Thursday, 24 October 2019

THURSDAY, 24 OCTOBER 2019

THURSDAY, 24 OCTOBER 2019

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Karakia.

Business Statement

Business Statement

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources) on behalf of the Leader of the House: Today, the House will adjourn until Tuesday, 5 November. In that week, the Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Bill will pass through its remaining stages, and the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Reform) Amendment Bill will receive its first reading. Other legislation that will progress will include the Criminal Cases Review Commission Bill, the Health (National Cervical Screening Programme) Amendment Bill, the Organ Donors and Related Matters Bill, and the Land Transport (Wheel Clamping) Amendment Bill.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Prime Minister

1. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all her Government’s policies and statements?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: On behalf of the Prime Minister, yes, and especially this week.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Why is it her Government’s policy to allow foreign investors to buy large tracts of land in New Zealand?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: That is not the case, which was the—

Hon Louise Upston: Unfettered—unfettered.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: That was not the case. Let me finish, because, in this case, we are informed, unlike that member over there, shouting out before the answer has even reached four words. The reality of the matter is that unlike the previous administration, which had no controls at all, we specifically relate this to investors in forestry where there is added value in the growth of exports and jobs in this country.

SPEAKER: Before we have the next supplementary, I don’t know if there’s something infectious about the seat that Mr Ball is sitting in, but if he could turn his volume down, please.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Did her Ministers not grant a standing consent to Pan Pac Forest Products to make up to 25 transactions covering 20,000 hectares of land in the next three years?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Yes, but you’ll remember that the National Party gave numerous consents when they were in office to Pan Pac, including allowing their owner, Oji Oceania, to buy Carter Holt Harvey in 2014 for $1 billion.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Is the Prime Minister aware of Winston Peters’ statement from 2017: “Last year, 465,000 hectares of land was sold to foreigners. We in New Zealand First are going to stop land sales to foreigners.”?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: In this case, we have stopped the sales of 440,000.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Why is it OK for foreign investors to buy farmland to convert to forestry but not OK for foreigners to buy farmland to farm or to convert to horticulture or vineyards?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, again that is fake news and scaremongering. There’s been no such undertaking, but there is some marginal land in this country that would be more appropriate in forestry. The National Party used to know that in the old days; why don’t they know that today? But here’s the point: 460,000 hectares was the sale that was happening under their Government and now, just because of a 20,000-hectare thing, he’s complaining.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Is he saying that forestry is the only industry that can benefit from foreign investment?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Again, on behalf of the Prime Minister, of course we wouldn’t make such an absurd suggestion.

Hon Dr David Clark: Is the Prime Minister aware that this consent will support hundreds of jobs, including in the high-value forestry area and that—no, that’s enough, actually; is the Prime Minister aware of that excellent job support that will come from this initiative?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, I want to thank that member for putting his finger on the reason why this is a wise decision. But, more importantly, this is a company that’s in this country for the long haul; not here today and gone tomorrow on a policy of speculation.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Why was her Minister’s decision to pre-approve purchases of up to 25,000 hectares of land by Pan Pac kept secret until after last weekend, the weekend of New Zealand First’s annual conference?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, whilst it is true that New Zealand First is a very compelling force in the politics of this country, that is somewhat inflating their importance.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: What advice has she received on the consequences for rural communities and jobs if farms are converted to forestry on a large scale?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, the scaremongering done by 50 Shades of Green is just scaremongering. The reality is that we need a combination of rural employment and rural enterprise and rural exports, and this is a very sound investment on behalf of forestry in this country—added value, exports, and hundreds and hundreds and thousands of jobs.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Where was the answer?

SPEAKER: Well, the question was “What advice?”, I think there was a hell of a lot of advice just—

Hon Member: Repeated.

SPEAKER: —repeated. It didn’t say “From whom was advice received?” If the member wants a specific answer he should ask a specific question.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Regarding her statement yesterday that the DHL export barometer showed some 50 percent of Kiwi exporters experienced an increase in exports over the past year, why, then, does she think growth is still running at 0.5 percent per person?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, this has been enormously illuminating—that all of a sudden, one political editor in this country has discovered income per capita. For the nine years they were there, it was a foreign country, but all of a sudden it’s their only defence because they know when it comes to GDP growth this country is a world leader, not matched by the USA, not matched by Australia, Japan, the whole of the EU, but we are way up in front as the IMF recently reported, and that’s why our opponents have resorted to a different measurement—because they can’t win on the former measurement.

Question No. 2—Economic Development

2. Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) to the Minister for Economic Development: What new rules and guidelines has he announced to help protect construction companies and their workers?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister for Economic Development): Along with the building and construction Minister, the Hon Jenny Salesa, I announced this month that new Government procurement rules and guidelines have now come into force. These are aimed at helping to keep construction companies afloat by promoting better practices when awarding multimillion-dollar construction contracts. The new rules move away from the lowest price model, that causes a race to the bottom and hurts the industry, to a broader outcome model which has to take into account the financial health of the construction company, the health and safety of its workers, and the environmental health of the building.

Dr Duncan Webb: How will the new rules require Government agencies to change their procurement practices?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The new rules require that Government departments move away from least-cost procurement, and choose contracts that offer the best public value—including these broader outcomes—over the whole life of the goods, services, or works. These broader outcomes explicitly include investments in trade training and improving the conditions of workers.

Dr Duncan Webb: Why are these new rules and guidelines so important?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The reason is that the new guidelines help address some of the key concerns raised through the Construction Sector Accord, recently negotiated between the Government, industry, and unions. We’re helping boost the resilience of construction companies by being more transparent in contracting about what risks exist in a project and who is liable for managing them. This allows for fairer pricing, fairer margins, and less likelihood of unexpected financial shocks. It considers the whole life of value to the public of the construction project, not just the upfront costs. This industry produces around 7 percent of our GDP, it has more than 62,000 firms, more than 242,000 workers, and we know that we have to step up.

Dr Duncan Webb: What reaction has there been to the new rules and guidelines?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, there have been many in the industry who have been very supportive of this move by the Government to tackle what is a long-term challenge for New Zealand. Nick Collins, the chief executive of Metals New Zealand, said that the “building and construction sector will gain much-needed stimulus and support in building a skilled workforce”. The New Zealand Institute of Building chief executive, Malcolm Fleming, said the rules were a “positive signal from the Government”. And David Kelly of Master Builders said the new guidelines had “the potential to significantly improve the quality and consistency of how Government construction projects are delivered”.

Question No. 3—Social Development

3. Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō) to the Minister for Social Development: Is she satisfied with the high-level trends published in the September 2019 Ministry of Social Development fact sheets?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): All figures need to be considered in context. I am satisfied that exits into employment are up 13.3 percent, the percentage of the working-age population on a main benefit is lower than it was five years ago under the previous Government, our unemployment rate of 3.9 percent is at its lowest in over a decade, NEET rates and youth payment and young parent payment are continuing to decrease, we are investing in upskilling and training people, expanding our public housing supply, and bolstering our work-focused, front-line staff to help more people into long-term employment. Is there more to do? Yes, of course there is, but I am confident that our Government is on the right track.

Hon Louise Upston: How many more Māori and how many more Pacific people are on the jobseeker support benefit, compared to when this Government took office?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I don’t have the exact figure in front of me, but what we do know is that those young people not in education, employment, and training—including Māori and Pacific—have reduced under this Government.

Hon Louise Upston: Would she consider incorporating the policies of the previous Government when developing her Pacific people’s strategy, given that in the last three years of the National Government there was a reduction in the number of Pacific people on jobseeker support?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: There’s very little from the previous Government that I would think of adopting on this side of the House. We do need to keep in mind that following the big welfare reforms that were adopted and implemented by the previous Government, what we actually saw was this massive churn—within 18 months of people going off the benefit, they were back on it. We are much more aspirational for New Zealanders than what they were.

Hon Louise Upston: Is it aspirational to accept that 40 percent of people on the dole are Māori, and that this is the highest proportion in over five years?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The reality is that for far too long Māori have been disproportionately underserved by the welfare system. We have implemented a very robust strategy with respect to how the Ministry of Social Development works with, and for, Māori. There is long-term work that needs to go on in this space; we are on the right track, and I am confident about that.

Hon Louise Upston: How does she explain that the number of Māori on the dole increased at twice the rate of New Zealand Europeans, and Pacific people increased at three times the rate?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The member is being disingenuous, because, actually, the outcomes with respect to employment, the way in which the welfare system worked or didn’t work for Māori, under the previous Government was no better, and I think that the member needs to acknowledge that. I will acknowledge that at the moment, I think the number of New Zealanders on main benefit is just under 300,000. I think, at their peak, it was about 350-something thousand.

Hon Louise Upston: Does she stand by her statement in this House that, and I quote, “If Māori and Pacific are better off, so is New Zealand.”, and does it follow that where Māori and Pacific are worse off on the dole, so is New Zealand?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: What I stand by is the fact that, as a Government, we are focused on making sure that all New Zealanders have access to long-term, meaningful, and sustainable employment. We’re not taking the approach that the previous Government took, which was to just kick people off benefit with no regard for the fact that a large proportion were back on within 18 months. We know that moving forward as a country, we need to make sure that New Zealanders are equipped with the skills to be able to take up the work that is here now and the work that will be here in the future, which is why we are putting such an investment into upskilling and training through programmes like Mana in Mahi. We have a real vision for New Zealand and New Zealanders. It’s a pity that for nine years there was none under that side.

Hon Louise Upston: Why is she not doing more to get Mr Jones’ nephs off the couch?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I don’t personally know Mr Jones’ nephs that are on the couch, but what I do know is that the vast majority of young people in New Zealand want to work and need a Government that have faith in them. So, unlike the previous Government—and can I refer to the Prime Minister of the time—we will not be giving up on young people. We will not be making speeches at public events where we say that young people are “pretty damned hopeless”. We are investing in upskilling and training in all of the ways I’ve discussed in the House. We will continue to do that, and I am unapologetic for that investment and that focus.

Question No. 4—Transport

4. CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South) to the Minister of Transport: What criteria, if any, will Cabinet use to decide between the two competing approaches for Auckland light rail, and will it still make the decision in February 2020?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Transport): Cabinet will decide which of these two approaches it prefers, and, of course, value for money will be central to that decision. The Government has also agreed the following objectives for the project: improved access to employment, education, and other opportunities through enhancing Auckland’s Rapid Transit Network and integration with Auckland’s current and future transport networks; optimised environmental quality and embedded sustainable practices; enabling of quality integrated urban communities, especially around Māngere, Onehunga, and Mount Roskill; and a high-quality service that is attractive to users with high levels of patronage. As noted in the proactively released Cabinet paper, I will report back to Cabinet in February 2020 with the findings of the parallel process with a view to Cabinet then taking decisions on its preferred delivery model.

Chris Bishop: Do both the NZ Infra and New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) proposals for light rail involve a direct service to Auckland Airport?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: That is certainly the intent of the process that’s been set out, but the parallel process is under way, and I haven’t as yet been briefed on the plans that they’re developing.

Chris Bishop: Will light rail, as proposed by NZ Infra’s approach, be able to carry 11,000 commuters per hour, the equivalent of four lanes of motorway, which is one of the claims he has repeatedly said about light rail?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The details of both approaches that are being developed are being developed, and that process is under way, so it would be premature to comment.

Chris Bishop: So why, when he spoke to the Building Nations Symposium in Rotorua in August to announce that there would be a parallel process involving the NZTA proposal and the NZ Infra proposal, did he say that light rail will be able to carry 11,000 commuters per hour?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Because light rail rapid transit, whether it’s a streetcar model or a metro-style model, is generally capable of carrying 11,000 people per hour, which is the equivalent of four lanes of motorway, but it has the added advantage of being able to carry large numbers of people through some of the most built up parts of our urban centres.

Chris Bishop: Is it correct, as the then chair of the New Zealand Transport Agency board has said, “The market has advised NZTA that the current approach is seriously impacting the integrity of the New Zealand procurement process.”; if so, how?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Sorry, could the member repeat the exact phrasing of the question?

Chris Bishop: Is it correct, as the then chair of the New Zealand Transport Agency board says, “The market has advised NZTA that the current approach is seriously impacting the integrity of the New Zealand procurement process.”; if so, how?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: No.

Chris Bishop: Is it correct that the NZ Infra proposal has the potential to compromise the market’s confidence in Government infrastructure procurement, derail the Government’s housing initiatives, and—

SPEAKER: That’s two. The member’s had two questions.

Chris Bishop: It’s a quote, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Well, no. You said, “Is it possible” and then you—

Chris Bishop: I said “Is it correct”. Do you want me to—

SPEAKER: Or, “Is it correct.” So—[Interruption] The member can have another supplementary if he wants to try again or the Minister can answer the question, which was completed.

Chris Bishop: I’ll use the supplementary. Is it correct, as the then chair of the New Zealand Transport Agency board wrote in an email to fellow board members, “The NZ Infra proposal has the potential to compromise the market’s confidence in Government infrastructure procurement, derail the Government’s housing initiatives, and invalidate the Puhinui connection.”; if not, why not?

SPEAKER: No. The Minister can answer any one of the four questions.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: No. None of those assertions are correct, and I would note for the member that the private sector infrastructure community often asks that we be willing to entertain innovative financing and funding and procurement approaches. Our willingness to seriously consider the NZ Infra unsolicited proposal and an open-ended engagement with the infrastructure community around other ways of financing and funding and delivering this project is evidence of our commitment to doing precisely that: a commitment to be ambitious about infrastructure and open to innovative new approaches.

SPEAKER: Just to make it clear, because I saw some glances from members opposite when I interjected just before the Minister answered, if someone’s asked a question, even including a quote, which says “is it correct” and within the quote has three different issues—if the Minister can answer “yes, no, yes” or “yes, yes, no” or “no, yes, yes”, that is three.

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

SPEAKER: That is an ongoing matter. There have been previous rulings on that area and—

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Mr Speaker, there was only one question, and that is: is the quote correct? Now, the—

SPEAKER: No, no. It’s not the question “is the quote correct?”; it’s “is what’s within the quotation correct?”. The Minister can’t be responsible for whether it is an accurate quotation.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Speaking to that point, that may be the case, but the question itself was not out of order and the only point I’m making is that there was only one question. He could have disagreed with any part of the quote and that would have been a satisfactory answer. But it gets quite difficult, accepting the point you’re making about multiple issues, when actually the question goes to the heart of the quote, not the number of things that are inside it.

SPEAKER: And the point that I made to the Minister was because there were three issues inside the quote, and I think there was a tail on the quote, an “if not, why not?” or some extra thing. That is, effectively, four and a satisfactory answer can be to any one of them.

Question No. 5—Health

5. ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour) to the Minister of Health: What progress is being made rolling out the National Bowel Screening Programme?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): More good news: this week, Whanganui DHB became the ninth DHB to join the National Bowel Screening Programme. Over the next two years, 12,000 people in the Whanganui region aged 60 to 74 years will be invited to take part in bowel screening. It’s expected that about 25 cases of bowel cancer will be found, and it’s very likely that these will be found early enough to ensure the treatment these people receive is as effective as possible. People who are diagnosed with early-stage bowel cancer and who receive treatment early have a 90 percent chance of long-term survival.

Angie Warren-Clark: How has the bowel screening programme improved the wellbeing of New Zealanders?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Since it started just a couple of years ago, the National Bowel Screening Programme has screened around 180,000 people. It has detected nearly 400 cancers, and it has led to the removal of hundreds of pre-cancerous polyps. As I said a few moments ago, Whanganui is the ninth DHB to join the National Bowel Screening Programme. MidCentral DHB is expected to join the programme next month, which will mean 10 out of the country’s 20 DHBs will be offering free bowel screening to just under half the total eligible population. The nationwide roll-out of the National Bowel Screening Programme is expected to be completed in 2021.

Angie Warren-Clark: How does the National Bowel Screening Programme fit with the Government’s wider plan for improving New Zealanders’ health?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Prevention and early detection of cancer through screening programmes is an important part of the Government’s comprehensive Cancer Action Plan, announced last month. At the same time, we’ve funded more cancer medicines and we’re purchasing 12 new linear accelerators, which deliver radiation treatment. Importantly, the Cancer Action Plan delivers on our promise to re-establish a cancer control agency. The agency will provide the strong national leadership and coordination of the cancer care sector, which was lost when the previous Government canned—

SPEAKER: Order! That’s—

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: —Cancer Control New Zealand.

SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Can he give the people of Whanganui an assurance that there will be sufficient resources to follow up on those screenings, given that the general surgery department is already overstretched and the DHB itself is in significant financial stress?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The Government did inherit a number of long-term challenges in health, which the previous Government failed to address. One of the biggest, which the member highlights, is a shortage of key health professionals. That resulted from the previous Government’s failure to fund the health sector properly. This Government is rebuilding our health services by funding DHBs better and giving them the means to better train, retain, and recruit key staff. We can’t undo nine years of neglect in one or two Budgets, but we’re getting on with it and we’re making good progress.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: That being the case, why are things getting worse on his watch, not better?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: They’re not.

Question No. 6—Land Information

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

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

Hon David Bennett: With the special approval to Japanese-owned Pan Pac Forest Products to purchase up to 20,000 hectares of New Zealand land for forestry, what restrictions did the Minister place on the lands that could be purchased?

Hon EUGENIE SAGE: This is a standing consent under the special forestry pathway. It’s not envisaged that many of these will be used. The application was about securing long-term wood supply, and it is expected that the applicant will use this to purchase land which is already in forestry. As a standing consent, it has a very different test from the substantial and identifiable benefit test which applies to rural farmland.

Hon David Bennett: Has the Minister retained the power to ensure that the right trees are planted in the right place?

Hon EUGENIE SAGE: No, but this Government has invested substantially in the enforcement activities of the Overseas Investment Office, so I expect that the office will ensure that the conditions of the consent are abided by, and the office has—in some instances, where it’s taken enforcement action, the land has had to be sold.

Hon David Bennett: What independent evidence did the Minister use in making this decision that Pan Pac couldn’t purchase logs from New Zealand - owned forestry blocks?

Hon EUGENIE SAGE: The application was about securing wood supply. Nearly 29,000 of Pan Pac’s existing areas are Crown forest licences. Those are passing to iwi. It needs to secure its wood supply to secure 800 jobs in the regions—in Hawke’s Bay and in Otago. It is a longstanding investor in New Zealand. It has a good track record. It is our leading exporter of quality timber.

Hon David Bennett: Can Pan Pac use the trees planted on these properties for purposes other than supplying its New Zealand factories?

Hon EUGENIE SAGE: It can use them to provide for its operations in New Zealand, yes.

Hon David Bennett: Well, then isn’t this a de facto way around the overseas investment rules for Pan Pac if it can purchase land for forestry use without needing to use that for its factories?

Hon EUGENIE SAGE: The standing forestry test is about implementing this Government’s commitment to have a thriving forestry industry, to protect our climate through sequestering carbon, and to provide jobs in the regions. It’s about a thriving forestry sector and that is what this application will help achieve.

Question No. 7—Energy and Resources

7. JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: Does she think New Zealand households and companies will be paying lower electricity prices in a year’s time?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources): The price they pay will depend on a range of factors. These factors include the amount they use, retail overheads, distribution costs, the wholesale market, transmission charges, and any other contractual terms that may apply. However, I am aware of two trends putting downward pressure on prices. We are seeing $650 million being invested in new renewable generation over the coming year, which means lower prices for New Zealanders over the long term because these have the lowest levelised cost. The Government has also started implementing the recommendations of the Electricity Price Review, which Consumer New Zealand has said could save low-income consumers $40 a month off their power bills. I am pleased to report, in the months since the interim report was released, $5 million has already been returned to the pockets of consumers.

Jonathan Young: Does she think that household electricity prices can drop over the next year given the wholesale price, as she mentioned as a component of every household bill, has been, on average, 60 percent higher every day for the first nine months of this year compared to last?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I’d like to remind that member again that there is no reason to think that higher wholesale rates will necessarily flow through to retail rates. I remind that member again that it didn’t in 2017 when we saw prices in the $300 range per megawatt hour. I’d also like to tell that member that I am confident that we will see price drops, because as I told him in the answer to the primary, we have already seen $5 million flow back into the pockets of consumers, and the Electricity Price Review said that if all companies do away with their late payment fees, we could see $45 million flow back into the pockets of consumers.

Jonathan Young: Considering, in her response, that that peak she mentioned in 2017 was for one day only, what is her response to Energy Link director Greg Sise’s comment that there is a general realisation that gas market dynamics have changed for good and the price of gas is a big driver of the price of electricity on average, so higher prices for electricity look more likely to stay for a good while longer?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Because he is not the only commentator out there, and there are multiple commentators that are saying that a renewable future actually is the way in which consumers will see the lowest cost of electricity.

Jonathan Young: What does she say to another commentator, John Kidd of Enerlytica, who said, “Compared to two years ago, year-to-date wholesale electricity and gas prices are each 70 percent higher … While the Government has dismissed this as a short-term aberration, we are much more cautious.”?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: What I say is that John Kidd is also saying that the right signals are being sent around the time to invest in renewable energy. That’s why I am thrilled to see that we’ve had $650 million worth of investment in renewable energy projects this year, which had the lowest levelised cost of electricity, which will return for consumers in the long run.

Jonathan Young: Does she continue to deny that the gas market dynamics driven by her Government’s policies are impacting the long-term wholesale prices and that this is starting to impact the decision making of companies like the owners of Tīwai Point Aluminium Smelter?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: That member is drawing a ridiculously long bow. If he was to listen to any of the commentary of what the smelter are saying, they are not talking about their contracted price that they have with Meridian, because, of course, they are protected by volatility in the wholesale market through their long-term contracts with Meridian. What they are talking about, in terms of their electricity pricing, is, of course, transmission.

Question No. 8—Youth

8. TAMATI COFFEY (Labour—Waiariki) to the Minister for Youth: He aha ngā mahi kua mahia e Te Minita ināia tata ake nei kia tautoko i te oranga o te hunga rangatahi Māori? What actions, if any, has he recently taken to support rangatahi Māori wellbeing?

Hon PEENI HENARE (Minister for Youth): On Monday, I travelled to Ōtautahi to launch the RUIA Fund, which is a collaboration between Te Pūtahitanga o Te Waipounamu, the Rātā Foundation, Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu, and the Ministry of Youth Development. These partners have established a contestable fund with a little over $360,000 to support initiatives that will improve wellbeing outcomes for rangatahi Māori and Te Waipounamu.

Tamati Coffey: He aha te whakahirahiratanga o tēnei rangapū? What’s the significance of this partnership?

Hon PEENI HENARE: The partnership between iwi, a Whānau Ora commissioning agency, a philanthropic organisation, and Government showcases what can be done for young people through having a shared vision and alignment of strategic priorities and funding. The RUIA Fund is a great example of how we can come together to support rangatahi Māori wellbeing, leadership, and cultural development.

Tamati Coffey: Whakamutunga. E pēhea ai te pūtea nei e whakapiki i te oranga mō te hunga rangatahi Māori ki Te Wai Pounamu? How will this funding improve the wellbeing of rangatahi Māori in the South Island?

Hon PEENI HENARE: This fund will be led and designed by Māori youth. Ngāi Tahu rangatahi have identified principles that will guide RUIA investment and grant-making decisions to include wellbeing, identity, leadership, learning, innovation, and sustainability. The RUIA Fund will ensure it reflects rangatahi aspirations and provides rangatahi with new opportunities and initiatives that otherwise may not be available to them due to circumstance or geographic isolation.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I didn’t want to interrupt the line of questioning—it was very good—but I wonder if you could explain to the House why it was necessary for the member to translate his own question, given the very good translation service we have.

SPEAKER: It is a fair point. There is an interpretation service which is available to members. I think the member was trying to be helpful and quick, although, of course, for the Minister answering the question, it probably wasn’t necessary to have the interpretation before the Minister answered. I think in future it is better just to ask the question in one language. Thank you.

Question No. 9—Immigration

9. STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura) to the Minister of Immigration: Does he stand by all his Government’s policies and statements on immigration?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Associate Minister of Immigration) on behalf of the Minister of Immigration: On behalf of the Minister, I stand by all the policies and statements I have responsibility for.

Stuart Smith: Does he agree with his fellow Cabinet Minister Shane Jones when he said, “I would just say to the activists from the Indian community, tame down your rhetoric, you have no legitimate expectations in my view to bring your whole village to New Zealand”, and, if so, why?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: On behalf of the Minister, I have no ministerial responsibility for the Hon Shane Jones. However, I would note that New Zealand welcomes people from all countries. We have a rules-based immigration system and a great country to live in. That means that we can’t take all the people who want to come to New Zealand.

Stuart Smith: Does he agree, then, with his fellow Cabinet Minister Shane Jones’ comments to the Indian community upset at Immigration New Zealand (INZ) not recognising their arranged marriages, when he said, “if you don’t like it and you’re threatening to go home—catch the next flight home.”?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: On behalf of the Minister, again, I do not have responsibility for the Hon Shane Jones, but what I do want to say is that we do recognise that partnership visas are important, because we recognise their importance to people’s partners and to their wellbeing and to their happiness and settlement. Immigration is a rules-based system, and these rules need to be applied fully and transparently.

Stuart Smith: Does the Minister believe it is fair for New Zealand citizens and permanent residents in non-resident Indian marriages to leave New Zealand in order to be with their partners who are unable to get a partnership visa as they don’t meet the living together requirement?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: On behalf of the Minister, I want to reiterate what I have just said. We have partnership visas because we recognise the importance of people’s partners to their wellbeing, happiness, and settlement, but immigration is a rules-based system and these rules need to be applied fairly and transparently.

Stuart Smith: Does the Minister believe that people in non-resident Indian marriages that are genuine and stable should be given the opportunity to meet the living together requirement in New Zealand through the issuing of a temporary visitor visa?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: On behalf of the Minister, there are options for visas for people to apply. I encourage the member, should he have constituents who are looking to make those applications, to apply directly to Immigration New Zealand. These are matters for the Immigration New Zealand operational system.

Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi: Does the Minister agree with INZ’s national visa manager, Peter Elms’ comment that Immigration New Zealand is mindful of “cultural complexities and sensitivities” with regard to applying criteria to the partnership visa; if so, why?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: On behalf of the Minister, I do agree with that statement. I would like to also reinforce that there has been no change in policy in terms of Government policy for partnership visas. There has been an application to ensure that the operational requirements of this policy are being met.

Question No. 10—Health

10. DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) to the Associate Minister of Health: Why did she tell Newshub that she was about to introduce vaping legislation that will “ban most flavours”, and when will she introduce that legislation?

Hon JENNY SALESA (Associate Minister of Health): Currently, vaping products and e-cigarettes are entirely unregulated here. Our communities, including parents, schools, and principals, have expressed concern that these nicotine products are being marketed directly and sold to our children and young people. Cabinet has previously agreed on amendments to the Smoke-free Environments Act 1990 that strike a balance between adults who want to stop smoking while ensuring that they aren’t marketed and sold to our children. This includes the ability to restrict flavours that attract children and young people to vaping. We’re working through some final minor and technical issues. However, it is still my intention to introduce this bill to the House shortly.

David Seymour: Had she listened to those parents, teachers, and principals when she said, on 9 June this year, “Some people worry that vaping might be a ‘gateway’ to smoking for young people, but there is no clear evidence for this.”?

Hon JENNY SALESA: We know from evidence that vaping is very effective, especially for adult smokers to switch from smoking to non-smoking. The evidence is still being gathered at the moment for whether or not it is a gateway for young people, but the issue that we have is vaping is not regulated in our country. Right now, the smoking rate for our young people has really, really reduced, to just under 2 percent. It is our intention to ensure that we regulate vaping but also that we ensure that our young people are not attracted to vaping if they are not attracted to smoking. We do not want our country to be smoke-free; we also want to ensure that it is vape-free.

David Seymour: So is the Minister saying that youth smoking rates are at a record low, there is no evidence that vaping is a gateway to smoking, and yet she wants to regulate vaping—effectively, putting tobacco back on a level playing field with it?

SPEAKER: Order! Order! Far too long, and the member can count.

Hon JENNY SALESA: Prohibiting vaping in smoke-free areas is a precautionary measure that has already been agreed to by Cabinet. Increasing visibility of vaping is something that we think would help normalise it. We want to ensure that our young people, especially those who are now not smoking any more, do not actually take up vaping instead. We know that nicotine is in vaping. It is an addictive substance. One of the reasons why we’re introducing regulation to ensure we regulate vaping is to ensure that too many of our young people do not take up this new habit.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Will she take up the offer of the Leader of the Opposition to work across bipartisan lines in order to get robust regulations in place for vaping, and, if so, when?

Hon JENNY SALESA: Yes, absolutely, and I thank the Leader of the Opposition, as well as the National Party, for wanting to work in a partnership way with this side of the House, and we will be introducing this legislation soon to the House. At the point that we introduce the legislation and prior to the select committee, we will be in a position to then work with the Opposition.

Question No. 11—Climate Change

11. CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green) to the Minister for Climate Change: What is the Government doing on climate action?

Hon JAMES SHAW (Minister for Climate Change): Today I have introduced the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Reform) Amendment Bill into the House, which will finally make the emissions trading scheme do what it is supposed to do and drive the transition to a low-emissions economy. Also today, the leaders of New Zealand’s farmers’ organisations have committed the sector as a whole to a concerted effort to cut climate pollution over the years to come. We will be working with farmers in the coming years to move them towards a farm-level pricing scheme that reduces emissions, keeping us below 1.5 degrees of global warming. For too long, politicians have passed the buck and caused uncertainty for everyone, while the need for climate action was clear. We are proud to take on this long-term challenge together with farmers ready to go, and New Zealanders right behind them, to keep our planet safe for future generations.

Chlöe Swarbrick: So what is the Minister’s message [Interruption] to the more than 150—

SPEAKER: Order! Maureen Pugh, please be quiet.

Chlöe Swarbrick: So what is the Minister’s message to the more than 150,000 New Zealanders who recently took to the streets asking this Government to do more to protect the climate?

Hon JAMES SHAW: Well, my message is that this Government has stopped issuing offshore oil and gas exploration permits, supporting New Zealanders to use less fossil fuels and more renewables. We are investing billions of dollars in clean transport infrastructure, and now we are committing all sections of our economy to fair emissions pricing to drive down emissions. Today’s announcement is a world first—pricing agricultural emissions. Robust emissions pricing is the start of an enduring framework for meeting the challenge of climate change, but we know that other tools are important as well and that more needs to be done.

Chlöe Swarbrick: So how will the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Reform) Amendment Bill, introduced today, align with the Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Bill just reported back from select committee?

Hon JAMES SHAW: I know that most of the headlines today are on agricultural emissions pricing, but members of this House may be interested to know that the bill introduced today will also achieve other significant changes in the emissions trading scheme so that it actually does what it is supposed to do and bring down emissions. For example, it will enable the Government to align the total allowable number of units in the emissions trading scheme with the five-year emissions budgets under the zero carbon bill. This is an important fix to the emissions trading scheme, because until now we’ve had a cap-and-trade system with no cap. We’re introducing a cap which will reduce over time, driving down our country’s impact on the climate from energy and transport emissions in particular.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Will free allocation of emissions trading units to major polluters be phased down?

Hon JAMES SHAW: Yes it will, starting a process that was due to begin, I think, originally, in 2011. It is important that we tackle emissions—particularly in the industrial heat and transport sectors, where carbon emissions are growing at the fastest rate. The phase down of free allocation will happen in a measured and predictable way that allows businesses to plan and make investment decisions that will reduce their emissions. All sectors of our economy will pay a fair price for their emissions, and, of course, they can reduce this by reducing their emissions.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Will, and, if so, how does, the bill make up for dodgy emissions trading practices in the past?

Hon JAMES SHAW: The bill creates the power for the Government to cancel fraudulent Kyoto units—those so-called hot air credits purchased under previous Governments from dubious Eastern European sources that didn’t actually relate to any real emissions reductions. We’re serious about environmental integrity, and we’re taking steps to actually reduce emissions, not just pretend to.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Minister as to whether or not it’s a fact that today’s announcement is a triumph of common sense and trust in responsible primary sector leadership?

Hon JAMES SHAW: It is indeed a fact.

Question No. 12—Climate Change

12. Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National) to the Minister for Climate Change: Does he support allowing the use of all scientific technologies to tackle climate change?

Hon JAMES SHAW (Minister for Climate Change): I support the use of all scientific technologies to tackle climate change that do not themselves also cause harm in other ways. Just because something is scientifically possible doesn’t always make it a good idea. There could be economic or brand risks or ethical risks. The member may remember dicyandiamide (DCD), which was added to milk, under the previous Government, and then had huge consequences in important export markets. The previous Government’s mishandling of the DCD issue led to significant damage to New Zealand’s brand overseas and a reduction in the value of our exports. This Government has learnt from the mistakes of the previous Government.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: Does he agree with Mia Sutherland, a Christchurch high school student and organiser of School Strike 4 Climate New Zealand, who says we need to reform the law about genetically modified organisms if we are serious about reducing our carbon emissions?

Hon JAMES SHAW: In reference to the question about the use of science, I want to refer to a statement by the Prime Minister’s Chief—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! Can I just make it clear that everyone who makes that interjection is reflecting on me, and it’s to stop.

Hon JAMES SHAW: I would refer the member to the advice of the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor, who recently said that whether New Zealand is GM-free or not is a debate about New Zealand’s identity and international branding. This is a trade argument which has little to do with the science. It may be that there is a GM-, GE-free branding advantage for some exporters. It may also be that this advantage is short-lived, as the conversation moves forward internationally. There is a lack of evidence either way. These, however, are not science arguments, and need to take place in the context of mixed and shifting international regulations and consumer demands.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I specifically asked about whether the Minister agrees with Mia Sutherland’s—

SPEAKER: Well, the member had an extensive answer to the question.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: Does he accept that if New Zealand had more permissive biotechnology laws, then we would be able to reduce our climate emissions faster and at a lower economic cost?

Hon JAMES SHAW: Actually, the Biological Emissions Reference Group that the previous Government set up had a high degree of confidence that, based on existing technologies, we could reduce biological emissions by between 10 and 21 percent in the next 10 years, by 2030; and by 22 to 48 percent by 2050. The modelling stated that there was a medium to high confidence that a methane inhibitor for grazing systems can deliver a 10 to 30 percent reduction in biogenic methane by 2030—high confidence that that would be available for a 30 to 50 percent reduction by 2050. That’s a non-GE solution. There was low confidence that a methane reduction would be available by 2030, but high confidence that it would be available by 2050. There are many options. I have to actually just remember that not only was the Biological Emissions Reference Group set up by the previous Government and reported back but also it was an industry group reporting on the technologies that were available under that industry. Technologies, for example, that are currently being pursued through the New Zealand Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Research Centre, the Global Research Alliance, which that Government set up, include—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! There’s generally quite a lot of latitude, when it’s an Opposition question, to reply, but I think the Minister has gone on for too long.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: Given the Minister is so interested in what we did in the last term and what we are doing now, will he support National’s proposal to update our laws so that proven technologies such as a strain of ryegrass that has the potential to reduce methane emissions by 23 percent can be field-trialled in New Zealand and used by our farmers?

Hon JAMES SHAW: I’m actually not the Minister responsible for genetic modification regulations, but, for her interest, I have been advised by scientists that recent trials of high metabolisable energy (HME) ryegrass—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! If the members want to hear the answer, they will be quiet. I just want to say that I’ve had a significant number of complaints recently, especially this week, from viewers who are unable to hear answers because of noise, mainly—but not only—from my left.

Hon JAMES SHAW: I’ve been advised by scientists that recent trials of HME grass were inconclusive and scientists won’t know whether it will work to reduce emissions for at least another two years. I do want to caution the member: if she remembers the debacle around what happened with DCD, we have to be very cautious that just because something may be scientifically valid doesn’t make it a good idea. We have to be very cautious about introducing technologies that could reduce the value of our exports whilst we’re actually doing something to try and increase the value of our exports. The member should be very aware of the law of unintended consequences.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: So is that to confirm that in terms of agrarian science and grass growth and all the mixture of food products you might use for animals, we shouldn’t clutch at straws?

Hon JAMES SHAW: It does mean that. The issue here is that whilst something may be scientifically valid, you have to be aware that there may be consequences from using it. The people who are clutching at the straw of GM ryegrass are suggesting that this is the silver bullet that’s going to solve all of our problems, and they’re ignoring all of the other existing technologies that can achieve the same result. They’re also talking about introducing a risk that “Brand New Zealand” could be devalued and the value of our exports could be devalued, even whilst they’re grasping at this magic technology that doesn’t exist yet.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: Is the real reason the Government has not done anything so far to reform New Zealand’s outdated biotechnology laws because of the ideological and anti-science opposition by Green Party MPs?

SPEAKER: Order! Order! The Minister made very clear earlier that’s not an area of his responsibility.

Bills

Te Pire Haeata ki Parihaka / Parihaka Reconciliation Bill

Third Reading

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

Tēnei ahau te tū ake hei mihi ki te whānau o Parihaka, puta atu mai ki roto tēnei Whare. Kua oti kē ngā mahi ki tērā taha, ki roto i tērā whare, engari, nau mai, haere mai, whakatau mai ki tēnei tō tātou Whare. Nā reira, kia ora.

[Here I am standing to greet the whānau of Parihaka, from outside into this House. We have already finished up the work of that side, inside that house; however, welcome, welcome, welcome into our House. Therefore, greetings.]

I want to extend a warm welcome to the Parihaka community, who have returned here again for the final reading of this bill, Te Pire Haeata ki Parihaka, the Parihaka Reconciliation Bill. E aku rangatira, tēnā koutou katoa. As you walked on to Parliament grounds this morning, and sitting here in the gallery now, you embody your ancestors, the many generations who have passed on, your people now and into the future.

Aku iti, aku rahi, tēnā rā koutou.

[To the assembled masses, greetings.]

I welcome also the extended iwi Te Tai Hauāuru to this House, and I am pleased we can celebrate this special day together.

This bill sets out in legislation for the very first time the visionary leadership and traditions, ngā taonga tuku iho, of the great Te Whiti o Rongomai and Tohu Kākahi. It is a privilege to acknowledge here today their philosophy of peace—he hōnore, he korōria, he maungārongo ki a tātou katoa.

As I work through the names, all of whom have shown incredible leadership, determination, and commitment to this work, I acknowledge the Parihaka Papakāinga Trust and its various chairs over the past few years: Amokura Panoho, Puna Wano-Bryant, and, of course, Tina Mason, who has led the trust through these final stages. Te Kawe Tutaki, the group set up in December 2014 to understand the aspirations of the Parihaka community and advise Ministers on how the Crown would support them—Dame Tariana Turia, the Rt Hon Jim Bolger, the Hon Mahara Okeroa, Amokura Panoho, and Ruakere Hond—made bold recommendations to the Crown on how to improve the relationship between the Crown and Parihaka. They identified areas where the Crown could support Parihaka’s aspirations and the Crown listened.

I also would like to acknowledge the previous Minister for Māori Development, the Hon Te Ururoa Flavell, and the previous Attorney-General, the Hon Christopher Finlayson, whose leadership within the Crown made today possible; the agencies and local authorities who have committed to support Parihaka as it moves forward and officials at Te Arawhiti for their dedication throughout the reconciliation process; the Parihaka community for their kindness and generosity towards the officials, and, given your historical experience with the Crown, officials were honoured to have your trust during our time together; and also the Parliamentary Counsel Office and very skilled dual-language translators who made it possible for this legislation to be drafted both in English and Te Reo Māori.

Te Ture Haeata ki Parihaka, the Parihaka Reconciliation Act, will be the third dual-language legislation to be enacted in our Parliament. On 9 June 2017, Ministers Te Ururoa Flavell and Christopher Finlayson both read the Crown apology in Te Reo Māori and English. What more appropriate and powerful way to acknowledge the Crown’s failure to uphold the principles of partnership and good faith that Te Tiriti o Waitangi embodies.

This bill, soon to become law, confirms the commitments made on 9 June 2017 by the Crown and the Parihaka community at He Puanga Haeata, the ceremony of reconciliation, and recorded in Te Kawenata ō Rongo, the deed of reconciliation. The bill records the Crown’s apology to the people of Parihaka past and present for the historical actions of the Crown. It also records the legacy statement, which summarises the origins and the history of the community and sets out the aspirations of the community for its future. Finally, the bill provides statutory protection for the name Parihaka against unauthorised commercial use.

Many of the speeches in this House during the second reading of this bill focused on the grim history of Crown actions at Parihaka and it was front and centre during the reconciliation ceremony in 2017. The reading of the legacy statement that day was an historic moment. In their own words, the people of Parihaka made the depth of their pain clear to everyone who listened. That voice is a testament to the importance of history, both for Parihaka and all New Zealanders. And that’s one of the reasons why this Government has made the decision that New Zealand history must be taught in our schools.

Importantly, however, and we must all note, that you, the Parihaka whānau and community, made it clear that your story did not end in 1881. History is ongoing and we create history today. You made it clear that the intolerance and brutality displayed by the Crown during those dark days did not and does not define who you are. This is best illustrated by your decision to reach out to the descendants of those who had participated in the invasion and destruction of the settlement 140 years ago. By doing so, Parihaka extended the reconciliation beyond themselves and the Crown, and included individuals and families who have long carried their own burden. That gesture epitomises the legacy of Parihaka and the philosophy of Te Whiti o Rongomai and Tohu Kākahi. By inviting the descendants of the armed constabulary to the reconciliation ceremony, you demonstrated your absolute commitment to peace and reconciliation; inā te mahi a te rangatira [that is the job of a leader].

That act shows our nation that although the past sometimes walks very close behind us, it is possible to turn and face even the darkest aspects of our history and begin the process of healing with openness, honesty, and aroha. This act of humanity shows that no matter what has come before, there must always be a new chapter to write. It is with this in mind that I respectfully choose to not recount the Crown’s historical actions in detail today. Other members will do that in the speeches that follow. I will instead reflect on the immense harm those actions have caused to the people of Parihaka and to Māori from across Taranaki and Aotearoa over many generations.

The Crown deeply regrets and apologises for its actions—ka whakamā, ka tuohu, ka noho whakaiti [embarrassed, downcast, and humbled].

The bill we are here to debate today includes the legacy statement and the apology the Crown has offered to Parihaka for its historical actions. I encourage every member of this House, and indeed every New Zealander, to read those documents and to reflect on them.

E Te Whare, today is a new dawn. While we will never forget the night that preceded it, we continue to move forward. Earlier, I described the leaders of Parihaka, Te Whiti o Rongomai and Tohu Kākahi, as visionaries. They are also names synonymous with a compassionate attitude they promoted towards all people and of the foresight they had to establish a self-sufficient community. To date, the poverty and deprivation caused by the Crown has made it virtually impossible for the community to build on that legacy and to test how it might be applied in our time. For that reason, a significant aspect of the reconciliation process is the provision of a fund that will be used by Parihaka to help secure basic infrastructure needs such as water, waste management, and reliable internet.

This work will build the foundation, the necessary foundation, for the revitalisation of the community and for the achievement of its vision. And that vision is an exciting one. It includes housing projects aimed at promoting the health and wellbeing of its residents and the environment, a plan to become a centre for language revitalisation and peace studies; initiatives to protect, preserve, and promote the community’s rich historical heritage; the development of facilities to educate the young and to care for the elderly; the production of food using traditional methods; the production of energy; and the development of leaders—among many, many other projects. This is an ambitious vision, but Parihaka will not be alone. The Crown is here to walk alongside you.

This bill records a relationship agreement between the Parihaka Papakāinga Trust and a range of agencies and local authorities. A regular forum between Parihaka leaders and the Crown will ensure that the commitments are met.

While we are here today to celebrate the passing of this historic legislation, we must all think about what reconciliation means. The story of Parihaka did not finish in 1881. It did not finish in 2017. And it does not finish here today.

As we heard Ruakere say earlier this afternoon, ehara tēnei ko te rangi whakamutunga, engari ko te whakamutunga o te tīmatanga [this is not the final day but is the end of the beginning]. So it is time to begin that next chapter. Future generations will be the ones to decide whether our relationship has been reconciled. I look to the tamariki in the gallery, as I did in the Legislative Council Chamber earlier, and ask that we all walk this path with genuine intentions and open hearts for them. Nā reira, tātou mā, huri rauna i tō tātou Whare: tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou.

[Therefore, one and all, throughout our House: greetings, greetings.]

Tēnā koutou, Mr Speaker. I commend this bill to the House.

JO HAYES (National): E Te Mana Whakawā, tēnā koe. E koro mā, e kui mā, e rau rangatira mā, tēnei te mihi atu ki a koutou katoa. Kei te harikoa ki te kite i a koutou i tēnei rā whakahirahira. Nau mai, haere mai.

[To the elders and to the many leaders, I would like to acknowledge you all. I am happy to see you on this important occasion. Welcome, welcome.]

Before I start my contribution, I have some words from the Hon Chris Finlayson, and from my colleague Harete Hipango, who can’t be here today. I will just read out the Hon Chris Finlayson’s message to the whānau of Parihaka. So the Hon Chris Finlayson passes on his best wishes to the folk of Parihaka, and to let them know how much they mean to him and that he wants to work with them on building the disputes resolution centre. From my colleague Harete Hipango, who is unable to be here today, she passes on her regrets for her absence: “My thoughts of our Parihaka tipuna and uri of past, present, and future is with you all today, at the passage of this bill of reconciliation into living law. My profound belief and knowledge that Parihaka has not succumbed to the depravity of the injustices, and continues to rise and rise tonu ake [once again]. E te whanaunga o Parihaka, ka rawe—ngā mihi tonu [To the relations of Parihaka, excellent—continuing praise].” That is from Harete Hipango.

I start my contribution in the third reading of Te Pire Haeata ki Parihaka / the Parihaka Reconciliation Bill with a whakataukī spoken by Te Whiti o Rongomai and Tohu Kākahi, the prophet leaders of Parihaka. Ko te pō te kaihari i te rā, ko te mate te kaihari i te oranga—night is the bringer of day as death is the bringer of life; it is the theme that I choose today. And today, we are seeing the dawning of a new era for the whānau of Parihaka. Today, there is reconciliation by the Crown of the invasion of Parihaka by colonial troops over 140 years ago. Today, we all bear witness as the night shepherds in a new day of reconciliation, as we remember those brave men who were wrongly arrested, with some giving their lives so their whānau can live on; the brave women who endured the hideous crimes forced on them; the dark days, like death itself, where children were forced to endure a horrendous past as some retold their experiences to their mokopuna, and so the hurt has travelled down through the generations. Reconciliation brings with it a new beginning, a new life—where Parihaka has told of its past and its present and will forge a new future, that they will tell in their way when they are ready; where Parihaka will truly belong to Parihaka.

Today is a special day for us all, where it marks a place in New Zealand history that we should never venture back there again. So, like many of my colleagues here today, I am humbled and privileged that I should be part of this significant event in the history of Parihaka. I thank the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Settlements, Minister Andrew Little, and the Minister for Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti, Minister Kelvin Davis, who have picked up the work from the former Minister the Hon Chris Finlayson and seen through to the conclusion this, Te Pire Haeata ki Parihaka / the Parihaka Reconciliation Bill. Nā reira, e te whānau o Parihaka me ngā mema o Te Pāremata, tēnā rā koutou katoa. Kia ora.

[Therefore, to the whānau of Parihaka and the members of Parliament, greetings to one and all. Thank you.]

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. E te whānau o Parihaka, ngā iwi o Te Tai Hauāuru, tēnā koutou. Nau mai, whakatau mai. Nau mai, whakatau mai ki tēnei rā nui, whakahirahira. E tū tautoko ana ahau i tēnei pire, i tana pānuitanga tuatoru. Nō reira, ka huri ngā whakaaro ki a rātou mā, haere, haere koutou. Hoki mai ki a tātou te kanohi ora. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Greetings, Mr Speaker. To the whānau of Parihaka, the tribes of Te Tai Hauāuru, greetings. Welcome, welcome. Welcome to this grand day, to this important day. I stand in support of this bill and its third reading. Accordingly, I turn my thoughts to those who have passed: go in peace. Returning to us, the living, greetings one and all.]

I’m delighted to stand here in support of this landmark bill at its third reading—so much history embedded in this bill, in this legislation. Te Kawenata ō Rongo, the deed of reconciliation, is a very important document, a very important kawenata, covenant, that brings together the people of Te Parihaka and the Crown; the acknowledgment that the Crown has made within those solemn documents of the grievous acts that were committed with the invasion of Parihaka. I think we must hold that front and centre because that is a dark spot on our history, but it is a fact of colonisation that events like the invasion of Parihaka did occur, and it had lasting impacts on the people of Parihaka which have continued for generations.

But I want to acknowledge this is a very important landmark bill. I want to acknowledge the leadership of the Parihaka Papakāinga Trust, but also all of those who have been involved within Parihaka, within Government—whether it’s the previous administration or the current Government—and everyone that has been involved in leading us up to this point. In particular, the whānau of Parihaka, who have continued on with their acknowledgments and their practices that they do every month, daily, in terms of their everyday lives, of the work and the acknowledgment in the history and the legacy that they all flow from—the great prophets of Tohu and Te Whiti.

So this is a really important piece of legislation. I’m delighted to have played a little part, with our Māori Affairs Committee, in travelling to Parihaka to hear from the whānau, to be able to incorporate some of their hopes and aspirations that they wanted to include in the bill.

I’m pleased that we were able to do those things, to not only acknowledge and put into the force of law Te Kawenata ō Rongo but also engage acknowledgments seeking authorisation for the commercial use of the name Parihaka and also giving respect and the right for the hau kāinga, the Papakāinga Trust, to have some control and some authority over Parihaka—the name Parihaka, the place Parihaka. So I’m proud of the work that we did as the Māori Affairs Committee to find the limits of what we could do to meet those wawata, those hopes, of the Papakāinga Trust.

As I’ve mentioned, this is a significant day. I’m in two moods at the moment. I’m obviously in a mournful mood, a very poignant mood. It’s a really reflective mood, as we think back on the history of Parihaka, the impact that it’s had on the forebears of our esteemed guests and manuhiri that are here today. But I’m also optimistic. I’m optimistic that through Te Kawenata ō Rongo and through this bill, the Crown has learnt and acknowledged its historical wrongs, but it’s also creating this relationship that will move into the future with all of the elements that are contained within Te Kawenata ō Rongo.

I want to once again just acknowledge the hau kāinga, all who have supported this bill, who are going to be part of this bill. It’s really significant, because I’m inspired when I think of Parihaka. These people, this wonderful whānau from Parihaka, are world leaders, because their tūpuna Tohu and Te Whiti are acknowledged world leaders in terms of their visionary thinking around passive resistance, non-violence. It’s world leading, and it is really inspirational, not only for us here in Aotearoa but also for the world. We know that because so many 20th century leaders picked up on and seized on the legacy and the teachings and that example of passive resistance. We see that through Gandhi and through Martin Luther King and other esteemed leaders globally.

So this little place of Parihaka is really special. It is an example to the world. In fact, it attracts people from all over the world, and that’s why it’s really important that we tidy things up through Te Kawenata ō Rongo and through this bill. But it also ensures that the actual people of Parihaka, the descendants of the great leaders, are in the driver’s seat in terms of what happens from here on in, and the Crown is going to be right there in terms of supporting those aspirations as well.

So I’m very proud of the impact that we will see from this legislation. I know it’s going to be a fantastic future that we look forward to. As mentioned in the whaikōrero, this is just the beginning. This is the beginning. There’s a lot of work that’s gone on, but this is the beginning of a wonderful new future for the Papakāinga Trust and for the people of Parihaka. Parihaka, as we know, was a thriving township—thriving township—and I know that many of those aspirations are there to strengthen that community and improve many of the buildings and the infrastructure and also all of the activities that go on. So those are all contained within Te Kawenata ō Rongo and will be given added depth and strength through the ongoing work that the Papakāinga Trust will be conducting. So I just once again want to pay acknowledgment.

I saw some pretty heavy, heavy kaumātua of the Parliament today. I saw the Rt Hon Jim Bolger—I sat right next to him—I see the Hon Mahara Okeroa, and I acknowledge the Hon Chris Finlayson and the Hon Kelvin Davis. This has been a united Parliament in terms of the good wishes that we all have through the enactment of this bill, and we certainly are all united today to come together as a House to ensure that it will pass its third reading.

So, with that, I just once again want to acknowledge all of the whānau. I want to acknowledge those in particular that we heard at the select committee, Erana Hond in particular—so much wonderful kōrero that we heard. We heard the essence of the feeling of the whānau there and the hope that they have for the future through the signing of this deed of reconciliation and also through the passage of this bill.

With that, I just want to support this bill, tautoko it, and mihi to all the whānau here. Nō reira, e aku rangatira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātou katoa.

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): The last speaker, Rino Tirikatene, reflected on mood. It’s always hard when you’re doing bills like this, because, actually, there’s always a sense of happiness that we’ve come to a resolution but sadness around what has been before. So I totally understand what he was saying. I would like to acknowledge the local members of Parliament, Adrian Rurawhe and Jonathan Young. I’m close to Parihaka as a member of Parliament, but I was much closer as a citizen when I grew up in the town of Ōpunake.

Every time I think about this, I think about the time when I was growing up, particularly the time when I was at the local high school and I knew Parihaka was there. But, shamefully, none of us actually ever knew what it meant, what it was about, and I’m thankful that now we’ve got to this point where we’ve actually reached an agreement. I want to thank the people of Parihaka for your generosity and for the spirit in which you have worked through this process. It has taken an extremely long time, and it’s always happy that we’ve got to this point.

But, you know, when I look back, I notice that the legacy statement starts in 1813. So for us who stand and sit in this House today, we’re here now and we’re in this process where we are happy because we’ve been able to agree on a way forward, but it is with a sense of sadness and tragedy of everything that’s happened before us. So, you know, I’m not going to go through the legacy, the history, because others have spoken about it. The Hon Kelvin Davis described this as a new dawn. And I notice that phase 9 in the legacy talks about the aspirations of Parihaka. At the moment, the aspirations of Parihaka are filling everyone’s hearts with plans and dreams, and it’s only the beginning of the aspirations for the next future that’s coming and the next part of the legacy that you’re going to live through.

So it’s an opportunity today to celebrate, to realise your dreams, to be able to move forward, and to remember your ancestors and all the people that have gone before you. It’s a chance to reflect on the apology. I was at Parihaka on that day when the apology was made and it was one of the most meaningful days I’ve ever, ever experienced. So today, I want to wish you all the very best. Thank you for coming to the House of Parliament. Thank you for all the effort that you’ve made, because the effort is all around the people of Parihaka. So I wish you all the best for the future in your aspirations and we look forward to engaging with you as we work forward into your future. Kia ora.

JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. It is an absolute privilege to stand on behalf of New Zealand First and make my contribution on this Te Pire Haeata ki Parihaka / Parihaka Reconciliation Bill, now in its third reading. I extend a very warm welcome to you all here today, to the leaders and whānau of Parihaka. You have honoured us by being here today. To the Parihaka Papakāinga Trust, welcome. To the previous Minister for Māori Development, the Hon Te Ururoa Flavell, and our former Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations as well, the Hon Christopher Finlayson, for the work that you did to bring us here today to this third reading, I acknowledge you and it’s lovely to see you here in the gallery. Minister for Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti, Kelvin Davis, for shepherding us through the House too today and to all the officials, some I see in the gallery, for the work that you have done, collating the stories, bringing together the documents—the culmination of all your work is today in the House that we are now speaking to.

The Māori Affairs Committee—I was privileged to be a member of it while we visited you in Parihaka for the hearings and then also for the second reading. It was a privilege for me as well to be a part of that process. The chair of the committee, Rino Tirikatene, thank you for your work leading the committee. As Rino has said, this is an historic moment tinged with sadness, but also the optimism as now, from this point on, a new day has begun. Ko Taranaki maunga, muruhia. Ko Taranaki whenua, muruhia. Ko Taranaki moana, muruhia. Ko Taranaki tangata e tū tonu nei. Tihei mauri ora.

The Crown has apologised for its historical actions at Parihaka. The Crown has committed to reconciling its relationship directly with the Parihaka community, and so it should. The atrocities that were conducted—it is not for me to tell you your history; it not for me to lay before you all of those atrocities. They are now down in Hansard, so it is a record that will be for ever in this House. But what I would like to put on the record is that the legacy of peace, of passive resistance, will ripple across the planet for all eternity, and your suffering has provided a gift to the world.

Something else that doesn’t really equate with the totality of what that means is that there is a dollar figure that’s been attached to this reconciliation bill, because actually no money would be enough to compensate and to reconcile for what has happened. We can only use the past to help shape our future, to learn from the past and to truly understand and regret what happened at Parihaka and to make it right. Only then is reconciliation possible.

For me, it was an absolute privilege to come to Parihaka with the Māori Affairs Committee to hear the submissions both there and in Wellington. I’m the granddaughter of a woman who grew up in Kaponga. My sister now lives in Pātea. So we have a connection to Taranaki, and I don’t take it for granted now that I’ve been to Parihaka.

Something that I’d like to mention in this House is that whenever there is a significant moment in our history—of which this is one absolutely at the top of our consciousness—art is always a way of expressing what has happened. The story of Parihaka has captured the hearts and the minds of our artists, our poets, our musicians, and film makers as well. This creative artistic expression in all of its forms is a way of us expressing what has happened during that particular historical moment.

Next week, as some of you may know, there will be the launch of a new documentary, the Stories of Waitara, and it’s been put together by Mihingārangi Forbes and the amazing Annabelle Lee-Mather. I note in it that one of your leaders, Ruakere Hond, features in it. I’m very much looking forward to the launch of that documentary. One of the features in the documentary is the pakō, pakō, pakō, the drumbeat of the poi, and that’s the symbolism that will echo through the documentary. It replicates the sound, the beating sound, of the drums of the soldiers. So I think this is a documentary which will have a great impact on not just the telling of the story to New Zealanders but for the future telling of that story. The augmented reality, the recreation of the pā in the documentary—this is going to be something worth watching.

There have been art exhibitions—Parihaka: The Art of Passive Resistance. This gathered together some of the most significant artists in New Zealand history: works by Colin McCahon, Ralph Hotere, Tony Fomison, Gordon Walters—this artistic legacy that has been inspired by the story of Parihaka. My father died in 1972, and my mother went and bought a painting, and it hung in our house for many, many years. It was called “Tangi”, and it was painted by Colin McCahon in 1972 from the “Necessary Protection” series. Only just recently did I realise it was about Parihaka. When we find the threads of how our lives are interwoven with yours, we are able to see the magnitude of what that means. To be in the House today and to echo the words that we’ve heard—what the Minister has said about the apology from the Crown, but how it is now a new day and a new dawn for you—that is something for us all to celebrate.

In 1989, Tim Finn and Herbs put together a song that was called “Parihaka”:

I know Te Whiti will never be defeated,

And even at the darkest hour,

His presence will remain.

I’ll sing for you a song of Parihaka.

I’ll sing for you a song of Parihaka.

Come to Parihaka.

Weep for my lost brother.

The spirit of non-violence

Has come to fill the silence.

Come to Parihaka.

He kororia ki Te Atua runga rawa. He maungārongo ki runga ki te whenua. He whakaaro pai ki ngā tāngata katoa.

[Glory to God above. Peace and harmony on the land. Kind thoughts to all people.]

This whakataukī, this proverb, comes from Luke 2:14, and it’s been reproduced on the tiki, the memorial stone, of Te Whiti o Rongomai of Parihaka.

So I’d like to conclude my contribution this afternoon by saying that New Zealand First wants to join in taking a role in ushering in a new day of hope and prosperity for the people of Parihaka, the people of Taranaki. Today, with my colleagues, we want to celebrate a forward-looking vision to see beyond te pōuri nui o Parihaka. I commend this bill to the House.

MATT KING (National—Northland): Tēnā koutou katoa e te whānau o Parihaka. Nau mai, haere mai ki Te Whare Pāremata o tana pire, the Parihaka Reconciliation Bill.

[Greetings to you all, greetings to the family of Parihaka. Welcome, welcome to Parliament’s bill, the Parihaka Reconciliation Bill.]

The temporary Speaker tonight is Ian McKelvie, a National Party man, and I consider him our kaumātua. I’ve always referred to him as our kaumātua. But I think you’re outranked in the gallery there, well and truly.

I’d like to acknowledge Minister for Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti, Kelvin Davis, who’s shepherding this bill through the House. He’s a man from the North, and he’s a good man. I’d also like to acknowledge Rino Tirikatene, who is another good man, chair of the select committee that I’m on.

Matt Doocey: Good Canterbury boy.

MATT KING: Good Canterbury man, yes. National supports this bill. Today is a great day for the people of Parihaka and for New Zealand. This bill recognises and rights the wrongs of the past, and seeks to strengthen the partnership between Crown and iwi. Previous speakers over previous readings have well and truly traversed the detail, so I will not go into that detail, but this bill is well overdue. Settlements around the country, and this is no different, will unlock economic prosperity and boost regional and provincial areas.

We as National are very proud of our record in the area of Treaty settlement. We as National have settled the vast majority of the Treaty claims, and for that I would like to acknowledge the former Treaty Minister Chris Finlayson, who did a huge amount of work on this bill and in previous Treaty settlements. So he’s a man that we’re going to really miss. However, I can’t take away anything from the current Government, who have picked up the baton and run with it. We have to right the past and we have to all get along and be great Kiwis in this great country.

Now, I am on the Māori Affairs Committee, and I have to say it’s a real honour, because it gives me a real insight into a part of the history of New Zealand that—I’ll be honest with you—I did not have a great knowledge of. So being part of the Māori Affairs Committee has allowed me to understand some parts of our history, some really important parts of our history, that I really honestly did not know too much about.

But today we are here right now for the people of Parihaka. So let’s enjoy all this together. Nā reira, e te whānau o Parihaka kua tae mai i runga i te kaupapa, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Therefore, to the whānau of Parihaka who have arrived on this occasion, greetings to one and all.]

MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): Ki a koutou katoa o Parihaka. E ai ki a Matua Ruakere, ko tēnei te mutunga o te tīmatanga nō reira he mihi aroha. Kua kīkī tēnei Whare i ngā uri. E te hapori o Parihaka, nau mai, haere mai. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou. Kia ora mai tātou katoa.

[To those of you representing Parihaka. According to Matua Ruakere, this is the end of the beginning; therefore, I give heartfelt acknowledgments. This House is filled with descendants. To the community of Parihaka, welcome, welcome. Greetings, greetings. Greetings, one and all.]

This morning, at the whakatau, which, can I be honest and say, intimidated every single member of Parliament that was present, it was because we were reminded once again, kanohi kitea, as to the responsibility of shepherding and seeing this final reading of this Te Pire Haeata ki Parihaka / Parihaka Reconciliation Bill through the House today. It was intimidating, as it should be, because this is an historic day. This is again the end of the beginning—the end of the beginning—and it’s been a long beginning to this point. It’s been a long beginning and now we need to live up to the words in this apology from the Crown. We need to live up to the deed that the Crown has a responsibility to uphold, Te Kawenata ō Rongo. We need to truly walk what partnership means, that the vision of Parihaka was to always have a self-determining and self-sufficient community that welcomed everybody, that connected peoples to each other, that held respite for peoples to come and visit, and that connected us back to our land, to our taiao, and to our mātauranga. That is the vision we should have for Te Ao Māori. That is the vision we should have for Aotearoa. That is indeed the vision that we should have for the world. The undermining of the very vision that Te Toko Rua stood for has led us to the big problems that the world is facing today. If only we had listened to Parihaka.

So I’m very, very proud to be able to stand here and support your mahi that never stopped, that continues to happen today. I’m standing here in particular. I have the face of Auntie Aggie right in front of me; her beautiful calm, strong, generous, loving face in front of me, the epitome of everything that is Parihaka. She always welcomed us into that whare, Te Hapū o Rongo. I’ve had the privilege of lying in that whare, in that place, being immersed in the peoples and the manaaki. It’s such a privilege that I will never ever take for granted, even though a couple of times, and I want to acknowledge your uri Jack McDonald, who I am very much bringing with me here to this kōrero today and who sends his aroha that he can’t be here with all of you of Parihaka. Even though Jack and I often used to get growled in that whare for talking too loud, I will always know that I have a home and a bed in that whare.

Of course, that’s where I have to acknowledge Whaea Maata. Whaea Maata, of course, discharged herself because she had to come today—of course, though, of course you have to be here today, Whaea Maata. I would have done exactly the same thing—I would have done exactly the same thing. There is no Parihaka without your purpleness present. Ha, ha! Even better that she has her beautiful mokopuna in lockdown, so to speak, by her side, and that, to me, is everything of Parihaka. It is the transference and the intergenerational connection: our beautiful little mokopuna who amplified Matua Ruakere when he was doing his mihi—it was Rein, I think. He was doing his mihi this morning and was having his kōrero amplified up in the back by the mokopuna, and that is exactly what Parihaka has to do. The generations coming through will amplify the kōrero of our paepae and will amplify the mātauranga that is being passed on, especially in your monthly hui that you have on the 18th and 19th, which, again, is just an example of how you have continued to uphold that vision of wānanga and tautohetohe and waiata and mihi and reo and intergenerational hononga to stay alive.

You’ve always been alive. Te Pire Haeata is simply to strengthen what you have always continued to do in the face of the extreme violence from the Crown. Your generosity, your resilience, your determination, and your courage in the face of that violence over many, many years, over generations in many forms of violence, through all of that you have thrived and you will thrive even more now that the Crown has written accountability to work with you on those visions, on those moemoeā.

Oh, I haven’t even been looking at the clock, jeepers. I, like all of my colleagues—because you can stand here and just pull on the vision, the ngākau, the mahana of what Parihaka means, and I have been privileged to have been a little bit of a part of that. There is no speech preparation that can do that; it’s simply pulling on the essence of what Parihaka represents.

I cannot go past acknowledging further—along with my colleagues—of course, Chris Finlayson, who was really clear about everything that had to be included in the apology from the Crown. He was staunch. He knew that we don’t beat around the bush here. We confront and face what the Crown did. We apologise and we seek an ongoing relationship to correct that harm. And Te Ururoa, who I saw today, who was our leadership in this House to also help bring that to light. The Parihaka Papakāinga Trust and Te Kawe Tūtaki—it was good to see you today, Puna, it was good to see you, Ngahina, even though I haven’t been able to hongi our ihu yet, but I remember you bringing me to remember Te Miringa, whose face is also in front of me.

Puna, Amokura, and Tina, Ruakere, of course, Tariana, and Jim—Ruakere Hond and Jim Bolger photobombed Whaea Maata and me today in the House. It was one of the most high-profile koroua photobombs I have ever had. I will treasure that photo, but the massive efforts of the Parihaka Papakāinga Trust and Te Kawe Tūtaki to bring your people together, because the approach of the Crown has wedged our people apart: whānau to whānau, brother to brother—has wedged our people apart. That has been how they have operated, and so then our leadership has to come in and fix up all that wehenga and fix up all that mess. You’ve done it and you’re still doing that mahi, and that mahi never stops. So I acknowledge the incredible vision and pathways you already have, the plans you have in place, the work, the big mahi you are dreaming of and have already put in place, and it is lifelong mahi to see Parihaka grow and grow and grow and to become a self-determining and self-sufficient community that it once was and will be again.

I am pleased that we made an announcement here of the importance of having history in our schools. So may more of our children learn about the story of Parihaka. Nō reira, he mihi aroha, he mihi hōhonu ki a koutou katoa, te ātaahuatanga o Parihaka. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou. Kia ora mai tātou katoa.

[Furthermore, I give deep and heartfelt acknowledgments to you all, the beauty of Parihaka. Greetings, greetings. Greetings, one and all.]

NICOLA WILLIS (National): Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. I am humbled today to have this opportunity to tautoko what is a very important bill for New Zealand. I’m humbled and I feel very strongly the Hon Chris Finlayson watching over my shoulder. He is a man who, within the National Party caucus, we hold in great esteem. I know that what we do today is something that was important to him and that he is watching closely. I hope that in my speech I am able to do justice to him and his work.

I want to acknowledge the other kaumātua who have made this possible—in particular, Te Ururoa Flavell, Kelvin Davis, all of those leaders from Taranaki iwi who are among us, and all of those who have worked together to make this possible.

We are here today not only to acknowledge injustice, but also to take inspiration from Parihaka, to acknowledge that Parihaka is not just about the past but also about a vision for what our future can be: that legacy of non-violence, that commitment to self-determination, and the potential for an ongoing harmonious relationship between Pākehā and Māori—the opportunity for a fresh start.

I spoke recently on a settlement bill of Ngāti Hinerangi. When I spoke on that bill, I received an email from somebody who said they were disgusted that I would speak of confiscation, that I would speak of injustice, and that I would speak of people being treated wrongly. I reflected on this and I thought to myself: what is it that makes people so ashamed to acknowledge that these things have happened in our history and they are real? We are here today because shameful events have happened in New Zealand’s history. We are here because of the Crown’s failure to uphold the rule of law. It is that that we are all in this House to honour: the rule of law.

It is hard to imagine today the Crown responding to protests by legislating away people’s right to a fair trial, by legalising continuing detention of those who have sought to protest. It is hard to imagine today the Crown retrospectively legislating to make acceptable the destruction of private property, of homes, and of possessions. But that is what happened at Parihaka. So to those who are listening to me speak, saying “Why are you talking about a shameful history and a shameful past?”, that is why—because here in this House, we must honour the rule of law. When we look to a history where the rule of law has not been upheld, we must feel that shame and we must act and we must respond to it, and that is what this bill does. This bill acknowledges that at Parihaka, there was not one law for all; the law was not upheld.

I am mindful of the Hon Christopher Finlayson’s words, who said, “There can be no reconciliation where one party remembers while the other forgets.” So while it is painful to remember, we must in order to move forward—and I am as impatient as anyone—to have a more positive relationship into the future. But I acknowledge, as those of you here today acknowledge, that we will not do that with integrity and with trust unless we acknowledge what has come before. I am mindful, in particular, of the young people, of the children, of those who were wronged at Parihaka, and the hope and promise that they have, but the need for them to be able to acknowledge the history that has come before them.

So we are here to apologise, to agree to a deed of reconciliation, to make a legally binding commitment of the Crown’s commitment to Parihaka, to create a lasting legacy for those who were wronged.

It wasn’t just about the wrongs of the 1800s; it is also about the lasting stain that that has had, because the Crown denied Parihaka the right to develop and sustain on its own terms. We here in the National Party in particular have a real belief in the rights of individuals and communities to sustain themselves and to make their own choices and to develop their own resources. So I feel particularly keenly the lasting impact that the events at Parihaka will have had. We have failed for too long to address those wrongs and to address the resulting grievances—the intergenerational legacy that those wrongs have left; the legacy of shame.

I’ve talked about shame and I have talked about the broken rule of law, but I also want to talk about positive vision, because we must today honour—and other speakers have done so, so eloquently—those prophets Te Whiti o Rongomai and Tohu Kākahi, because theirs is actually a positive vision of the power of peaceful protest, the power of self-determination, and the ability to cooperate for peace. We should remember them in that positive vision.

We should remember that powerful image of people being met by soldiers who were wanting to destroy their homes and take away their leaders, and people meeting those soldiers with songs of peace and gifts of food. That image is a powerful one, and it is one that we should all think of when we think of the possibility of peace and reconciliation across our communities.

I want to pay tribute to the dignity, the discipline, and the courage of those at Parihaka. I want to take from that aspiration for the future that this relationship agreement will be one that is positive.

I said, at the beginning of this speech, that I was humbled to be able to give it. It is important to me that I acknowledge Dame Tariana Turia, the Rt Hon Jim Bolger, the Hon Mahara Okeroa, and all those who have been more deeply invested and involved in making this settlement today possible. I acknowledge their work.

Coming together in this way is not easy; there have been compromises—I am sure—for all involved, but a great result is what we have today. What we have today is an opportunity for the people of Parihaka and the Crown to bring this law to life, to do the work, to do the talk, to continually renew the vision, and to acknowledge the extraordinary generosity of spirit, the humanity of the people of Parihaka, to create for young children and for future generations a better relationship at this place and an acknowledgement of it. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

TEMPORARY SPEAKER (Ian McKelvie): So I understand this will be a split call. Both calls will be taken by Labour speakers.

KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai. Tēnei ahiahi kua rongo mātou ki te kōrero o te pāpā nei, ko Ruakere. Kua rongo a mātou tana kōrero. Kāore he rā whakamutunga, kāore he rā whakamutunga, heoi anō he rā tīmata o he ara hou. He ara hou mō tēnei Pire Haeata ki Parihaka, otirā, mō tēnei hononga mai i te whānau o Parihaka, mō tēnei, mō mātou ngā tāngata o Te Karauna. Nō reira, kua rongo a mātou tō kōrero e pā.

[This afternoon, we have heard what the elder Ruakere has said. We have heard what he said. There is no end date, there is no end date, but this day is a beginning of a new path. A new path for the “Haeata (New Dawn) Bill” in Parihaka, and, furthermore, for this connection to the whānau of Parihaka, for this, for us the people of the Crown. Therefore, we have heard what you have said.]

As the people from Parihaka came into Parliament this afternoon—sometimes on days like today you can feel a sense of celebration; sometimes you can sense a feeling of perhaps an end and perhaps something moving or a transition to something else. But as the people came in today, the feeling that I was left with in that room, in the korero that I heard, is that there are some days when the injustices of our history grip our feet and churn our stomachs, and sometimes you just can’t shake it off. Some days, our colonial past—we remember just how unjust things are, and we see in the people, generations upon generations upon generations, the trauma that has been carried by whānau anō, anō, anō, and I was reminded of that as the people came into this House today.

We heard the kōrero on that pae that today marks another day, another dawn in a relationship that looks at and attempts to address a history that is marked by a State that has acted very poorly not just in 1881, but for generations upon generations there has been a consistent relationship of harm that has occurred between this House, this State, and your people. So I want to acknowledge that.

It is about 10 years ago since I was last at Parihaka. It was to farewell—he was actually a young man at the time, I think he was only 58—a bit of a nanakia, passionate man, loved his people, loved his pā, committed his life to the restoration of the mana of the stories of Te Whiti o Rongomai and Tohu Kākahi, and would never let anybody forget the role that this State played in terms of its treatment of the people of Parihaka. So I remember Te Miringa today and I acknowledge his children that are in this House, Ti’ikura and Ngahina. While I was reflecting on Te Miringa last night, I was actually having a bit of a laugh about some of the things he used to make us do—run around, blimmin putting up posters for his Parihaka Peace Festival, and many other things. But one of the things that got to me actually, I was thinking—he passed away so young and had really committed his life to, I guess, the telling of the stories of the peoples of Parihaka, and what comes when you are put into those positions, or when you hold those positions close to your heart, and who pays the price.

So today, in part, for me marks a reminder of those—and many of you up there—that have dedicated your lives to the restoration of your stories, the reclamation of our collective history, and I acknowledge you all today.

I look upon my reanga [generation] of peers that are in leadership positions, for your iwi now. You can see the weight that starts to sit on those pokohiwi as you continue to fight the Crown or pursue justice for your people. May we all remember to look after each other, because it’s a long, hard road. So in this short split speech, I want to acknowledge just all of you and your stories, and thank you for your continued history and practice of resistance. Tēnā koutou.

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): He mihi tuatahi e ngā mate i waenganui i a tātou. Ko Lee Smith. Ko Tame Taurima. Ko Chiquita Pōhatu. Ko Mariana Seymour mā. E ngā mate o te wā kāinga, o te motu, haere, haere, haere atu rā. He mihi tuatahi te iwi o Parihaka. Ōku rau rangatira mā. E kui mā. E koro mā. Nau mai haramai, hoki mai ki o tātou Whare.

[Firstly, to those who have passed on and are amongst us: Lee Smith, Tommy Taurima, Chiquita Pōhatu, Mariana Seymour, and others. To those who have passed from home, from throughout the country, rest in peace. Firstly, I would like to acknowledge the tribe of Parihaka. My distinguished leaders, welcome, welcome, on your return to our House.]

As the member for Ikaroa-Rāwhiti, I am absolutely honoured to take a small call on this significant bill, Te Pire Haeata ki Parihaka / Parihaka Reconciliation Bill.

Back in the mid-1980s, a young 22-year-old started a role in what was then called the Māori Perspective Unit of the Department of Labour, in the building just behind us, the Charles Fergusson Building. That unit morphed into what was called the Community Employment Group, and it was in that time that I worked in that group that I came across Amokura Panaho and, obviously, the late Hon Parekura Horomia. So apart from being his chauffeur/driver and travelling around the country, one of the first places we visited was Parihaka. So I want to acknowledge Amokura and the introduction that she availed to Parekura and I, with the late Te Miringa “Milton” Hohaia, of the small bit of understanding that we got of Parihaka, a thriving community. In its time, I would call it the metropolis capital of Aotearoa New Zealand. It had its own banks, it had its own flour mills, and it had thriving communities where the people were operating, as we were in that period of time.

I just want to acknowledge the gracefulness, the patience, the giving of the people of Parihaka, as we honour them through the passage of this bill in its third and final reading. Those times that we learnt about Tohu and Te Whiti can only be described as a community of people that were before their time. Their contribution to this nation, the debate, and the processes that they have maintained and upheld, I want to acknowledge in my small contribution this afternoon, and no better than in the legacy statement.

There are two parts that I expressly want to acknowledge, and one is phase 1 in the legacy statement in Schedule 2, which talks about the period between 1813 and 1840 called the upheaval—the violent upheaval from 1813 to 1840—and to recognise that a lot of our iwi around the motu have mamae that happened before the Treaty of Waitangi was signed. There is no mechanism in which we can express the hurt that many of us suffered, and so I want to acknowledge the foresight, the intelligence, and the strategy behind this bill and the people of Parihaka to bring those issues that we are acknowledging through this legislation today. So I want to acknowledge phase 1—the upheaval.

We all have a story in iwi around the country. In my iwi of Rongowhakaata, when a certain ship came in 1769, we called it the collision. So we’re telling our story that wasn’t dissimilar to yours of the upheaval—the violent upheaval. We’re calling it a collision because, as we know, it wasn’t a good exchange, and we need a place in which we acknowledge that. So I want to acknowledge, in this bill, phase 1—the upheaval.

For the other parts, I don’t have time in my one minute left in this contribution to the debate, but I too want to acknowledge phase 9—the aspirations of Parihaka. This is a beautiful piece of work, and I wish that I had the opportunity to read the Māori component of the legacy statement, because the Reo is so beautiful, and I know we’ve got Reo experts up there. I want to acknowledge you for the beautiful way the Reo has been used in the legacy statement, and the English translation doesn’t do it justice. But in terms of phase 9—the aspirations of Parihaka—it’s a beautiful message to leave to our future generations. So all those of Parihaka descent to all the kuras around Parihaka—Taranaki whānui—they should be made to read the legacy statement as part of their curriculum. That’s my challenge.

I honour you today. I salute you. Tēnā koutou katoa.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister of Employment): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. Koutou, Parihaka, i tae mai nei i tēnei wā. I whakarangatira i a mātou, tēnei te mihi ki a koutou.

Ki a koe, Te Ururoa, ngā mihi ki a koe e hoa. Kua rongo mātou te kōrero e pā ana kia Chris Finlayson, tika me tuku mihi ki a ia, engari, mōhio mātou, nāu i tīmata tēnei kaupapa. Mōhio mātou i kōkiri i tēnei kaupapa. Tēnei te mihi ki a koe. Mōhio mātou kei te tino hōhā kia me te kāhui Māori, engari, kua oti tērā kaupapa. Kua oti tērā kaupapa. Kua rongo mātou te kōrero o tō taokete, kua tae ki te wā ki te whakakotahi mō te kaupapa. E tika ana i tēnei wā ki te whakanui i tēnei kaupapa. E tika kia mihi ki a koe e hoa.

Koutou katoa kua tae mai nei—ngā rangatira—ngā mihi ki a koutou. Ki a koe taku hoa, whanaunga, Mahara, ngā mihi e hoa. Maumara tō kōrero i ngā wā o mua e pā ana ki tēnei kaupapa. I maumahara. Tika me mihi ki a koe hoki. Ngā mihi, koutou katoa. Tēnā koutou, tēnā anō tātou katoa.

[You, Parihaka, who have arrived on this day. You have honoured us, thank you.

To you, Te Ururoa, greetings, my friend. We have heard the words of acknowledgment for Chris Finlayson, and that is only right, but we all know that it was you who started this. We all know it was you who pushed for this. I would like to acknowledge you. We all know that there was frustration with the Māori group; however, that matter is closed. That matter is closed. We have heard the words of your in-law that the time has come to unite for the cause. It is only right to celebrate this occasion. It is only right to acknowledge you, my friend.

All of you who have made it here today—the leaders—thank you to you all. To my friend, my relation, Mahara, thank you, my friend. Remember your words from the past regarding this matter. There was remembrance. It is right to acknowledge you, too. Thank you, each and every one of you. Thank you, one and all.]

I was listening to Ruakere Hond’s kaikōrero this morning, and one of the highlights of this kaupapa, as some of our manuhiri will know, is our pōwhiri and our kōrero in the morning. I was listening to him and our other speakers who talked about the mamae—the hurt—who talked about what Parihaka went through, and who then talked about forgiveness and moving on, and I was thinking what a wonderful people we are and how forgiving we are, because my uncle Syd Jackson, who was probably the most well-known Māori activist in the country for a while—Hone Harawira might dispute that, as he disputes many things—and who married into Taranaki, as the whanaunga over here know, always said that the fear of Pākehā New Zealand was that we would treat them how they treated us. When he talked about justice, there was always this fear that Māori would extract utu, and, of course, we don’t, because we all follow the principles of Parihaka.

So that’s why I enjoyed our whai kaikōrero this morning so much. I mihi to all our kaikōrero this morning. It was a real highlight for us to listen to that kōrero.

You know, there’s been some great kōrero this morning, but when I think of Parihaka, I do think of the huge contributors who have come through the years. I was thinking about Milton Hohaia, who used to talk to me about the peace concerts, and I always used to say to him, “You’re not that peaceful a bloke, you know.” We used to have a lot of laughs—a lot of laughs—and I mean that in a fair way. He was a justice fellow—you know, justice was his kaupapa, and he advocated the kaupapa all the time. We used to have laughs aplenty, and he was glad to be peaceful at times, absolutely—particularly when the peace conferences came around. But what an advocate for Parihaka.

So when I think of Parihaka, I think of people like him and the people who carry the message of Parihaka every day, everywhere. I talked about Te Ururoa Flavell, but he married into a whānau that carried the kaupapa, every day. His brother-in-law Ruakere; his wife, Erana; his sister-in-law Aroaro—what a whānau. Ngā mihi ki a koutou.

Of course, I didn’t even mention my mate Howie, who could barely get a word in there—Howie Tamati. Good to see you, brother. Good to see you—and he’s a Parihaka man too, you know. Oh, he’s a bit conflicted. It goes both ways, eh?

But what a whānau who carry the kaupapa of Parihaka. I mihi to you, because that’s how the kaupapa is kept alive every day, everywhere, in the Wellingtons, in the Aucklands, and in the parliaments. Mahara Okeroa was telling me about it when he and I came to Parliament in 1999. He kept reminding me “You’re Taranaki, Mr Ngāti Porou.” “You’re Taranaki, Mr Batley.”, he would say. “Don’t forget your taha Taranaki side.” Mahara, never forget, because you and these others who I am mentioning—Te Ururoa, his whānau—are so important in keeping this spirit alive.

The spirit of Parihaka lives through our people who go into the different areas. Amokura Panoho. Amokura drives me crazy—married into my whānau. Her first cousin married my sister. I’ve known her since I was 16, sadly, and I never ever stopped hearing about the Māori Party, and I’m still listening to the Māori Party. Even today, Amokura was talking about it. But she carries the message of Parihaka everywhere she goes—mana wāhine. Mana wāhine.

My old mate Te Kauhoe Wano and Whare Wano—very quiet today, Whare. Clearly, you must be on a bad behaviour bond or something—it’s not often they shut you right up! But Whare’s here. Every time I look at him, I get sad. I get sad because I see Te Kauhoe. I see Te Kauhoe and it breaks my heart.

I’ve talked about Te Kauhoe in previous speeches, and these two have made, again—I mean, for a little place, Parihaka has made an impression, hasn’t it? You’ve got the Wanos and their TV show, and of course their brother, who I am so proud of, doing the business in terms of Māori health. We’ve got to get a few more strategies going there. Line them up with Peeni Henare, our man who is advocating Māori health. He knows the type of work they’re doing in Taranaki—terrific work in terms of what he’s doing and what the whānau has done. So mihi nui ki a koe, Whare.

This is how the Parihaka story lives on. What a story. I don’t think any small place in New Zealand has had such strong advocates around the country. You know, I can never escape them. Even at Waatea: my management? Parihaka. Kura O’Donnell’s up there in the gallery. You know, she walks around the station chanting Parihaka’s waiata. Again, another advocate for the kaupapa—another advocate for a kaupapa, and she even hitched her husband, Bernie O’Donnell, on to it. I was trying to work out if Bernie was from Parihaka too, but he gave me some long-winded speech. There was some whakapapa thing. But again, these advocates are everywhere—and who can, of course, ever forget Tariana Turia? I mean, it’s just never ending. It’s never ending.

So for me, if you ever wanted a communications person, get someone from Parihaka—get someone from Parihaka. But I want to say today, you know, these types of bills, as Te Ururoa Flavell will acknowledge, are probably the most satisfying bills—satisfying bills, eh, Te Ururoa?—that you could have when you come to Parliament. There is a kotahitanga about it, and it brings us together in terms of a Parliament.

So, you know, here we are today, continually acknowledging Chris Finlayson, for goodness’ sake, from the National Party. It doesn’t matter on this kaupapa, because he’s been such a strong advocate. Andrew Little, of course, who I’m just looking at—thanks very much, Andrew, for your mahi. I know it’s hard in the north particularly, but the Parihaka kaupapa—Peeni Henare’s relations are loving every minute of it. But these are the kaupapa that count. So as I said in my mihi to Te Ururoa—we know how much mahi he did in organising this, in advocating this. We also know about what’s happened in the past in terms of campaigns, but that’s all gone now—that’s all gone now. We are fixed on this issue. We are fixed on this kaupapa. It’s a kaupapa that is about tikanga Māori. It’s a kaupapa that’s about tūturu Māori. It’s a kaupapa of kotahitanga, and it’s great, Te Ururoa, that you brought it to Parliament, that you’ve advocated it, and here we are today celebrating it. I think that’s a victory for all.

Tēnei te mihi ki a koutou, tātou katoa. Tēnā koutou. Tēnā koutou. Tēnā anō tātou katoa.

[This is my acknowledgment to you all, to all of us. Thank you. Thank you, one and all.]

JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): E ngā mana, e ngā reo, e ngā hau e whā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. I think we’ve heard Willie Jackson at his finest in this House, and it’s normally not a difficult thing to speak after a member of the opposite party, but I thought his kōrero was outstanding, particularly as he talked about the kaupapa of Parihaka and everything that it stands for; everything that it is to us.

I’d like to acknowledge people here today, the people of Parihaka, of course, and the people of Taranaki who are also here in wonderful support. I’d like to acknowledge the Rt Hon Sir Jim Bolger and the Hon Te Ururoa Flavell here in the House. I’m very keen to acknowledge the Hon Mahara Okeroa. I don’t think many people understand, but this man had a huge amount of activity and an important part to play in why we are here today.

I was with the Hon Christopher Finlayson when he heard the news that the Taranaki iwi negotiation had come to a halt until the Crown acknowledged Parihaka. If Mahara hadn’t done that, with the support of Jamie Tuuta and, no doubt, their negotiation team and the good people of Taranaki iwi, we may not be here today. We may have just moved forward, as the machinery of Government can do, but because of this man, we are here today and we have stopped to change history.

When I read the first opening remarks in the apology that the Crown have put into legislation, we have got to understand that the House of Parliament—New Zealand Parliament—legislated against the people of Parihaka, decades and decades and decades ago. It did not work to help; it worked to harm. So what we see today is the House of Parliament, the people of New Zealand represented by members of Parliament here, changing history. It’s ensuring that this place that stands by the rule of law and by the goodness of the rule of law is now helping, supporting, wanting to see healing, wanting to see unity and reconciliation come into our nation.

Of course, the place of Parihaka—so important in New Zealand’s history—in 1866, was founded by those two wonderful Māori statesmen and leaders, Te Whiti o Rongomai and Tohu Kākahi, who instead of doing unto others before they do to you were doing unto others as we would have them do to us. They were men of goodness, men of faith, men of vision, and men who were prepared to stand and support their people and say no to the evil that was before them, but they did it in such a way as to continue to support the kaupapa of peace.

I think, as other people have said in this House, what an incredible and amazing moment in history. Dreadful as it was, it enabled the very spirit of what Parihaka is to emerge and to be kindled—and, as my colleague Willie Jackson has said, through all the years, it has continued to have life and breath and wairua to it. I think that this is the reason why this man and others said—and I honour the people of Taranaki, the Taranaki iwi, who were prepared to put their settlement on hold until this reconciliation took place, because this is pivotal. This is as powerful as the Treaty of Waitangi, because this is something that’s deep, that captures the very mana—I struggle to find words for how important this is—but here we are today.

I think that for those who are in the House today, for those who have spoken today, you cannot find a moment as a member of Parliament where you are honoured to be in this moment of history any more than today.

I want to also acknowledge the Hon Kelvin Davis, and the Hon Andrew Little, for his work he is doing. I want to honour and acknowledge the Hon Chris Finlayson for, I believe, just the share determination to put that which is right. I think it is important for New Zealand. It’s important for the wellbeing—for the fabric of our society. I want to acknowledge Maata, for your wonderful support and for you being here today, and all the leaders who are here today, and the leaders of Taranaki. I want to acknowledge the two new council members of New Plymouth District Council who have come down in the bus today, because they want to continue to support our wonderful community. I want to acknowledge Peter and Howie and Te Ururoa, of course, Whare, and Ruakere, for your amazing leadership that you continue to bring to Taranaki. Without you, without what you do, without the hard work and the willingness to step up and push back against attitudes, we wouldn’t have a region, I think, that is as good and beautiful and wonderful as it is. I think that what we are seeing is the very finest of people of Taranaki here today. So thank you very much for all that you have done.

And, Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity I have to be able to stand and support this wonderful, wonderful, piece of legislation that has undone the injuries of the past. My hope and my prayer is that we as a wider Taranaki community continue to support the amazing work of Parihaka—that we would see that incredible kaupapa, that incredible spirit, emerge and bless our region and bless our land. Thank you.

ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): Korōria, hareruria ki a koe, Ihowā o ngā mano. Tuā-uriuri, Whaioio, kī tonu te rangi me te whenua i te nui o tōna korōria. Whakapainga tōna ingoa i te āo, i te pō, i ngā wā katoa.

Whakaūngia ngā kupu o ngā mema Pāremata. Kei roto i tēnei Whare, tēnei wā, ki roto i ngā ngākau o te hunga kua tae mai mai i Parihaka i tēnei wā, nō reira, mā te māngai hei tautoko mai, aianei, ake nei, āe.

[Glory and hallelujah to you, Jesus, Lord of the thousands. To the masses and to the multitudes in heaven and earth, glory be to his name. Give thanks to his name day and night and at all times.

Embed the words of the members of Parliament. In this House, at this time, and in the hearts of those who have travelled here from Parihaka today, therefore, may the spirit protect us, now and always; now and forever, amen.]

I thought I’d start off my contribution with a whakamoemiti, because I always get a bit worried when my colleague the Hon Willie Jackson speaks on bills from my electorate—not the least because I often get emails about some of the things he says within his contributions. I just want to say: if he’s offended anyone today, please feel free to send him the email!

I want to join together with every member in the House that has acknowledged people who have been involved in Te Pire Haeata ki Parihaka—every single one of them. I’m not going to rename them. I want to but join together, as the final speaker in this debate, and just say that across this entire House, it is a privilege to speak on this, and we acknowledge every contribution that has been made to make this day possible. I can’t go beyond the contributions that have been made today. Being the last speaker in this debate, everything has really been said, but I do want to highlight a couple of things.

A number of people have quoted Ruakere Hond and his contribution to the pōwhiri this morning. I think one of the things he said was, “Ko tēnei te tīmatanga o te Aranga.” [This is the beginning of Easter.] I want to really concentrate my contribution around what that means to me and, in particular, link it with the deed of reconciliation—the Kawenata ō Rongo. In my first reading contribution, I did speak about one of the principles that is in that document, and I want to highlight one now as well. That principle is the principle of oranga tonutanga—really speaking about the future. In the description, it talks about “The vision and understanding inherent within this principled practice will extend … over … generations.”

I want that to be my contribution to this debate, because this is not about today; this is really about the future. We’ve heard contributions from the likes of Marama Davidson and others who really talked about historical and intergenerational trauma—the things that happened that are carried on generation to generation. We have to do that. We can’t forget that that happened. But I love that within this deed of reconciliation, Kawenata ō Rongo, it talks about taking that principled view over a longer period of time into the future, and that will be carried by the rangatahi now, tamariki, mokopuna, and future generations. I love the fact that there’s absolute certainty that that will happen, because you would not have otherwise put it in this document. That tells me that there’s a huge hope for the wellbeing of the future.

I think it’s incumbent upon this House to make certain that the apology is real, that it never happens again, and that this House does not pass laws which affect badly the people of Parihaka, because, if we do, it will become meaningless. So it’s really important that this House lives up to the words of this debate. That’s why I said, “Whakaūngia ngā kupu tika ki roto i ngā ngākau.” [Make the words go straight to the heart.] I want that to be the legacy of this debate: to join with the legacy of Parihaka to make certain that the future wellbeing of all of the generations of those connected to Parihaka are secure.

I don’t want to talk too long, actually. I think the waiting for this day to come has been long enough, and I think, in the last few moments, I just want to reiterate that one message—that the future of the people in Parihaka is secured and that this House won’t do anything that impacts on the people of Parihaka, and, better still, that the Government of today, and future Governments, work positively with the whānau of Parihaka so that their aspirations can be achieved.

Nō reira, kāore e roa tēnei tū. Otirā, e tika ana kia tuku mihi atu anō ki te tokomaha o rātou mā kua tae mai ki tēnei Whare Pāremata. Nō reira, huri rauna Te Whare nei, tēnā rā tātou i runga i te tukunga iho o rātou mā, i te wāhi ngaro, tēnā rā tātou katoa.

[Therefore, I will not continue for much longer. It is only right to acknowledge the many of you who have made it to Parliament. Therefore, to everyone in this House, and with the divine protection of those who have passed on, thank you, one and all.]

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Members, before I put the final vote on the Parihaka Reconciliation Bill, I just want to advise everyone that, immediately following the vote, permission has been given for both a waiata and drumming.

Bill read a third time.

Waiata

Bills

Terrorism Suppression (Control Orders) Bill

First Reading

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): I move, That the Terrorism Suppression (Control Orders) Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee to consider the bill, and at the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 3 December 2019, and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting, except during oral questions, during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 191, 193, and 194(1)(b) and (c).

The Terrorism Suppression (Control Orders) Bill addresses what is increasingly a pressing issue, an impending issue, and a very important issue, and I wanted to give a little bit of background about where we’ve got to and why we’ve got to this point today. This bill follows a major review commissioned by this Government into our Terrorism Suppression Act. That Act will be known to some members of this House. It was found in 2008, as a result of events, to be full of gaps and to be largely unworkable. That was the commentary at the time, including by the police and, as I recall, the then Commissioner of Police, as well as the Solicitor-General.

In spite of that, over the following 10 years, nothing really happened to it, but this Government, from September last year, commenced a review of that legislation. It is the primary piece of legislation dealing with terrorism in this country, and we have to get it right.

From the outset of the review, one of the issues that needed to be considered was the question of whether we have the means to deal with people who pose a risk to the community but don’t come under our criminal justice system, particularly where they have committed a terrorist act, and especially where that is offshore. That is, to abbreviate that issue, the issue of the returning foreign terrorist fighter. So the possibility of returning foreign terrorist fighters has been around for a while. Now, that issue has sharpened up in the middle of this year, as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria caliphate collapsed following the clearance of the Middle Euphrates River Valley in Syria, and also following comments by a New Zealand passport holder, a New Zealand citizen, who had publicly made calls about his impending return to New Zealand and that he was seeking to return to New Zealand. That was, of course, Mark Taylor, otherwise known as Mohammad Daniel.

I say that because there is an actual risk that we are dealing with, and there are some members in this House who get the intelligence risk assessments. One of those is the Leader of the Opposition, so he is fully aware of the risk that New Zealand is facing because of the rapidly changing situation in Syria at the moment.

At the point of the collapse of the caliphate, the Government made the decision that we would put in place as quickly as we could a control orders regime to deal with the possibility of those in that conflict zone with the rights to turn to New Zealand coming back to New Zealand and posing a potential risk to the community. It was intended then, as it is now, to keep it narrowly focused, because this is, by and large, an interim measure pending the completion of the full review of the Terrorism Suppression Act. I might say that, at that time, the National Party was briefed on the issue on exactly those points—this was coming, it would be narrowly focused, and largely interim in nature.

I might say also that as a result of the consultation within Government, and the three parties that make up Government, the Green Party had said that they would not support such measures. Nevertheless, the legislation was developed and there was consultation throughout that, and the Green Party continued to assert their view that they would not support it. Nevertheless, it was endorsed by Government, the bill in its complete form was provided to the National Party, the National Party had it for a week, and the National Party then said, a week later, apparently following a caucus meeting, that they would support the bill to the first reading—and, in fact, then concluded their message by saying, “We look forward to the announcement as to timing.” No conditions were attached to that support. That is unremarkable; that’s the sort of thing that the Labour Party at least did when it was in Opposition dealing with national security legislation. Because national security is important, you support it, and if there are issues with it, you deal with it through the process that you then have.

I want to come back to subsequent events a little later in my comments. I want to very quickly summarise what the bill does. The bill allows the police to make an application to the High Court for a control order in relation to somebody largely assessed as having committed terrorist acts overseas.

There are some conditions around that. The terrorist acts have to be terrorist acts that accord with the New Zealand definition of that term; so it’s not what another jurisdiction says. Now, if a judge is satisfied that a person has committed terrorist acts overseas, then the judge may make an order imposing appropriate and proportionate controls on that person. That can include electronic monitoring, that could include a requirement to reside at a specific address, that could include reporting to the police, and there are a number of others as well. There’s a fair amount of flexibility. You want the judge to make a judgment—to make the order.

The order is then served on the person. If they are across the border, if they are already in the country, they have an option about whether their application is made on notice or without notice. In any event, the person who is the subject of the order—there is a requirement: they are advised that they can review the order and they are entitled to legal aid in order to do so. An order cannot last for more than two years, but there is a right to renew the order two more times so that a control order can be in place for up to six years.

There has been engagement over the bill in recent days, and following the National Party confirming in writing that they would support the bill to first reading without at that time communicating any conditions to it, they a few hours later then announced they wanted some changes to the bill. Some of those I would describe as unnecessarily Draconian. They later communicated that if they didn’t get changes to the bill, they might vote against the bill in the first reading. Later, they said in response to a question from a journalist that they probably would support the bill. And then today, they have announced that they won’t support the bill.

I can tell the House that I met with the Leader of the Opposition on Monday evening. We went through the issues that the National Party had. Following that meeting and following consideration of the representations made at that meeting, my office got back to the office of the Leader of the Opposition and listed four things that I thought the Government could agree to that would improve the bill. A short time later, the Leader of the Opposition’s office came back and said they wanted more things.

I have to say that following the events of last week, I engaged in discussions with the Green Party. They, last Friday, indicated that they were keen to discuss the bill and the issues they had with it and whether or not they might find the basis on which to agree to it. Now, the Green Party, as I said, was involved in consultation with the bill throughout the usual Government processes, and during that time had made no counter-proposal, but I dealt with some proposals from the Green Party over the weekend. So that is where we are, and it is unfortunate that there has been what I think is, frankly, blatant party politicking in relation to this issue—and that is even after efforts to reach agreement.

So I conclude my comments on the introduction of this bill with a message to all parties in this Parliament that this is an issue of national security. There is the possibility of at least one person who poses a serious risk to the community in this country returning in the immediate future, and that risk is real and it is rising every day. It is the first duty of every Government to ensure the safety of its people, and often a judgment has to be made about the level of the threat that is posed and therefore the measures that are provided to deal with it. Right now, New Zealand has people—citizens in a conflict zone—who voluntarily went there to engage in or to support an extremist, violent movement. Those people are entitled to return to New Zealand and they could do so at any time. This is real. As a Minister, I don’t have a choice about whether I weigh up these facts and make a judgment and whether I respond to the risks and the threats. I have done so.

The responsibility of being in Government means being responsible and exercising the burdens and powers of Government. The Greens are part of the Government and they have that responsibility. To the National Party, they wish to be in Government one day; they must exercise that responsibility. But as another large party in Parliament, I say it is their duty to show that responsibility at all times. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Terrorism is a real and a significant threat. It is a threat in New Zealand as it is a threat around the world. And I have to reflect that, for years and years, when this side of the House was in Government, and I sat on the national security committee and I sat on the Intelligence and Security Committee, and we brought piece of legislation after piece of legislation to this House to protect the citizens of New Zealand, what we heard from many of the people now in Government was a barrage of the reasons why they wouldn’t support us, because they wanted to pander to this naive and, frankly, dangerous view that somehow these things don’t happen here.

It is utterly ridiculous and misguided to suggest that New Zealand doesn’t face exactly the same threats that our near neighbours and our allies and countries around the world face. That sort of head-in-the-sand approach is wrong and it is dangerous, and yet that is what we have heard far too often from many of the members who now sit in Government. The reality is terrorism can happen in New Zealand, it has happened in New Zealand, and it’s highly likely it will happen again. It is utterly naive to think that New Zealand doesn’t have to do everything it can to protect our citizens against those known and understood threats.

The one thing I agree with the Minister of Justice on is when he said that the first and most important duty of a Government is to act to protect its citizens. None of us want to look back after another tragedy and point to this day and this bill and wish that this Government had done more to protect the people of New Zealand. And I fear that that is what is going to happen. Nobody can understand and predict every single eventuality; we know that. But what we are talking about in this legislation is the failure of this Government to act on known threats and take clear, obvious, well-applied international protocols to make sure New Zealand is no less protected than countries like Australia and Canada and the UK. We’re not asking the Government to go further. We’re not asking the Government to have a crystal ball. We’re just saying accept and understand that New Zealand faces the same risks, and step up to the plate and do the minimum you need to do to keep New Zealanders safe. We are not going to sit back quietly while this Government puts its political agenda, its egos, and its coalition strategising ahead of the needs of New Zealanders. It is inadequate, it is unacceptable, and National is not going to be a part of it.

Now, I have to address some of what the Minister said in his comments, because he was quite wrong in how he characterised National’s approach to this legislation. He’s quite right—and we put out a press release, we didn’t hide it—that we wanted to vote for this bill at first reading. We wanted to vote for the bill, send it to select committee, and then work constructively on the ways that we thought it needed to be improved, because we are a responsible Opposition. We will always, in Government or Opposition, prioritise our national security. That was our desire, but the Minister made it abundantly clear he had zero interest in working with the National Party. He had zero interest in making any of the changes or even discussing those changes at select committee. So when Andrew Little ruled out any openness for the select committee to even look at the changes that we were proposing, it was clear to us this was a Minister who was putting politics and his ego ahead of this legislation. That is the truth of the matter, and now the Minister wants to rewrite history.

You can tell this is more about politics for Andrew Little than people because of how much of that speech he just spent talking about Simon Bridges and the National Party—hardly any commentary at all about the real threats to New Zealand and the deficiencies in this bill. It was all about the politics, all about covering his backside, all about his ego. This is the truth: the truth is he has weakened this legislation to pander to the Greens to get his votes, because his ego wouldn’t let him sit down and work constructively with the biggest, the most popular political party in New Zealand. Mr Little, this side of the House represents the biggest single group of votes any party in this Parliament got. We represent a big chunk of New Zealand, and that Minister refused to deal with us. He didn’t want to build a consensus, bipartisan, strong solution; he wanted to play politics, and that is shameful. It is an utterly shameful abdication of his responsibility to keep New Zealanders safe. Andrew Little said he couldn’t be bothered working with National because he didn’t want to, in his words, and I quote, “keep dicking around”. Well, actually, Mr Little, building a consensus on national security, working with whoever you need to work with to make New Zealanders safer isn’t dicking around; it is doing your job and you have failed to do it.

We should have a bill that is far stronger than this. We should have, by the way, enough time at select committee to look at the deficiencies in the bill. And we’ve just heard from the Minister that not only did he have zero interest in working with National constructively on any weaknesses in the bill, he is now going to ram it through select committee in such a short time frame that there is almost zero opportunity for anybody to point out deficiencies in the bill. The report back of 3 December—we’ve just heard—is an unreasonable, unwarranted failure of this Government to be open to any criticism, any feedback, or any constructive input from anybody. That’s because this Government thinks they know best. They don’t want to listen to anyone else, because no one else gets it like they do. That is wrong; that is bull-headed.

Let me just touch on a couple of the very important issues that National knows are missing from this bill that we wanted to work with the Government on, and I know others of my colleagues will continue to take this up. This is not, from our side, idle opposition. We put out a press release very clearly publicly stating: here are the areas where the bill is deficient; this is why this bill fails to keep New Zealanders safe against a very real, imminent threat to New Zealand. Everybody now knows in New Zealand that we have New Zealanders who have been seriously radicalised and have been acting in that radicalised ideology for decades. Those people present a very clear risk to New Zealand, but this bill seems to suggest that someone who has been radicalised by extremist ideology will come back to New Zealand, and, magically, after six years, have forgotten all of that and be back to being a Norman Rockwell painting of a picket fence and 2.5 kids and a dog. That is idiotic. It is idiotic to suggest that, after six years, there will no longer be any need for oversight of someone who has been a radicalised terrorist for years and years and years.

Now, there’s no civil liberties issue at play here. If you read the legislation in clause 25(3), it makes it very clear that the control orders are in place for two years and they can be renewed twice. At each step, the courts, who are not known as radical hardliners, I’d have to say, have to satisfy themselves that that’s appropriate. So every two years, the courts will check: is this still appropriate in these circumstances? So what then is the harm, Mr Little, in allowing the courts the ability to keep them in place longer, if that’s what’s needed? It’s not a blanket ban. It’s not a blanket imposition on these terrorists; it’s saying let’s give ourselves the power to act as we needed to act. But no, no, no—Mr Little knows better. He says six years is all we’d ever need. Well, the day one of these terrorists acts in a way that hurts New Zealanders after six years and two months, Mr Little is going to need to look himself in the mirror.

Another of the serious flaws in the bill is the suggestion that somehow radicalisation only applies to people over 18. And, again, why is this Government so arrogant to assume that every other country that we would look to has this wrong, and that in New Zealand radicalisation will only apply to people over 18? We know, and Mr Little knows, radicalisation applies to people over 14. We know that young people will be targeted for radicalisation. It happens in Australia, it happens in New Zealand, it happens around the world, and yet Mr Little apparently knows more than all of those people and doesn’t even want to discuss the potential need to have control orders in place for those in their late teens. Now, those are very carefully controlled—as I say, the courts have oversight, they’re a much shorter duration. Mr Little won’t even discuss—not only with National but, now we hear, through any sort of proper select committee process—the ability to even question what sort of controls we might need over those who are 16, 17. These people are being radicalised, they do present a threat, and I want to put the rights to keep New Zealanders safe ahead of Mr Little’s view that he knows best. The legislation at the moment has this slap-on-the-wrist penalty for breaching a control order of a couple of thousand dollars’ fine—couple of thousand dollars’ fine—potentially, maybe, up to a year in jail. It is inadequate. At the very least, it should be a five-year penalty.

Now, look, we don’t need to sit here and argue whether our ideas are going to be right, but at least we would have had the discussion.

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m pleased to take a call on the Terrorism Suppression (Control Orders) Bill. And I can just honestly say: that last contribution was actually clasping at straws. For 10 years when they were in Government—I actually was hoping that that member that just resumed her seat would actually share with this House the National terrorism suppression plan that they were undertaking and that they had 10 years to actually enact, but I didn’t hear that. The member also talked about a press release, well, unfortunately—I might be one of the few—I don’t really read National Party press releases. Again, I was hoping that member would indicate the concerns that she would have to the whole House; all I got was the six years threshold in clauses 24 and 25. Honestly? And I heard the Minister say that they wanted a counteroffer and one didn’t come forth, so I listen intensely to the Opposition around why they’re opposing the bill.

But I’m going to leave it there, because this bill that I’m standing to support—and proud of this Government—is part of a wider suite of the terrorism suppression reforms that the Minister outlined. This one here is giving the police some tools, extra tools, to keep New Zealanders safe.

It is targeting a small amount of people who have been radicalised and returned back into this nation, and there are steps in which the control orders are actually given, i.e., those that are concerned will approach your High Court to get those orders. When I talk about the High Court, it’s my honour to acknowledge a good local lad of Ngāti Konohi, Ngati Porou, and Ngāi Tahu in his recent appointment as the Chief Judge of the District Court, the honourable Heemi Taumaunu. I know that with this piece of legislation, his guidance will ensure that it’s applied fairly and that those two tests are actually upheld, as it actually indicates in this bill.

But I do hope the other members of the Opposition actually, in their contribution on this bill, of what’s wrong with it, get into the more nitty-gritty around the areas, rather than what we just had from that initial speaker, Amy Adams, who waxed lyrical about the shortcomings of the bill but I didn’t actually hear them. It didn’t meet the fact that in September 2017, New Zealanders voted for change—New Zealanders voted for change—and so here we are. We are enacting legislation that keeps New Zealanders, the public, safe when it comes to individuals returning back to our nation. This is what this bill is intending to do, the Terrorism Suppression (Control Orders) Bill. It’s a fine piece of bill, it’s laid out there, and, obviously, it’s going to go off to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee to be properly scrutinised. If that lot were constructive, they would actually put on the table the concerns of this bill by voting for it.

But they’ve declared their hands; they’re not going to have a bar of it. That’s the whole issue here—who is playing politics? This is what we come to Parliament for, to design legislation that’s fit for purpose. We have a piece of legislation that the Minister of Justice has introduced. He’s outlined the purpose of it, why it’s there. It’s to protect the New Zealand public, to give the police those extra tools. The threshold has to be a two-step before the High Court judge will give it, but also the monitoring of it, because, really, we want people to rehabilitate. But it’s not a wet bus ticket, an allegation that that member before me made assertions to around getting people out of it, because it actually clearly states in the bill, under clause 24, “Duration”, the processes in which we make sure we monitor those particular individuals that we are concerned with. It also ensures that if they do rehabilitate—and everyone, every New Zealander, has the right to rehabilitation—there is a process for them to do that.

It is a simple bill, like the Minister said. It’s part of an ongoing suite of reforms in the terrorism suppression safeguards that this Government is committed to. It’s a piece of legislation that’s simple to follow through. I’m looking forward to it going off to the foreign affairs select committee. I also want to encourage people to submit, to raise their issues, and to come up with other ideas if they want to strengthen this particular bill. That’s the process of the select committee, and I look forward to it taking its journey there and the report back to this House so we can progress this bill. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Oh, thank you, Madam Speaker. I think we must have a very different definition of some of the words that have been used in this debate, and I want to start with things like “consultation” and “bipartisanship” and “proper scrutiny”, as the previous speaker, Meka Whaitiri, said, and now “organisation”, because we’ve just heard that the members of the Government benches who are speaking on this bill are members of the Justice Committee and yet the bill is going to be referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee. So, organisationally, we are in something of disarray.

But let’s start with bipartisanship. The Minister of Justice is right: there has been a long period of bipartisanship in security issues, and that’s as it should be, but that has taken a significant hit this week by the Minister’s tin-eared belligerence over any sort of compromise or amendment to the bill. I’ll go through the time line—before I get into the substance of the bill, I want to go through the time line as I understand it. If the Minister doesn’t think I’ve got it right, I’m sure he will interject.

But I do know that he met with Mr Mitchell, the Opposition justice spokesperson, in July. At that time, the risk was becoming known, and the Minister had signalled his intention to introduce legislation. In principle, the Opposition justice spokesperson said, “Yes, of course we would support that sort of legislation.”, but as far as I can tell, there was no consultation between July and October in terms of the substance of the legislation that was intended to be introduced—no interjection there; it can’t have been incorrect. Even when the bill was introduced, the National Party, at short notice—there’s no question that we said we would support the bill at first reading; the press release said as much: “National will support terrorism legislation.” That was our hope then; it’s actually still our hope, if the Minister would take his tin ears off.

The following day, the Leader of the Opposition sent another press release: yes, it supports, it wants to act in good faith, but it needs to sit down with the Government to talk through the details and the proposed amendments that the National Party had. At that point, while we chose not to use this as leverage, we were aware that the Government did need the National Party’s support. We wanted to provide it. Then came the famous Monday meeting, and that’s where there is a very different perception of what went on between the Leader of the Opposition and the Minister of Justice. But the Minister has not been able to point to a single one of the seven proposed amendments that he could agree to, and the reason is quite simple: because he won’t. His idea of bipartisanship and cooperation is “We’ve got a bill at first reading which is the gold standard, does not need amendment, and so the National Party’s suggested changes are completely unnecessary.”

Why would we feel put upon alone on that? He’s just shown the same contempt and disdain for the whole select committee process. He’s sending it, firstly, not to the Justice Committee, despite being the Minister of Justice, and he’s going to give the whole country days, probably, to respond and weeks to submit, and then for officials to report back to this House through the select committee by 3 December. It is outrageous. So we don’t feel put upon alone; the Minister has shown contempt for the whole country.

He still hasn’t given me one—not one—suggested change that he could live with, and he says, in reply to my colleague Amy Adams’ speech, “How many? How many?” The answer, Minister, is we don’t know how many. How old? The answer is we don’t know. How long will it take to rehabilitate terrorism offenders? We don’t know, and to pick an arbitrary six-year limit, where the one person we do know about has been radicalised for more than twice that length of time, has severe issues, and will require very close monitoring before security officials can say he is safe to be left unmonitored, is simply wrong.

Like the Hon Amy Adams, I served on the Cabinet National Security Committee, and as Minister of Immigration and as Minister of Police, there are some things that come before that committee that can be very, very challenging. I agree with the Minister: we know a lot. We know a lot about the security risks to this country, but we don’t know everything. We didn’t know about the terrorist who committed an atrocity on 15 March. We know about some of the New Zealanders who have left to fight overseas and who would fall within the terms of this bill, but we don’t know them all. We don’t know the age of those people we don’t know, in the same way that the United Kingdom didn’t realise they were going to have 15-year-old girls leave and go through Turkey to Syria, and Australia has had school children who have left to become terrorists.

If the Minister doesn’t think that’s necessary or appropriate, why does he not just see it as a belts and braces issue? If he doesn’t think a 17-year-old could come back to this country and fall within the terms of this bill, where’s the harm in putting it in? If we don’t know how long it’s going to take to rehabilitate Mark Taylor, why put an arbitrary limit on it? And if we don’t know how many, as the Minister says—“how many”, which he said six times—well, then, what’s the harm in at least having a conversation about these proposed changes? The Minister will not do it.

I ask this of either the Minister or the member of the Green Party who is going to speak at this first reading: what on earth changed? Because if he didn’t give concessions to the National Party, he sure as heck must have given some concessions to the Green Party, because we heard the drum-beating rhetoric from Golriz Ghahraman. I want to find the quotes that she gave. She was pretty unambiguous about the Green Party’s—not just hers—disdain for this bill: “unnecessary, overkill, a dog whistle”. So who’s dog-whistling now, Ms Ghahraman, and what did the Green Party get in return for their support for this bill at first reading?

I don’t know that we’re going to get the answer to that until perhaps the committee of the whole House, and that’s not far away. But here’s what we know. We start with a bill that we think is half safe. The Minister will not look at—he won’t even entertain the National Party’s sensible suggestions. So, therefore, what we must be seeing is a bill that is going to become even less safe. So if he’s not going to support the National Party’s proposals and he will support whatever the Green Party has secured in return for their votes, we are going to be less safe, not more safe.

It won’t be belts and braces from the Greens. It will be a relaxation of the control order process, and indeed the media have already been reporting that there are going to be some concessions in respect of the ability of legal counsel to see certain things. What worries me about that is that it’s really hard to slice certain information relative to a potential control order recipient from other information that is often received in confidence by our five country partners.

I ask this: if the Minister is going to concede those things or matters similar to them, has he spoken to our Five Eyes partners about their view, about the willingness that they have to continue to share security information? Because I think that makes this country less safe. And the very intention of this bill is going to be undermined by the concessions the Minister will inevitably have had to have made to the Green Party, and that will make us all less safe, less well-off, less informed, and that’s why we cannot support it at first reading.

MARK PATTERSON (NZ First): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support this Terrorism Suppression (Control Orders) Bill. I do so with a degree of exasperation, actually, listening across the House. It is important. This is a national security issue and it is important in these times that our two biggest political parties can work together for the benefit of New Zealanders. There is a pressing issue around terrorists that may wish to come back to this land, and he does have rights as a citizen. We are in a no-man’s land and we do need to address this.

But what am I hearing? I’m hearing that the National Party seem to be more intent on refighting the 2017 election than actually addressing the issues with the bill and the clear and present danger that we are facing. This is not the time for a fit of political pique; this is time for focused minds and to act in the best interests of the New Zealand people—and New Zealand First will be doing just that. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

BRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise in opposition to the Terrorism Suppression (Control Orders) Bill, a bill that was introduced as a fairly weak bill, and a Minister who will not listen to sensible suggestions to strengthen it, and thereby keep New Zealanders safer, but instead will negotiate with a party which was always in opposition to it, and he could only have got their agreement by promising to weaken it further.

Yes, they referred to this as a dog whistle of a bill and that they were doubling down on oppression and foreign nations using the term of “terrorist” to deal with dissidents. Oh no, they weren’t going to have a bar of this bill, but now they will. So Andrew Little, when faced with the possibility of a negotiation with National to deliver a stronger bill to the House—one that would keep New Zealanders safer—realising, I think, that National had shown with its sensible amendments that they could do a better job than him with this bill. So rather than agree to those changes and therefore show the people of New Zealand that National is better at this than he is, he has instead chosen to compromise the safety of all New Zealanders by agreeing to weaken it just to get some votes. Well, that’s absolutely shameful and he would do well to tell New Zealand just what he has agreed to so they don’t have to wait a few weeks for this highly truncated select committee process to get to the committee of the whole House, when we might see just to what extent he has sold the safety of his countrymen and countrywomen down the river.

He could tell us all now, but what we do know with great certainty is that a weak bill will be weakened even further. How can it possibly be to the benefit of New Zealanders? The sensible things that we were looking at were things like increasing the age of eligibility to include people as young as 14. Why would we do that? Well, evidence has shown, just across the Ditch, a case of a radicalised teenager, radicalised at 15. Now, 14 doesn’t mean mandatory. In fact, the bill, in its provisions, itself, doesn’t mean that everyone who may have been overseas, may have been suspected, or that there may even be somewhat strong evidence of having been involved in terrorism will necessarily have a control order placed upon them. But it would give the ability for courts to deal with those whom they hold could well have those sorts of views and who might undertake such actions in New Zealand or might seek to expound those sorts of ideas and to radicalise others.

We sought to increase the maximum duration of the control orders. Instead of capping them at a hard limit of six years, where no one can know how long it might take to address the issues that these returning terrorists will present—and Mark Taylor, the example that has been used. He’s been radicalised longer than the control order can possibly take effect under this bill. The other thing I’d note on that, which is part of its base weakness, is that not only can these people who are going to be subject to control orders only be electronically monitored if they agree to it, and that is bizarre, but they can’t be made to undertake any form of rehabilitation programme. They have to agree to that as well, which is utterly bizarre as well. That is also limited to the duration of six years. So we’ve proposed, instead, that the control order would be in place for two years, but could be renewed each two years with no limit on the number of renewals.

Perhaps Mr Little and his colleagues simply don’t have enough faith in the New Zealand judiciary to make proper decisions and judgments in these areas. Perhaps it’s this side, the National Party, that has more faith in our judiciary, indeed. We would suggest, though, instead of a small financial penalty, it would be better to increase the term of imprisonment to five years for those who fail to meet the conditions of their control order. That would be a more fit and proper response to someone who only has a control order because of acts most likely overseas which are abhorrent to us all anyway. That would be a far better way of addressing their failure to comply with the law back in New Zealand.

On that point, actually, we also suggested that while it might be a small chance, it is worthwhile that the provisions could be used for those convicted of a terrorist offence in New Zealand. A small but still somewhat very relevant point is the ability for police to actually detain returnees so that the elements of the control orders can be put in place—such as fingerprinting, such as electronic monitoring—to actually allow them to place the person into the control order regime rather than just let them across the border and hope they can track them down later. Those sorts of sensible things would strengthen the bill. It would give New Zealanders confidence and faith that the control order would work effectively, along with requiring proper rehabilitation efforts and monitoring of the people subject to the control orders. The public would feel safe.

I don’t believe they’re going to feel safe at all in this bill as it’s currently written—and let’s bear in mind that this isn’t going to be its final version, because the Minister has sold something out to the Greens. We just don’t know what it is yet. We’ll learn. So this bill, even as it stands now, won’t make the public feel safe or safer at all, because there are simply too many areas in it that don’t place the sorts of control that the public might actually expect that a control order might have, particularly a control order which is only subject to someone who has been, effectively, found guilty of terrorist activities, most likely in a foreign nation. So what they’re going to do is allow these people back in. They’re, basically, going to water down the monitoring and requirements on these people as much as they can, because the Green Party just, basically, want to let them in as if they’ve done nothing wrong at all, and try to tell New Zealand that somehow that’s going to keep us safe. It simply isn’t going to do that.

But it’s wonderful—on the speaking list, if it’s accurate, the Greens are going to come up next, and with a bit of luck, they might actually tell us what concessions they’ve twisted out of Andrew Little to suddenly make them vote for this bill. It’ll be very interesting, because if they’ve asked for nothing at all, that’s got an interesting connotation, doesn’t it? Because it was only days ago where their spokesperson was saying that this was a dog whistle of a bill and there wasn’t, basically, a snowflake’s chance in hell that they would actually vote for it. So if they’ve actually changed their mind with no changes, there’s a word for that, one that’s not mentioned in this House, in this Chamber—

Hon David Bennett: Hypocrisy is a word.

BRETT HUDSON: Oh, that’s a word. That’s a word all right, Mr Bennett, and it’s a word that might actually be befitting of a group of people that might one day say, “This is a dog whistle of a bill.” and then the next day actually change their mind with no changes to its provisions. Yeah, that sort of an approach might actually accurately describe that sort of behaviour. So it’s going to be very interesting to see.

But at the base of this, we have a bill that was imperfect, if one wants to be generous, to begin with—it was weak to begin with—and a Minister who simply wouldn’t listen to sound, logical reason and sensible amendments to make the bill better, but instead would negotiate with a group that already wanted it to be weaker than it already is, just to get some numbers. The safety of New Zealanders means so little to that Minister and to this Government that they would trade it away for a handful of votes rather than sit down and negotiate a decent bill that would actually keep New Zealanders safe. That is abhorrent in itself.

But we’re only about 12 months away—with a bit of luck, even less—and the people then can have a choice and have their voices heard as to who they believe is in a better place to lead this country. With a bill like this, it certainly ain’t going to be that lot on the other side. We oppose this bill.

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Terrorism Suppression (Control Orders) Bill comes to this House in the context of the deadliest act of terror in our nation’s living memory: the mosque attacks on 15 March. It comes in the context of the horrifying rise of extremism around the globe, including the likes of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), as well as white nationalist extremism. It comes in the context of the now eight-year Syrian war, where we know New Zealanders travelled to support terrorism and violence, harming countless victims. We know that the United Nations and the communities over there have asked the nations who have supplied foreign fighters to bring them home to see justice. They don’t have the facility to do that, and, frankly, they don’t feel safe to do it. So we do have a responsibility. But this bill also comes to this House in the context of decades of harmful, prejudice-filled rhetoric of the war on terror, trumpeted by the likes of George Bush and Tony Blair to justify their war crimes, their unlawful wars, that have riled up, villainised, the people of that region; fearmongering to justify cuts to human rights—the kind of prejudice that led to the 15 March attack. From Guantanamo Bay to Trump’s so-called Muslim ban, lawmaking that was led by fear and bigotry has never made anyone more safe. So we, the Green Party, take this seriously. We’ve got to get it right.

Now, in that broad context, turning to this bill, it would allow the court to impose civil orders on persons over the age of 18 who have travelled overseas to support or participate in what—there is a real risk—were acts of terror or terrorist-related activities; to be brought under the orders. This is assessed on a balance of probabilities. We are not talking about anyone who is charged under our Terrorism Suppression Act, which does have extraterritorial jurisdiction, by the way. So this is separate from that. This is a separate kind of accused person. There’s a lower threshold, there’s less evidence, and there’s less risk, but we do want to do something about it.

The order, if granted by the court, enables active supervision and monitoring of the returnee. There’s a range of conditions. That assessment will be made based on police information that they’ve obtained in correspondence with foreign agencies and groups where the person has gone, allegedly to partake in activities related to terrorism. It could include monitoring and supervision or surveillance of their electronic devices. It could include bans from owning firearms. It could include bans from association and communication with certain groups, if that is related to the risk of terror. And it would include, if the court saw fit, the requirement that the person be assessed for mental health purposes and also assessed so that they could have a de-radicalisation plan made for them. The orders would be individualised in each case.

But we know that the infringement of civil liberties in any case is serious. Although right now the focus is on Mark Taylor, the likes of Mark Taylor—he being a self-confessed supporter of ISIS who travelled to the Middle East to support that terrorist group. He’s made statements already, talking about the kind of support he gave that harmed people, that helped ISIS. We know that. But this bill wouldn’t only apply to Mark Taylor. We’re not just making a law for one man. So we do have to get it right so that there are not unforeseen consequences for people that go beyond that. We want to catch people who are at risk of harming New Zealand. That law will have to aim to do that, because it’s only justifiable to limit civil liberties based on an actual risk of harm. We’re not going to run Guantanamo Bay, despite what the National Party might want.

That is why the Green Party has a long history of standing up against so-called anti-terrorism laws that do nothing but make politicians look tough on crime. We’re going to focus on safety, and we’re going to do that by making sure the processes are fair and robust. We had a press release out today that outlined the changes we got. We got all the changes that we’d asked for. I’m really sorry that the National Party seems to be quoting from two- or three-day-old newspaper clippings or whatever it was. Sorry. So I’ll outline the press release. It was also, you know, all over the media.

Hon Clare Curran: They’ve always been a bit behind.

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: A bit behind is, in fact, a euphemism for archaic—embarrassingly archaic, over there. We will support law that upholds the standards of due process that New Zealanders expect from their lawmakers and institutions. So we will support law that applies our standards of terrorism. That’s why we have only agreed to this bill with that change intact. We will not import the definitions of “terror” from jurisdictions where feminism is considered an act of terror, which it might be where I’m from, in Iran. We’re not going to persecute the rainbow community, who are seen as being political dissidents, and thereby terrorists, elsewhere in the world. We are not going to persecute the likes of Ahmed Zaoui, and we know that that law in New Zealand did that. We held an Opposition party MP from Algeria without charge or trial based on secret, classified information for two years. New Zealand is not that nation. New Zealanders expect better. So the change we’ve got is that the definition of “terror” under New Zealand law will apply. I don’t know who would argue with that.

The next change that we have is the highest standard of procedural fairness in our law to date when it comes to the use of classified information that’s kept secret from the accused anywhere in our system. It’s a change that the Law Commission recommended; it’s international best practice. We agree with the experts on this one. That change is that if secret information is to be used under this legislation, it will first be determined by a judge that it would, in fact, cause harm to the safety of individuals or be a serious national security threat if it were disclosed to the accused, and, even in that case, a special advocate who has the correct security clearance will have access to it so that they can further the interests of the defence, so that we know that that information is, in fact, relevant—for example, that’s it’s reliant.

Why would you want information involved in a case that’s not relevant or reliant? It’s so hard to know, but we don’t want that. The courts don’t want that. The Law Commission doesn’t want that, and we agree. We agree that this law should only catch people who are, in fact, a threat of terror to our country. We have agreed that we will have the right due process standards. We will have the correct definition, and, in doing that—in getting our bottom lines—we also, through happy coincidence, will stop the archaic, rights-abusing changes that the National Party wanted to impose: indefinite application, holding children. No, we’re not going down the route of Guantanamo Bay. We are not going down that route—we are not going down that route.

We are not going to support changes—[Interruption]—proposed by people who are yelling, “They have no rights.”, like Mr Bennett over there, yelling, “They don’t have rights.” That’s what we’re dealing with here; that’s what we’ve stopped, and we’re proud of that. We are going to work hard through the select committee process to make changes—[Interruption]

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! I can hardly hear.

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: —to this bill to make it fairer as we go through, but we have our bottom lines. We’re going to make sure that the standards are even fairer, the processes are even fairer. That’s what New Zealand would expect of the Green Party in Government. Thank you.

Hon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): During that extraordinary speech, I’ve been watching the Minister in charge of the bill, Andrew Little, and he spent the whole time with his head down, because I can only assume that he is sitting there thinking, “Oh my lord, this bill is going to get even weaker.” We are suddenly being treated to a lecture on all sorts of extraneous matters which are not covered in this bill, and told instead that what we’re going to have is further changes made in select committee to weaken it down. Well, I respect the rights of all people, but this is not a bill about trampling on the rights of the rainbow community, of feminists, or anybody else. Make no mistake this is a bill about preventing terrorism from hitting our shores. This is a bill about preventing some of the most dangerous people on the planet from undermining our safety and our public security.

Previous National Party speakers in the debate this afternoon have made the point already that this is a very weak response from a Government to very serious and worrying security issues. I am hugely disappointed that the Labour and the New Zealand First parties have placed greater priority on watering down this measure in order to appease their Green Party colleagues than working with the National Party, who have been willing to work in good faith because we recognise how serious this issue is on such an important aspect our country’s security and counter-terrorism measures, which should be designed to strengthen the bill in ways that I have no doubt would find favour with an overwhelming number of New Zealanders.

Well, assuming this bill passes its first reading in about 20 minutes or so—because the Government has the numbers—National members, of course, will still try to work with other parties to improve the bill in the interests of public safety and peace of mind for all law-abiding New Zealanders. But, boy, we have now got a real understanding of just what a challenge that will be. So I say to everybody who is listening to this debate: please make your submissions. Make your voice heard to the committee. Unfortunately, it’s been indicated that you’re going to have very little time to do that, and that’s a travesty in itself, but please ensure that you stiffen the Government’s intentions—give them some real backbone to ensure that we have a measure that is fit for purpose at the end of this process.

The Minister, in his opening speech, made demonstrably false and outrageous claims about National’s approach to negotiations on this bill. The fact of the matter is that National considered and discussed the proposed bill in good faith and with genuine suggestions to strengthen and improve the bill. It is the Minister and his Government who were tricky and disingenuous. His words were: engaging in “blatant party politicking”. Well, that’s pot calling the kettle black, because as the Minister alleged, he had to deal with the open hostility of the Green Party—his own support party colleagues initially—in order to get his initial proposals considered, and he’s had to water them down. In other words, he has capitulated to bring the Green Party on board. Well, what a shame it is that he would do that on such an important measure, when he could have worked with the largest party in the Parliament—the Opposition National Party—and got a measure that would be enduring and that would enjoy widespread support in our country.

So let me repeat that National wanted to be able to support this bill at this first reading, and we still want to take a constructive approach to the select committee’s deliberations, and the consideration of submissions, but the Minister was unwilling to reciprocate, and instead turned his guns on the Opposition—the largest party in the Parliament—and confirmed that he would adopt a shoddy process and press ahead with a weak bill that will not achieve its purpose.

Mr Little, in his typically belligerent fashion, interjected while my colleague the Hon Amy Adams was leading off for the National Party in this debate, that he had asked National to come up with some alternative proposals and that we hadn’t done so. That was his interjection. Well, how patently dishonest. How transparently false that is. He knows the changes that National is seeking, our leader told him what they were, and they’re a matter of public record.

So let me repeat them for him and for those who are listening. The changes that National needs to see included in this bill in order to be able to support it include lowering the age-limit for control orders to those aged 14 years and over, there is good reason for doing that, I’m sure that will be discussed in detail at the select committee; increasing the maximum duration of control orders; removing the financial penalty entirely, and increasing the term of imprisonment to five years; including a new provision to ensure that control orders will capture those convicted of a terrorist offence in New Zealand—well, who on earth wouldn’t want to do that?—including a new provision to allow police to detain returnees, if necessary, to comply with the requirements of a control order. Well, yes, of course those are tougher measures, because we believe that this bill needs to be strengthened.

The Minister knew all of that, his colleagues knew all of that despite the fact that they’ve stood up in this debate today and alleged that National wouldn’t cooperate and that National brought nothing to the table. Well, National did; he knows it, his allegations are utterly false—

Greg O’Connor: Bought a press release, all they’ve ever done—they bought a press release.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: To pretend that they’ve never been told is extraordinary—and for Mr O’Connor to keep interjecting in that inane fashion shows that he is also dancing on the head of a pin, trying to defend the indefensible here. They’re not extreme or out of line, our proposals, they are exactly what we see in many of our main international partners and their regimes, and it is absolutely appropriate that we should be on the same page as them.

As my colleague the Hon Michael Woodhouse said, the Government is showing contempt for Parliament and the public by proposing, yet again, a very short time for submissions to be made and heard and for the select committee to do its business—

Greg O’Connor: Contempt for cheap politics, that’s what we’re showing.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: Well, Mr O’Connor, that’s not cheap politics; that’s contempt of Parliament. That is absolutely insulting to New Zealanders. That is an appalling thing to do—that is an appalling thing to do.

Greg O’Connor: Cheap and shallow.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: Mr O’Connor, when the National Party was in Government—that member wasn’t here at the time—we took very seriously our responsibilities regarding national security, and we always worked with the Labour Opposition to ensure that we could have as bipartisan approach as possible, because the onus is on all of us as lawmakers—not just on the Government; on all of us, particularly when we’re facing matters such as counter-terrorism—to be as strong and as united as we can be, because our primary responsibility is to ensure the safety of New Zealanders.

The threat that is posed by foreign fighters who have left New Zealand to fight alongside terrorist organisations is very real. We don’t have all of the information, but what we do have tells us that we must be utterly vigilant and utterly prepared to deal with them, particularly should they ever return to this country.

Let me just turn quickly to some of the speeches we’ve heard from the minor parties. Well, the speech from the New Zealand First representative frankly was a disgrace. Its only good feature was that it lasted less than two minutes, because he had nothing to say other than attacking the National Party. I can only imagine the discussion that must have taken place in a caucus with a party with the name “New Zealand First” that used to proclaim that they put New Zealanders first, and it used to claim that they were strong on law and order and security measures. Well, here they’ve just rolled over completely, and their supporters, I think, will be appalled. That is a disgrace. His speech was a disgrace.

But what of the next party? We heard from Ms Ghahraman. In her first minute, I thought, “Oh, well, this is interesting.” She reminded us of the horror of 15 March—of course, that’s absolutely relevant to today’s discussion, so I commend her for doing that, and she did mention the threat of foreign fighters and terrorists. So in her first minute, she certainly did a lot better than the New Zealand First Party.

But then she turned her fire on our allies. That is when suddenly she made the most outrageous comment, attacking our key security partners. Well, even people in the Green Party must realise that a tiny country like New Zealand needs its allies, needs its key security partners, and is grateful to them. It doesn’t mean that we accept all of their views on every matter, but it does mean that we work cooperatively in good faith with them. Well, clearly, the Green Party have no track for this measure.

We were then treated to her lecture on civil liberties, where she mentioned Mark Taylor in the same sentence as civil liberties. Well, I’m sorry, I don’t think there are many New Zealanders who are more upset about Mark Taylor’s civil liberties this afternoon than they are about the important measures that we should be implementing to protect the safety of all New Zealanders. So I am horrified to think that the Green Party will take that attitude into the select committee’s work, and I can only hope that they get a reality check before they do.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I call Ginny Andersen—five minutes.

GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I’d like to briefly say that national security is not an issue for politics, and it’s a sad day when we see the Opposition playing games with the safety and security of New Zealanders.

I have one question: what was done in nine years to develop a national strategy of security or engagement with communities? Zero—nothing was done. All we’ve seen is games being played. National was left out because they were playing politics, now they’re grumpy that they’ve been left on their own—and that’s the truth of it. This is a bill about protecting the national security of New Zealanders, and it’s incredibly sad that they don’t have the gumption or the wider view to be able to support it. They are answerable to the citizens of New Zealand as to why they refuse to vote for it.

I commend this bill to the House.

Simon O’Connor: The gross incompetence of what this—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Are you seeking the call?

Simon O’Connor: Oh yeah, sorry. Mr Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Simon O’Connor—five minutes.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Jolly good. The gross incompetence of the Government has just been illustrated by the person who’s resumed her seat, Ginny Andersen; thinks it’s a joke, has actually spent most of the time—the cameras don’t focus—laughing. If we’re talking about the national security of the Realm, one would actually expect the people to talk about the national security of the Realm. In fact, as I say, the member who just resumed her seat just played politics, ironically, if not using the H word, of course, paradoxically.

It is an incredibly serious issue that we are dealing with here. We are talking about terrorists who are New Zealanders who have gone overseas, primarily into jihadist activities. I want to be clear that there are many forms of terrorism, but the primary one at the moment is jihadism. There’s a certain irony that the Green Party member who spoke was trying to think of others who have—well, is it feminist, Marxist, or other views? To equate that with terrorism is offensive to those groups. It’s also offensive because, actually, the people we are trying to deal with through this piece of legislation are jihadists who have killed the Christians in their tens of thousands, who have thrown the LGBTI community off buildings, and who have burnt alive Syrian soldiers. These are the people that we’re trying to deal with—and the Greens are laughing because, actually, they don’t particularly care. They don’t particularly care.

They are the people who have gone into mosques and they are the people who have gone into synagogues and killed people. These are the terrorists that we are talking about, and I think it’s unfortunate that we get stuck on one person in particular who is coming back, because the importance of this law is to make sure that we are ready for the eventualities that come.

I am disappointed that we on this side of the House have not been able to come to agreement with the Labour Party at this point, and doubly disappointed that the Greens are supporting it, because it’s indicative of weakness. We heard it from the Greens’ contribution that talked about civil liberties—again, without understanding the protections that National’s put forward. But probably the most concerning point is that the Green Party have, over many years, advocated for the removal of our intelligence and security services, with the paradox, of course, being that they would be the first to complain if any of their particular rights or if they were to ever be harmed by these people.

Look, National’s been very pragmatic in what it has asked to have changed. We want the law to apply to people under 18. The Greens stereotype that as children—again, scaremongering and stupidity mixed together. We’re not doing that to children, but if the Green Party understood, we have 14-, 15-, 16-, and 17-year-old terrorists in other jurisdictions who have been arrested. This bill will not cover it. This bill has a fine for non-compliance. We’re dealing with terrorists. They are zealots. You don’t tend to slap a fine on them; you need to lock them up.

There’s also questions which are being raised—oh well, I would certainly raise them—that the Green Party’s amendments, as I understand them, are basically going to potentially compromise our own intelligence services by having to expose operations and information in order not to keep New Zealanders safe, but to assuage the paranoia of the Greens, who, I will put on record, have never understood a human right properly in their lives.

It’s coming to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee. I chair that. We are being put under enormous pressure, I suspect, to do our duty. I think that’s unfortunate. I will say to the Minister that we will do our best, but we are being put under enormous pressure to deal with this. The time frames—as have been indicated already in the House—are incredibly, incredibly tight, again, on a matter of national security, and I think even with the time being given to us, it is going to be incredibly, incredibly difficult. I, for one, do not wish to be the chair of a committee that denies people the right to speak. We’re already seeing that with the likes of the Abortion Legislation Committee at the moment, which has limited horrendously the ability of people to speak. I prefer to fall back to what I’ve done in the past in chairing committees, which is to give New Zealanders their opportunity to speak, particularly on matters of this import.

So, really, I look forward, to an extent, for the committee to be able to make this bill the proper security and national security bill that it needs to be, and I implore the Minister and the Government to take on these excellent suggestions of National.

Rt Hon DAVID CARTER (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and welcome to the Chair at 10 to 6 on Thursday. Can I just say that I’m actually saddened to be taking a call in this debate, because I have a great respect for the democracy of this country. I have a great respect for this House, and I have a great respect for the normal bipartisan approach to national security, so it has given me no pleasure to have watched this debate over the last couple of hours and to have to state that I too will be voting against this legislation. I do that for a number of reasons, which I now intend to outline.

The first point I make is that this legislation is clearly rushed legislation, and, generally speaking, rushed legislation is bad legislation. We can all surmise why it happens to be on the Order Paper today, and I suspect it’s because of the recent developments in Turkey and in Syria, whereby Turkey has chosen to go into Northern Syria, and that’s the reason it’s before us today. But the issue of these returning terrorists or jihadis has actually been an issue confronting Government for quite some period of time, and I happen to know this region reasonably well.

I was asked by the Inter-Parliamentary Union, about three months ago, to travel to Turkey, where principally we were investigating human rights abuses that were experienced by elected representatives within the Turkish Parliament. Whilst there, we travelled from Ankara down to a city called Diyarbakır. From memory, it was about 100 kilometres north of the border, and you could just sense the different security prevailing in Ankara versus Diyarbakır. Armoured vehicles were around the streets all the time, and whilst I think we were particularly safe, we were able to meet a number of people who told us of the Kurds coming across the border from Northern Syria and recruiting adults, yes, but children. We met the mothers and fathers of children as young as 12 who either voluntarily had been radicalised and taken across the border into Syria by the Kurds or, in some cases, had been kidnapped, and these people were then brainwashed to come back and act as terrorists within Turkey.

Now, I listened to the debate earlier, and it was acknowledged by the Hon Amy Adams and the Hon Michael Woodhouse that the Leader of the Opposition is in the special position of sitting on the Intelligence and Security Committee and therefore is well aware of some of the exposure of previous New Zealanders returning after being radicalised and returning to this country as terrorists. I’ve never sat on that committee. I’ve sat on most committees in this Parliament; I’ve never been there, so I don’t know the numbers that are involved. But we all know of one particular person, Mark Taylor, the “Bumbling Jihadi”, who has received a lot of publicity and, because of the recent situation with Turkey invading Syria, is probably now free from a Syrian jail and could possibly return to New Zealand. Therefore, we have this legislation now before the House, but sadly the process by which it has got here has been nothing short of shambolic.

Now, I listened to the Hon Andrew Little in his first contribution, saying that this is a matter of national security. If it’s a matter of national security, it should be before this House as a bipartisan issue. Why isn’t it? Mr Little, it’s because of your arrogance and it’s because of your belligerence. We all know that coalition Government is difficult—it’s a matter of numbers—but as the Minister in charge of this legislation, he should have had his numbers ready before he put the bill into this House, and he didn’t, because the Greens said they wouldn’t support it. So then he came to National, and National asked for half a dozen changes which we think are rational and could have been incorporated. Mr Little wouldn’t accept those changes, so he went back to the Greens. Whilst we don’t know the full details, we can only surmise that he now has the Greens’ support to get this through the House, because it has been weakened, because this legislation is now weaker than even Mr Little wanted in the first place. So I think it is here before the House, sadly, because a dirty deal has been done.

Then we have the sad situation where we’ve been told, as the legislation is introduced into the House, that it’s going to be rushed through with a report back from the select committee of 3 December. Why does it have to be rushed? Why can’t it go to the select committee and let people have an opportunity to really say their point of view on this legislation?

Why didn’t Mr Little agree to some of the demands—particularly the age one? Why don’t we have a look at Australia, which faces very similar security concerns to New Zealand, and see what they’ve done? Has Mr Little, has any member of the Green Party, and has any New Zealand First member read the recent United Nations report entitled Tackling Terrorists’ Exploitation of Youth? Does any other member of the Government know that 12 percent of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) fighters are less than 18 years of age?

Why does this Government think that a Mark Taylor can come back after fighting for ISIS, being jailed in a Syrian prison, and being released now simply because the Turks have invaded that area—that that man can come back—and suddenly be rewired in six years? Why, again, doesn’t Mr Little look at the Australian legislation, which has but one term for that type of returning jihadi, and that is an unlimited period of time?

Why did the Green Party claim, when the legislation was originally promoted by Mr Little, that it breached the human rights of Mark Taylor? Well, I ask the Green Party: why are Mark Taylor’s human rights greater than my human rights? Why are Mark Taylor’s human rights greater than the 51 people that were massacred on 15 March in Christchurch? The Greens have no answer to that.

While we’ve listened to this debate, can I say the most disappointing—it’s worse than that; the most disgraceful—contribution was from the New Zealand First member Mark Patterson. He stood and within 20 seconds sat down, saying he supported the legislation.

Can I just say to Golriz Ghahraman, I’ve just read the story of a bombing in the Nigerian city of Maiduguri—a bomb that went off when two persons came into a city square wearing bombs—suicide bombs. What age were those two people? They were two girls aged 12. That’s what we’re facing here. We’re facing a situation where this legislation won’t fit the purpose.

If the Hon Andrew Little had only been prepared to be reasonable in negotiation, reasonable in discussion, we could have stuck to the long-held tradition of this Parliament whereby national security is a bipartisan concern and a bipartisan solution. It gives me absolutely no pleasure to be in this House this afternoon saying that National will not vote for this legislation, and I don’t think the fault with that lies with the National Party at all.

Hon CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): It’s an important bill. I commend it to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Terrorism Suppression (Control Orders) Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 64

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; ACT New Zealand 1.

Noes 52

New Zealand National 51; Ross.

Bill read a first time.

The question was put that the Terrorism Suppression (Control Orders) Bill be referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee.

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

Ayes 64

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; ACT New Zealand 1.

Noes 52

New Zealand National 51; Ross.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee.

The House adjourned at 6.02 p.m.