Thursday, 12 September 2019

THURSDAY, 12 SEPTEMBER 2019

THURSDAY, 12 SEPTEMBER 2019

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Karakia.

Speaker’s Statements

New Zealand Land Wars—Unveiling of Commemorative Plaque

SPEAKER: Members, earlier this morning we have unveiled a plaque commemorating the New Zealand Wars of the 19th century. This plaque joins others on the walls of this House acknowledging and honouring New Zealanders who have lost their lives in conflicts. I would now like members to join me in a moment’s silence as we remember those who lost their lives in the New Zealand Wars.

Members stood as a mark of respect.

Obituaries

Rt Hon ‘Akilisi Pōhiva

Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Deputy Leader—Labour): I seek leave to move a motion without notice on the passing of the Rt Hon ‘Akilisi Pōhiva, the Prime Minister of Tonga.

SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that? There appears to be none.

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: I move, That this House express its sadness at the passing of the Prime Minister of the Kingdom of Tonga, Rt Hon ‘Akilisi Pōhiva, who passed away earlier today, Thursday, 12 September 2019, and place on record its gratitude for the contribution that he has made to the Kingdom of Tonga and to furthering the interests of the Pacific region.

Further, we convey deep sympathy to the Rt Hon ‘Akilisi Pōhiva’s family and to the people of the Kingdom of Tonga. The Rt Hon ‘Akilisi Pōhiva passed away this morning in Auckland aged 78 after having been medevaced to New Zealand yesterday. We extend our condolences to his family and to the people of Tonga. Prime Minister Pōhiva was an elder statesman of the Pacific and a great friend to New Zealand. I’ve just been told that he was the longest serving member of Parliament in Tonga, some 32 years.

He’ll be remembered for his lifelong commitment to championing democracy. He was always committed to broadening democracy and contributed much of his life to this cause, and for that reason was a standout figure in the Pacific. He was also a powerful advocate for Pacific regionalism, demonstrated at the Pacific Islands Forum Leaders Meeting in Tuvalu, where he advocated for climate change action and regional solidarity. Our thoughts are with the people of Tonga and the extended Pōhiva family.

Hon ALFRED NGARO (National): I too on behalf of the National Party want to speak to this notice of motion and give our condolences to not only the Pōhiva family but also the Kingdom of Tonga. ‘Akilisi Pōhiva was a man that was born on 17 April 1941 and lived his life until today, in which he passed away. He was a Tongan pro-democracy activist and politician and had quite a significant and substantial life in leading the democratic rule of Government in Tonga itself. He was the leader of the Democratic Party of the Friendly Islands and served as Prime Minister of Tonga from 2014 to his death in 2019 of today. He was only the fourth commoner to serve as a Prime Minister, after a number of other distinguished members of Parliament and Prime Ministers as well.

Pōhiva was not only the longest-serving people’s representative of Tonga in the Tongan Parliament, having first served since elected in 1987, he also, too, had quite a substantial political career, and it was marked by constant battles with the Tongan democracy and monarchy and transparency issues. In 1996, he was imprisoned for contempt of Parliament on the order of Legislative Assembly for reporting on parliamentary proceedings.

Mr Speaker, and to the House, he was an advocate, he was an activist, but more importantly he was a person and a man who was standing for the rights and the democracy of a nation. So we want to honour and acknowledge him in this House. I finish by reciting a Tongan proverb that states this: Mapaki e faa ka ‘oku kei ‘alaha. “The pandanus nut breaks from the tree, yet its aroma lingers.” It reflects the legacy that he leaves behind, not only for his family, not only for the Kingdom of Tonga, but the whole of the Pacific region, and we acknowledge his passing today.

Hon SHANE JONES (NZ First): E kara. E te rangatira, e Pōhiva, ka riro koe ki tawhiti nui, ki tawhiti roa, ki tawhiti pāmamao ki tua o te ārai. Haere atu. Moe atu. Ka whakarērea mai e koe he tauira hei whai mā te marea i roto i ngā moemoeā. I pau i a koe tō kaha katoa ki te whakatutuki kia mana ai te marea ki waenga tonu i ngā motu me te rangatiratanga kei tō motu, a Tonga. Nā reira, e kara, e moe, moe oti atu e.

[Sir. The leader, Pōhiva, you have been taken afar to beyond the veil. Go peacefully. Rest in peace. You have left behind an example to the many in your tireless pursuit of democracy for your general public and independence for your island of Tonga. Therefore, my friend, rest easy, rest in peace.]

I rise very briefly on behalf of New Zealand First to acknowledge the passing of the Rt Hon ‘Akilisi Pōhiva, someone I worked with, someone my leader knew very well. Let us not forget, although this man was of ill health in more recent years, for Tongan reform, for democracy, no light burned brighter than this man. Not only did he face charges of treason, not only was he harassed for his beliefs; in the end, he rose to be the Prime Minister and brought a level of equity to the political culture of Tonga. He was very proud. He advocated for the Pacific and the Polynesian community more broadly in a range of both Pacific and international fora. Today, New Zealand has lost a great friend.

MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): He mihi aroha tēnei ki a ia Te Pirimia o Tonga, ‘Akilisi Pōhiva, me tana whānau, tana wahine a Neomai Pōhiva, me āna tamariki katoa. Nō reira, kei te mihi, kei te mihi, kei te mihi. Haere atu rā ki ngā whetū, ki ngā tūpuna.

He tangata kaha tēnei ki te tū ki te tautoko mō te manapori, mō te Paremata, mō ngā tāngata.

He tangata kaha tēnei, i haere ia ki te whare herehere mō te mahi tutū ana te puehu, nō reira, he tangata māhaki ia mō āna hapori, he tangata tū kaha ki te whawhai mō ngā whenua, mō ngā moutere o te Moana-nui-a-Kiwa, o ana moutere o Tonga. Nō reira, e mihi ana te whānau o ngā Kākāriki ki a rātou, ki a tātou, aku hoa kaimahi nō Tonga, ki ngā hapori o Tonga kei kōnei ki Aotearoa.

Tēnei tangata māhaki tangata kaha; tēnei tangata e tū ana ki te taha o ngā mokopuna, ngā reanga kei te haere mai ki te tiaki i te whenua, i te moana hoki, mā rātou ngā reanga. Nō reira, he mihi pono, he mihi; nōku te honore ki te mihi aroha ki a ia, ki a rātou hoki. Kia ora.

[I pass on my condolences to the Prime Minister of Tonga, ‘Akilisi Pōhiva, and his family, his wife, Neomai Pōhiva, and all of his children. So, my condolences. Go to the stars, go to the ancestors.

He is man who stood up for democracy, for Parliament, for people.

He was a strong man, he went to jail because of his protest, alas, he was a man who cared deeply for his community, he stood strong in the fight for land, for the islands of the Pacific and for his islands of Tonga. Therefore, the Green family acknowledge them and my work colleagues from Tonga, as well as the community of Tonga right here in New Zealand.

This caring man, strong man; this man who stood alongside grandchildren, the generation that has come to protect the land, protect the seas, by them, the generations. Finally, my sincere condolences; it is an honour of mine to pass my condolences to him and to all. Thank you.]

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): On behalf of the ACT Party I’d like to join with other leaders in acknowledging the sad passing of ‘Akilisi Pōhiva. I think any brave pioneer of parliamentary democracy such as him is well deserving of the recognition of this House, particularly when he did that pioneering in a Pacific country that is a close, important friend and neighbour of New Zealand. Our thoughts and condolences are with his family and with the people of Tonga. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Motion agreed to.

Business Statement

Business Statement

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Next week, the House will consider the third reading of the Appropriation (2019/20 Estimates) Bill. An imprest supply bill will be taken along with the third reading. Other legislation to be included next week will include the first reading of the Public Finance (Wellbeing) Amendment Bill, the committee stage of the New Zealand Infrastructure Commission/Te Waihanga Bill and the Kāinga Ora—Homes and Communities Bill, and the third reading of the Education (School Donations) Amendment Bill. On Thursday, 19 September the Ngāti Hinerangi Claims Settlement Bill will have its first reading.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): Noticing that the select committees have no legislation coming back into the House during the September sitting, is the Leader of the House confident there will be enough first readings to keep the House busy during those weeks?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Not only are there a number of first readings coming, there are also a number of committee stages currently listed on the Order Paper, although, given that a bill passed through the House the other night, through its committee stage, with only two speeches from the Opposition—on a bill that they oppose—I wouldn’t be surprised if we make reasonably rapid progress.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Prime Minister

1. Hon PAULA BENNETT (Deputy Leader—National) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all her statements and actions?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister for Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti) on behalf of the Prime Minister: E kōrero ana ahau mō Te Pirimia. Āe, ka whakapūmau i tana whakaatutanga i te ata nei. Ā te tau 2022 ka whakaakongia te hītori o Aotearoa kei roto i ngā kura katoa. E pēnei ana tana korero: i whakarongo mātou ki ngā karanga o te motu; he mea tika kia whakamōhio ai tātou i tō tātou hītori me ō tātou tuakiri. Nō reira he mea tika kia mōhiotia whānuitia kei roto i Te Marautanga o Aotearoa me whakaakongia aua hītori hei wāhanga o te marau ā-rohe me te marau ā-kura kei roto i ia kura puta noa i te motu.

[I am speaking on behalf of the Prime Minister. Yes, she stands by her announcement this morning. By the year 2022, the history of New Zealand will be taught in all schools. Her statement is: we listened to the call of the country; it is appropriate that we are made aware of our history and our identity. So it is right that it should be widely known in the New Zealand Curriculum, those histories should be taught as a part of the local curriculum and school curriculum in every school all across the country.]

Hon Paula Bennett: Does she still stand by her statement that the first she knew of the sexual assault allegations against her staff member was when The Spinoff ran an article on it on Monday, despite the fact that she was asked about those allegations by the media five weeks ago?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Ka tū pūmau Te Pirimia ki āna kōrero katoa.

[The Prime Minister stands by all her statements.]

Hon Paula Bennett: Does she believe in a victim-led response involving specialists in dealing with sexual abuse to help with the sorts of situations involving her staff member?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Āe.

Hon Paula Bennett: Will she be calling in specialist services to help with the process that’s been handled so badly so far?

SPEAKER: Order! The member has just reflected on me. She will ask the question without the reflection.

Hon Paula Bennett: Will she be calling in specialist services to help with the situations that are currently happening and making sure that the process is better than it has been previously?

Hon Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister has no responsibility for the question that Paula Bennett has just asked.

SPEAKER: Well, there’s no responsibility for the answer, I think the member means. Paula Bennett, further question.

Hon Paula Bennett: I’m not sure what that means. Can she state in the House today that she will ensure that a victim-led response will happen when there are incidences of sexual assault?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Ko te hiahia a Te Pirimia kia tautokongia rātou kua tūkino ai, kua whakapae kua tūkino, āe, i ngā wā katoa.

[The Prime Minister’s desire is that all those who have been assaulted, or allege that they have been assaulted, be supported always.]

SPEAKER: Order! Order! I’m going to ask the Minister to start his answer again, for I don’t think any of the members are, I think—I do want to make it clear to the House that, because of the late night and the fact that some of us didn’t get home last night, there’s one set of hearing aids that never got their charge. But I think all members are suffering from a hearing problem at the moment through the lack of interpretation, so I’m therefore going to ask the Hon Kelvin Davis to start the answer on behalf of the Prime Minister again.

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Ko te hiahia a Te Pirimia kia tautokongia rātou e whakapae ana kua tūkinohia rātou.

[The Prime Minister’s desire is that those who allege they have been assaulted be supported.]

Hon Paula Bennett: Has she asked senior staff in her office why they did not inform her of the various serious allegations around her staff member?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Ko tēnei kaupapa he kaupapa mō te pāti hei whakatikatikangia.

[This matter is for the party to address.]

Hon Paula Bennett: Does she agree with the statement of the deputy leader of the Labour Party, the Hon Kelvin Davis, who stated in the House yesterday that these allegations were all based on rumour?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Ko aua whakapākehātanga o aua kōrero e āhua rangirua ana, i te mea ngā kupu Māori horekau he tikanga kotahi mō wētahi o ngā kupu pērā i te kupu “whakapae”, pērā i te kupu “kōhimuhimu”.

[Those translations of those words are somewhat confused because Māori words don’t have one single meaning for some of those words, for example, the word “whakapae” and the word “kōhimuhimu”.]

Hon Paula Bennett: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I’m sorry, I think, maybe, the translation then, as well, was quite unclear, and I just ask if we could perhaps even have the translation again so that I just understand for a follow-up question.

Hon Shane Jones: Speaking to the point of order, so I can provide some direction, just because you hear rumours—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: No, that’s not a point of order.

SPEAKER: Order! Who interjected then?

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I did.

SPEAKER: Stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I withdraw and apologise. Point of order.

SPEAKER: No. I’m hearing one.

Hon Shane Jones: Sir, this is the week of Te Reo Māori, and just because you hear the word “accusation” and “rumour” doesn’t mean it’s a fact.

SPEAKER: Well, that was, Mr Jones, most unhelpful and, I think, almost certainly designed to cause disruption. He will stand, withdraw, and apologise. It was not a point of order, and the member has—I know he doesn’t pay close attention to these things, but he’s been here long enough to know that that was not a point of order. He will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Hon Shane Jones: I withdraw and apologise.

SPEAKER: I’m going to ask Paula Bennett to ask her question again.

Hon Paula Bennett: My question was: does she agree with the statement of the deputy leader of the Labour Party, the Hon Kelvin Davis, who stated in the House yesterday that these allegations were all based on rumour?

SPEAKER: No. Before the member answers that question, the problem that I have is that I have the translation of what Mr Davis said, and—well, I have a translation of what Mr Davis said, and he did use what has been translated for me as the word “rumour”, but it did not—it applied to the member’s party, and not to the comments that the member made about the issue which this member is now asking about.

Hon Paula Bennett: Sorry, sir, but—point of order—I too have looked very carefully at the transcript, or else wouldn’t be making this statement, and, I’m sorry, I interpret it quite differently: that it is quite clear that he was stating that I was making allegations, in the speech previous to him, that were based on rumour.

SPEAKER: Well, it’s clear that we have a translation issue, and I am going to let the Prime Minister answer, but with the advantage of, probably, some extra ability to translate. But I do want to make it clear to the Hon Paula Bennett that in the translation that I have, the only time the word “rumour” occurs in it, it does not relate to—it relates to matters of last year.

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: E Te Māngai, koia te raruraru o te rerekētanga i waenganui i te “translation” me te “interpretation” o te kaiwhakapākehātia.

[Mr Speaker, that is the problem of the disparity between the “translation” and the “interpretation” of the translator.]

Hon Paula Bennett: Can the Prime Minister ask Kelvin Davis, then, what he meant when he made statements in this House in Māori yesterday that quite clearly were objectifying and saying that it was allegations of rumour?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Ka kite ana ahau i a Kelvin Davis, māku e pātai atu ki a ia.

[When I see Kelvin Davis, I’ll ask him.]

Hon Paula Bennett: Does she think that it’s appropriate to make fun of the fact that there are such serious allegations going on at the moment and such chaos and disarray by senior members of this House?

SPEAKER: No. No, the member will ask a question that’s within—if she wants to—the Standing Orders.

Hon Paula Bennett: Does she still stand by her statement that victims should go to one of their line managers and that no senior people in her office had received a complaint?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Āe.

Hon Paula Bennett: Is she stating, then, that the victims are not telling the truth?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Kāo.

Hon Paula Bennett: Then, how does the answer to both those questions add up, when the victims have absolutely stated that they made a complaint to one of her senior managers?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: I te mea e tika ana aku whakautu.

[Because my answers are true.]

Hon Paula Bennett: Does she still stand by her statement that no victims have gone to any senior staff within the Prime Minister’s office or the leader’s office to make complaints around an alleged offender?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Ka tū pūmau, ka tautokongia e Te Pirimia āna kōrero katoa.

[The Prime Minister stands by and supports all her statements.]

Hon Anne Tolley: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I’m sorry, I don’t have hearing aids but I got no translation. Is that just me?

SPEAKER: I think it’s just you, in this case. I did. Well, I’ll tell you what the interpreter said: the Prime Minister will stand by all her words.

Question No. 2—Regional Economic Development

2. CLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First) to the Minister for Regional Economic Development: What recent progress has been made on Provincial Growth Fund projects?

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Regional Economic Development): Last week, I engaged in some fiscal DIY. On behalf of the Crown, I had the pleasure to go to one of the busiest wharves in Tai Tokerau in Aotearoa—Kororāreka, the Russell wharf—where, after I had applied a paintbrush, there was a positive fiscal glow to that part of New Zealand.

Clayton Mitchell: What other projects are nearing completion in the Bay of Islands?

Hon SHANE JONES: The economic heart of the Northland area is beating rapidly in anticipation of more good news both this year and next year, which will not come in the form of a white elephant. The Russell wharf funding announced, along with Ōpua and Paihia, shows that we believe in our communities who want to create new opportunities for economic growth and community participation, and ensure that the infrastructure is futureproofed via the Provincial Growth Fund (PGF), not for the big end of town but for the garden-variety Kiwis who, coincidentally and happily, live in the North.

Clayton Mitchell: What progress has been seen on PGF projects in Taranaki?

Hon SHANE JONES: To dispel rather cruel rumours that there is a very strong northern focus to the fiscal glow, recently I was in Taranaki upon the maunga—although in Taranaki it is called the mōunga; although that word in my tribe means a large piece of firewood. I am pleased to say that the feasibility study was very positive and a sum of $13.3 million has been allocated to upgrade the infrastructure, involve the local iwi, and ensure that Taranaki Mounga represents a new set of opportunities for jobs, for tourism growth, and for export earnings as foreigners come to New Zealand and spend money and enjoy an area that is feeling the positive attention of this Government—i.e., the Taranaki region.

Question No. 3—Women

3. Hon PAULA BENNETT (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister for Women: Does she believe all women in New Zealand should feel safe from sexual and physical violence in the workplace?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Minister for Women): Yes, absolutely.

Hon Paula Bennett: Does she agree that people in positions of power who encourage women in the workplace to stay silent and not go to the police when they allege they have been victims of sexual assault do more harm to the victims?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Yes.

Hon Paula Bennett: Is it the responsibility of line managers and senior staff who get told of instances of sexual harassment to report that to her central registry that now collects data on sexual harassment in the workplace?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: I do think that it is important that if it is the wishes of the complainants in the case, then that should be reported to the relevant manager, yes.

Hon Paula Bennett: Does she believe men in a position of power conducting a witch-hunt to find out who it was that might, for instance, have spoken to the media make women feel safe from sexual and physical violence in the workplace?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: What I can say is bullying, sexual harassment, and sexual assault are all very serious problems right across society. No institution is immune from them; the Francis review has shown that in Parliament, and we all have a responsibility to make sure that women are safe and that there are victim-centred inquiries into these matters.

Hon Paula Bennett: What does she consider a victim-centred response to be?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: I think that there are best practice examples, but, ultimately, the wishes of the complainants must be taken into account in the way in which the process is undertaken.

Hon Paula Bennett: Has she had any concerns about sexual assault allegations by people employed in Parliament of late?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: I always have concerns about any reported cases of sexual assault or sexual harassment in Parliament. I have had no specific knowledge or personal knowledge of any of those complaints.

Question No. 4—Education

4. MARJA LUBECK (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What actions is the Government taking to reduce costs for families in the public education system?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): The Government is implementing a school donation scheme for deciles 1 to 7 schools. This means that, as of 1 January next year, up to 1,700 schools will receive funding of $150 per student so that they can stop directly asking parents for money or charge for anything associated with the delivery of the Curriculum. We know how difficult it is for parents to afford the donations that schools request and the pressure that it places on parents who aren’t able to afford them. The Government is taking the pressure off families and putting the “free” back into our public education system.

Marja Lubeck: What advice is available to parents so that they know what can and cannot be charged to them in public schooling?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Last week we released guidance for families on the Ministry of Education’s website to help them understand what they can be asked to pay for in schools. An example of this would be an optional after-school swimming activity or school uniforms. Also, importantly, the guidance also provides clarity to families as to what is a voluntary donation and frequently used examples of these. We’ve also published requirements for boards of trustees of the deciles 1 to 7 schools who are eligible for the scheme about what they can and cannot seek in the way of donations if they decide to opt into the scheme.

Marja Lubeck: What action is the Government taking to ensure that schools do not continue to ask parents for donations if they accept funding as part of the school donations scheme?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The legislation that’s currently going through the House means that eligible schools that have accepted the funding from the Government but then continue to unlawfully seek voluntary donations from parents can have that money recovered from them. It’s important that we protect the integrity of the scheme and make sure that the funding is doing exactly what it is meant to achieve.

Marja Lubeck: What other funding has the Government delivered to remove costs from public schooling?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: As part of this year’s Budget, the Government scrapped fees for NCEA. More than 168,000 secondary school students will no longer have to pay fees in order to have their qualifications awarded. On top of this, 150,000 current and former students with unpaid NCEA fees will now be formally awarded their NCEA credits or qualifications. We’re removing financial barriers to our public education system to make sure that all young people have the same chance to succeed.

Question No. 5—Finance

5. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by all his statements, policies, and actions?

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

Hon Paul Goldsmith: What changes is he proposing to bank regulations following the Reserve Bank and Financial Markets Authority’s (FMA) conduct and culture review into that sector?

SPEAKER: I’m going to ask the member to ask the question again to relate it to the primary.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: What policies has he changed in relation to bank regulations following the Reserve Bank and FMA’s conduct and culture review into that sector?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Announcements about that are forthcoming.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he expect higher standards of conduct from bank executives and a better culture?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Indeed, I do believe that we are in an environment now where there’s been a focus on the conduct of bank executives and, indeed, the governors of banks as well, and that the expectation of the public is that their conduct needs to be exemplary. As part of the review of phase two of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act, we are looking at the standards that are being brought in around executive accountability in Australia, as to whether they can be applied in New Zealand.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he agree with the Reserve Bank Governor’s comments: “Culture comes from the top and boards and senior managers at our financial institutions need to be leading by example.”?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I find myself agreeing with the Reserve Bank Governor on a number of occasions. I think that there are many banks in New Zealand that could look at the culture and the conduct at the top and make sure that they meet the standards New Zealanders would expect.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Is he happy with the standards of conduct demonstrated by his Government, and does he think his Government has a good culture?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As the Minister of Finance, I believe that this is a Government that is doing great things for New Zealand and for the New Zealand economy. I believe that it is a Government that listens to New Zealanders, and I note, today, that the Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission went and visited some of the people who are struggling with decisions that have been made in the past by agencies like Southern Response—first time, I believe, a Minister has actually gone and done that kind of thing. That is the kind of culture and conduct that I think a Government should be proud of.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Would he expect senior figures in any industry to react promptly if they were aware of claims of serious misconduct?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Yes.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Then why did he say nothing when he knew about serious misconduct in his Government?

SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat.

Hon Members: Why?

SPEAKER: Well, the member knows that’s out of order. He absolutely knows it’s out of order.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I hesitate to do this, but you have been very strict on this side of the House when questions have been misused, in terms of your allocation process that you operate. I just wonder whether that’s going to apply in this case?

SPEAKER: I’ll say to the member what I’ve said to other members: I make those decisions. Giving me advice to do something tends to head me in the contrary direction. So the member might have just caused disadvantage to his own team.

Question No. 6—Environment

6. KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour) to the Minister for the Environment: What actions is the Government taking to protect streams and wetlands?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Last week, the Government announced our action plan for healthy waterways. It focused on three things: firstly, stopping the degradation of our rivers; secondly, delivering a noticeable improvement in water quality in five years; and, thirdly, restoring our waterways to a healthy state within a generation. We’re currently consulting with the public on our proposed changes. Meetings are well attended, partly because consultation on other national policy statements (NPS)—like the protection of elite soils and urban development and hazardous substances—is taking place at the same meetings, as was requested by the sectors.

Kiritapu Allan: He aha te whakahoki kōrero o te tono a Te Karauna?

[What has been the early feedback on the Government’s proposals?]

Hon DAVID PARKER: There have been considerably positive comments on the Government’s plan to clean up our waterways. Across agriculture and environment sectors, there is a consensus that more needs to be done, and most New Zealanders are pleased this Government is doing it. After some of the incendiary comments, early after the release of the document, some attendees are concerned that the consultation—on, for example, nitrate limits—be open and genuine, and I can confirm that it is.

Kiritapu Allan: Ko ngā taumata whakaritea mō ngā pūkawa ota heke iho, kua kotahi nei mō te motu whenua nei?

[Are the proposed levels of nitrate reduction fixed and uniform across the country?]

Hon DAVID PARKER: No, not necessarily. As our discussion document clearly states, we’re consulting on whether the nutrient table should vary by water body—for example, should there be a different nitrate level for lowland streams in Canterbury, compared with higher-country rivers and lakes?

Kiritapu Allan: Ka whakahokia ngā tono a Te Karauna ki te whakatiaki ki te tikitū wai māori [Do the essential freshwater proposals return New Zealand to pristine or pure waterways] and what is the time frame to achieve nitrate pollution limits?

Hon DAVID PARKER: No, these standards don’t mean waterways should be pristine in the way they were before we had cities and farms. We do, though, want rivers to be swimmable, and to sustain a healthy ecosystem. In terms of time frames, in contrast to the mistaken views of some, whatever the new nitrogen targets are in the NPS, they’re not to be met by 2025; in fact, that is the date by which plans to start moving towards the target must be in place. It is up to regional councils to set the pace of change to achieve that over a generation—that is, over some decades after 2025.

Question No. 7—Environment

7. Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel) to the Minister for the Environment: What is his response to the Initial Economic Advisory Report on the Essential Freshwater Package, which says, “The cost-effectiveness of policies targeting nutrients is likely to be questionable” and that, under bottom lines for nutrients he has proposed, the area allocated to dry stock farming in the Waikato-Waipā catchment is likely to fall by 68 percent?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Firstly, the quote is taken out of context, because the statement that he refers to asserts that it’s made only in respect of macroinvertebrate health, whereas the scientific advisory group recommended the nitrogen attribute because the current national policy statement (NPS) does not protect wider ecosystem health. However, I would respond, in respect of the question, that the initial report is interim, not final. It’s from Local Government New Zealand, and the modelling includes costs for changes that were required to be made under the previous Government’s policy but have not been put in place. It also assumes that a single NPS nitrogen attribute applies across the whole of the country and does not vary by region. It also assumes that immediate change in land-use practices is required, whereas phasing in a policy, sometimes over decades, is an important part of the design of the freshwater package, because, of course, it spreads the cost of implementation over time. Finally, I would note that in the past week, misinformation claiming that the proposed changes to farming practices and land use need to be in place by 2025 is incorrect, and this is perhaps why he has misunderstood the report.

Hon Scott Simpson: When will his Government’s economic modelling be available so that the public can judge for themselves the robustness of Local Government New Zealand’s findings?

Hon DAVID PARKER: There’s already, as I think I said the other day in the House, some 20 pages of economic analysis in the report. There will be further economic analysis once final decisions are taken as to the nitrogen attribute. I would note that Pattrick Smellie, in a piece in today’s New Zealand Herald, said that at $100 million a year, which is what he totes up the cost, these costs represent less than 1 percent of the roughly $12 billion of raw agricultural output that Statistics New Zealand measures annually.

Hon Scott Simpson: Does he agree with the authors that there is little evidence of a strong correlation between nitrogen and phosphorous and microinvertebrate levels?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I’m sorry, Mr Speaker. Could that question be re-asked? I didn’t catch it?

Hon Scott Simpson: Does he agree with the authors that there is little evidence of a strong correlation between nitrogen and phosphorous and microinvertebrate levels?

Hon DAVID PARKER: That was the point that I made at the first point when I said that the quote had been taken out of context, because the scientific advisory group do not recommend a nitrate level on the basis of macroinvertebrates alone; they say it’s necessary for ecosystem health more broadly.

Hon Scott Simpson: How is he going to respond to the author’s strong recommendation that an evaluation be undertaken of the entire package of policies proposed at both an industry and a regional level?

:Hon DAVID PARKER Well, more economic analysis will be done, and, indeed, after I received that report—that initial report—some time ago, it’s one of the reasons why we are explicit that we are consulting upon a variation of nitrogen attributes rather than automatically assuming that it’s across the whole of the country, as the costing in that initial report does.

Todd Muller: Does he think good faith consultation on his freshwater plan is occurring today in Winton, when you have 150 people sitting outside, 396 farmers having to put their apologies in because they’re lambing and calving—is this good faith negotiation and consultation?

Hon DAVID PARKER: After the strong interest that was shown at meetings yesterday, where everyone was able to be accommodated, there was an awareness amongst officials that there may not be sufficient space in the hall to which the member refers. A Facebook message was put out to locals last night noting that, offering to hold two meetings, and suggesting that they spread across that other meeting date. Officials will go back to meet that need.

Todd Muller: Will he extend the consultation period beyond six weeks and provide an opportunity for rural New Zealand to engage on proposals that could fundamentally change New Zealand rural life?

Hon DAVID PARKER: The six-week consultation period is similar to the consultation period that we use for submissions to select committees, so we’re not proposing to extend that date. However, we have said, as select committees normally do, that if people are a bit late with their submissions, we will still receive them.

Kieran McAnulty: What other areas of New Zealand primary production have to respond when environmental limits are breached?

Hon DAVID PARKER: It’s interesting, isn’t it, that in the fisheries area, where environmental sustainability limits are breached, systems have to change to bring the fishing industry within the ambit of what is sustainable. There is nothing different really being proposed in respect of this policy.

Hon Nanaia Mahuta: Does the Minister believe that both urban communities and rural communities will need to contribute to make a difference to improve freshwater quality?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Yes, and this package is balanced, in that regard, and expects improvements from both city dwellers and rural areas. Indeed, it’s sometimes quite hard for officials to get the balance right. Officials in earlier rounds of consultation were criticised by non-urban populations for not highlighting enough the challenges that are to be met in urban areas. This time, in order to meet that expressed desire of rural populations, they have explained well what has been required of urban populations, and then there has been some frustration expressed at some of those meetings that they’re focusing too much on urban issues and not enough on the rural.

Question No. 8—Health

8. Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei) to the Associate Minister of Health: Does she stand by all her statements, policies, and actions regarding vaccination and the measles outbreak?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Associate Minister of Health): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Yes, in the context they were given.

Dr Shane Reti: Can she confirm the report on the Northern Advocate front page this morning that “General medical practices in Northland have run out of measles vaccine, making tens of thousands of people vulnerable”?

SPEAKER: No. Ask a question that relates to the primary.

Dr Shane Reti: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The primary talks about the measles outbreak and vaccinations.

SPEAKER: Yes, yes, and just saying “measles”—the substance of the question is “Does she stand by all her statements, policies, and actions”, so the member has to relate his supplementary to that. Just having the word “measles” in it isn’t good enough.

Dr Shane Reti: Can she confirm the report on the Northern Advocate front page this morning that “General medical practices in Northland have run out of measles vaccine, making tens of thousands of people vulnerable”?

SPEAKER: No. None of those relate to a statement or action of the Minister, or a policy of the Minister. It’s not hard to get the question right. The member is intellectually capable of doing it; I just want him to have another crack.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. If we are going to get into the semantics of it, the question asks, very clearly, “Does she stand by all her statements, policies, and actions regarding vaccination and the measles outbreak?” We’ve heard twice this week in the House from health Ministers that there’s no problem with vaccinations, so when you have a headline in a local newspaper that completely disputes that, how can it be out of order, in line with this question, to ask if the statement is still being agreed with?

SPEAKER: I just want to say to the member: if Ministers had said that, which I don’t accept, then I’m sure that Dr Reti would be capable of relating that statement in his question or a supplementary. He hasn’t.

Dr Shane Reti: How do her policies align with the report on the Northern Advocate front page this morning that “General medical practices in Northland have run out of measles vaccine, making tens of thousands of people vulnerable”?

SPEAKER: That’s not quite there, but close enough.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: I’ve been advised today that the regional store was able to fill all measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine (MMR) orders that had been placed by GPs in Northland, and that stock of MMR is still available in the regional store. I have been assured by the Director-General of Health that there’s no supply issue when it comes to vaccines for managing the outbreak in Auckland as well as ensuring that we can maintain the childhood immunisation schedule across the country. What happened on Monday was that there was a stocktake undertaken because there’s been unprecedented demand for, and administration of, vaccines in the past two weeks, and what that revealed is that, while there’s no supply issue, there was a distribution issue, and so the Ministry of Health, alongside local medical officers of health, local primary health organisations, and the DHB, are actively ensuring that there is sufficient vaccine everywhere where there needs to be in Northland.

Dr Shane Reti: What advice has she received on the dire measles vaccine supply expressed in communications from Waikato DHB to health professionals yesterday?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Exactly as I just said, the Director-General of Health has assured me there’s no issue with supply, but the stocktake revealed that it was not evenly distributed, and so there is active work going on right now to ensure that all of the vaccines are available where they need to be administered, and in particular that we’re ensuring that all children, who are the most vulnerable to measles, are able to receive all of their vaccines. In the last two weeks, thousands of vaccines have been administered each day, which is significantly more than average, and so that would probably explain why some GPs were low on stock. But all of the orders have been filled in Northland, and I don’t have the specifics on Waikato, but I can get them for him.

Dr Shane Reti: What does she say to 1.3 million New Zealanders aged between 30 and 50 who are no longer being targeted to receive the measles vaccine, and when did this recommendation change?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Yesterday, the Director-General of Health announced, to give clarity to primary health organisations, that it was very important that we ensure that we maintain the childhood immunisation schedule, and that the most at-risk people are children; they are the most vulnerable to the disease, the most likely to be hospitalised. Although there’s no shortage of vaccines, it does require staff and others, and so, necessarily, because we can’t administer vaccines to everyone in the country within a period of just a few short weeks, we are ensuring that no child is missing their vaccine and that all those who are most vulnerable are going to get their vaccine. But I assure the member there is no shortage of vaccines. We simply want to make sure that the most vulnerable people are not missing out, given that there has been unprecedented demand for vaccines in the past two weeks.

Dr Shane Reti: Can she confirm the Government will announce that pharmacists will be able to vaccinate for measles, as we called on the Government to urgently do back on 2 September?

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Sorry, Mr Speaker, could I ask that the member repeat the beginning of the question. I just missed the beginning.

SPEAKER: Yes, and the member only needs to do the first part of it, because the other part was superfluous.

Dr Shane Reti: Can she confirm that the Government will announce that pharmacists will be able to vaccinate for measles?

SPEAKER: “Can the Minister”, in this case.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I can confirm that the Government is actively and urgently exploring the opportunity for pharmacists to provide the MMR vaccine, but, unfortunately, contrary to the member’s assertion, allowing pharmacists to vaccinate for MMR is not a 30-second policy. Funding, reimbursement, classification, and record-keeping all need to be considered, and we want this policy to be implemented safely.

Question No. 9—Māori Development

9. TAMATI COFFEY (Labour—Waiariki) to the Minister for Māori Development: He pēhea te tautoko a te kāwangatanga i te whakarauoratanga o te reo Māori?

[How is the Government supporting the revitalisation of te reo Māori?]

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister for Māori Development): E tautoko ana te Kāwanatanga me te rāngai tūmatanui i ngā rautaki reo Māori ki te whakakaha i ngā pūkenga i te reo kia waia anō Te Reo Māori. E mōhio ana e haere ngātahi ana Te Reo me ngā hītori hei hanga tūāpapa o te tuakiri ki tō mātou ahurea me ngā taonga tuku iho.

[The Government and public sector are supporting Māori language strategies by improving language skills so that the Māori language is again familiar. We know that the language and history go together in the creation of the foundation of identity in our culture and heritage.]

Tamati Coffey: He aha ngā pānui inaia tata ake nei hei tautoko i ngā whakarauoratanga o Te Reo?

[What recent announcements have there been to support the revitalisation of the language?]

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: He āhua roa tēnei whakautu. Heoi hei tāpiri atu i ngā kaupapa kōrero i whakatakotoria i Te Whare nei i te Rātū, e whakapakari ana mātou i te tautoko mō ngā kaiako mā ēnei kaupapa e whai ake. E 700 ngā kaiako kei ngā rohe e whā e ako ana me pēwhea te whakauru i Te Reo Māori ki roto i ngā karaehe. He kete rauemi mā ngā kaiako me ngā whānau hei āwhina i a rātou ki te whakamahi i Te Reo Māori ki ngā kura, ki te kāinga hoki. He whakakore i te kaikiritanga i ngā kura. Ka whakarewaina te hōtaka tuatahi ki Te Tai Tokerau hei te tau 2020. Ka waihangatia e te Māori, he hōtaka tēnei mō te whakatō me te whakaako i te mātauranga Māori. He paetukutuku hou kei reira katoa ngā rauemi reo Māori mō ngā kaiako—

[This is a long answer. Anyway, to add to the topics of discussion that were laid before this House on Tuesday, we are improving the support for teachers via the following initiatives: 700 teachers in four regions are learning how to introduce the Māori language to the classroom; a set of resources for teachers and families to help them use the Māori language in schools and in the home; getting rid of bullying in schools. The first programme will be launched in Northland in 2020. Created by Māori, this is a programme for the introduction and teaching of Māori knowledge. A new website where Māori language resources for teachers can be found—]

SPEAKER: Kāti, kāti, kāti!

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: He maha, he maha ngā kaupapa e kawea nei e mātou, te Kāwanatanga.

[There are many, many initiatives that we, the Government, are carrying out.]

Ginny Andersen: Mō ngā Māori anake tēnei rautaki?

[Is this strategy for Māori only?]

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: E kao. He rautaki tēnei mō ngā iwi katoa. Ko te whāinga matua o Te Maihi Karauna, kia māhorahora Te Reo ki ngā wāhi katoa, i ngā mahi katoa, mō ngā iwi katoa o ia rā.

[No. This is a strategy for all peoples. The main goal of Te Maihi Karauna is for the language to be ubiquitous everywhere, in all endeavours, and for all people, daily.]

Question No. 10—Energy and Resources

10. JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: Does she stand by all of her statements, policies, and actions?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment) on behalf of the Minister of Energy and Resources: Yes, in the context they were made and undertaken.

Jonathan Young: Does she accept the findings of the interim Climate Change Commission that her Government’s policy of forcing the market into producing 100 percent renewable electricity will push up power prices for New Zealand families by an average of $300 a year?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I’m confident that the transition that New Zealand is on to decarbonising electricity and other parts of our fossil fuel system will result in lower energy costs to New Zealanders than would otherwise be the case.

Jonathan Young: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just asked whether she would accept the findings of the interim Climate Change Commission.

SPEAKER: Well, I think if the member listened really carefully to the end of the answer, he got a very direct answer.

Jonathan Young: When the Minister said yesterday she does not think elevated wholesale power prices will flow through to higher household prices, however with wholesale prices 60 percent higher through all of this year compared to the same period of last year, are we seeing a structural change in the market that could build in these higher prices?

Hon DAVID PARKER: We did see a spike in wholesale gas and electricity prices over the last year, caused by problems in gas infrastructure—pity we didn’t have a few more renewables at the time. I would note that the latest data shows that electricity prices at retail are now 1.6 percent higher than they were last year, which is lower than the rate of inflation, and that as a consequence, the Electricity Retailers’ Association have put out a release today—I suspect after the member submitted his question—saying household power bills have hit a 10-year low.

Jonathan Young: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member referred to a spike, whereas the question alluded to a 60 percent increase average over the country for the last 8½ months, which is not a spike.

SPEAKER: Well, it depends on one’s definition of “spike”. It’s one hell of a spike, but it could be described as a peak.

Jonathan Young: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was, in that context, whether we are seeing a structural change, and I don’t think he addressed the question.

SPEAKER: If the member listened to the end of the reply—unless he’s suggesting that the lowest prices for 10 years is a structural change, which I’m not sure that he was, I think the question was certainly not only addressed but answered.

Jonathan Young: So when she said yesterday that renewable electricity is the cheapest form of generation that will bring down electricity prices, when does she expect the price per unit to fall, knowing that today’s announcement was not about the price per unit but New Zealanders using less electricity?

Hon DAVID PARKER: On behalf of the Minister, the cheapest-cost new increments to supply in New Zealand are wind power and geothermal power. Wind power in particular has decreased in cost over recent years and continues to go down. Gas prices go up.

Jonathan Young: Is the Minister aware of news reports that have come out from Georgetown, which moved to 100 percent renewable electricity in 2012, which increased the cost of electricity by $1,000 per household, and what will she do to ensure that doesn’t occur here?

Hon DAVID PARKER: On behalf of the Minister, I’m aware from talking to the former Minister of Energy in the last Labour Government, David Parker, that at the time when the changes were made towards renewable electricity, there was a prediction made by the then Opposition that this would increase electricity prices. We have seen since that that has not been the case, and, as I said, despite the increasing proportion of New Zealand’s electricity that comes from, electricity prices in the last period are the lowest that they’ve been for a long time.

Jonathan Young: So, if the Minister, who has said in the past that she won’t die in the ditch over that 100 percent renewable electricity target—would she rather we use gas, which has decreased in its use this last year, or use coal, which has increased by 134 percent, to back up and support a largely renewable electricity system?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Neither. I’d rather see renewables used. I would also note that the problems that the member is referring to were actually problems in gas distribution; they weren’t a shortage of gas. I’m advised that we have more than a decade of forward gas available to the New Zealand electricity market, and that’s what the average has been for quite a long time.

Question No. 11—Research, Science and Innovation

11. Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National) to the Minister of Research, Science and Innovation: Does she stand by all of her statements, policies, and actions?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education) on behalf of the Minister of Research, Science and Innovation: Yes. I particularly stand by our decision to make the largest ever investment in research and development through the $1 billion R & D tax incentive in Budget 2018 and the additional $132 million investment in science in Budget 2019. I’m also happy to remind the member that we’ve recently seen R & D spend increase from 1.23 percent to 1.37 percent of GDP.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: Is she aware that her own officials advised her that the Government’s policies in Budget 2019 do not reflect the funding needed to increase R & D expenditure to 2 percent of GDP?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: On behalf of the Minister, I’ve received a range of advice on what it’s going to take to reach the target of 2 percent of GDP in the 10-year period that the Government has set. We, of course, do expect that the private sector is going to play a very large role in getting us to that point, and we are going to partner with them to achieve that. On this side of the House, we believe in an active role for the private sector around R & D. Although, of course, I know that with the new-found enthusiasm for communism on the other side of the House they might be rethinking that.

SPEAKER: No, no, no. That line has been consistently ruled out by Speakers, and even in a humorous way. I’m going to be consistent with Speakers from the past and say that that is not an approach that is going to be taken by either side of the House.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Should he withdraw?

SPEAKER: Yes, he should.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I withdraw.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: Does she think it’s realistic to meet the Government’s own target, when, according to the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, to reach the target, business expenditure on R & D needs to increase by 10 percent per annum and Government expenditure on R & D needs to increase by at least $150 million per annum, which she has failed to deliver?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: In answer to the first part of the question, yes. In answer to the second part of the question, I do refer the member to my earlier answer where I said that the private sector is going to have to play a significant role here. I’m pleased to tell the member that we need a private sector increase of at least 10 percent—as the member has pointed out—and that, in fact, between 2016 and 2018 it was 34 percent. So we’re seeing larger increases than we need to in order to meet the target.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: Does she really think it’s realistic to expect business expenditure on R & D to increase by 10 percent per annum when business confidence is at its lowest level since the global financial crisis?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I think, as the Minister of Finance has explained on many occasions before, we’re more interested in what business are doing than what they’re saying about how they feel, because those two things don’t always correlate.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: If, as her own officials advise, her Government appears unable to meet its own R & D target, will she do what she did with KiwiBuild and just get rid of the target?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I’m confident that the Government is going to meet the target.

Question No. 12—Building and Construction

12. PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai) to the Minister for Building and Construction: What recent reports has the Minister seen on forecast construction activity?

‘Akilisi Pōhiva—to his family and to all Tongans worldwide. Last week, I released the that forecasts strong and sustainable construction activity for at least the next five years. The report shows the value that construction activity is expected to hit: $43.5 billion at its peak. This represents significant activity across residential, non-residential, and infrastructure construction sectors. Given the construction sector represents our fourth-largest employer and our fifth-largest industry by GDP, this is further proof that our Government policies and work in the construction sector are indeed hitting the nail on the head.

Hon JENNY SALESA (Minister for Building and Construction): May I first of all, as a Tongan, express my sincerest condolences in the passing of the Rt Hon National Construction Pipeline Report 2019

Paul Eagle: How does forecasting construction activity help the construction industry?

Hon JENNY SALESA: One of the key concerns I hear frequently from industry through the Construction Sector Accord is about managing the boom-bust cycles that negatively impact productivity, innovation, and employment in the construction sector. The positive forecast highlighted in the National Construction Pipeline Report 2019 provides certainty to the construction industry and means that Government and industry can work together to support better planning, better scheduling of investment, and better coordination of construction procurement.

Paul Eagle: How does this forecast construction activity align with other measures?

Hon JENNY SALESA: This report is just one indication that the construction sector is performing to support jobs and deliver houses, schools, and hospitals that are essential to all of our wellbeing. Last month, Statistics New Zealand reported that there were almost 36,000 houses consented for the year to the end of July, including 14,000 in Auckland and 4,000 in the Waikato. This rate has not been seen since February of 1974 and further demonstrates the strength of the construction sector.

Points of Order

Te Reo Māori—English Translation

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Earlier this afternoon, in the questioning of the Prime Minister, you gave the House your interpretation of an interpreted Hansard from the Hon Kelvin Davis yesterday. While I would accept that the word “kōhimuhimu” might have different meanings in context, it can’t have a different meaning in text. It’s very clear, from both the transcription of Mr Kelvin Davis’ speech and then the transcript of the translation, that there are two statements that are relevant. You said there was one and that it related entirely to our party, but the factual script in Te Reo and the translation are similar and make it clear that he did mean that the Hon Paula Bennett was criticising the actions, the work, and other things that they have done all based on rumour. And I think that’s unreasonable—

SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. I have since reviewed further down the transcript and I accept that I was wrong in my comments to the House as to the transcription. I had looked at the earlier comments, which were related directly to Paula Bennett, and not to the later parts, and I apologise to the House for that. I have since reviewed it, and I was going to make the point now, but the member beat me to it.

Bills

Te Pire kia Unuhia te Hara kai Runga i a Rua Kēnana / Rua Kēnana Pardon Bill

First Reading

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister for Māori Development): I move, That Te Pire kia Unuhia te Hara kai Runga i a Rua Kēnana / Rua Kēnana Pardon Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Māori Affairs Committee to consider the bill.

E ai ki te kōrero a te koroua, “Kotahi te ture mō ngā iwi e rua”. Kua mana ana kupu i tēnei rā. E te mana nui, e te tohunga, e te rangatira, Rua Kēnana Hepetipa, moe mai rā, e moe.

Kāti, huri noa i tō tātou Whare, tēnā koutou. Tuatahi, ki ngā uri o Rua, ngā kaiwhakapono o Te Iharaira, tae rawa ake ki ngā uri o Tama Kaimoana, o Maungapōhatu. Koutou kua puta i ngā whārua o Te Urewera, nā koutou i pīkau i tēnei kaupapa i roto i ngā tau me āna piki, me āna heke hoki. Ahakoa ērā, kei kōnei tātou i tēnei rā mō te pānui tuatahi a tēnei pire. Nā koutou, nā tō koutou māia, kaha hoki, kua tae tātou ki tēnei rā. Nō reira, kei ngā uri o Rua Kēnana, tēnei te mokopuna o Piupiu Te Wherowhero e mihi kau atu nei.

Ka tangi ki ngā tini aituā i roto i te wā. Tēnei mātou e tangi tonu nei i tērā o ngā taniwha hiku roa, a Pita Paraone. Otirā, kei ngā mate o tēnā marae, o tēnā hapū, o tēnā iwi puta noa i te motu, haere, haere, hoki atu rā. Rātou ki a rātou, ko tātou ngā kanohi ora o te tau nei, ngā mahuetanga iho o rātou mā, tēnā rā koutou, tātou, katoa.

[The male elder once said, “One rule for two peoples”. His words are true on this day. The authority, the spiritual intermediary, the leader of people, Rua Kēnana Hepetipa, rest in peace.

Turning to those in the House, greetings. Firstly, to the descendants of Rua, the believers of Iharaira, to the descendants of Tama Kaimona, of Maungapōhatu. To those of you who have come from the valley of the Ureweras, it was you who have carried this cause forward through its ups and downs. Regardless, we are here today for the first reading of this bill. It was because of you, because of your courage, your strength, we are here today. Therefore, to the descendants of Rua Kēnana, I, the descendent of Piupiu Te Wherowhero, acknowledge you.

We mourn the many who have passed. We continue to mourn the passing of that man of great influence, Pita Paraone. To those who have passed of the marae, the hapū, and the iwi throughout the country, rest in peace. The spirit realm to the spirit realm, and to us who have been left behind in the realm of the living, thank you all.]

In August 1916, Rua Kēnana—Tūhoe rangatira, community leader, and leader of the Iharaira faith—was convicted of moral resistance to a police attempt to arrest him earlier that year. The arrest had its origins in an earlier conviction for the illicit sale of liquor; however, Rua believed he had already been punished for those crimes. Rua had, in fact, served time in prison in 1915 on such charges dating back to 1911, before he had returned to Maungapōhatu in 1915.

In January 1916, Rua was summoned to appear before a magistrate in relation to a batch of 1915 charges also relating to the sale of alcohol without a licence. Rua advised police that he was busy with harvesting and requested that his case be adjourned until the next court session. The magistrate treated this as a contempt of court and imposed a prison sentence in Rua’s absence.

A first attempt to arrest Rua was made in February 1916. Rua told the constables that he would not accompany them and that he had already served a prison sentence. The constables were not prepared to use force and did not compel him to come with them; however, this led to further charges against Rua for resisting arrest and using seditious language. In the midst of the First World War, the authorities undoubtedly saw the autonomy claimed by the community led by Rua at Maungapōhatu as subversive.

For the next attempt at arrest, in April 1916, 70 armed police set out. During the arrest there was an exchange of gunfire in which Rua’s son Toko Rua and another young man, Te Maipi, were killed. Three other Maungapōhatu residents and four police officers were wounded. Thirty-one Maungapōhatu men were arrested and held up for three days. This incident has been described by some historians as the last shooting of the New Zealand Wars. It is an incident that has dwelt long in Tūhoe memories and has continued to cast its shadow over more recent events in our history.

Rua’s 47-day trial was the longest in our history until 1977. He was acquitted on the charge of using seditious language. Four other charges were thrown out by the judge, and the jury was unable to reach a verdict on two others. The police attempted to arrest Rua due to the reactivation of his suspended sentence imposed in May 1915. It’s unclear why this sentence was reactivated, as Rua was not charged with any new offence between the imposition of the suspended sentence in May 1915 and its later reactivation. Rua spent 18 months in prison because of his conviction for morally resisting arrest in February 1916. The severity of his sentence was the subject of protest in a letter to the Auckland Star by eight members of the jury which convicted Rua. The Iharaira faith went into a serious, long decline after the events arising from Rua’s arrest. In regard to the Maungapōhatu invasion, the Crown’s treatment of Rua was unreasonable.

This legislation will give effect to the 9 September 2017 agreement to provide a statutory pardon for Rua Kēnana between the Crown and Ngā Toenga o Ngā Tamariki a Iharaira me Ngā Uri o Maungapōhatu Charitable Trust to provide a statutory pardon for Rua Kēnana. The evidence relating to this instance has been thoroughly researched through the Waitangi Tribunal’s Te Urewera inquiry. The Waitangi Tribunal report concluded that the police used excessive force in arresting Rua at Maungapōhatu. It is not clear that there was good reason to reactivate the suspended sentence for liquor charges, which were used in large part to justify the arrest. Rua has borne a lasting stigma because of the Crown’s treatment of him. The final form of this stigma was a guilty verdict for moral resistance.

There are precedents in this House for pardoning individuals from our history. An example is the Mokomoko (Restoration of Character, Mana, and Reputation) Act 2013. There are also criteria for assessing whether a statutory pardon is an appropriate vehicle to achieve reconciliation. These were developed during the consideration of a pardon for Kereopa Te Rau, as part of the Ngāti Rangiwewehi settlement.

Let me test the circumstances, briefly, against those criteria. First, the person for whom the pardon is sought has been convicted of offence. This is obviously the case for Rua Kēnana. The second criterion is that the whānau wish the pardon to be granted, and understand its nature and effect. This criterion also clearly applies here. The trusts have been clear that they wish to pursue a statutory pardon. Third, the pardon will achieve the intended effect of promoting reconciliation. The trust considers this is necessary to restore the character, mana, and reputation of Rua, and promote reconciliation with the Crown. We have much work to do there. Fourth, no other response from the Crown will sufficiently meet whānau concerns. Let me be clear that there are no other options available to meet the concerns expressed by the trust, except through this bill. Fifth, it is appropriate for Parliament to formally express forgiveness, via legislation, for the conduct that resulted in the convictions. The Crown has acknowledged, in the Tūhoe settlement, the manner in which it acted towards Rua and the Maungapōhatu community, causing them serious prejudice, and was a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.

The uri of Rua Kēnana and Ngā Toenga o Ngā Tamariki o Iharaira are still affected by the stigma that has resulted from the conviction of their tupuna and the resulting hardships for the community caused by that conviction. We cannot begin to understand what that feels like. In terms of the Crown acknowledgment, this bill is required in order to provide an appropriate Crown response to these matters. It seeks to affirm and restore the character, mana, and reputation of Rua and his descendants. It is important that the Crown acknowledges that its actions, which I have already talked about, caused lasting damage to his character, mana, and reputation, and carried by his descendants. It acknowledges that Ngā Toenga o Ngā Tamariki a Iharaira, including the descendants of Rua Kēnana, have suffered ongoing hurt, shame, stigma as a result of the Maungapōhatu invasion. The Crown will, through this legislation, apologise to the descendants of Rua Kēnana and Ngā Toenga o Ngā Tamariki a Iharaira for the lasting damage to the character, the mana, the reputation of Rua Kēnana and his uri. It will also apologise for the deep hurt, shame, and stigma caused as a result of the invasion of Maungapōhatu.

The bill concludes with the pardon for the conviction for the moral resistance to arrest. It declares the restoration of the character, mana, and reputation of Rua Kēnana, his uri, and Ngā Toenga o Ngā Tamariki a Iharaira. This bill is outside the Treaty settlement process. It will have no impact on existing Treaty settlements and involves no financial or cultural redress. However, I consider that the bill will go a long way to restoring the reputation and mana of the Crown. We heard, earlier this morning, from Dr Taiarahia Black, that this is a millennial moment. The first reading of Te Pire kia Unuhia te Hara kai Runga i a Rua Kēnana / Rua Kēnana Pardon Bill, in my mind, affirms the teachings of our prophets.

Te koroua Rua Kēnana, Te Whiti o Rongomai, Tohu Kākahi, Āperehama Taonui, Tāwhiao, me rekereke rātou katoa.

[The elder Rua Kēnana, Te Whiti o Rongomai, Tohu Kākahi, Aperehama Taonui, Tāwhiao, they must all be pardoned.]

This is the millennial moment recognised so that we can be alert to the teachings of those tohunga, our tūpuna, to navigate our way ahead.

Nō reira, tēnei te whakaaro ake ki a koutou katoa. Te Ururoa, i kite i a koutou i waenganui i a tātou. Tēnā tātou.

[Therefore, I am thinking of all of you. Te Ururoa, I saw you amongst us. Thank you.]

JO HAYES (National): Tēnā koe koro mā, e kui mā, rau rangatira mā, tēnā koutou. E te whānau o te poropiti o Rua Kēnana, kei te mihi mahana ki a koutou. Nau mai, haere mai i tēnei Whare i te rā whakahirahira.

[Greetings, elders and distinguished guests, greetings. To the family of the prophet Rua Kēnana, warm greetings to you all. Welcome, welcome to this House on this important day.]

I stand humbled again to speak on such an emotional bill, Te Pire kia Unuhia te Hara kai Runga i a Rua Kēnana / Rua Kēnana Pardon Bill, on the first reading. This morning, I was privileged to be part of the rōpū pāremata for the plaque, as we see under the doorway, and I too, as the Minister Nanaia Mahuta has laid out, was privileged to listen to a number of speeches today.

But the one that I do want to make mention of is the one of a previous lecturer of mine, and an uri of Tūhoe, Professor Taiarahia Black. His speech around the waiata of Rua Kēnana, when Rua Kēnana was imprisoned, brought a lot of—it was almost like it was real for me. I could see it all happening in my mind’s eye. Those words around “Kāore te whakamā i ahau ki te taura whiu kau” [“The void of shame to use a cow lasso”] when Rua Kēnana—when the colonial Crown went in and arrested him, wrapping around a cowhide lasso to bring him down, “I kitea e au he karauna kīngi” [“Pervading my sight is the symbol of the King”], where he could see the badge of the King coming through, “Ka ū ki Maungapōhatu” [“Ascending Maunga Pōhatu”].

As Professor Black went on to say so eloquently—I could never do it as eloquently as him, where he talked about the time when Rua Kēnana’s hands were locked in handcuffs: “Mekameka i aku ringa ka pai e te iwi ka rite ngā karaipiture” [“My hands are chained. It does not matter, my people, for the scriptures have spoken”], where he was saying, “Even though my hands have been handcuffed”, he will take the role, and the people will take the role of the scriptures. This was a man who did nothing. He did absolutely nothing wrong, and yet he had to pay a price, a price that the whānau of Rua Kēnana sit in this House today—as they listen to us speak about and apologise on behalf of the history of this country for the wrong that was beset upon this man, upon this poropiti.

They’re only the first four lines of this waiata. It goes on into the treatment of the people of his whānau and of his wahine from the Crown invaders—the disgusting things that these people had to endure during their time while their leader was sitting in Mt Eden Prison. For many times, I stand in this House on a number of Māori bills, and it does—I listened to Minister Nanaia Mahuta, with the tears coming down her face. I know the pain, I can feel the pain, that many of the whānau that have sat in that gallery—I have felt your pain. If this is just one little thing that I can help to address and soothe that pain, then I am humbled to be able to do that.

So we are here today, over a hundred years later, with this acknowledgment and with this apology for the horrific history that started so long ago and carried on, right through. National worked with the Māori Party, with the Hon Te Ururoa Flavell—I acknowledge you, Te Ururoa—in starting this whole process, and this Government, the Labour-led coalition Government, has carried this bill through to today, and I am humbled. I am humbled again.

As I said, it’s a very emotional time as I stand here, but I just want to say that my day today started in a humble way, at 5.30 a.m., with a solemn and respectful start, and today—right now—my day, at this point in the Parliament, ends with an honouring of a tupuna of Maungapōhatu. There is so much that Minister Nanaia Mahuta relayed in this House around atrocities and the treatment of the poropiti Rua Kēnana. On this side of the House, we cry with you and we mourn with you. Therefore, without any further ado, I commend this bill to the House. Tēnā koe.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. E tū ana ki te tautoko i tēnei pire. Ki a koutou ngā uri o Rua Kēnana, ngā uri o Maungapōhatu, Te Hāhi Iharaira, nau mai, nau mai, whakatau mai ki Te Whare Pāremata i takatū nei. He tino hōnore tēnei ki te tū ki te tautoko i tēnei, tō koutou pire.

[Greetings, Mr Speaker. I stand to support this bill. To you, the descendants of Rua Kēnana, the descendants of Maungapōhatu, the Church of Iharaira, welcome, welcome, welcome to Parliament. It is a great honour to stand to support this, your bill.]

I am delighted, and it is a privilege, to stand and speak in the first reading of this bill, Te Pire kia Unuhia te Hara kai Runga i a Rua Kēnana / the Rua Kēnana Pardon Bill. I want to acknowledge all the descendants of Rua Kēnana who have travelled from far and wide to be here on this occasion. I want to acknowledge all of the whānau, wherever they may be, who might be tuning in for this historic occasion. It’s sort of hard—there are a lot of emotions that are going on at the moment, and I just want to acknowledge our guests.

It’s been a really significant week, and a significant day, when I look to see the unveiling of the New Zealand Wars memorial that we’ve done this morning and hear the kōrero by Professor Taiarahia Black, as well, around it being a millennium moment, and the announcement that we made today, as a Government, that we will be ensuring that all schools—all kura—will be teaching our New Zealand histories by the year 2022. Then, to top it all off, we have the first reading of this bill, because if there is one person in the history of our country that should be taught in our schools—and will be taught in our schools—it is Rua Kēnana.

Mr Black referred today to research and scholarship, and I’ve really enjoyed—I went to the library and pulled out the book and read up on Rua Kēnana, just myself, on my own. And I’m struck by such a visionary leader that he was—a visionary leader for Tūhoe, for his people of Maungapōhatu, and the amazing works that he did—amazing—all grounded in scripture. A deep knowledge of scripture, and then the application of that in terms of everyday life to encourage the building of settlements and thriving communities—and that’s exactly what Rua Kēnana did in terms of his ministry to his people and the drawing that he had from far and wide. Also, with that, there came suspicion by the Pākehā, as there always was. As soon as there was someone of great influence and charisma in Māoridom—particularly, in the 19th and 20th centuries—unfortunately, the settlers’ Governments of the time saw that as a threat.

We have heard the history, and I want to acknowledge my tuahine, the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, who gave us the full, beautiful history of what occurred at Maungapōhatu. But I want to focus on the great visionary that Rua Kēnana was, not only in the construction of these settlements and the inspiration that he provided to his followers and to his people but the vision that he had for Tūhoe and for the whole motu. I’m really thrilled that, through this bill, we will be seeing it is part of helping to bring healing, the restoration of the mana, the pardon, the acknowledgments, but it’s also about revitalising te hāhi Iharaira, as well. So I want to acknowledge all of those wonderful works that Rua Kēnana is famous for—famous. This is a real honour to be standing here.

I want to acknowledge all the work that’s gone on in terms of the research, in terms of the work through Te Puni Kōkiri in bringing this bill to the House and the agreement that was reached and that was signed to mark the centenary of that terrible, terrible police invasion that occurred in April 1916—just over a hundred years ago these things were going on. I want to acknowledge the loss that occurred, the mamae, but also I’m really thrilled that even though the Pākehā Government of that day used the criminal justice system and used the laws of the time to try and put out the aspirations of Rua Kēnana and ultimately led to detrimental damage and decline for the Maungapōhatu community and its people, here we are today passing legislation that will restore that mana and restore the character, as has always been known, but we are doing it through laws today. So that’s the wonderful thing that we can do in this House of Parliament.

So it has been quite a day. I am delighted that, as chair of the Māori Affairs Committee, we will be conducting our hearings into this bill. I certainly—not for wont to intrude—would welcome an invitation that we could travel up as a committee. I’ve never been up there. I’d love an invitation for our committee to come and conduct our hearings on this bill up in Maungapōhatu, or wherever—or wherever. So, wherever—whatever are the wishes of the hau kāinga.

So this is a really momentous day. I know that, as we do in these Treaty settlement speeches, we’re Māori, so it’s all about our connections and whakapapa and the like. I hail from the South, and also connect up to the North on my mum’s side. So I don’t quite have a connection to Maungapōhatu. However, I am pleased that I do have a wee kōrero here, because of taku hono ki Maungapōhatu [my connection to Maungapōhatu]. Nā taku tūpuna, nā Eruera Tirikātene i huaki te rori ki Maungapōhatu. Mō tēnei mahi āna ka takohatia mai e Tūhoe tētahi tokotoko ki taku tūpuna. Kei taku whānau tonu te tokotoko nei. Ko te rākau mō tēnei tokotoko nō te taiapa tonu o te kāinga o Rua Kēnana, and so he tino tāonga tēnei o taku whānau.

[My ancestor Eruera Tirikātene opened up the road to Maungapōhatu. For this work, my grandfather was gifted a walking stick by Tūhoe. My family still have this walking stick to this day. The wood for the walking stick was from a fence post from the home of Rua Kēnana, and so it is a real treasure to my family.]

I want to acknowledge that when my grandfather opened the road to Maungapōhatu back in the day, it was a wonderful occasion. He was very spoilt. He was given some amazing gifts. This is one of them: this wonderful tokotoko, which is carved. It came from the palisades of one of Rua’s whare at Maungapōhatu, made from the palisades. So it’s wonderful to be able to make that connection to the whānau of Rua Kēnana today. So I understand there was also a cloak, and I believe that’s in Te Papa for safekeeping as well. But I want to acknowledge the whānau of Rua Kēnana for those connections that we have.

Also, just to conclude, again, this is all about the restoration of character, mana, and reputation, and pardon. I know that we’ve done this for Mokomoko. We’ve given acknowledgments for Te Kooti Rikirangi. And I’m really delighted that we are now, today, being able to put through this legislation for Rua Kēnana. So, with that, I just want to mihi again to the whānau that have travelled today. I’m certainly looking forward to further mahi that we will be doing in respect of this bill.

Nō reira, rau rangatira mā, huri noa i tō tātou Whare, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātau katoa.

[Therefore, to everyone in the House, thank you, thank you, thank you one and all.]

Hon NICKY WAGNER (National): Tihei mauri ora! Te Whare e tū nei, tēnā koe. Te papa e takoto nei, tēnā koe. Ngā mate, haere, haere, haere. Ngā reo, ngā mana, tēnā koutou katoa. Kei te kōrero ahau mō te pānuitanga tuatahi o Te Pire kia Unuhia te Hara kai Runga i a Rua Kēnana / Rua Kēnana Pardon Bill.

[I stand. The House that stands before us, greetings. The ground that lays before us, greetings. Those who have passed, rest in peace. The spokespeople, the people of authority, greetings to you all. I am speaking to the first reading of Te Pire kia Unuhia te Hara kai Runga i a Rua Kēnana / Rua Kēnana Pardon Bill.]

I’m very pleased to be able to see this bill being introduced today during Te Wiki o Te Reo Māori. Also today we celebrated, as has been noted, te huranga o te tohu whakamahara ki ngā pakanga i Aotearoa—the unveiling of the New Zealand Wars commemorative plaque. It’s of great significance that we now recognise the New Zealand Wars and the men and women who fought in them, here in Pāremata Aotearoa. I particularly like the fact that the plaque is in a very prominent position above the doorways, and I think it’s looking really good.

That we now very keenly and actively celebrate Te Wiki o Te Reo Māori—the Māori Language Week—when in the past young Māori speakers were chastised by their teachers for speaking Te Reo, that we prominently commemorate the New Zealand Wars, and, of course, even the name of those wars has changed over the years in our Parliament, and that this bill to pardon Rua Kēnana, the Tūhoe prophet, is being introduced into the House today shows just how far we have come and how much has changed in New Zealand over the years. In the 21st century we are a far more understanding, inclusive, diverse, and tolerant society. We expect a better, fairer, and culturally richer quality of life, and that is to the benefit of all of us—this generation and the generation to come.

In fact, New Zealanders reading the story of Rua Kēnana from over a century ago find it very difficult to understand how he could have been so badly treated by the Crown, and that they could have used such force to arrest him. Bringing 70—70—armed policemen to invade Maungapōhatu and, in the process, killing his son Toko Rua and Te Maipi Te Whiu, and wounding other Māori, and that four policemen were also injured, just seems incredible and all wrong to us today. Indeed, the Waitangi Tribunal in 2012 determined that the Crown used excessive force in arresting Rua Kēnana and that that arrest was unlawful because it happened on a Sunday.

There’s no doubt that 2 April 1916 was a dark day in New Zealand’s history and had terrible consequences for Rua Kēnana and his whānau, and beyond that the followers of the Iharaira faith he founded. All suffered that day, and all their descendants have suffered from the consequences ever since. I think all New Zealanders were supportive when the Crown, represented by the Hon Te Ururoa Flavell and the Hon Christopher Finlayson, went to Maungapōhatu marae in September 2017 to sign an agreement with the trust, representing the whānau and the followers of the faith, to progress the pardon of Rua Kēnana—a pardon promised 101 years late, a pardon long overdue. For all that time, Rua Kēnana was, in the eyes of the law, a criminal.

But now is the time to change that. Today, we introduce a bill that will ensure him a statutory pardon. Nothing, of course, will erase the violence and the horror of the Maungapōhatu invasion that April Sunday in 1916, but at least now the Crown has apologised, and within the bill is a declaration to restore the character, to restore the mana, to restore the reputation of Rua Kēnana, his descendants, and the followers of the Iharaira faith that he founded.

New Zealand will be a better place now that this miscarriage of justice, this historic wrong, has been recognised and an apology made. Many things have gone wrong in our country over the years and people have suffered, but I know that New Zealanders today are keen to right those wrongs. Hopefully, as they are recognised, we can find ways to make amends, to apologise, and to heal some of the hurt so that we can move forward together. I commend this bill to the House during Te Wiki o Te Reo Māori. Kia Kaha Te Reo Māori.

KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour): “Te roa, te whenua e tāwhai atu rā. E noho ana hoki au ki Pōneke rā hia. E awhi ana hoki au. Ko koe rā Te Karauna. Hei whakairitanga mō te mate o taku tinana nei e.”—e ai ki te kōrero o Rua, ā muri i tōna haerenga kei kōnei ki Pōneke i te tau 1909. Me maumahara tātou.

Ka huri ake au ki a koutou ngā mōrehu. Ki a koutou ngā uri o Rua Kēnana, te poropiti, ki a koutou ngā toenga o ngā tamariki a Iharaira me ngā uri o Maungapōhatu. Ānei oku mihi ki a koutou. Ko koutou e kawea ngā tino hiahia o te poropiti. Ko koutou e kawea te taumahatanga o ngā kaupapa i ngā wā ia tau, ia tau, ia tau, ia rā, ia rā, ia rā. E ngā pakanga o muri ki ngā pakanga o ēnei rā.

Ka nui ōku mihi ki a koutou e ōku nei rangatira kua haramai nei i tēnei rā whakahirahira. Mai i te maunga o Maungapōhatu, kei kōnei ki tō tātou nei Whare o Te Pāremata. Tēnā koutou.

[“The long, the country that stretches long and wide. I am in Wellington indefinitely. I also embrace you. You are the Crown. There will be relief for the illness within me.”—according to Rua, after travelling here to Wellington in the year 1909. We must remember.

I turn to you, the descendants. To you, the descendants of Rua Kēnana, the prophet; to you, the leftovers of the children of Iharaira and the descendants of Maungapōhatu. Here are my acknowledgments to you. You carry the hopes of the prophet. You carried the burden of this matter every year, every year, every year, every day, every day, every day. The battles of the future to the battles of today.

I give my heartfelt acknowledgments to you, my distinguished leaders, who have made it here on this important day. From the mountain of Maungapōhatu, here we are in Parliament. Greetings.]

It’s not lost upon me that in 1909 the prophet Rua Kēnana travelled down to Wellington. He came down from Maungapōhatu in a time politically wrought. The Crown, just two years prior, had introduced the Tohunga Suppression Act 1907, many say as a consequence of watching the movement that Rua Kēnana was leading up in Maungapōhatu. In 1909, also—probably not unlike today, as we all have in our own various homes—there were different views in the ways in which to advance the aspirations of the people in Te Urewera. So the prophet Rua Kēnana took it upon himself to come down here to advocate on behalf of Ngā Iharaira’s aspirations for the whenua, for ngā wawata—the aspirations for development, economic development, for opening up the roads. The words that I shared at the start—and I couldn’t sing it as eloquently as our friends may do at some point—were words that he wrote, as I best understand, on his haerenga back home to Maungapōhatu: the vastness, the voice, declaration of the land connecting part of this land to another. As I contemplate here in Wellington, I am cautious with your means—with you, the Crown. To uphold your process that beset the difficulties and connections to my land connected to my body.

Consequently, as we have come to hear in this House today, but also over many a year and many a fora—whether it’s been through the tribunals or on paepae in warm houses throughout your rohe—we have heard how the prophet was right to be cautious. We have heard from colleagues in this House—the Hon Nanaia Mahuta just prior, and eloquently summarised by colleagues from across the aisle—the actions of the Crown and the consequences thereof for your people which led us here to this moment in time today, where we, on behalf of the Crown, apologise to you, ngā uri o Rua Kēnana, for the wrongful pursuit of and incarceration of and the death of your people and your place. Today marks another step in restoring the balance between the Crown and your people.

My colleagues have acknowledged many of the events that occurred around that time, but, for me, I want to stretch my mind back to 2003, when three women—Tira Tamiana, Tiare Ture Whenua, and Kirituia Tumarae—brought this claim to give voice to Ngā Tamariki a Iharaira in the tribunal.

Ka huri ake au ki a koe e te pāpā, e Richard. Kua kitea koe i waenganui i a tātou me maumahara te wahine a Kirituia, tō hoa tino pūmau.

[I turn to you, my elder, Richard. I have seen you amongst us and must remember Kirituia, your beloved.]

I just want to acknowledge that we feel her here with us today. I recall when you received the Crown up at Maungapōhatu in 2003. Kirituia’s tangi, Kirituia’s kāranga to the Crown, which I have etched in my memory, as she called out to all those that had been lost, as she called out to, it felt like, the stars of several universes far beyond the realms that we were standing within. But that kāranga stretched for nigh on 30 minutes, I would say, unbroken. She brought the pain and the grief—the mamae—of the uri o Rua Kēnana.

Today marks 16-odd years since those stories were shared with the Crown. It’s been a long journey for those that have remained to ensure that justice, in some way, shape, or form, comes and that the balance is restored for ngā uri o Rua Kēnana.

I want to turn to when I was a mere 19-year-old, just finished my second year of law school, and travelled up to the Ureweras—I don’t know what I had in my mind—with your lawyer, who has stuck by you for many years, Jason Pou. I travelled up with Jason, and, actually, we ended up staying about five months up in the Ureweras. We etched your stories into briefs of evidence.

I want to acknowledge my friend Atamira Tumarae, who was 15 years old, as she stood, in 2003, up in Maungapōhatu and shared the kōrero of Rua Kēnana, as she shared the mamae that her generation and all uri carried as a consequence of the pakanga, as a consequence of our actions—the Crown’s actions. And she spoke too then—and I spoke with her again this morning—how all of this is only about ensuring the aspirations, that today marks a shift in the restoration of the relationship that brings about—“transformational change” were the words she used—transformational change for your peoples. So we embark upon this journey together.

I want to acknowledge Te Ururoa Flavell, who, too, formed an instrumental part alongside his colleagues in the previous Government. We acknowledge you, and we thank you, and we’re here to embark together on the next stages of this relationship. Tēnā koutou.

Hon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Kia ora e Te Mana Whakawā. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare, e te iwi, ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Ko tēnei Te Wiki o Te Reo Māori. Me whakanuia e tātou.

[Greetings, Madam Speaker. Greetings to the House, to the tribe, greetings to you all. This is Māori Language Week. We must celebrate it.]

It is right that we celebrate Māori Language Week—and I apologise that a Minister, who would have spoken Te Reo much more impressively than I do, has just sat down. Clearly, there’s been a misunderstanding there about the speaking list. It is right that we celebrate Māori Language Week and, for those who have as limited a command of Te Reo as I do, that we try to extend our knowledge and our use of the language. It is fitting—perhaps, even if it’s a happy coincidence—that we mark the first reading of this Rua Kēnana Pardon Bill in Te Wiki o Te Reo Māori.

The history of the wrong that this bill seeks to put right, or at least to acknowledge, arose in part from cultural ignorance just over a century ago. It is also appropriate to acknowledge descendants of the Ngāi Tūhoe prophet Rua Kēnana, who are present in the gallery today for this historic occasion, because this is a momentous day for them—and we honour them.

I also acknowledge with great respect the presence of the former Minister for Māori Development the Hon Te Ururoa Flavell, who’s been acknowledged by others—and rightly so. He is greatly missed by all of us in this House, and, in his absence, the former Attorney-General, the Hon Christopher Finlayson. They were a formidable duo. As previous speakers have noted, this bill gives effect to the agreement between the Crown and Ngā Tamariki a Iharaira me Ngā Uri o Maungapōhatu Charitable Trust. I have a copy of that agreement here in my hand.

I’m speaking, today, in my relatively new capacity as the shadow Attorney-General in the Opposition National Party. I acknowledge the considerable body of work that was undertaken by the Waitangi Tribunal in its Te Ururoa—Te Urewera inquiry. I’m sure there was an inquiry into you at some stage, Te Ururoa, as well! But in this case it was the Te Urewera inquiry which concluded that the police in 1916 used excessive force against the Maungapōhatu community and that the arrest of Rua Kēnana for sedition, for his opposition to Māori conscription in the First World War, was unlawful.

That led to the agreement which this bill is designed to enact—and I, of course, anticipate it soon will be—to provide a statutory pardon in legislation, to provide a summary of the circumstances around the 1916 invasion of Maungapōhatu, Crown acknowledgments to the descendants of Rua Kēnana and the Iharaira faith, a Crown apology to the descendants of Rua Kēnana and Ngā Toenga o Ngā Tamariki a Iharaira, a pardon to Rua Kēnana for the conviction that he sustained for moral resistance to arrest, and a declaration to restore the character, mana, and reputation of Rua Kēnana, his uri, and Ngā Toenga o Ngā Tamariki a Iharaira—the followers of the Iharaira faith. I apologise for my, at times, inaccurate pronunciation, but this is a sincerely felt endorsement of that agreement.

This apology is issued by the Crown. Although we are now in Opposition, the National Party is proud to be in the House today to confirm our continuing strong support for this bill, for the apology, and for the aims of the agreement signed just over two years ago—in fact, in one of the final acts of the outgoing Government, led by the Rt Hon Sir Bill English, undertaken by the Hon Te Ururoa Flavell and the Hon Christopher Finlayson on behalf of Her Majesty te Kuīni Elizabeth II, and by Dan Hiramana-Rua on behalf of the trust.

So that’s why it is so important to emphasise that this is a bill that enjoys bipartisan support, that reflects the determination of Te Ururoa Flavell and Christopher Finlayson to acknowledge the history and do right by the Crown, and which marks an historic occasion for the descendants of Rua Kēnana and followers of the Iharaira faith. So I endorse the sentiments and the emotions of those who have spoken before me this afternoon in this debate.

A pardon is a significant step for the Crown to take. It acknowledges that a wrong was done in the Crown’s name by Crown agents. It acknowledges, in this instance, that mana was undermined and that suffering occurred, which has continued for more than a century. It signifies a determination to put right the wrong that was done. It is a rare occasion for the Crown to issue an apology, and that, of course, underlines its gravitas and its significance.

I look forward to learning more of the history of an event that, I acknowledge, I learnt nothing about despite growing up and receiving all of my education in this country, as the select committee undertakes its work and, ultimately, reports to this House. So, in conclusion, this is an historic day tinged, of course, with sadness and history that must be acknowledged, but which signals, I sincerely hope, healing, reconciliation, and the restoration of mana. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): E Te Māngai o Te Whare, tēnā koe. Huri noa ki a tātou katoa i roto i tēnei Whare Pāremata. Tēnā koutou. Tuatahi he mihi aroha ki a koutou ngā uri o Maunga Pōhatu me Rua Kēnana, ki a koutou o te hāhi Iharaira.

[Madam Speaker, greetings. Greetings to everyone who is in this Parliament. Greetings. Firstly, I would like to give a heartfelt acknowledgement to the descendants of Maunga Pōhatu and Rua Kēnana and the church of Iharaira.]

I wanted to get further than the start of my speech before I started having a tangi. It’s quite hurtful to be an educated wāhine Māori, political leader in this House and not know this history. I’m happy that today we declared that, in our education, we will gift all our nation’s children the chance to better understand: the chance to better understand this is us, the chance to better understand who we are—not so that we put upon the generations behind us shame and guilt, but so that we have a clearer understanding of what happened and can address justice and harmonious relations for Māori and tauiwi and Pākehā to live in this land of ours in a way that acknowledges the pono and the tika, in a way that hohou te rongo restores the balance for all of us to be able to walk free of the ignorance that far too many of us hold of what happened to our people, to our communities, to our ancestors.

This is the day for Rua Kēnana and his uri and followers to be acknowledged firmly and at the forefront of this kōrero in Parliament—and this is a common story across our lands—and I want my children to know your story. My children are not from your iwi or your maunga or your awa. My children are from Te Tai Tokerau, and Te Tai Rāwhiti, and Scotland, and I want them to know your story because it is our story. And I want to stop feeling inadequate about what we grow up not knowing as a nation.

I wanted my contribution to be focused on the legacy of Rua Kēnana and going right back to before the invasion by the Crown into Maungapōhatu, going right back to the incredible mahi that he led with his people to clear hundreds of acres of dense native bush, to plant orchards and divert a stream of water, and to build whare—and with innovative architecture—and building a community, and a disciplined community, for the purposes of independence and tino rangatiratanga and connecting his people with their whakapapa and the whenua.

He also stood against racial discrimination and actually this, in my understanding, was at the core of what led to the escalated police presence—this is what we might call something similar today: the escalated police presence—which initially came about because he wanted to do what everyone else was doing legally but which for Māori came under a different judgment, and he railed against that racial discrimination. I acknowledge that stand because today in this House this Government is trying to correct that exact same racial discrimination in our system, in our justice system, which is still here today, where two people, from two different communities can do the same thing—the same thing—but come under different laws, different judgments, different penalties, and different apprehension approaches. It’s still happening, and so we are continuing to fix the work that Rua Kēnana stood strong against right back then, 100 years ago.

That led to, I think it was, the first sort of police presence, where, I believe, his response was to offer them a cup of tea and have a kōrero and a sit down. And then a second party of more police from Gisborne arrived some hours later, as you move from the cup of tea and the kai—a big kai is being prepared. And then the third wave of 57 or so police, who had ignored Rua Kēnana’s request for a kōrero—“Let’s have a kōrero.”—and just rode straight on to the marae. That invasion lasted three days—including his son being shot in cold blood; including arrests and being held and detained, and without trial, and a long trial which decimated the funds and the whānau and the connection of the people to the Maungapōhatu community. That trial and that burden are the aspiration, I understand, of the descendants today who want to bring people back to the community, who want to restore that decimation and long-lasting harm that happened as a result of the original hara, the original injustice.

We, as my colleagues have said, all attended the unveiling of the New Zealand Land Wars plaque that sits behind my seat here. And it was announced from the Prime Minister today that our schools will include New Zealand history as a core subject, and now we are here recalling the mana and the tapu of Rua Kēnana and his uri and his followers to restore the reputation and the dignity of everyone who had to face that harm. And it is right and it is right and it is right. It is right also, previous Minister Te Ururoa Flavell, that you are acknowledged today. This is restorative, important, crucial mahi for our nation, for all of us. There is no minimising the importance of this. And it is not finished; this is just one of the important steps and there is ongoing work to do. I acknowledge everyone who has worked to get it into this House, to get the pardon into this House today.

I want to finish with—part of the bill refers to the pardon in a way that suggests that the Crown forgives Rua Kēnana and his people. And I stand here as a representative of the Crown to ask for your forgiveness. Rua Kēnana, Maungapōhatu, Hāhi Iharaira—I stand here as a representative of the Crown asking for your forgiveness. Kia ora.

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister of Forestry): Kia ahatia ngā manuhiri kua tatū mai ki kōnei, tukuna māku ēnei kōrero ōku e takitaki ki tētahi karakia nō roto i ōku whenua, i a Ngāpuhi. Otirā, ka whakarerekē wētahi kupu kia ōrite ai ki te kaupapa o te rā.

Pū kaukau mai rā te uri pūriri ko Hine noa te mātakitaki, tangi āmiomio te karoro, ko Hine Moana te papaki ki te ākau roa e kui, e kui. Kei taku pīpīwhararoa kōkō tūrou, kei hea koe? Ko tēnei tāu ko te karere a Mahuru, tū mai rā a Maunga Pōhatu. Whakaeke mai te toi, tio mai ai ko ko ko koia. Tē koa ia te Urewera, koia ka tipu whakaritorito ai. Taku pua kōwhai e purotu nei i te ata ki te rau kūmara. Haeata tonu i te maru ahiahi ki te Huiarau. Nau mai ia waewae taitua ki te whenua pongi e tau nei. E whiti, whiti te wanawana, whiti te rearea, whiti ora ki te whai ao, ki te ao mārama. Tihē wa mauri ora.

Te tikanga o tēnā kōrero, he tohu kua tae mai taua manu i ngākaunuitia ai e ō tātou weinga, arā, ko te karere a Mahuru. Me pēnā te whakamārama mō te hanga o ngā mahi e oti ana rā roto i ngā kupu kua tuhia ki te kapu o te pepa i runga i te Pire kei tō tātou aroaro i tēnei rā.

Tōna tikanga he maheatanga. Arā noa atu ngā mahi whakahāwea, arā noa atu ngā mahi tūkino i meatia ai ki te hanga nei e meatia ana ko ngā Iharaira. Kātahi ka mauherehere, te Mihaia, ka taotūngia, ka mate ko te tamaiti.

Nā reira ko tā mātou he tautoko i tēnei tau, i tēnei wā, kātahi, te wā o te Wiki o te Reo Māori. Tuarua, tēnei wā e karangahia nei e tātou e te iwi Māori ko te Mahuru, tuatoru, te rangi e whakatairangatia ana tēnei taumata hou hei whai mā wā tātou tamariki, arā, kia ākona whānuitia mārikatia ai ngā ākonga, ngā tauira katoa kei ngā hau e whā o Aotearoa ki te hītoria me ngā tātai kōrero mō Aotearoa hoki rawa ki te wā i tatū mai ai ō tātou tūpuna i Wawauātea ki Aotearoa.

Arā noa atu, māku te kī, ngā mihi e tika ana kia tau ki runga i a koutou ngā uri kua tae mai i tēnei rā. Tētahi kōrero hei tukunga māku, taku mihi atu ki tēnā huanga ōku i tōna taha Ngāpuhi, ki a Te Ururoa. Āhua ongaonga pai ana ngā taringa ki te whakarongo ki ōku hoa Pākehā e whakamōmori ana kia pua i a rātou Te Reo Māori. Tata ana au te mea atu ki a rātou “Ko te Ururoa anō te Ururoa, ko te Urewera anō te Urewera” kei whakapōhēhēngia ēra kupu e rua. Nā reira e kara, nāu tēnei waka i whakatere. Tika ana koe kia hoki mai i tēnei rā, ko tōna otinga, me pēnei te kōrero. E tata pae mai ana ki uta.

Nā reira, koutou katoa, ngā uri o te hunga nā rātou tērā kāinga i whakamarae, nā rātou tērā kāinga i whakatū ki te whare i whakamātautau ai kia puta he kai, ahakoa te anuanu o tērā kai, ēnā mea katoa me te whakamīharo te kaumātua nei, ehara i te mea he punarua, tahi, rua, toru, whā, rima, ono, whitu ka hia noa atu ngā wāhine mā koutou anō e whakariterite pēnei i heke te wahine tuatahi, tuarua, tuatoru kei a koutou anō tērā. Nā reira, tēnā anō koutou katoa.

[What can I do for those visitors who have arrived here? Allow me to deliver these words, an incantation from my region, from Ngāpuhi. I will tailor some words to fit today’s occasion.

The driftwood washes ashore, only Hine bears witness. The seagull squawks and it is the waves of Hine Moana crashing to the shore, my deity, oh my deity. Shining cuckoo, the call welcomed by all, where are you? Yours is to signal the arrival of Mahuru, Maunga Pōhatu stands tall before me. Descend from the summit, sing to me, sing to me. The Urewera rejoices, for its growth will be bountiful. My kōwhai blooms beautifully in the morning at the endless kūmara. Dawn still rises on the shadows of Huiarau. Welcome, rays of sunlight to this boundless land. Shine, bring warmth, shine upon the bellbird, shine on the world of light. Tihe wa mauri ora.

The meaning of what I’ve just recited is that it is a sign that the bird our elders eagerly awaited has just arrived to signal the beginning of Mahuru. That is how you could also explain the effort that has been expended to get us to the point where those words on the paper are written to indicate the bill that is before us today.

It is meant to be a clearing away. There were the many criticisms, there were the many nasty words directed to those who believed in Iharaira. Then, the messiah was imprisoned, then the son was wounded and eventually died.

Therefore, ours is to support. On this day we support, firstly, Māori Language Week; secondly, the time of the year we Māori call Mahuru; thirdly, today we set a new purpose for our children, that they, as students, learn the full width and breadth of the histories of our country, going right back to the events since the great migration of our ancestors to New Zealand.

And so, I will say, it is only right to acknowledge you, the descendants who have arrived here today. I have one thing say: I would like to acknowledge my relation on my Ngāpuhi side, Te Ururoa. I am pleased to hear my Pākehā colleagues attempting to speak Māori. I was close to pointing out to them “Te Ururoa is Te Ururoa, te Urewera is te Urewera” lest those two words be mixed up. My friend, you are responsible for getting this off the ground, so it is only fitting that you return here on this day. I would put it this way: the boat is almost ashore.

Therefore, to you, the descendants of those who fashioned a home in that place, who fashioned somewhere to grow food, however distasteful the food, and the wonder of this elder, I do not have multiple wives—one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, or however many wives. I will leave it to you to work out if you descend from the first, second, third. Thank you, one and all.]

I stand on behalf of the New Zealand First Party and, obviously, as a Minister to acknowledge what we are doing here today with Te Pire kia Unuhia te Hara kai Runga i a Rua Kēnana / Rua Kēnana Pardon Bill. Rua Kēnana’s father, Tumoana, was a casualty of those wars in the times of the originator of the Ringatū faith, Te Kooti.

I also said in Te Reo Māori that Mr Flavell and I went to St Stephen’s School. We had a fellow student there who probably was the best student of Te Reo Māori—other than, of course, Wassie Shortland and my good self, but he certainly was the most able in my time there—and his name was Barna Heremia. I recall him regaling the boys from Ngāpuhi and other such places with somewhat mystical stories about Maungapōhatu and te taimana huna, the hidden diamond. Naturally, we were half-Tararā and we were more interested in gum-digging than fanciful tales about diamonds. But this is a story that has lived amongst the families of the Tūhoe and the way they have treasured the memories of not only their tūrangawaewae but what happened to this particular individual.

The media treated it in quite a scandalous fashion, and they used the fact that he was reputedly calling himself the kaiser as a basis for initiating further legal action, causing him to spend a protracted period of time in jail. I’ve said with some humour that he turned and answered a calling up on Maungapōhatu, right in the interior of Te Urewera—a spiritual calling—but that is the tradition, and that tradition was conceived to be antagonistic to good order by the colonial Governments of the time.

As it transpired, when Rua Kēnana went through his various court cases, it was a Ngāpuhi who was the interpreter, the kaiwhakamāori, kaiwhakapākehā. He āhuatanga o tēnā Ngāpuhi he ōrite ki ahau. Ko te nuinga o ngā tūpuna he Pākehā, he Tararāhake rānei engari he mea whakatupu e tana kuia Māori.

[One of the traits of that Ngāpuhi is similar to my own. Most ancestors were Pākehā, or Dalmatian, but he was brought up by a Māori grandmother.]

The name of that interpreter was Hare Hongi, otherwise known as Henry Stowell, who wrote a book, a vade mecum about the Māori grammar, around about the time of the First World War. His grandmother, whom he was reared by, was called Mo-mo, and Mo-mo was given that name by her old people, because in those days, if you did not have a strong, powerful—certainly in the Ngāpuhis anyway—male figure, then when the woman was married off, and in this case to the Pākehā, it weakened their hold on the land.

Ko te kaumātua nei ka heke mai te kuia e karangahia nei ko “Mo-mo”, nā ko koutou ko Tūhoe he maumau anō hoki engari he rerekē te whakamāoritanga ki a koutou.

[This elder was descended from a woman who was known as “Mo-mo”. You, Tūhoe, are “maumau” as well, but it has a different meaning to you.]

So I stand, as I wrap this speech up, to acknowledge that what we do today is to revisit part of history and, at the highest court in the land, put on the pages, on the legislative record of our nation’s history, an apology and an explanation as to what really happened at that particular point in time. It adds to the legacy, it adds to the tradition, and, given what I’ve said in our Māori language, it happens at a propitious time. This is what the Māori call Mahuru, the springtime, and it’s the arrival of the pīpīwharauroa, the chant that I offered at the beginning of my speech. It’s also, as the Speaker said earlier today, the time when we have unveiled a plaque acknowledging those who fought and fell in the Māori wars, and also the day and the week that we have announced that all children will be taught the proper history of Aotearoa New Zealand, and in the week that we are celebrating and encouraging all New Zealanders to strip away the cringe factor and enjoy a higher level of enthusiasm and give Te Reo Māori a go.

So I say to all of my friends in the House: tell your sons and daughters, “Don’t go to London, get pissed, and have the bravery to do kapa haka and ka mate, ka mate; learn a bit of language before you go away.” Thank you very much.

MATT KING (National—Northland): It’s a pleasure to speak on this bill, Te Pire kia Unuhia te Hara kai Runga i a Rua Kēnana / Rua Kēnana Pardon Bill. Nau mai, haere mai. I’d like to acknowledge the Hon Nanaia Mahuta for her heartfelt contribution earlier on, and also Marama Davidson for hers, and my colleague Rino Tirikatene as well for his contribution. I’d also like to acknowledge Te Wiki o Te Reo Māori and to let you know that I am a rank amateur when it comes to Te Reo, so I apologise in advance.

Rua Kēnana was a Tūhoe prophet who set up a community at the Maungapōhatu, in the Urewera mountains. In 1916, he was arrested for sedition for his opposition to Māori conscription in the First World War—sad times indeed. I understand that his trial was one of the longest in New Zealand history. So I’m proud to be in the House today speaking in support of this bill, and it is long overdue.

I’d like to acknowledge the work of the Hon Te Ururoa Flavell, and the Hon Chris Finlayson. I know from the previous speakers that he has been mentioned many times, and both men are sorely missed, and I would go so far as to say that your work is unfinished and you’d be welcome back any time, and I would love you to put your name back in the hat.

SPEAKER: Order!

MATT KING: I thank them for their efforts when in Government. I know that for Te Ururoa Flavell, he was a slave master in the gym, and our colleagues the Hon Mark Mitchell and the Hon Alfred Ngaro miss him, and it’s testament to their extended pukus that they’d like to see him back.

So this is an appropriate response to a specific set of circumstances focused on the criminal convictions of Rua Kēnana. I might add that since I have been in Parliament—only two years—as a result of being on the Māori Affairs Committee and also of being involved in these bills, I’ve actually had a lot more understanding of our history than I ever got when I went to school. I learnt a little bit about the American Civil War and a bunch of other things, but I didn’t really know a huge amount of history about New Zealand, and I’ve had to learn it because, being part of this process, you have to research your material and you have to understand what went on; so it’s a real bonus for me.

The bill seeks to restore the character, the mana, and the reputation of Rua Kēnana and his descendants. We acknowledge that mana and the preservation of reputation is very important in the Māori community. This bill adheres to the Crown’s objective to promote reconciliation in the wake of historical wrongs. This pardon is provided to Rua Kēnana for the conviction he sustained for moral resistance to arrest. This is a historic occasion for the descendants of Rua Kēnana and the followers of the Iharaira faith.

The statutory pardon and apology will go some way to healing the wounds caused by the events of 1916 and alleviating the stigma associated with Rua Kēnana’s descendants and followers of the faith. It is part of New Zealand. We have to own up to what happened. The agreement and pardon is about moving towards reconciliation. The historic agreement brought closure to 101 years of conflict between Tūhoe and the Crown. What happened to Rua Kēnana has a very long-lasting, intergenerational effect on whānau. It is now up to the descendants of Rua Kēnana to help the next generation move forward and rebuild a prosperous community. It is important for whānau to reconnect those disconnected back to their land, identity, faith, and whānau.

Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti):

Rua Kēnana,

Tūhoe prophet from the Urewera,

Oh Rua, Rua Kēnana.

Āe, e tika te mihi ki a koe e Te Māngai Te Whare: tēnā koe. E ngā mema katoa i tērā taha, i tēnei taha, tēnā tātou katoa. Anei ngā mihi, mihi pōwhiri i ngā uri o Rua Kēnana, me ngā uri o Maunga Pōhatu, me ngā uri o te Hāhi Iharaira. Nō reira, nau mai, nau mai, haramai.

[Yes, it is only right to acknowledge you, Mr Speaker: greetings. To the members on that side, this side, greetings to you all. Here are the acknowledgments, the welcome acknowledgments, to the descendants of Rua Kēnana and the descendants of Maunga Pōhatu and the descendants of the Church of Iharaira. Therefore, welcome, welcome, welcome.]

I’m proud to take a call in support of the first reading of this very important bill. As the member of Te Rohe Pōtae, Ikaroa-Rāwhiti, he uri o Te Tai Rāwhiti, Ngāti Kahungunu hoki, I stand in support of this bill. I want to acknowledge what we are doing here in pardoning a prophet, a visionary leader of the Tūhoe people, at the hands of the Crown’s omissions and acts in breaching the Treaty that saw Rua Kēnana wrongfully arrested—who served an imprisonment term wrongfully. So this bill absolutely tries and corrects a wrong, and I want to acknowledge the mamae that his uri have carried for many decades, and the small part that the Crown should be addressing to get the relationship back on the road and the reconciliation between his people and the Government back on a positive note.

I want to acknowledge the Minister for Māori Development, who has introduced the bill. I also want to acknowledge the former Minister for Māori Development the Hon Te Ururoa Flavell for his work in the signing of this agreement between the people and the Crown.

When we are contributing to important pieces of legislation such as this, we do—it’s a Māori custom—try and draw some linkages, or some hononga, between where you come from and the kaupapa that we are addressing here today. I want to acknowledge, as an uri of Te Kooti Rikirangi of Ngāti Maru of Rongowhakaata, even though we are acknowledging Rua Kēnana, the similarities in parts between Te Kooti, also unfairly and unlawfully imprisoned in the Chathams, but also, when he returned—similar to the small research I’ve done on Rua Kēnana—back from Gisborne in his 20s as a labourer, he had a vision, very similar to Te Kooti when he returned from Wharekauri. Then we see the absolute commitment to their faith. Te Kooti, obviously, Ringatū, and we’ve got Rua Kēnana with the Iharaira faith. I wanted to acknowledge the similarities between our tipuna, our visionary, and the Rua Kēnana prophet himself around looking after their people, particularly in the hāhi.

I also want to acknowledge that Te Ureweras—in my small research—was under enormous siege of people trying to mine it and mill it, which is why Rua set up Maungapōhatu, to protect the whenua for their people. So again we will see in this House, when we come to acknowledging the wrongs of the past, similarities of our tīpuna, our visionary leaders like Rua was, in protecting what whenua we had.

So I’m really pleased to take this small call, and, of course, this is the first reading of three. I look forward, as the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee said, in travelling—at the invitation of the haukāinga—to have the hearings up there. I just want to finish with acknowledging Professor Taiarahia Black’s kōrero this morning, when he shared—and, of course, Jo Hayes talked about the mekameka. I want to proudly say that my name is actually not Meka; it’s actually Mekameka. I wanted to share, when I heard the story this morning, again, that hononga between your tipuna and a small part of myself in that my actual name is Mekameka Whaitiri.

Nō reira, I’m pleased to stand and support this bill. It is a very honourable time—it’s a special occasion for this House. I commend it to the House.

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Today I stand to take a call on this very special bill, Te Pire kia Unuhia te Hara kai Runga i a Rua Kēnana, the Rua Kēnana Pardon Bill. This House and our guests in the gallery may wonder why I, a very obviously Pākehā woman who is pretty bad at Te Reo Māori, is standing to take a call. Well, I’m standing today because my daughter is a daughter of Tūhoe, and Mihiroa Te Kaawa was her great-great-grandmother, and Rua Kēnana was her great-great-grandfather.

So I’m standing today because I know for once what it is like to stand with the Crown but also to stand with my people at a time of healing and at a time where we have to recognise the history. I have been greatly honoured by our grandmother Rāwina Te Rupe Rāwina Rua, who talked to me at times. I was little bit afraid of her because she was tūturu Māori and she would scare me at times, but she would talk to me about Maungapōhatu and her time there when she lived there, and I’m greatly honoured to carry that. May she rest in peace. I feel so deeply honoured to be here today, and I feel so deeply honoured to be able to say that this is important to my whānau as well as to the Crown.

I have here the agreement to provide a statutory pardon for Rua Kēnana. I read it and I looked for the names that I knew, and I want to read some of that again today, because even though we have heard from other people, for me it’s important to put into Hansard the effects of the agreement on 9 September between the Crown and Ngā Toenga o Ngā Tamariki a Iharaira me Ngā Uri o Maungapōhatu Charitable Trust, providing a statutory pardon for Rua Kēnana.

The preamble states that “the Waitangi Tribunal concluded in its Te Urewera inquiry that the police used excessive force against the Maungapōhatu community” and “the arrest of Rua Kēnana was unlawful [as it was] a Sunday”—and I note today it is also the 12th. “The [community of Maungapōhatu] went into decline after these events and … never recovered. Ngā Toenga …, the Maungapōhatu Community, and the descendants of Rua Kēnana have carried the deep hurt, shame, and stigma of this invasion and its resulting economic [and] social [and] spiritual impacts” for more than 100 years. We know that the deaths, the violence, the theft, and the rape occurred at the time that Rua was arrested, and we know that Rua Kēnana was held in Mount Eden and the trial was long and that the community of Maungapōhatu fell into disarray.

The bill summarises the circumstances of that invasion to Maungapōhatu. The bill provides an apology to the uri. The bill provides a pardon from the Crown to Rua Kēnana for the conviction he sustained for the moral resistance to arrest. The pardon contains a declaration to restore the character, mana, and reputation of Rua Kēnana, his uri, and followers of the faith.

It is the beginning, not the end, of the process, and I look forward to our final reading. I look forward to the day that we all stand together at Maungapōhatu as one. Kia ora.

TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā. I am the last speaker on the National Party side this afternoon as we reflect on the Rua Kēnana Pardon Bill. As I was listening and have been listening over the last half an hour, I have become increasingly daunted. How can I put words into this Chamber that can amplify the power of those who have spoken before me and acknowledge and assuage the pain that has so obviously been expressed here by my parliamentary colleagues? It is very humbling to be asked to say a few words.

I have to acknowledge, firstly, a good friend, Te Ururoa Flavell, who I’ve known for a number of years. He has committed so much of his political and professional life to advancing this, and it was so appropriate that he did represent the Crown in September 2017.

We have heard very eloquent speeches this afternoon about what this bill is seeking to do in pardoning Rua Kēnana. I am struck when I listen to the conversation, when the purpose of our speeches is to acknowledge this bill and its purpose, to give effect to the pardon to Rua Kēnana “for the conviction he sustained for moral resistance to arrest. The restoration of the character, mana, and reputation of Rua Kēnana, his uri, and Ngā Toenga o Ngā Tamariki o Iharaira Faith”.

The last part of that is the bit that I have struggled with, because as I listen to the speeches and reflect on the story and the history, it strikes me that the descendants’ mana has been immeasurably enhanced over the years by your courage and your persistence and your willingness to welcome the Crown back to facilitate this pardon. Yes, this pardon is enhancing the mana of Rua Kēnana and descendants, but in my view, your collective actions over many years have enhanced it even more than the power of this, and I want to acknowledge that. I find it extraordinary—absolutely extraordinary.

I then look at these signatures and cannot imagine what that must have been like that day when you, on behalf of your people, are putting your name to the Crown’s apology and pardon—an extraordinary moment for all of you. Again, when I look at this, I am overwhelmed at your grace in allowing and facilitating that conversation in such a remarkable way as you did.

I guess my only last comment, speaking as directly to you as I can, is that I wonder what Rua Kēnana would reflect on today: what his advice and deep spiritual reflection and perspective would be—for you, for us, for Aotearoa, and what he would say lies in front of us. I am sure that you know that more than I could ever put words to. All I ask is: continue to lead and demonstrate for us what that means and we all collectively will benefit. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

TAMATI COFFEY (Labour—Waiariki): Thank you, Mr Speaker. He hōnore, he kororia ki Te Atua, he maungārongo ki runga i te mata o te whenua, he whakaaro pai ki ngā tāngata katoa. Āmine.

Tuatahi, ka huri ngā whakaaro ki ngā mate o te motu tae noa ki te koroua o Ngāti Tarāwhai, o Te Arawa whānui, ko Te Poroa Malcolm. E koro, e moe, e moe, e oki. Ka tangihia a Te Arawa e ngā mate o Mataatua, ka tangihia a Mataatua e ngā mate o Te Arawa. Nō reira, Mataatua, anei a Te Arawa e mihi atu nei. E aku rangatira. Ngā tamariki o te kohu. A Tūhoe, moumou kai, moumou taonga, moumou tāngata ki te pō. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā huihui mai tātou katoa.

[Honour, glory, and peace on the land. May good thoughts come to all men. Amen.

Firstly, I turn my thoughts to those who have passed on from throughout the country all the way to the elder of Ngāti Tarawhai and wider Te Arawa, Te Poroa Malcolm. Rest in peace. Te Arawa is mourned by Mataatua’s dead; Mataatua is mourned by Te Arawa’s dead. Therefore, Mataatua, Te Arawa acknowledges you. To the distinguished. The children of the mist. Tūhoe, wasteful of food, wasteful of treasures, wasteful of people to the night. Greetings, greetings, welcome together one and all.]

Firstly, I pay respects to our Ngāti Tarawhai koroua who we lost this week, and we had at Waikōhatu marae at Ruato. He will be missed by us, his iwi. Secondly, I stand to greet our manuhiri from the Mātaatua canoe who have travelled to be here today. I acknowledge our tears for their dead and their tears for our dead.

Today is a very special day that has been a long time coming. I want to acknowledge that the start of this journey happened under the previous Government and under the Minister for Māori Development, and also the previous member for the Waiariki, the Hon Te Ururoa Flavell. Tēnā koe, Matua Te Ururoa.

It was a very wet day in September 2017 when I travelled for the first time to Maungapōhatu to witness the signing of the agreement between the Crown and Ngā Toenga o Ngā Tamariki a Iharaira me Ngā Uri o Maungapōhatu. I remember that the roads were pretty gnarly and that the torrential rain was coming down and it made one part of the road to Maungapōhatu kind of like a rollercoaster ride. I can remember the brother Nika standing there telling me, “Ah, bro, just plant your foot down and go!” Thankfully, I made it up the hill and was there to witness what a significant event actually unfolded.

As a newcomer, it was enlightening to be there, to feel the wairua of Maungapōhatu, to experience the ruggedness of the Urewera, and to get lost in the famous maiden of the mist, Hine-pūkohu-rangi. What you couldn’t physically see, though, was the hurt and the pain of the people of the land over the assault and the humiliation at Maungapōhatu in 1916 when police rolled into town and with an excessive force of 70 armed men killed two, with one of them being Rua Kēnana’s son. Some were wounded, 31 were arrested, and Rua Kēnana himself was taken off for trial, ending up in Mt Eden prison for 18 months for morally resisting arrest. Cut to modern day: the Waitangi Tribunal, who concluded in its Te Urewera inquiry, that the police used excessive force against the Maungapōhatu community that day. They also found that the arrest of Rua Kēnana was unlawful, being effected on a Sunday. The Maungapōhatu community, it noted, went into decline after those events and has never quite recovered.

Ngā Toenga o Ngā Tamariki a Iharaira, the Maungapōhatu community, and the descendants of Rua Kēnana have carried the deep hurt, the shame, and the stigma of that invasion and its resulting economic and social and spiritual impacts. It’s obviously their aspiration to restore their character, their mana, and the reputation of their tīpuna and also of themselves.

The tragic situation behind that story is well documented in the bill, and I actually encourage everybody in this House to read it. Many have worked hard these past two years, with humility, grace, and wisdom, but it’s still a sad and very harrowing story of the colonial Government and the people of that land. “Kotahi Te Ture Mo Nga Iwi e Rua”: let there be one law for two peoples. Can I say that it has been acted on today, as we speak. The multiple meanings of that statement on the famous flag represents the rising up of the people to seek equality in our society, and today, his descendants rise to put to rest the balance of justice with the ability to highlight what is not just. But it’s by no means an end, but a continuation of a movement that started a very long time ago for Ngā Toenga a Iharaira and the rising up of Rua, through his thousand-plus descendants today.

Let this document, the bill, be a resource for all of those New Zealand children—those tamariki—in our kura, to learn from the mistakes of the past, including the mistakes of this Government and the way that it treats its citizens. Serendipitously, this coincides with the decision today to ensure that New Zealand history is in fact taught in our schools—the good, the bad, and the really ugly. Hopefully, they will also learn about the other prophets who’ve been part of our history: Mere Rikiriki, nō Taihape; Paora Te Pōtangaroa me Aperahama Taonu, nō te Nōta; Te Whatahoro, nō Kahungunu ki Wairarapa; Te Kooti; Rātana; Pauro Mareikura, me ērā atu poropiti [and those other prophets].

Maybe the children will also learn about the Tohunga Suppression Act. Maybe they’ll also learn about the Suppression of Rebellion Act and the impact that those Acts had on our prophets, and all of the other laws that the Government enacted, asserting the colonial domination over Māori here in New Zealand. Wai ka tohu, wai ka hua?

[Who can know? Who can say?]

This bill is an apology, but the words on the page aren’t as sweet as words to the ear. So, Ngā Toenga o Ngā Tamariki a Iharaira me Ngā Uri o Maungapōhatu here is your apology and I’m going to do it nice and slow for you. From the Crown: “The Crown acknowledges that—(a) the arrest, detention, conviction, and sentence of Rua Kēnana have caused lasting damage to his character, mana, and reputation and to the character, mana, and reputation of Ngā Toenga o Ngā Tamariki a Iharaira: [you and all] descendants of Rua Kēnana, have suffered deep hurt, shame, and stigma as a result of the Maungapōhatu invasion. … The Crown unreservedly apologises to [you] the descendants … for—(a) the lasting damage to the character, mana, and reputation of Rua Kēnana, his uri, and Ngā Toenga o Ngā Tamariki o Iharaira: (b) the deep hurt, shame, and stigma suffered by them as a result of the invasion of Maungapōhatu. … This pardon is provided to Rua Kēnana for the conviction [that] he sustained for moral resistance to arrest. The restoration of the character, [the] mana, and [the] reputation of [the man] …, his uri, and Ngā Toenga o Ngā Tamariki o Iharaira Faith is declared.”

But it’s not the end. This is an apology—let’s face it—and an apology doesn’t cost a lot. So we’ve got some work to do, in terms of working with you, to find out what else we can do—because an apology is nice, but it’s just a first step. So I look forward to working closely with you a lot as we decide what it is that we can add to this bill, add to the future of our relationship.

I’ve got one minute and 30 seconds left on the clock, Mr Speaker, and I think about all of those uri that aren’t here, that are sitting there watching, maybe in Maungapōhatu, maybe in Waimana, maybe in Whakatāne, Rotorua, or Auckland—wherever they are around the world—and I figured now’s a really good time to sing his song, because it’s famous and if we were ever going to do it in the House, the first reading of his bill is the time to do it. So can I call on my colleagues to join me, for exactly one minute, in this song?

Rua Kēnana, Tūhoe prophet from the Urewera

O Rua, Rua Kēnana

Rua Kēnana, Tūhoe prophet from the Urewera

O Rua, Rua Kēnana

He told his people not to go to war

Let the white man fight the white man’s war

O Rua, Rua Kēnana.

Kia ora. I commend this bill to the House.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Māori Affairs Committee.

SPEAKER: I think there’s a request from down here for another song.

Waiata

Haka

SPEAKER: Can I, on behalf of the members of Parliament, thank our visitors for concluding a part of the day which started very well and has ended up being exceptionally special, and for sharing with us something which is, clearly, so important to our country. Thank you.

And I just want to say that, on occasion, the Parliament peaks and then it sometimes changes a little, and on that note I call on Government Order of the Day No. 2!

Bills

Education (School Donations) Amendment Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed from 10 September.

Part 2 Consequential amendments

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 2 be agreed to.

Ayes 63

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.

Noes 57

New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.

Part 2 agreed to.

Clauses 1 to 3

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): Madam Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): The question is that clause 1 stand part. All those in favour, say—oh, my apologies. Parmjeet Parmar.

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR: Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to take this call. First, I would like to talk about the title of this bill. The title as it stands is “Education (School Donations) Amendment Bill 2019”. When this bill was introduced, it was implied that this bill was actually going to get rid of school donations. So I am going to offer some suggestions to the Minister, and it’s not going to be just one suggestion; I’m going to be really kind and offer two suggestions to the Minister. I believe the title of this bill should be “Education (Continuing School Donations) Amendment Bill”. Why I suggest that it should be “Education (Continuing School Donations) Amendment Bill” is that this bill applies to only schools that are deciles 1 to 7. It doesn’t apply to schools that are from deciles 8 to 10. So, for deciles 8 to 10 schools, that trend of seeking school donations will continue.

This doesn’t mean that all schools, which are from deciles 1 to 7, will be opting in for this grant that the Minister wants to offer through this legislation. So that’s why I strongly feel, because we don’t know how many schools are going to opt in, and, clearly, schools that are deciles 8 to 10 are not going to be part of this legislation, that the title of this bill should be the “Education (Continuing School Donations) Amendment Bill”. So this is option number one.

Option number two is it should be called the “Education (Confirming School Donations) Amendment Bill”, because, what has happened in Part 1 is we saw that the Minister tabled a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP). In that SOP, clearly, the Minister is saying that there will be exemptions, that this will be for the activities for which schools can go out and seek donations. So in a way, the Minister is confirming that it’s OK to go out and seek donations from parents, or caregivers, of students in their school. So the Minister has made this activity, which is currently a voluntary activity—because when schools go out to solicit donations, we know that it’s a voluntary thing. If parents or caregivers can afford it, they pay that, otherwise they don’t have to. But by tabling that SOP, the Minister actually confirmed that it is a legitimate activity for schools to go out and seek donations. So that’s why I offer this option—that it should be called the “Education (Confirming School Donations) Amendment Bill”, and I would say to the Minister that the Minister should not feel embarrassed taking up these options, because the title of the legislation should reflect the intention of the legislation.

The commencement: the select committee process was shortened, and I can clearly see the Minister wants to commence this Act ASAP. This is after the date of Royal assent. I have heard from schools that schools were given a date previously, which they could not meet, and now they have been given a date in the month of November to let the ministry know if they are opting in. We know that school boards meet two or three times, at the most, in a term. So some school boards might be meeting this week, or next week, so there is a lot of pressure on schools to tell the ministry if they are opting in for this option. I believe that’s why the Minister is rushing to see that this is commenced ASAP.

But that doesn’t solve the problem. The issue here is that these schools have been given the option of opting in, and they will opt in only if they see this as going to cover for all of the money that they get through collecting donations, because I have heard from schools that even if 50 to 60 percent of parents or caregivers pay their donation, they will be better off than opting in for this legislation. So the Minister wants this to come into effect, while we know that the next term is going to start in January and February. So parents of those who wanted to pay their voluntary donation would have already paid, so it’s not going to make any difference for this academic year. So this legislation, actually, for parents, is going to help from the next year, but the Minister wants to see how many schools will opt in, and that’s why the Minister wants to see that it commences ASAP.

I believe that this is because the Minister has been already labelled for a failed education policy; that is, the fees-free tertiary education policy. The Minister is really worried that, because we are hearing from schools that are in deciles 1 to 7, they may not take up this option. So the Minister wants to be really sure, and that’s why there is a lot of pressure on schools to tell the ministry if they’re opting in or not. So that’s why the select committee process was shortened, and the Minister wants to commence it ASAP.

Of course, if it has been debated in the House, it should commence ASAP, but I believe that schools should get more time, reasonable time, to consider this option if the Minister seriously wants to offer this option to schools instead of putting a deadline, now the legislation goes through in the month of—hoping that the third reading will be finished in September sometime, and then the schools have to get back by November. But as I said before, we don’t know when their board of trustees are meeting. If they’re already meeting this week or next week, they won’t have enough information to provide their real choice.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): The question is that clause 1 stand part. All of those in favour say “Aye”, to the contrary “No”. The Ayes have it. [Interruption] Normally, we would take clauses 1, 2, and 3 together. Are you happy to do that, in the spirit of cooperation, the Hon Tim Macindoe?

Hon Tim Macindoe: I’m happy to do that in the spirit of cooperation with you, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Thank you very much. Because there was a party vote called, and the member agreed we’d have it, if he’d like to call a party vote on clauses 1 to 3? A party vote has been called for; I will ask the Clerk to please conduct a party vote.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clauses 1 to 3 be agreed to.

Ayes 63

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.

Noes 57

New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.

Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.

House resumed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Report adopted.

Bills

Kāinga Ora—Homes and Communities Bill

Second Reading

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister for Urban Development): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I move, That the Kāinga Ora—Homes and Communities Bill be now read a second time.

Kāinga Ora reflects a new approach to housing and urban development, and it reflects our Government’s commitment to take a hands-on approach to tackling homelessness and unaffordable housing. I want to take this opportunity to thank the Environment Committee for its work on the bill and acknowledge their quick work. I also want to thank members of the public who made written and oral submissions on the bill. The committee received 94 submissions, and those submitters represented groups and individuals with an interest in housing and urban development in local government, Māori and iwi organisations, industry groups, community housing providers, and district health boards, and advocacy groups for housing, health, and disabled people.

Of those who expressed a clear position on the bill, two-thirds of submitters supported the bill’s direction. Some raised concerns about how the bill’s provisions will operate in practice, and I’m pleased to see that the committee has taken these issues on board and made several useful changes to the bill. Before I highlight some of those key changes that the committee’s made, I want to reflect on a few of our Government’s commitments in this area. Public and affordable housing are at the heart of our agenda. They are places where generations of young families can get a start in life and put down roots in their community, and that’s the way it’s been in this country for a long time, and we want it to continue. In this bill, we are strengthening that promise. We believe that Government should be an enabler of urban development, partnering with the private sector, with local government, and iwi, and investors, and developers, to build vibrant communities.

Rather than crowding out, or replacing the private sector, my message to developers is that we want you to grow, we want you to build more. We understand the constraints on you right now, and we want to work together to find solutions. We want to implement good urban design and develop well-connected communities with great transport connections, vibrant town centres, and the infrastructure and amenities that strong communities need. Mana whenua are at the heart of these developments, as landowners, investors, developers, builders, housing providers, and partners. The first key change the committee’s made to the bill is to emphasise the importance of partnership in Kāinga Ora’s functions.

This change reinforces that Kāinga Ora will need to work in genuine partnership with others to achieve its goals, and there was concern, as I said, from some submitters that Kāinga Ora would crowd out the private sector. The intention is the contrary. The fact is that second-generation growth in our cities, urban development projects, and brownfield and greenfield sites are often too complex for the private sector to do on their own. They require a lot of work on amalgamation of title and on the provision of network infrastructure and dealing with parks and reserves and transport networks, and often that creates too much risk and uncertainty for the private sector to do on its own.

The intention is for Kāinga Ora to enable and complement, rather than compete with, the private sector, and it’s set up so that it can be a joint venture vehicle for Government to work alongside large developers, iwi, and local government so that they can benefit from the streamlined powers that will follow in the second bill, while making sure that those powers are exercised appropriately and in an accountable way. Kāinga Ora will, obviously, need to flexible and outwardly focused, and I reiterate to the private sector organisations who submitted on this bill that we want to help you grow and do more.

I want to comment on the operating principles contained in the bill. Some submitters were particularly interested, and although there was a high degree of support for the principles, some expressed concern that their effect was ambiguous. The committee’s helpful changes clarify that the operating principles are a matter for the board to embed in the new organisation and that the board is accountable to the responsible Minister for doing so.

Submitters were keen to see the operating principles encompass the importance of community engagement. Capturing local views and aspirations early in a project and ensuring that those concerns are heard and addressed will be essential, and, to address these concerns, a new operating principle has been added that requires Kāinga Ora to carry out early and meaningful engagement with communities that may be affected by proposed development projects. The committee has also expanded the scope of the focus on climate change in the operating principles by requiring Kāinga Ora to consider climate change adaptation in addition to mitigation.

I turn now to the provisions on the Government policy statement (GPS) in the bill. Anyone listening to this debate who follows transport policy will know that the transport sector is guided by a three-yearly Government policy statement. It’s a statutory policy instrument that requires the Government of the day to set out a direction of its policy for the transport system, its values, and its strategies and actions, and how it will work with others, and it provides high-level policy direction for the entire transport system, including local government. We’ve decided that’s such a useful instrument, we’ve incorporated it in this bill, so that Kāinga Ora will be required to set out a Government policy statement on housing and urban development, with the overall goal of providing direction and alignment amongst all the players: the community, the private sector, local government, and, of course, the many agencies of central government. The GPS will be an important tool for setting expectations and highlighting priorities for the housing and urban development sector as a whole, and I’m gratified to see that submitters overwhelmingly supported its introduction.

The committee has made a number of changes to the GPS provisions in the bill in response to submissions. These include adding a purpose clause to clarify the intent of the Government policy statement, and a requirement that it should take a multi-decade outlook. Shorter-term priorities will be included, but these will need to be tied to a long-term vision for the sector.

The committee also added a requirement that the Government policy statement outline how the Government expects Kāinga Ora to contribute to climate change mitigation and adaption. This reflects the need for clear direction to the agency on such a crucial issue.

The final change to the GPS provisions is to extend the deadline for the first GPS by a year, so that it must now be issued within two years of Kāinga Ora being established. I think that is a helpful and practical suggestion so that we ensure that the first Government policy statement produced by Kāinga Ora is sufficiently substantial in order to set the benchmark for the instrument.

Overall, the changes recommended by the committee improve the bill and support its aims. I want to conclude by reiterating my thanks to members of the committee and to submitters for their contribution to the Kāinga Ora—Homes and Communities Bill. The bill is stronger for their work.

I also want to add a few comments about why the Government is establishing Kāinga Ora–Homes and Communities. It’s our view that we can achieve more faster by maximising scale and integrating the full Government build programme, and this bill will enable us to consolidate our development efforts. Be they State housing, other public housing, KiwiBuild, or market homes, we are bringing together the development capacity that currently exists within HLC—the people that brought us Hobsonville Point—the KiwiBuild procurement programme, and Housing New Zealand’s extremely successful development operation. This will reduce complexity and simplify processes for builders and improve coordination across the programme. It almost beggars belief, but those three Government development entities have at times been, essentially, competing with each other in the development market, and that is not in the interests of the Government build programme.

Kāinga Ora will also help with the Government move to long-term agreements with builders, where we contract a large number of homes a year across the full Government build programme, and members of this House will be well aware that the Government build programme is currently responsible for more homes being built by Government agencies than at any time since the mid-1970s. That is only going to increase. It will also help the Government to move to long-term agreements with builders where we contract a large number of homes a year across the full Government build programme, giving builders the certainty and the scale to reduce cost and improve productivity. On this basis, I commend this bill to the House.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you, Madam Speaker. The motion is not agreed to, and National continues to oppose this bill. This bill glosses over one mess and is going to be an attempt, I would suggest, to create a new mess. In fact, as the Minister who resumed his seat was speaking, particularly at the end, about scale and building and addressing all the needs, I thought—and maybe my mind drifted—we were discussing KiwiBuild once again. But no, it’s now a new bill, this one around Kāinga Ora.

What was interesting—and one of the reasons why we, on this side, oppose the bill—is an element that the Minister barely touched on. In all around the rhetoric of what this will do and all these wonderful partnerships, no details are given, and nor is that clearly in the bill. In fact, huge responsibilities are handed over. But the Minister barely touched on the fact that Housing New Zealand is, effectively, going to be disestablished in name, along with HLC and KiwiBuild. These three substantial entities—well, two of them, at least, are substantial. KiwiBuild’s dead, retreated, gone. But to pull these three entities together and to rename them Kāinga Ora, this is really just shuffling the deckchairs on the Titanic. It’s in many ways, to this side of the House, just a very quick attempt to get hold of the balance sheet of Housing New Zealand and to trade off, if you will, the benefits of HLC, formerly known as the Hobsonville Land Co., or, now, Homes. Land. Community.

One of the great things about HLC is they’re a very good performer; so much so, actually, there was I think around about 27,000 homes which National had engaged with them to start developing. There’s a pipeline of work—

Hon Andrew Little: It started under Labour—it started under the last Government.

SIMON O’CONNOR: Oh, where it started is not so relevant, Mr Little. It’s where the current 27,000 are—where the current 27,000 are is relevant. So what we’re seeing here is a grab for the money of Housing New Zealand and for the pipeline of National-driven success through HLC, and all, I would suggest—all, I would suggest—to cover up the glaring, horrible failure that is KiwiBuild.

So come 1 October, they’ll be all blended together under a nice, fresh new name, as I say: the money of Housing New Zealand, KiwiBuild to be forgotten, and the Government, all of a sudden, able to say, “Oh, look at all this great work we have done.”

Of course, this side of the House won’t forget it really isn’t the Government that’s done anything other than talk, but, in fact, it’s the work of the HLC. That’s the glossing if you will—glossing over the mess.

Greg O’Connor: This Government did nothing!

SIMON O’CONNOR: And someone says, “This Government did nothing.” It’s probably not clear, but someone on the Government side is saying, “This Government did nothing.” He’s acknowledged it. It’s quite stunning. I didn’t realise my speech was that persuasive that a Government member is admitting that his Government’s done nothing.

So the first problem is they’ve glossed over the mess. The second, I predict, is this bill will just create a new mess. The rhetoric we heard from Minister Twyford is exactly the same rhetoric and high-flying ideas that introduced KiwiBuild into this Parliament. He’s the same Minister who looked after KiwiBuild. The very same failures and problematic thinking which led to the failure and the massive retreat of KiwiBuild, I predict, will come through here in Kāinga Ora.

Just one small hint of it already: constituents in my fine electorate of Tamaki received, a couple of days ago, letters from Housing New Zealand advising them that Housing New Zealand would be no more, and would be replaced by Kāinga Ora from 1 October. Excuse the French, but that was one hell of a fright to those constituents. They’re all upset, confused, and worried; trying to understand why Housing New Zealand has disappeared. It’s a small thing—it’s a small thing, if you will. However, that letter and the way it’s already been handled indicate that the people at the heart of what this bill is designed to do are being forgotten. We have many now stressed locals and constituents confused in a way I’d suggest that the Government too is confused. It’s already a bad start, and I’d like the next member from the Government to apologise, not just for the bill but certainly to my fine constituents in Tamaki for upsetting them.

PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to be speaking on my favourite subject area, and that is, of course, housing; also just to replace Dr Duncan Webb, who’s busy as the very busy chair of the Environment Committee, who I want to thank for leading this vital and critical piece of work through the House.

Look, there certainly won’t be an apology. In fact, we gave them an apology because of the last nine years of neglect from that side of the House to every State housing tenant, because we said “We’ve got no agenda, secret or otherwise, to sell you off.” We know that the real agenda of the other team, the other side was to—as they did with other Crown assets—sell off the biggest balance sheet, and that is our housing stock. Thankfully the public of New Zealand saw sense and thought this is a Government that’s tackling the big, long-term issues facing Aotearoa New Zealand and ensuring that everyone has a warm, dry roof over their head; that’s why this is a real flagship policy of the coalition Government.

I’m really, really saddened to hear that they’re opposing this bill. Really, what they’re saying is that they are opposing a Government role in housing. We saw that by there being no housing Minister in the previous Government—none, no one. There was no excuse for it. It was quite arrogant that there wasn’t a Minister of Housing. On this side of the House, there is a strong housing team, and that team incorporates everything from housing itself, urban development, building and construction, and we’ve got public housing recognised there too in a Cabinet role. That’s a very strong team to lead this transformation and to really—the tenants living in the Tamaki electorate will be very sound and proud to hear that they have a Government who is looking after them and holding their hand and saying, “We’re looking after you.” There’s no apology needed.

The other thing is that by opposing this they’re also opposing building and construction and development. That’s surprising. That won’t be going down well with the development community who have been crying out for a pipeline of activity. Funnily enough, HLC that was mentioned—Hobsonville Land Company, now Homes. Land. Community—is, I understand, a Housing New Zealand Corporation subsidiary company. So it was fully Government-owned anyway. I think, again, there was a little bit of disingenuous behaviour there, because they were hoping to set that up and maybe to flick that off to the private—always seeking to flick things off, share risks.

We know that by sharing risk it’s been high-risk. That’s why we’ve had construction and development companies go under, because that side of the House shoved it all across on to them, and they went under. The market was meant to stand up and build all these houses: no more Ministry of Works, no more tradespeople working under the old Department of Housing and Construction to actually do anything. So without the workers, you’ve put all the risk over there and nothing gets done. But I think that was always part of the plan.

This certainly isn’t a shuffling of the deckchairs; absolutely not. What this is doing is taking the very best and putting our housing service delivery in one new entity. I’m really proud—apart from being Māori Language Week, having a Māori name for it also: Kāinga Ora, healthy homes, is a fantastic name. It also sends a signal to this country that we are serious about housing and that we are getting back into building homes—

Kiritapu Allan: Doing the mahi.

PAUL EAGLE: Doing the mahi—doing the hard work: a hands-on approach in tackling everything from homelessness through to affordable housing. It’s less about identities. On that side of the House they were more concerned about—certainly, I don’t know—just competitive stuff to try and make these different entities compete against each other. That doesn’t work. We know that—we know that that doesn’t work. So what we’ve done here is said, “Not only are we joining the very best expertise from the different entities, but we are just getting those synergies right and putting them into one entity.” So I’m really happy. I know staff from the three different entities. They are looking forward to coming together. There’s duplication; there’s overlaps. Really, what they are simply wanting to do is build homes for Kiwis. That’s a simple mission that doesn’t need clutter and competition; it just needs focus and the can-do attitude that I know people who work in these entities are looking for.

Kiritapu Allan: We’re driving real change.

PAUL EAGLE: We are driving change. Look, it will take time, but what I want to say is we’re taking a balanced approach, and I know that we’ll also, with the strength of our Ministry of Housing and Urban Development—look, I just couldn’t believe that after a lengthy crisis that we had no policy arm, no research, nothing coming through to even have a conversation about what type of housing do we need? Who’s doing what? There’s no pipeline. There’s nothing. I want to congratulate Minister Phil Twyford, who’s here, on his work, because he has got the nuts and bolts sorted. Whilst that can take time, this is a great platform for moving forward and building homes.

The other aspect of this bill is the Urban Development Authority. It’s been around since—look, dear I mention her—the former Labour Prime Minister Helen Clark. It’s been talked about; now it’s a reality. On that side of the House they talked about it too. They just didn’t do anything because they thought, “Well, we don’t actually want to do anything in housing. We want the market to fulfil it.”

I know here in Wellington that the local authorities—for example, iwi are looking forward to partnering with an entity, both to share risk, but also to allow Government into their plans for building a great Wellington region. For example, there are projects ready to go. I know Ginny Andersen in Hutt South—there’s hundreds and hundreds of State houses that were shut, boarded up with plywood by that side of the House. We’re taking the wood off the windows and ensuring that people are not only going to get homes but neighbourhoods too. That’s a collaborative approach with local government, and the outcome of this entity’s work will be transformational.

I know here in Wellington City, in my humble electorate of Rongotai, that there is plenty of work coming through the Let’s Get Wellington Moving project, where I’m looking forward to the uplift of Adelaide Road through the best suburb in New Zealand—finally a Government who’s doing something. I mean, have you seen Adelaide Road? It’s crying out for help, ignored by that side of the House.

This side of the House was saying, “Here’s a strip of land by the Basin Reserve, past McDonalds”—my second favourite fast food restaurant—“and up there into Newtown”. But that’s an example already where KiwiBuild is under way. There you go, under way with a Wellington developer who’s doing a fantastic job—embraced, on time, on track. Once this entity’s in place, you’ll see the uplift not only in a physical sense of enhancing that heritage part of this great city but also the transport component that the transport Minister was talking about, and that’s the difference. We will make a transformational difference. We’ll look back and that side of the House, by then, will say, “I only wish we did that. I only wish we did that.”—but they didn’t. So I’m looking forward to seeing the signage up saying: this is proudly co-developed by, for example, say, the Wellington City Council and the New Zealand Government—that being this side of the House—and the Urban Development Authority in Kāinga Ora—Homes and Communities.

I know that this has been decades too long in the making; it’s finally here. It’s the first of two bills, the powers are coming, and when they do you will see development all over Aotearoa New Zealand in ways that that side of the House will be thinking: “Why didn’t we do this? Bugger, dammit.” They’ll be saying all sorts of expletives; we’ll be celebrating on this side. I know that the Ministers of Housing, our housing team of Ministers and transport, will be there cutting ribbons, enhancing communities, and making them very, very happy. I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Just to remind all members that people do listen to Parliament and it’s really important that the words we say are words that might be gentle on the ears—some of those may not have been.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m pleased to be following that member because I do know Paul Eagle is a man that comes to this Parliament with a sense of passion and vigour—but to hear him speak on this bill in such a disengaged, flat, uninteresting way is actually very sad for a man who had such potential when he came into this Parliament just two years ago. He was, originally, going to be a strong voice, but we heard nothing really but an apologetic voice—for a lack of vision and a lack of action on an important area.

This bill is essentially one that does very little apart from establish a framework for an Urban Development Authority, but it does so in a way that brings together three Crown entities—one of them a busted flush—the KiwiBuild unit, and then the HLC, and, of course, Housing New Zealand’s entity and operations as well. We’re opposing the bill on this side of the House, not because we’re averse to setting up an Urban Development Authority, but because, actually, setting one up without addressing the fundamental problems that exist surrounding the Resource Management Act mean that there’s little point in doing so until that process has been completed. Now, two years into this administration—as they get to the point where they’re entering into their last year of office—nothing has happened in that area apart from talk. There actually needs to be a fundamental overhaul of the Resource Management Act and the planning rules that have developed around it that are the roadblocks that preclude the kind of development that is required to achieve the objectives that this bill seeks to achieve. That simply hasn’t happened so far.

So just merging three entities together doesn’t achieve anything of itself; it doesn’t achieve the lofty goals that the Minister spoke so flatly about. In fact, the Minister came to the Chamber and really didn’t show much passion or interest in the bill either.

Brett Hudson: Crushed.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: Crushed, defeated, humiliated, I guess. But it’s a reflection of this Government—just hoping for better outcomes. Actually, just hoping for better outcomes is futile in itself, but just hoping for better outcomes has actually become a metaphor for this Government in office. The bill simply ignores the fact that the vast majority of homes built in New Zealand are built by the private sector. So we oppose this bill simply because it doesn’t really achieve anything other than a hope.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Madam Speaker, it’s a real pleasure. Very sad that the National Party doesn’t support this bill, and somewhat surprised given the fact that throughout the bill it sets out the ability to partner. This is a bill which is an enabling bill; not only enabling local bodies and community organisations but, importantly, the private sector as well.

I must say, it was great to be on the Environment Committee and sit in there and listen to the support that was given to this bill and the very thoughtful suggestions that were made in respect of it from across the board—whether it be from local government or from the private sector, and, also, from a number of community organisations.

I want to specially mention the Wesley Community Action group who came along, and—I must say, it was an unsophisticated but heartfelt submission; they are some of the submissions that I enjoy listening to most. I want to let them know here that by them coming and talking about the need for engagement—and the fact that in their own community they didn’t feel that they had been engaged in the regeneration of the Porirua area—that they have had a real impact on this piece of legislation, and that the need for community engagement has been particularly recognised. So I think that’s a real example of democracy and the fact that people who had never been into the precinct, had never been in to a select committee before—didn’t come in a polished way but came with a genuine concern. We could then have an amendment to clause 14(1) which talks, then, about community engagement and the need for it being meaningful and early—so a great improvement from some great people who are doing good work in their own community.

And Habitat for Humanity—I also want to mention their submission—who came along and, again, gave some real suggestions about making sure that we capture all of the possibilities for assisting in the housing debacle that this Government has inherited through nine years of sitting around and building no houses. So what we have is, in respect of Habitat for Humanity, an explicit recognition of not only getting people into homes but explicit recognition that that might be through co-ownership, shared equity, and any other kind of scheme.

So that’s what I mean when I say that this is enabling legislation. It’s not, simply, setting out some single structure or track but it’s saying, “Here we have an organisation which has a brief—a brief to give assistance, to give direction, to enter into partnerships, and to facilitate partnerships.” And in doing that there aren’t a lot more constraints around it. So we know that there’s going to be more legislation to come, which will have some significant powers and some significant operational matters. But what we have here is a really good structure; a structure which will see this Government continue to address the issue of housing and communities—and the two can’t be separated. That’s the other important thing about this piece of legislation: it isn’t just about houses; it’s about the communities themselves. And I think sometimes we forget that if we’re going to have people in genuine homes, then we have to look after the people and the communities around them. So we’ll now be able to not just simply say “Let’s build a house.”, but to say “Let’s build a community, including the infrastructure, the parks, dealing with the reserves issues, the drainage, and all of those wider issues, so that we’ve got a proper, comprehensive, joined-up plan.”

So it’s a really fantastic initiative by the Minister; a fantastic Minister. The complaint time and again—and I can understand it over the last nine years—is that business and industry don’t know what’s coming next. This Government is absolutely committed to giving long-term certainty so that businesses can plan ahead. And this is just one example of that.

Only the other day, we were debating the New Zealand Infrastructure Commission/Te Waihanga Bill—another example of the Government taking a long-term approach and giving certainty to many sectors so that we can say “Look, here’s what’s coming; here is the Government’s view of what development should look like.”; whether that be infrastructure, rail transport, or in this case, homes and communities.

So I’m very pleased to be able to bring this report back to the House and identify that we will now have a great planning framework so that builders, developers, and property owners out there will be able to make their plans knowing exactly what is needed and exactly where it’s going to be going.

I also just want to mention—because I think it’s important, especially this week—the considerable debate we had over Te Tiriti clauses. The fact is that this bill, really, puts Māori interests front and centre in a number of ways. Clause 4 of the bill, essentially, summarises that. In particular, and this is worth noting, section 11(1)(b) sets out that Kīnga Ora has to have the capability and capacity “(i) to uphold the Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti …) and its principles;”. That’s actually quite important, because, whilst in many operational pieces of legislation the principles of the Treaty are referred to, here we’ve got a statement of upholding the Treaty of Waitangi. That, I think, for New Zealand is a step forward to say “Well, we’ve taken account of the Treaty through its principles, now we’re going to look at the Treaty itself.” So I want to recognise that and recognise the hard work that was done around that by our officials in Parliamentary Counsel. Even though it wasn’t actually changed, I just wanted to identify the significance of that in the bill.

And, of course, we know that, in terms of housing, our Māori communities are the communities that are the least well-off, the least likely to own their own home, the most likely to be paying a large portion of their income in rent, and, sadly, the most likely to have precarious housing or no housing at all. Again, it is identified here that one of the functions is to support and enable the aspirations of Māori in relation to urban development. It’s really important to recognise that this isn’t about home ownership alone; this is about creating homes for people to live in, in the way which is best for them given their life circumstances and given the time where they are in their lives—whether that be in a rental or in some other shared accommodation arrangement, which we haven’t really discussed but we absolutely need to explore, or whether it be through home ownership of one kind or another.

Also recognising the empowerment and the recognition that Kāinga Ora will be able to partner with others, including local bodies. So in clause 13, the “Functions of Kāinga Ora”, there were some changes made in there just to expand on the ability of Kāinga Ora to enter into those relationships, including entering into financing relationships—for example, with local authorities, which we know happens on occasion already, and other entities. “Other entities” is a broad brush indeed; whether it be a commercial provider who wants to get into the social housing area or even, conceivably, other housing, or simply a commercial development that needs some additional assistance. Well, if they’re providing houses for New Zealand, I’m sure the Minister would listen carefully to them.

So financing is one of the things, but also partnerships. It’s important to recognise the, again, vast and undefined array of partnerships that we could have here. A fantastic idea that ownership across the board, whether it be public-private, public-community, whatever it might be—it’s all here.

So this is yet again a fantastic example of the Government taking one of those truly tough problems, getting it, and getting on and solving the problem; not solving it for the next election, because we know there’s still going to be need for houses in a year’s time, but solving it for three, 10, and 30 years. It is a framework where we can get on and put people in homes—homes that are right for them, homes that are good for New Zealanders, and I am very proud to commend this bill to the House.

SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker, and I rise to take a short call—

Kiritapu Allan: Oh, Sarah will be in favour of this bill.

SARAH DOWIE: —on this bill in opposition. I take a short call because I am mindful that the whip is dutifully whipping and also because this bill simply doesn’t warrant filibustering or any great discussion, the reason being because it is a shell of a bill and it is a waste of time.

But the one thing that I will say—the one positive thing that I will say—is that it is a pleasure to follow after Mr Duncan Webb, who has recently acquired the chairmanship of the Environment Committee and he has been a very good chair, of course. But I will pull him up on a couple of things in his contribution. The first thing he said was that the submitters were not polished. Well, I disagree. I think that the submitters were very, very passionate about providing houses for those in need and providing affordable housing. But the one thing that I noticed about the submitters was that their submissions actually went wider than the brief of the bill, because they were so passionate.

And therein lies the problem, because this bill is merely shifting the deckchairs on the Titanic. It is simply about merging Housing New Zealand, HLC, and the failed KiwiBuild—the gift that kept on giving to us, of course—into one without a proper structure around it, without delving into the nitty-gritty about how this Government is going to provide affordable houses for those in need. I mean, this is a product of this Government: very good at the high level, very good at the expectations, very good at manoeuvring around targets and then dropping them altogether. It’s all very well to talk about Government policy statements but there was never any effort—and there still is no effort in this—to drill down to the nitty-gritty about how the provision of houses is going to work.

Now, there is mention of a sister bill, a follow-up bill, as to how that will be brought about, but again we have seen one effort in KiwiBuild fail—the goal was 10,000 houses within 10 years; admitted by the Government that that was overly ambitious—and we come back to the problem, which is the Resource Management Act. There is a failure by that Government to admit that it needs some real work. Again, we’ve got a working group that’s going to look at it but no real, clear detail about how that Government will fix it.

There are housing issues across this country now and it is because councils have failed to look strategically at land, to rezone, and then provide incentives for developers—developers who know how to provide housing properly and at low cost—to go in and build houses and provide more choice for people on the ground. And of course more houses means the prices are forced down and it is more of a competitive market.

I am getting the nod from “Mr Whip” and I have been told to finish up and sit down. But all I can say is that this bill is woeful. It is woeful. We need action and we’re not getting it and hence I oppose this bill.

MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): Well, I’m going to try and avert my eyes from being whipped! I’ve got 10 minutes. I’m pleased to even hear the Opposition—although, I don’t know; have we managed to bring them to actually use the words “housing crisis” yet? They didn’t last term. I think they’re saying “issues”. We got them to “issues”. I’m pleased to hear at least some collective acknowledgment across the House of the mass, profound problem and crisis that we are facing.

Angie Warren-Clark: That’s right.

MARAMA DAVIDSON: Yeah. Well, we haven’t quite got to “crisis” for all of us in this House, but we’ll get there. Yeah, we’ll get there—“issues” is a step. It is dire and profound and we need to do all we can. It is wicked, it is dynamic, and we need to do all we can to try and fix this.

This, the Kāinga Ora—Homes and Communities Bill, is working to mainstream, to pull together, the development capacity of Government and to work in partnership to try and have a coordinated and streamlined approach, to be able to have an overview of where we need to be building, how, what kind of homes and communities, how we will do it with the community—that’s key; that’s absolutely key—and a range of issues.

Let me just begin by acknowledging very briefly what the bill is trying to do. As I said, it pulls together urban development authority into a work stream. In effect, it is setting up the housing and urban development agency, pulling together Housing New Zealand, HLC, and most of the KiwiBuild unit, as I said, to try and get this overview and coordinated strategic approach.

So it’s clear we need to do things differently, and we absolutely need to set some certainty and sense of security for community, for community housing providers, for iwi housing providers, for the construction industry, and for contractors—industry-wide, actually. We need to set this security and certainty and also be clear with just ordinary folk, actually, that we’re on this, that we admit and acknowledge that this is a huge issue—

Kiritapu Allan: Hear, hear!

MARAMA DAVIDSON: —and we are—ha, ha! The member Kiritapu Allan is motivating me to no end! It’s fabulous—it’s fabulous. A few of us did not see the House for only a few hours between last night and this morning.

So, the challenges: industry capacity and certainty, climate change, environmental degradation. How do we build in a way that maximises how we want to protect our environment but also understands that we’ve got to build more and we have got to do it in a way that is sustainable? We are facing challenges of affordability not just of homes—whether it’s mortgages, whether it’s buying a home or renting a home—but also the affordability of the types of homes our people live in and whether they can afford to heat them or maintain them or stay healthy in them. We are facing challenges of security of tenure, and that is not just if people are renting or leasing; that is also people who are on precarious employment conditions and salaries and/or wages and incomes, including benefit incomes, who are not sure for how long they are going to afford living in their homes.

We have challenges of social licence, where any developments that we face come under, as they should, scrutiny from communities, and we are looking for a way to have those conversations so that two, three, five years into the plans, we don’t come across some blocks—that we have cleared the way with our communities, with our ordinary folk, to get a sense of taking us all together in building more homes. We have got the challenge of health, of homes not being up to scratch today to be able to keep kids out of hospital, to be able to keep our elderly safe and well. We are facing the challenge of accessible homes, so that we universally can access our homes and they are appropriate—we can get into the bathroom and the shower, depending on what level of mobility we have—

Angie Warren-Clark: What age we are.

MARAMA DAVIDSON: —or whether we—absolutely—can move between levels in multilevel homes.

We are facing the challenge of being able to appropriately respond to diverse needs. That includes multigenerational—I’ve got four generations in my whare at the moment. We are facing the challenge of multigenerational and diverse needs, and the responses and the types of homes—well, not just the types of homes; the types of communities that we are needing to think about with a modern, future type of joined-up thinking to be able to set this country on the right path. We have not been on the right path yet. We have plonked buildings on pieces of land ad hoc. That’s as far as the strategic planning went: let’s plonk a house there, let’s plonk a house there.

We need to connect our communities with linked-up, affordable, efficient public transport routes. We need to, and this is why the bill addresses it, make sure we are building with social licence—building with social licence. I see the select committee wanted to make explicit the community engagement mention—that’s great. Social licence includes Māori interests and the Treaty of Waitangi being upheld. When we work with communities, including with Māori, the results are fantastic, and this Government understands that there—oh, look, I’ve done well—are actually groups who have been doing this well, who have been able to build affordable, healthy, well-designed homes and communities, and we recognise that we can work with their expertise and their experience.

We need to understand that part of the construction industry and building industry barriers were about building the wrong sizes and types of homes, and so that’s why Government has to take a role, because the Government will be able to lead—with community providers, with not-for-profits—to build those right types and sizes of homes that the market simply wasn’t able to. That’s where we ran into some trouble, as well: contractors were undercutting themselves and ended up flourishing quite a bit from that. That’s why a Government-backed—well, what is that? That’s where a public-good focus has to come in, and that’s how we will get the ball rolling to provide the right sized homes and the right designed communities.

So the Greens support this, and we look forward to continuing to contribute the principles, the criteria, the guidelines that we all need so that we don’t have to face this in another, what, 30, 40 years and go, “Whoops, we weren’t thinking long enough. We weren’t thinking far out enough.” So the Greens absolutely look forward to—and continuing to work with our Ministers across the House to help give us the most enduring and sustainable plans that we can come up with. Thank you. I got there.

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): [Clears throat] Excuse me; I haven’t spoken for a while. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m pleased to take a relatively short call on the Kāinga Ora—Homes and Communities Bill. The previous speaker, Marama Davidson, was a really good example of why MPs need a decent sleep and not to finish at 1 o’clock in the morning. The first point she made was that all we need to do on this side of the House is admit there’s been a crisis and that’ll fix everything—because that’s what this Government tends to think, is that as long as we admit there’s a crisis, that’s doing something about it. Well, where did that get us, admitting that there was a crisis, with this Government? It got us KiwiBuild: the biggest failure of public policy in the history of New Zealand, most likely. That’s what happens when we get words like “crisis” out of this Government. Admitting that there is a problem isn’t a fix of a problem, and we get ridiculous ploys like KiwiBuild.

Now we get this bill, which is just, as two previous speakers have said—and I’ll say it again, because it gets a good rise out of the other side of the House—rearranging the deck chairs, because all we have is a bill that is very, very light on detail, and some of the submitters that we had in committee made that point. So all we can do is, really, speak quite broadly rather than in great detail, because there is really a lack of detail. The bill seeks to establish Kāinga Ora as a Crown public-housing landlord to lead and coordinate housing and urban—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): I’m very 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, 17 September 2019. Have a good four days away.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.