We understand the importance of the general public’s participation in critical decisions that we are taking to them to consider. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Kia ora e Te Mana Whakawā. Let me begin on a positive note, and that is that I would like to congratulate the Hon Meka Whaitiri on her election this morning as the chair of our Justice Committee, and also the Hon Dr Nick Smith, who, last week, was elected as deputy chair, and I hope that the deliberations of our committee will be well led by those two members of Parliament.

Sadly, that is the only positive thing that I am able to say in this speech, on this bill—

Simeon Brown: You’re a positive man, Tim.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: —thank you, Mr Brown—because this bill is a constitutional outrage and a travesty—

Greg O’Connor: Where have we heard that before?

Hon TIM MACINDOE: I don’t use those words lightly. It is a constitutional outrage, and Mr O’Connor is aware of that—or, at least, he should be—given his previous career in law enforcement in this country, because this bill is reminiscent of the process and the threat to our democratic freedoms that this Government also demonstrated last year in ramming their vile and grossly misnamed Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Act 2018—better known, of course, as the “Waka-jumping Bill” or, probably even more appropriately, the “Don’t dare disagree with Winston if you want to remain a New Zealand First MP Bill”—through this House.

I listened very carefully to the Hon Dr Nick Smith’s very precise and apposite questions to the Minister of Justice in question time this afternoon. The answers given by the Acting Minister were dreadful. It is deeply disturbing that this Government, which failed to get a mandate itself at the last election, is so willing to trash our important constitutional conventions and protections when they took the moral high ground, time after time, over far less significant matters when they were last in Opposition. Dr Smith and the Hon Mark Mitchell have clearly articulated many of the deep concerns that National members have, and why we so strongly oppose this appalling breach of parliamentary process. For a referendum question on any deeply controversial issue to be determined by the Cabinet rather than by the Parliament is an indefensible abuse of Cabinet power. And when the Hon Meka Whaitiri was trying to suggest otherwise a few moments ago, it made me worry that she doesn’t yet understand the significant responsibilities that she has now taken on as the new chair of the Justice Committee. I encourage her, over the next week or so, to do a bit of studying of basic constitutional law in this country, because she will see that the point I am making is a very important one.

It’s well known that the three parties that make up the current coalition Government are at loggerheads on this cannabis issue, but to try to conceal that disunity and confusion through this terrible measure adds insult to injury. How on earth can New Zealanders be expected to study the issues associated with legalising marijuana for recreational purposes carefully when no legislation will have been passed before the referendum, meaning that they will not know exactly what they are voting for and that the select committee in the next Parliament could recommend changes that distort the collective decision that New Zealanders will make in the referendum next year.

We’ve heard a lot of smokescreens from Government parties and their increasingly active supporters on social media, particularly with some ludicrous comments attempting to rewrite the history surrounding the flag referendum debate and referendum that was conducted during the term of the previous Parliament. Well, to the people who are attempting to do that, let me repeat two important points. The first is that all the details of that flag referendum were thoroughly debated in this House and adopted by this Parliament well before that referendum was held. And, secondly, the idea that that referendum was in any way unjustified is nonsense. Not only did the National Party but also the Labour Party and the Green Party all campaign in 2014 with policy that promised New Zealanders a referendum on whether we should retain the current flag or make a change. So when Labour and the Greens subsequently decided to oppose that measure after they had been elected into the last Parliament, they were betraying the voters who supported them on that issue. Ms Tinetti is looking a little bit puzzled by that, but let me encourage her to go and look at her own party’s manifesto and she will see that Labour and the Greens promised New Zealanders to hold a referendum on the flag issue, and the social media trolls who constantly try to suggest that it was a John Key vanity project and that New Zealanders didn’t want it consistently ignore that; they are not telling the truth, and the truth needs to be reiterated.

Well, as Dr Smith noted earlier, the wording of a referendum question is often crucial in influencing the outcome, and that’s why New Zealanders need to know as soon as possible, preferably today, what the question they will be asked to answer in New Zealand’s recreational marijuana referendum will be, so that the debate may begin, so that the information they’ll need to consider may be obtained and put out for the public through public information campaigns, and so that the international experience of countries like Canada and states within the United States and elsewhere may be considered. They’ve been through this issue. We deserve—we need—to know what their experience has been in order to make the best decision for New Zealand at the referendum next year. And yet, without even knowing what the question will be, without the Parliament having the opportunity to adopt that process, New Zealanders are denied that constitutional, that important democratic right.

Greg O’Connor: Ignored on end of life.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: Government members have attempted to minimise—and Mr O’Connor is doing it now—the obnoxious nature of this bill and to trivialise the constitutional objections that my colleagues and I are advancing.

Well, despite the trite interjections that we are having to endure and the ad hominem attacks, particularly that we’ve heard in the last three quarters of an hour directed at Dr Smith, Government members have not refuted or, worse, even acknowledged the concerns that Mark Mitchell and Nick Smith and now I have been articulating. But they cannot ignore the fact that this is absolutely undemocratic—for a Cabinet to choose a referendum question, bypassing the parliamentary process—and that is why it’s never been done before. I challenge the next Government speaker to acknowledge the fact that there have been 20 referenda in 166 years of parliamentary democracy in New Zealand, and this is the first time that Parliament hasn’t decided the wording of the question to be asked. Will the Green MP who is, I think, next to speak acknowledge that point? I hope, if it’s either Mr Hughes or Ms Ghahraman, that one of them will acknowledge that point. Will any Government MP explain and attempt to defend that fact. Well, no, of course they won’t, because they can’t. Yet, the stain on their record will be permanent—worse, the undermining of our democracy that is now the mantra of this Government will do lasting damage to the fabric of our nation.

As Mark Mitchell noted, the answer given in the House today that the Regulations Review Committee would be able to fulfil the role of Parliament in scrutinising this bill is fatuous. I was on that select committee for three years. I was deputy chair for part of the term between 2008 and 2011. The idea that the Regulations Review Committee will be able to represent the entire Parliament in scrutinising this is nonsense. Why? Well, firstly, because very few people are even aware of its existence; secondly, because very few MPs are on that committee; and, thirdly, because that committee operates, by convention, consensually. Well, this is one of the most divisive issues of all time. The idea of getting consensus in the Regulations Review Committee is absolute nonsense and, as Dr Smith said, most importantly, is after the event. There is no consensus on this measure. Few MPs, let alone members of the public, will listen to their deliberations.

I repeat what I said at the outset: this bill is dangerous practice. It is indicative of a shoddy Government which is indulging in a constitutional outrage. I hope that New Zealanders will make their concerns known to the select committee, because, obviously, the Government members have the numbers to pass this bill at its first reading. I strongly encourage New Zealanders to make their concerns known to the select committee in the hope—possibly a fairly slim hope, but in the hope—that we can persuade Government members to retract from this dangerous measure and to do the right thing by New Zealand.

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to open by acknowledging the impassioned cries of the honourable member Mr Macindoe. But I am, I must admit, a little bit confused by the series of Opposition speeches on this bill. It would appear that the Opposition is confused about whether this bill addresses a specific referendum or what it in fact does, which is to set out the mechanics of any referendum that may come up in the 2020 election cycle. For that reason, it is very confusing to hear the Opposition call repeatedly for specific questions. We are setting out the mechanics of referenda.

We know, as the Minister has already announced, that there will be one referendum at least; that will address the cannabis issue. The Minister has said that this will be a yes or no question. This is a win that emanates from the Green Party’s confidence and supply agreement with the Government, where we do think that New Zealanders should have an opportunity to debate and to have a say on whether or not recreational use of cannabis will be legalised, though regulated, in New Zealand. We know that is one referendum. It’s very odd to seek to have a piece of legislation that is aimed at setting out the mechanics and the administration of referenda generally to address a particular referendum. That isn’t how legislation works. It would be a very blunt tool if it were.

The previous speaker actually called on the Hon Meka Whaitiri to look into constitutional law. I actually have studied constitutional law. In fact, I have practised constitutional law. There is no such thing as this breach of constitutional norm that has been cried across this House all afternoon when it comes to the setting of the question. The idea is that this bill, like any bill, will go to public consultation—as all bills do—through the select committee process. The public will have a say. They will look at this bill. They will be shocked, as I am, that it actually addresses the mechanics generally of referenda, not a particular referendum. They will be confused by the speeches, if they look at them at all, that have occurred this afternoon. After having their say in that, they will continue on in the democratic process to have a say when the referendums are put to them.

In fact, in this House we’ve had an exceptional level of engagement—or at least we’ve sought to have an exceptional level of engagement from across the House—by holding the cross-party working group on cannabis legalisation. We’ve invited the Opposition repeatedly—repeatedly—to join that group. They have refused to join the group. They have breached the democratic process, you might think, because the process was about input. It wasn’t about some cursory debate that might happen on one occasion. It has been going on for months, for hours and hours, for days. I know, because my colleague Chlöe Swarbrick has been coordinating that group.

There have been questions in the House that could have been answered easily by the Opposition had they actually attended those meetings. Every other party has; just not the National Party. What respect do they show for democratic process?

Hon Dr Nick Smith: New Zealand First was not there.

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: I will actually correct that. New Zealand First has engaged with the Government partners and with the Green Party on this issue. Only the National Party hasn’t.

Now I’ll move on to a part of the bill that is about democracy, that I do deeply care about, which is about the way that we regulate the use of big money in our democracy—the transparency of political donations; the limits on the way that money can affect the democratic process. I am so proud that this bill has actually placed proper limits on that. We’ve seen across the globe that democracy has been perverted by the insertion of money that’s there anonymously, that is there at extreme extents. That curtails the ability of ordinary citizens from actually accessing democracy, because we don’t all have the kind of money to put into advertising, for example, and to donate to politicised groups or political parties when it comes to elections, including referenda.

But this bill actually sets all of that out, so we do have limits to promoters that do have to be registered. We’ve got the advertising donation and spend limits that we, as the Green Party, argued strongly for, and I’m pleased to have that there. I do hope that we move forward—from this agreement, as a Government, that big money does need to be kept out of democracy—to introducing proper limits and standards of transparency in terms of all our political donations, because that is an area that New Zealand is vulnerable in.

Again, because of the global context of not only anonymous donations but the freedom of information in terms of online forums and fake news and where all of this comes from in terms of corporate sponsorship, it is an area that this bill moves us forward in in terms of security and a safety net and that I hope to see the Government work further on in terms of also adopting some of what I’ve put forward in my separate democracy bill—the electoral amendment bill that is a member’s bill.

So I do commend this bill to the House. It does stand for democracy. It breaches no constitutional norm, and I look forward to the referendum.

CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to speak on the Referendums—which should be “Referenda”—Framework Bill. It’s wrong from the very first word onwards.

I too did study constitutional law, but you don’t need a public law honours degree to understand that at clause 8, which is within Part 2 Subpart 1 of this legislation, the point that Golriz Ghahraman was making is absolutely fundamentally wrong. What we are doing here today is setting out a procedure to take away the substance of subsequent referenda from this House, from this Parliament, and that is what is so egregious about it.

There is no limit in terms of the scope, the type, or the nature of referenda that could be subject to this bill. Dr Nick Smith has made the very good point that, if this is such good law, why should it have an expiry at the 2020 general election? I think we know the answer to that question. If it is such good law, it should remain on the books and not just for a specific time when a specific set of parties can make specific laws, essentially, that set out specific questions to be decided for their specific benefit. There are at least a couple of referenda that could become subject to this bill. At least one of them will be binding, at least as it’s contemplated at the moment, and that is the point that the Hon Clare Curran seems to have missed.

This will indeed bind future Governments, future Parliaments, more to the point. The wording of referenda is so important. It can influence the answer to a question, the way that the question is put. Every single member of this House knows that. Every single member of the House knows that the way that a polling question is framed—and it is about framing. It’s about the language that’s used. It could be, for example, in the realm of euphemisms that are used that don’t make clear exactly what is at stake for the average voter, the average person going to the polls who is juggling a number of different considerations—including, and especially, at a general election, where they have multiple different considerations—and the potential for confusion with wording that is not particularly clear, whether deliberately or not, is very high indeed. That is the whole point about what we are doing here today and we will continue to do on this side of the House. We will continue to fight for the democratic right of New Zealanders for their House of Representatives—their representatives, which includes all the House, to have a say on matters that are important—so that then, in turn, the public can have their say.

A constitutional lesson for this place for those who seem to have forgotten the basic nature of our constitutional arrangements: we have three branches of Government. They are separate, or should be largely so. We have an executive, whose actions should be scrutinised by the legislative branch. That’s Parliament. We also have a judiciary, which we can leave out of the debate at this stage. Another name for the legislative branch, or Parliament, is the House of Representatives. It is all the representatives of this place who should have a say in decision making, for example, and in particular the wording of referenda, because it is so important. A cross-party working group and the Regulations Review Committee is not representative of the whole place, and there are specific limitations with using that as an excuse to avoid parliamentary democracy. There are a couple of very specific points that I will make in relation to that shortly.

Another name for Parliament, another name for the legislative branch, is the debating chamber, if we’re talking about this particular place in which we are now. So when we hear about the opportunity for discussions and debates in relation to, for example, legalising cannabis, if that’s what’s to be put forward, a good place to have the debate, you would think, would be the debating chamber. The clue is in the name. It’s about scrutiny. It’s about the chance to examine the wording of a proposed referendum. Now, it might be that the Government parties’ views would prevail because they have the majority in this place—that much is obvious—but at least those of us who have an interest in representing the views of all the people of New Zealand who voted at the last general election would have a chance to say that, and would have a chance to examine for errors that might be made in perfectly good faith. It might not be about screwing the scrum but might be that discussion would disclose and expose errors or shortfalls in the thinking of those who had put forward such a referendum question.

So it’s about examination but it’s also about transparency. We’ve heard today in question time, in answer to questions by the Hon Dr Nick Smith, I think, to the Hon Kelvin Davis, about this. The rather glib response was that the Regulations Review Committee would have a chance to look at it. Well, that’s all very well, but the consideration of the Regulations Review Committee is not publicised in the way that the debating chamber’s proceedings are; it’s not on Parliament TV. It is confidential in that place, likewise with the cross-party group of which we’ve heard so much in relation to the cannabis question. In fact, if the cross-party group—and I look forward to catching the eye of some members of the House opposite—is designed specifically to be a confidential set of proceedings that might be a term on which National Party participation is invited, then that’s a breach of faith with the New Zealand people whose representatives are in this place—all across the Parliament, all across this House, supposedly, of Representatives.

So this is an extraordinary thing, and I say “extraordinary” in the pure sense that it is outside the ordinary. It is extra to the ordinary way of things, whereby such an important thing as the wording of a referendum question would not be debated and thrashed out in the debating chamber. It is extraordinary in that sense; it is a departure from convention. Members opposite, members on the Government side, have said there is no such convention. It just so happens that every time so far in our entire democratic history it’s always been the case that it’s come to Parliament. Well, I don’t think you could get a more pure example of a convention than that—that is exactly what a convention means. It’s always happened before; suddenly it’s come to an end. That’s one level on which the conventions have been breached.

Hon Tracey Martin: It just means it’s never been done before.

CHRIS PENK: As recently as the last Parliament, Ms Martin. I suppose that you will remember those comments that you and your colleagues made, but perhaps not—perhaps it’s not convenient. Perhaps, too, you’ve forgotten the other convention, which is that electoral law legislation has some kind of degree of buy-in across the House, at least by having an opportunity for the Opposition to be involved in those discussions. Anything different from that would be to risk the appearance of screwing the scrum and organising the rules of the game for the benefit of some players who are acting as the self-appointed referees. That is exactly what we are having here today.

Let me make another couple of comments about the idea that sending a referendum proposal to the Regulations Reviews Committee would be sufficient scrutiny—such that it’s worthy of being a replacement for the whole House of Representatives. Well, a rubber stamp that’s held by more than one hand is still a rubber stamp. The whole point of select committees normally is that it’s an additional check on the executive. It’s not a substitute for the first, the second, and the third readings, with a committee stage in between. It’s an important part thereof, but it’s not an either/or—at least, not normally. It’s a place, too, where expert submissions can be made on the particular thing that’s in front of the select committee. But will that be the case for the Regulations Reviews Committee? I’m not a member of that committee usually, and I’ve never been on that select committee as a substitute and heard submissions from the public on specific questions such as what’s being proposed would come before them. So, again, it’s an exercise in excluding public participation by general members of the New Zealand public who may be very concerned, and expert members of the New Zealand public who might have a particular view on a particular area that’s before them. The wording, as I say, would be important for those expert people and those concerned citizens who we want to participate in democracy, who we want to be involved, who we want to be engaged, who we want to have their say, and they will not have that opportunity. That is not just undemocratic, that is anti-democratic.

Allow me to conclude by reiterating the opposition that we, on this side of the House, have to the notion that there should be a piece of legislation in front of the House that would preclude the need for other pieces of legislation to provide such important decisions, such as the wording of referenda on life and death matters—for example, the End of Life Choice Bill, whatever the views of the members of the House on that might be and whatever the views of the New Zealand public might be—and other matters of such importance as the legalisation or decriminalisation of drugs. The importance of that has been underscored, were that necessary, by the personal stories shared this afternoon with some considerable courage by the Hon Mark Mitchell. I acknowledge others in this House will have similar stories too.

Such important details as the wording of the question to be put to the people of New Zealand for a binding or near-binding decision to be made in a complicated, complex environment—such as the general election with many decisions to be made—of profound importance to this place as a House of Representatives should not be delegated, should not be dismissed in this way. It’s not just undemocratic, it is anti-democratic, and I will join with every member on this side of the House in fighting it tooth and nail.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): This is a split call. I call Greg O’Connor.

GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): Thank you, Mr Speaker. As a child growing up I was an avid reader. One of my favourite fables, or stories, was about the boy who cried wolf. That was a story about a lad who for fun, for any reason, was an alarmist, and people eventually just stopped believing him. I’d point to Dr Nick Smith—there will be people sitting at home, those who are used to watching parliamentary TV. They’ll be familiar with Dr Smith standing and being absolutely outraged about proposals. Any proposal, in fact—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In my 10-minute contribution, I did not choose to personally denigrate other members; I focused on the content of the bill. This is the fourth Government speaker whose large concentration of their speech has not been on the bill but has been on a personal attack on myself. I’d ask you to do your role as Speaker and ask the member to focus on the bill and to cease the personal attacks.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): This debate has been wide ranging, and members on both sides have contributed in a robust manner, both in their contributions and in their interjections. I take the father of the House’s point and encourage members to at least refer to the bill rather than to other members.

GREG O’CONNOR: Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a shame that the member did interrupt me, because I was about to go on—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! Order! No. Just carry on with your speech.

GREG O’CONNOR: Well, yes, Mr Speaker. I’ll say that the quality of the arguments by the Opposition around this whole issue is based, clearly, on a belief of an absolute necessity to be seen to be outraged by anything that’s proposed.

Hon Tim Macindoe: 166 years of democracy

GREG O’CONNOR: But, anyway, I’ll move on. The speakers opposite have talked about democracy, and I think it’s very good that some of the later speakers did concentrate on democracy—it’s where this argument actually belongs. One of the most democratic and admired democratic countries in the world is Switzerland. Now, Switzerland: anyone who understands anything about their system of Government, will know that referenda feature highly, and that relatively few decisions—if any—that are going to affect any of the cantons or any individual are conducted or put into being without a suitable form of referenda.

We talk about evolution, and what we’re seeing now is—I think, even the way that our MMP Government is working—I think for the first time we’ve got a true, democratic MMP Government, something that I think the Opposition are finding quite frustrating, the fact that we do continue to work together. This is another really good example of when three parties—relatively disparate parties—can come together and end up looking at a situation, looking at a policy, particularly around this, and through the use of the democratic system can come together for the best result for New Zealanders.

Now, the best result for New Zealanders, obviously, is going to be for them to make the final decision. In doing so, it’s important that you can’t just have a referendum; what you’ve got to do is make sure that you’ve got a very good framework around it. So you can’t just start and go to the crease; you’ve got to start by building up—and part of the build up to that is always going to be to ensure that there is as much cooperation as possible at every level, which is why the Opposition were invited to be part of the development of policy on this. They have chosen not to; it’s clear where their politics on this are, because they’ve got a member in charge of, basically, anti-cannabis referenda, the Hon Paula Bennett. Now, it becomes very difficult when you paint yourself into a corner, when that is actually one of the mainstays, and most days in the House, there’s a question coming from that member related to that particular topic. Well, it makes it very difficult, then, to be part of what is an evolving, and becoming a much more effective, democratic process. The very democratic processes which we are now going to put in place—put the framework around. This bill, Mr Speaker, is about ensuring that we have a good, solid framework, so that when we do go to the people, when we do go and undertake the democratic process, they are going to get the best information.

Now, it’s a shame that the Opposition have chosen not to be part of this, unfortunately. I do give absolute respect to the Hon Mark Mitchell for his presentation and sharing some very personal knowledge here. But, unfortunately, that’s not the point. The point is not about how, clearly, he has a strong view of what the outcome of the referenda should be; that’s not what the point of this debate is. The point of this debate is about ensuring that, when we do get to that, it’s how we get there.

So this is about a democratic process. The Electoral Commission will have oversight of this. We’ve talked about the Regulations Review Committee, who will actually have the opportunity—in fact, chaired by a member of the Opposition—to have a say on this.

So for those looking at home, you may find—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! The member’s time has expired.

NICOLA WILLIS (National): New Zealand has a proud tradition of democracy. We are one of the oldest and fairest democracies in the world, and we cherish that out of respect—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I’m sorry to interrupt the member, but this debate is interrupted and is set down for resumption next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 6 August 2019.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.