Tuesday, 29 March 2022

TUESDAY, 29 MARCH 2022

TUESDAY, 29 MARCH 2022

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Karakia/Prayers

Karakia/Prayers

Hon JACQUI DEAN (Assistant Speaker): Almighty God, we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests, we acknowledge the Queen and pray for guidance in our deliberations that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom, justice, mercy, and humility for the welfare and peace of New Zealand. Amen.

Motions

Academy Award, Congratulations—Dame Jane Campion

SPEAKER: I’m going to call the Hon Carmel Sepuloni, but remind her that she must use the chat function in order to seek the call in future.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage) (remote): Point of order. I seek leave to move a motion without notice and without debate to congratulate Dame Jane Campion.

SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I move, That this House congratulate Dame Jane Campion on receiving the Academy Award for Best Director for The Power of the Dog.

Motion agreed to.

Resignations

Hon Simon Bridges, Tauranga

Louisa Wall, New Zealand Labour

Hon Simon Bridges

SPEAKER: Members, I wish to advise the House that I have received a letter from the, resigning his seat in the House with effect from 5 p.m. on Friday, 6 May 2022.

Louisa Wall

I also wish to advise the House that I have received a letter from, resigning her seat in the House effective on Sunday, 1 May 2022.

Petitions, Papers, Select Committee Reports, and Introduction of Bills

Petitions, Papers, Select Committee Reports, and Introduction of Bills

SPEAKER: Petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.

CLERK:

Petition of Helen Paddison requesting that the House abolish the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992 and urge the Government to shut down the mental health system

petition of Democracy for Myanmar Working Group New Zealand requesting that the House allow 1,000 refugees from Myanmar whose families are New Zealand citizens, residents, quota refugees, and asylum seekers to be resettled in New Zealand

petition of Dan Liu requesting that the House amend laws to allow anonymous birth, and assign funding for safe haven baby hatches

petition of Carl Smith requesting that the House find ways to allow people to enter businesses and public spaces without a vaccine pass

petition of Amy Skipper requesting that the House increase funding for public mental health services

petition of Ross Divett requesting that the House maintain the low-user electricity power tariffs

petition of Hana Pilkinton-Ching requesting that the House provide free public transport nationwide for community services card holders

petition of Michiel Badenhorst requesting that the House require ACC to allow exercise physiologists to register as health providers

petition of Ana Briggs requesting that the House require that employers be completely honest with applicants about why they don’t progress in a recruitment process

petition of Helen Paddison requesting that the House urge the Government to ensure no one is beaten in prison or treated unfairly

petition of Carmen Shanks requesting that the House urge the Government to publicly fund the medication Trikafta for people in New Zealand with cystic fibrosis, and

petition of Gerard Rushton requesting that the House urge the Government to expand access to meningococcal vaccines.

SPEAKER: Those petitions stand referred to the Petitions Committee. Ministers have delivered papers.

CLERK:

Annual reports for 2021 of the:

Government Communications Security Bureau

Health Promotion Agency

New Zealand Security Intelligence Service, and

Northland District Health Board

He Puna Hao Pātiki: the 2022 investment strategy and associated erratum, and

Northland District Health Board annual plan 2021-22 incorporating the statement of performance expectations.

SPEAKER: Those papers are published under the authority of the House. Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation. There are quite a few.

CLERK:

Reports of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee on the 2020-21 annual reviews of the:

Meteorological Service of New Zealand Limited

New Zealand Forest Research Institute Limited

New Zealand Post Limited

Broadcasting Standards Authority

Financial Markets Authority

New Zealand Tourism Board, and on the

Electricity Industry Amendment Bill

report of the Environment Committee on the 2020-21 Annual review of Predator Free 2050 Limited

reports of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the:

2020/21 annual review of the Pike River Recovery Agency

Reserve Bank of New Zealand, Monetary Policy Statement, February 2022

reports of the Governance and Administration Committee on the 2020-21 annual reviews of:

Statistics New Zealand

Department of Internal Affairs

Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet

Office of Film and Literature Classification

Office of the Ombudsman, and on the

Local Government (Pecuniary Interests Register) Amendment Bill, and

petition of Alan Thompson

reports of the Health Committee on the 2020-21 annual reviews of the:

Hawke’s Bay District Health Board

Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission

New Zealand Blood Service, and

South Canterbury District Health Board

reports of the Justice Committee on the 2020-21 annual reviews of the:

Criminal Cases Review Commission, and

Serious Fraud Office.

reports of the Petitions Committee on the:

petition of Juan Pablo Proverbio

petition of Makahokovalu Pailate

petition of Philippa Cameron

petition of Shannon Parker, and

petition of Suzi Taylor

reports of the Regulations Review Committee on the examination of COVID-19 orders presented between:

1 March and 7 March 2022

21 December 2021 and 1 February 2022, and

23 February and 28 February 2022

report of the Social Services and Community Committee on the:

2020-21 annual reviews of the social services and community sector (Ministry of Social Development, Social Wellbeing Agency, Ministry for Pacific Peoples, Ministry for Women, New Zealand Lotteries Commission), and

briefings on the 2020/21 financial performance of the New Zealand Artificial Limb Service and the Social Workers Registration Board

reports of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee on the 2020-21 annual reviews of the:

energy sector (Genesis Energy Limited, Transpower New Zealand Limited, Electricity Corporation of New Zealand Limited, Mercury NZ Limited, Meridian Energy Limited), and

transport sector (Ministry of Transport—Te Manatū Waka, New Zealand Transport Agency—Waka Kotahi, City Rail Link Limited, Maritime New Zealand, Air New Zealand Limited, Airways Corporation of New Zealand Limited, Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand, KiwiRail Holdings Limited, New Zealand Railways Corporation, Transport Accident Investigation Commission).

SPEAKER: The bills are set down for second reading. The reports of the Regulations Review Committee and the report on the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Monetary Policy Statement are set down for consideration. The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of bills.

CLERK:

Fair Pay Agreements Bill, introduction.

Rotorua District Council (Representation Arrangements) Bill, introduction.

SPEAKER: Those bills are set down for first reading.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Finance

1. BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): The IMF released its annual review for New Zealand last week, where they commended the country for our strong economic and fiscal position—in particular, the Government’s successful health-led approach to the COVID-19 pandemic. They noted the economy had rebounded strongly in 2021, with record low unemployment. The IMF also noted that our relatively low debt levels compared with many of the countries we compare ourselves against—

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Which you inherited.

SPEAKER: Order!

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: —provides substantial headroom to respond to further challenges. While economic growth is forecast to slow in 2022, the resilience of the economy and our strong fiscal position means we’re in a good position to support—

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Which this Government inherited.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: —New Zealanders as we deal with the challenges arising from the ongoing pandemic, Mr Goldsmith—and it would pay to listen to the IMF this time.

Barbara Edmonds: What did the report say about fiscal policy supporting the economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, in the characteristic style of the IMF, they said that in New Zealand, “The normalization of macroeconomic policies had started, as fiscal COVID-19 support measures have been scaled down”. They did point out, however, that “During the exit from the exceptional, crisis-related policy support, the pace of … [withdrawal] needs to be calibrated carefully.” In response to the Omicron outbreak, the IMF welcomed the limited and targeted support to businesses in need “without adding materially to aggregate demand pressures.” The IMF also noted the temporary reduction of fuel taxes provides relief at the pump to motorists, though it does favour relief to consumers dealing with cost of living increases being targeted at vulnerable households. We are making sure that our spending continues to be carefully prioritised and targeted at the areas and people that require it the most, and from this Friday, 1 April, we are supporting low and middle income New Zealanders dealing with cost of living increases through increases to Working for Families, superannuation, benefit levels, student allowances, and the minimum wage, while the winter energy payment kicks in from the beginning of May.

Barbara Edmonds: What did the IMF say about other fiscal options to support the economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: In comments to the media following a briefing on the report, the IMF said that it was not recommending any reduction in the overall level of taxation at the moment. It is not the right time to cut taxes as it would just add to inflation pressures at a time when many households are already under significant stress—

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Michael Cullen’s return. You’ll never get puddin’!

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Mr Goldsmith, the financial genius, helps me again. The IMF has also made a number of recommendations in their report—

Hon Paul Goldsmith: More genius than you are.

SPEAKER: Order!

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: —that while we are always grateful to receive, we would not always agree to adopt. I would note that we are not actively considering changes to corporate tax rates, while we have already committed to not implement any new taxes in this term, such as a capital gains tax.

Question No. 2—COVID-19 Response

2. TEANAU TUIONO (Green) (remote) to the Minister for COVID-19 Response: Is he concerned about the safety of at-risk communities following the announcement that protections under the COVID-19 traffic light system have changed and will change further?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): Preserving the safety of every New Zealander has been the Government’s key priority and at the core of every decision that we have made throughout the pandemic. Recognising the disproportionate effect of the virus and that it can have on certain communities, including Māori, Pacific, immunocompromised, and disabled whānau, our response has and will continue to focus on ensuring that these groups are appropriately protected. The changes announced last week, informed by the latest evidence from here and overseas, have been specifically designed to make life simpler and closer to normal, but whilst also retaining the things that have proven to be effective in reducing the spread of the virus, like the use of face masks, capacity limits, testing, and isolation.

Teanau Tuiono: What would he say to the founder of parenting support group Awhi Ngā Mātua, Elizabeth Goodwin, who described last week’s changes as a “cruel blow for whānau with disabled and immunocompromised children”?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I would disagree with that assessment. The Government has been acutely aware throughout the pandemic of the potential effect on vulnerable communities of COVID-19, and that has absolutely informed all of the decisions that we have taken.

Teanau Tuiono: Does he support setting up indoor clean air standards to improve the safety of schools and workplaces?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The work that we’ve been doing to provide carbon dioxide monitors for every school in the country and to provide portable air cleaners, where a demonstrable case exists for them, is already making a difference within our schools. We are fortunate in that most of our schools actually have very good ventilation already and good airflows already. But, of course, we continue to look for where we can make further improvements.

Teanau Tuiono: Will he ensure N95 masks are provided for teachers and staff at all schools; and if not, why not?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: N95 masks are being provided to our front-line health workers. Our education workers are being provided with what we typically term “surgical masks”—the paper masks with the blue fronts that many members in the Chamber are wearing at the moment—they have been supplied to all teachers. We’ve also supplied enough for schools to have a back up supply for students, including some small-sized masks, so that schools have them available for their young students.

Teanau Tuiono: What steps is he taking to address the impacts of long COVID and ensure people who are unable to work get the support they need to recover, particularly in Māori and Pasifika communities, as these communities have experienced higher rates of infection?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: In terms of income support that’s supplied, that’s not something that I have ministerial responsibility for. But we are continuing to look at the evidence around long COVID and the effect that it could have for the number of people that could be affected by long COVID. It would be fair to say that the international evidence on this is still continuing to emerge, and it’s something that we are following very closely.

Teanau Tuiono: Will he maintain the traffic light system and strengthen that system if the next waves of subsequent variants are more severe; and if not, why not?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: We are committed to the traffic light system. It is absolutely the right system for New Zealand at the moment. But what we’ve always done throughout the pandemic is respond to the latest emerging international evidence around the effect of new variants, and that’s what we’ll continue to do.

Question No. 3—Social Development and Employment

3. TĀMATI COFFEY (Labour) (remote) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What changes to income support come into effect on 1 April?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (remote): This Friday will see a raft of changes come into effect, including the continuation of the biggest lift to main benefits in decades. For many years, the rate of main benefit has fallen further behind the average wage, and it’s placed many people, including children, in undue hardship. In addition to indexing main benefits to wage growth, we are further lifting main benefits so they don’t fall further behind. The Ministry of Social Development’s analysis shows that from 1 April, a couple on a benefit with children will now be, on average, $237 a week better off than they were when the Government took office in 2017. As a Government, we have worked hard to lift as many children out of poverty as possible, and while raising the level of main benefit is only one way to achieve our goal, it is an incredibly important step in the right direction.

Tāmati Coffey: What changes to income support will help working families?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: In addition to main benefit increases, childcare assistance income thresholds will also begin to increase annually in line with net average wage growth. Income thresholds for eligibility for childcare assistance have been frozen since 2010. The growth in wages in the last 12 years has meant that the number of low-income parents and caregivers who can access childcare assistance has been steadily declining. This change is the right thing to do and will support low-income working families who need to access childcare. Working for Families tax credit, Best Start tax credit, and family tax credit will also increase from 1 April, providing 346,000 families with an average of an extra $20 per week. This is a Government that is targeting support at families who need it most to support with key costs of living like childcare.

Tāmati Coffey: What changes will be happening to the rates of superannuation?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The superannuation annual general adjustment comes into effect from 1 April. Single superannuitants living alone will see a rise of $52 per fortnight, and couples who both qualify will see an extra $80 per fortnight in total from 1 April. On top of that, as of 1 May, people on superannuation will receive extra every week thanks to our winter energy payment, which provides extra income for over 1 million New Zealanders.

Question No. 4—Prime Minister

4. CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all of her Government’s statements and actions?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes. In particular, I stand by this Government’s plan to accelerate our economic recovery and lift the incomes of New Zealanders, with a number of changes that will come into effect this week on April 1. Compared to 2017, these changes will see over 100,000 beneficiaries with children better off by an average $175 per week, increasing to $207 per week during the 2022 winter period; nearly 350,000 beneficiaries better off by an average of $109 per week, increasing to $133 per week during the 2022 winter period; adjusting the income thresholds for childcare assistance annually, in line with average wage growth, benefiting 1,000 families, or around 1,500 children, after being frozen by the previous National Government. We’re also increasing minimum wage, student allowances, and superannuation. Our economic recovery plan is all about making sure we focus on supporting New Zealanders through this economic recovery. There’s no silver bullet that will fix the cost of living, but we have a plan and are implementing a range of measures that, together, will make a difference.

Christopher Luxon: What is her plan, if any, to help the average Kiwi household—the squeezed middle—who don’t qualify for Working for Families payments, when ASB expects their cost of living to increase by another $150 a week this year, on top of the near $100 a year increase they saw last year?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Given the member has referenced the ASB report, I would again just acknowledge that, in that same report, it pointed out that, since the end of 2017, when Labour came into office, disposable incomes have been, and will remain, higher than consumer spending in 20 out of 21 quarters, through to the end of 2022—a point that, of course, we’ve continually made in this House. We of course acknowledge, though, that we are in a period where the contributing factors of the global economic recovery from COVID-19 and, of course, the war in Ukraine are causing an impact on the cost of living. We’ve already seen the response: the universal application of that lift in fuel excise of 25c per litre and the road-user charge (RUC) is aimed at helping every consumer who, of course, relies on those petrol prices to be as reasonable as possible. The second point is that, actually, 60 percent of families will be reached by the changes that we’re making to the family tax credit. That is a large portion. Working for Families does reach into middle-income earners, and that’s where we’ve increased the family tax credit.

Christopher Luxon: What does she say to the average Kiwi household—the squeezed middle—who are facing—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! I’ve let the member go, but time for a bit of developmental feedback, and that is that unnecessary phrases, like the one that he’s used twice, should not be part of questions. They’re not required for the sense.

David Seymour: Point of order. I think I know where that term comes from, I’ve heard it many times from members of the public who self-describe that way. Now, surely, it’s in order for a member—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will resume his seat. I have ruled; the member will not argue.

Christopher Luxon: What does she say to the average Kiwi household, who is facing a total increase to their cost of living of almost $13,000 in just two years?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: What I’d come back to is that you’ll see, of course, the response that we, as a Government, have made in response to what we see in this present period where inflation is high. We know it’s having an impact. It’s why we moved quickly on fuel. It’s why, at the end of last year, we moved on the family tax credit. It’s why you see that raft of changes, which I’ll spare the House from repeating again, on 1 April. But what I would also say is that the kinds of proposals we’re seeing from the Opposition, which, for them, would mean about $2.15 in their pocket, would also mean about $8,000 in the Leader of the Opposition’s pocket. That is not a focus on them. A focus on them is bringing down the cost of healthcare and making it free for their kids to go to the doctor; getting rid of school donations so they’re not having to face that every year, when our education system is meant to be free; putting free lunches in schools; and lifting the wages of teachers, nurses, police. Those are the things that make a difference in the long term; not $2 for them and $8,000 for you.

SPEAKER: Order! Order!

Hon Member: That’s out of order.

SPEAKER: Thank you. I’ve told Mr Goldsmith off about that twice today.

Christopher Luxon: What’s her explanation to a family on an average household income for why she has refused to, at the very least, provide them with an inflation adjustment to their tax bill when their cost of living is set to increase by almost $13,000 in just two years?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I have already said, the comparison there is clear. The difference that we can make for 346,000 families is greater through the family tax credit than, for instance, broad-brush changes which will come at the cost of investment in services like health and education and would also benefit the wealthiest the most. We have made a decision that we want to make sure that we’re doing more for those who are feeling the cost of living impacts the most—our low- and middle-income families—but we also have a duty to make sure that they can still rely on health and education; with that member’s tax plan, they can’t.

David Seymour: What does her Government have to offer for families who aspire to make and keep more of their own money in a growing economy, instead of hoping that she’ll give them some sort of handout?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I absolutely dispute the way that the member is characterising a tax credit.

Christopher Luxon: Does she think that inflation of 5.9 percent, almost double the rate in Australia, will result in more Kiwis looking overseas for opportunities they can’t get here?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: With unemployment at record low levels, there are significant opportunities here, and that has been a focus of us as a Government: to make sure that, as we come through what has been a health and economic crisis, we have ensured that people have maintained that contact with their employer, and that jobs have been available, and training opportunities. For instance, our Apprenticeship Boost has meant people have stayed in training and had new training opportunities. That, in turn, will help with our construction industry, which is seeing a boom at the moment and needs a greater workforce. All of that adds up to a place where there are opportunities in New Zealand. We do have to, however, support New Zealanders through this period that the rest of the world is experiencing as well.

Hon Michael Wood: Does she stand by her Government’s policy of introducing fair-pay agreements, a form of sector-based bargaining similar to Australia?

Nicola Grigg: Wait for the polling!

SPEAKER: Order! Order! Which member was that? Which was the loudest member? Was it you, Ms Grigg?

Nicola Grigg: Possibly.

SPEAKER: Possibly the loudest. I think we’ll go to the Prime Minister.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: We absolutely do, and the member is right to point out that this is a mechanism that has been in place in Australia for some time. And it wasn’t that long ago that I did hear members on that side of the House talking about the difference in wages between New Zealand and Australia. It is important that we make sure that we have a situation where the wages and conditions of those who are working in often the most precarious work are improved, because that equally comes at a cost to all of us.

Christopher Luxon: Why does the average Kiwi work for an hour to earn what the average Australian earns in 45 minutes?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Because of the productivity issues that we have, and that is exactly what things like fair-pay agreements are about. Welcome, welcome, Mr Luxon, to the Labour Party.

Christopher Luxon: Why has the Minister of Finance stopped talking about productivity?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: He never has. In fact, I would welcome the chance for the member to have a meeting, perhaps with our Minister for workplace relations, because it seems that perhaps he takes a more favourable view of fair-pay agreements than he thinks.

Christopher Luxon: Has she been advised whether prices are expected to continue growing faster than wages this year; and if so, does she at least accept that two consecutive years of declining real incomes means Kiwis are going backwards fast under Labour?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I refer to my original answer where, in the ASB report, there is the acknowledgment of the fact that wage growth has outstripped the growth in the cost of living for 20 out of 21 of the quarters since we came into office in 2017. That is not, of course, to diminish the period that we are in now, and that is exactly why we moved on excise. It’s exactly why we’ve halved the cost of public transport. It’s why we’ve made the raft of 1 April changes. It’s why we’re increasing Government support for those on welfare, and it’s why we’ve seen the increase in support for our superannuitants: $50 per fortnight for a single, $80 for a couple. It is why we’ve increased the family tax credit—all of that whilst maintaining critical services. The member’s proposal to give himself a tax cut would not allow any of that.

Christopher Luxon: Is she honestly saying that Kiwis who’ve seen their real incomes fall over the past year shouldn’t be concerned because inflation four years ago wasn’t as bad?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No. Obviously that is not what I said.

David Seymour: Can the Prime Minister explain to New Zealanders how her policy of putting large groups of workers all on the same contract will make them more productive—that is, produce more so they can take home more?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Well, first of all, the member is actually neglecting to acknowledge that for many it is a lift to the same rates that some in the sectors are already receiving. The Minister, when he launched fair-pay agreements, did so alongside employers who support fair-pay agreements, because it’s an acknowledgment that there are some sectors where there is a race to the bottom in terms of wages and conditions. This creates a fairer playing field. It means that you will see innovation in some sectors where, instead of pursuing cheap labour, we will see innovation and improvement in productivity.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: The employer was probably MBIE!

SPEAKER: Mr Goldsmith, the last one some of us would consider witty, but they certainly haven’t been rare and reasonable.

Question No. 5—Education

5. MARJA LUBECK (Labour) (remote) to the Associate Minister of Education: What work is the Government progressing to lift student achievement in maths and literacy?

Hon JAN TINETTI (Associate Minister of Education): Last week, the Government was pleased to release two new strategies that set out our plan to improve outcomes for Kiwi kids in maths, literacy, communication: Te Reo Matatini and Pāngarau. It’s time to do things differently, and these strategies provide a vision and direction that we need to head, in order to improve learning over the next five years. It is fundamental that teachers are supported and have what they need to be good teachers and—as a former teacher—I know firsthand how important this is. We are fixing assessments so that kids are assessed as individuals and supports are tailored to what the learner needs—not a one-size-fits-all check-box exercise. We’ll ensure opportunities for all young people and particularly for those who have been underserved in the past, by tackling inequity in our system.

Marja Lubeck: How were the strategies developed?

Hon JAN TINETTI: These strategies are evidence based, and draw on domestic and international best practice, and expert advice. However, importantly, they have also been developed for the New Zealand context and ensure that we place the learner at the centre, and leave nothing to chance. They have also been developed in partnership with a range of educational leaders, teachers, learners, parents and whānau, and others from the wider community. This has included the perspectives of Māori and Pacific people, professional associations, unions, employers and industry representatives, members of the disability sector, and expert advisory groups such as the NZC, Curriculum Voices Group.

Marja Lubeck: What do these strategies mean for teachers, parents, and students?

Hon JAN TINETTI: These strategies will guide action to shape the early learning and schooling system, to deliver equity and excellence. Previously, in English medium, the curriculum for maths and literacy has been too vague for students and, for Māori medium, curriculum Pāngarau and Te Reo Matatini were a translation of the English medium resources that missed the mark for our ākonga. Students will now be able to enjoy a curriculum that is clear, engaging, and relevant. Parents and whānau can feel confident we are developing a curriculum that supports their children’s learning progress and will provide lifelong maths and literacy skills. As for teachers, confidence comes with knowledge, so there will be a stronger focus on these subjects in initial teacher education and professional learning development.

Erica Stanford: Why is it, when she says that the strategy document is evidence based, that the Science of Reading findings—the most up to date body of research—is never even mentioned in the document?

Hon JAN TINETTI: Very simply, that this is the strategy that oversees the whole of the development in literacy and numeracy—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! We’ve had lots of complaints of noise overriding and—

Hon Member: How many?

SPEAKER: Can the member resume—hundreds, and the member should know not to interject. We’ve had lots of complaints about roars of noise overriding the ability of the public to hear, and we had just one of those now—not even a full sentence into the beginning of the Minister’s reply to the supplementary question. The Minister will start again.

Hon JAN TINETTI: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just to reiterate that this is the strategic document that shows the overall strategy and the road map towards where we are heading in literacy. There are other important parts of this that are progressing at this particular time, including the refresh of the curriculum. As I have said, these strategies are based on evidence, and the evidence shows that there is no one-size-fits-all, and I would actually point that member towards the references in the back of the document that fully show the broad range of evidence that we are using in the production of this strategy.

Question No. 6—Finance

6. NICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with ASB’s assessments that “higher consumer prices and debt servicing costs could raise household weekly outgoings by an average of around $150 per week over 2022” with income growth unlikely to keep pace?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): There are many parts of the ASB report that I agree with. These include the report’s acknowledgment that higher global food commodity prices, higher global oil prices, and the impact of the war in Ukraine are all having an effect on the inflation being experienced by New Zealanders. I acknowledge that a number of New Zealanders are facing a cost of living crisis due to these factors. That’s why the Government has moved quickly to ease the pressure on New Zealand families by, for example, cutting fuel excise by 25c, which has flowed through immediately to prices at the pump. With respect to the number quoted by the member, it is hypothetical and relies on a number of factors and calculations that are highly uncertain. In response to the second part of the member’s question, I would note that the ASB forecasts that, on average, over 2022, household disposable incomes will be higher than consumer spending, giving a positive savings rate over the year. And as the House may already be aware, the report indicates that since the end of 2017, when Labour came into Government, disposable incomes have been, and will remain, higher than consumer spending in 20 out of 21 quarters through to the end of 2022.

Nicola Willis: Does he deny calculations showing a typical New Zealand household experienced a $5,000 increase in costs last year, and is he concerned about the difficult choices households will face this year as they struggle to absorb an estimated additional $7,800 in costs?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: In answer to the first part of the member’s question, I note that the ASB report is not actually a typical household but, rather, a “stylised average”, which includes the household paying both mortgage and rental costs. So those numbers do need to be carefully looked at. As I said in my original answer, we acknowledge that many New Zealand families are doing it tough, and that’s why we’re supporting them.

Nicola Willis: Does he acknowledge that there are hundreds of thousands of taxpaying New Zealanders who are not eligible for Working for Families or Government benefits but who also face a cost of living crisis, and why doesn’t he think they deserve income tax relief?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Because the package that the member’s party is offering up would see those on the highest incomes benefit the most, would see a benefit to property speculators, and would see those on lower incomes getting $2 a week—all, at the same time, putting in danger investment in health, education, housing, and other Government services. The member’s plan doesn’t add up.

Nicola Willis: Well, what does he say to Kris, who wrote to me, saying—

Hon Members: Ha, ha!

SPEAKER: Order! Order!

Nicola Willis: Shall I start again, Mr Speaker?

SPEAKER: I’m sure it wasn’t Hipkins, but carry on.

Nicola Willis: What does he say to Kris, who wrote to me saying—“Kris” with a K—“I can’t get Working for Families. I earn too much for any help. The Government is making it harder and harder for people on an average wage to live. I am angry and upset that I have to work harder and harder every week just to live.”?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What I would say to Kris and to other New Zealanders is that this Government is making sure that we continue to invest in health, in education, and in housing, and all of the public services that they rely upon, and that if they were to take the National Party’s tax proposal, those on the highest incomes would benefit the most, those who are speculating in housing would get a tax break, and those on the lowest incomes would get $2. There are always difficult choices to be made in households and in Governments. On this side of the House, we believe we’ve got the balance right. A balance doesn’t come from $8,000 to that member and $2 to somebody on the minimum wage.

Nicola Willis: Why does he continue to argue that wages are keeping up with the cost of living and why is it that so many Kiwis are feeling worse off, including Porirua resident Mykie Sagar, who was reported by Stuff this weekend as saying, “I thought with all the extra work we’ve had that I would have a small fortune somewhere, but I don’t, I just don’t know where it’s gone.”?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On this side of the House, we’re committed to making sure that we do the long-term things we need to do right: to invest in our roads, to invest in our public transport, to make sure that we build houses—not to sell the houses off like the previous Government did. The member’s proposal will benefit the wealthiest the most. It’s just the same old National Party; New Zealanders wouldn’t be better off with it.

Nicola Willis: Well, what does he say to Jamie, who wrote to me saying, “Now I’m 40, still doing 50 to 60 hours a week, struggling to survive, and starting to wonder if I’d be better off on a benefit.”, and why won’t the Minister deliver income tax relief for hard-working New Zealanders like Jamie?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On this side of the House, we know that New Zealanders want and need good quality public health, good quality education, good quality housing. For the nine years the National Party were in office, every single one of those was undermined. The member can’t have it all ways. She can’t say she’s going to reduce debt, cut taxes, and keep up that spending. It’s the same Bermuda Triangle that Paul Goldsmith was in, and unless the National Party come up with new ideas, it’s just same old National again.

Question No. 7—Transport

7. GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu) to the Minister of Transport: What recent steps has the Government taken to support New Zealanders through the current global energy shock and associated transport costs?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): In March, we announced moves to reduce the costs of fuel by lowering fuel excise duty and road-user charges, in response to the global energy shock following the Russian invasion of Ukraine. We also announced half-price fares for public transport to encourage commuters to consider changes to the way that they travel at a lower cost. Changes to the fuel excise duty were immediate, and I’ve now confirmed that road-user charges will be cut by 36 percent across all legislated rates, coming into effect in late April. The scope for public transport services has been confirmed and will include key additional services such as the Capital Connection; Te Huia; and the Total Mobility services, that are so important to our disability communities. These changes ensure that it will make a meaningful difference to more New Zealanders and provide more options for them to move around our towns, cities, and regions.

Greg O’Connor: Why is it important that these key additional services were included?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: In addition to the inclusion of bus and train services across the country, the inclusion of services such as the Capital Connection, Te Huia, and Total Mobility recognise the range of different transport modes and the needs of commuters, especially those who have particular needs, and travel between regions—and I note in particular the advocacy we’ve received for support for the Total Mobility services for our disability community, and we’re very pleased to support that. By reducing the cost barrier for these services, we’re providing more options for commuters to get around, which helps us to reduce carbon emissions. It reduces the cost for those commuters and gives people more choices.

Greg O’Connor: Why was it important for the Government to move quickly in making these changes?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: The global energy shock brought on by the invasion of Ukraine had a particularly acute and rapid effect on the cost of fuel worldwide, and New Zealand was no exception. We recognise that the flow-on effects at the pump were having a real impact for Kiwi families, and, by moving quickly and decisively, we’ve been able to mitigate those impacts and reduce the cost barrier for the users of public transport services as well.

Question No. 8—Police

8. Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa) to the Minister of Police: Does she stand by her statement, “The reality is that this Government has never been more active in targeting the gangs and criminal leaders and getting them off the streets”; and if so, how does she reconcile that statement with the over 40 percent increase in gang membership since October 2017?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister of Police): Yes, this Government is committed to combating the harm caused by gangs and organised crime through a variety of measures, including amending the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act to hit the gangs in their pockets, introducing firearms prohibition orders to give police more tools to tackle gun crime, and continuing to invest record amounts into our police to provide them with the resources they need to do their job—including 700 additional organised crime staff by June next year. In answer to the second question, the member is referring to the National Gang List, an intelligence tool designed to give police a high-level understanding of the gang environment. It was never designed to be an accurate State statistical count of gang membership in New Zealand. This Government will continue to support police in their work to disrupt organised crime and gang membership.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Are Kiwis right to be more worried about gangs and gang violence today than they were when Labour came to office?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: There is no question that we must continue to disrupt gangs and organised crime networks. This Government will continue to support police in their efforts to crack down on gangs through operations such as Tauwhiro, legislation introducing firearms prohibition orders, and by funding the largest ever police workforce. We’re putting a record number of police on the beat with a specific focus on gangs and organised crime, and we’ve ramped up our efforts to hit gangs where it hurts: in their pockets, seizing $500 million in cash and assets from gangs and criminals in the last four years.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Is gang-related violence increasing or decreasing under her watch?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: There’s no doubt that this Government has worked hard to support the police in their efforts to put pressure on gangs. And if I can point to some operations: Operation Tauwhiro, a thousand arrests and 52 kilograms of meth—

Hon Mark Mitchell: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: A point of order, the Hon Mark—I hope the member’s not going to be disagreeing with an answer, because you know that’s not a point of order, don’t you?

Hon Mark Mitchell: Well, what I’m raising, Mr Speaker, is the fact that that was a very clear, short, concise question.

SPEAKER: It was, and we’ll let the Minister try and answer it, or at least address it. We haven’t got there yet; I think we all accept that.

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Operation Trout: five arrests and 10 kilograms of meth stopped at the border; Operation Selena: 24 arrests and two properties and five vehicles seized; Operation Weirton: six arrests and over 600 kilograms of meth seized. The charging—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! Order! I don’t want to reiterate what Mr Mitchell has said, but the member has now gone on for a very long time, and she hasn’t addressed what was a pretty simple question.

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: The charging rate—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! Who said that? Who interjected then?

Simeon Brown: I think it was me.

SPEAKER: You think it was you? You will stand, withdraw and apologise, and sit on a last warning.

Simeon Brown: I withdraw and apologise.

SPEAKER: That seat’s infectious!

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: The charging rate against identified gang members is 92 percent in the year to date, which has gone up under our watch. We will continue to support police in their efforts to put pressure on gangs.

Nicole McKee: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Minister, how many 501s, which the Government likes to blame for gang violence, are actually on the National Gang List? And do 501s still make up just 1.7 percent of that list?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: If that member would care to put that question in writing, given it is one that is not on notice, I’d be happy to respond to her.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Why have the people of Kaikohe been subjected to open gang warfare and violence in their streets?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: Police have responded to recent gang tensions by deploying more staff to Kaikohe. Police have also made a number of arrests in relation to recent gang tensions, and will continue to deploy more staff into these areas if required.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Point of order. Mr Speaker, that answer was to the Police’s response. The question was about cause, and none of the answer referred to cause.

SPEAKER: Can the member just repeat the question to me—I’ve lost what it was.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Yes, Mr Speaker. Why have the people of Kaikohe been subjected to open gang warfare and violence in their streets?

SPEAKER: No, well I think that the response did address—at least, attempt to intervene in—that issue.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Why is the brazen violent behaviour such as we saw on the Waikato Expressway, where gang members brutally assaulted a motorist, becoming more common under her watch?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: As I’ve already said to that member: under this Government, we’ve put more resource into the Police and put more cops on the beat to ensure that their response is as adequate as it can be. And I would point to that National Government, when they were in office, freezing resources and dropping police numbers. You cannot do more with less, Mr Mitchell; you have to have sufficient cops and sufficient resources to deal with the issue, and this Government stands behind our police every single day of the year.

SPEAKER: Right, I’m just—sorry, before I call David Seymour, I am going to say to the Hon Mr Goldsmith he will not interject for the rest of question time. I think we haven’t got a single supplementary answer without at least one interjection from him, and—[Interruption] I think there’s some people who don’t really want to stay here.

Question No. 9—Prime Minister

9. DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all her Government’s statements and policies?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes.

David Seymour: Does she stand by her statement at Waitangi in 2019 that “Equality is our foundation”, and, if so, does she believe that our constitutional foundation should be equal political rights for all New Zealanders?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: In answer to the first part of the question, yes.

David Seymour: Does she stand by her Government’s policy of co-governance for three waters infrastructure, and, if so, can she explain how being appointed based on ancestry makes people better at managing infrastructure than if they are elected by the users of the service?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: There are a number of areas where, of course, we work alongside Māori on the basis of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. If the member wishes to distil down his views in Te Tiriti into the way that he just described, that’s a matter for him. I am happy, though, to respond to the general question around how we’ve come to the governance arrangements we have for three waters. This is an issue that we are tackling as a Government, not because it was top on anyone’s agenda in this House but because we have to face the brutal fact that, in New Zealand, thousands of New Zealanders get sick from their drinking water every single year—the fact that just last week, when I visited Tokomaru Bay, there are people there who had no access to water because of a severe weather event. They’re now on a boil notice. That happens for some New Zealanders every day of the week. It is not acceptable, so we need change.

In making that change and developing entities across the country that will have the role of maintaining public ownership of our critical water assets but ensuring that we have regional representation, we’ve put forward a proposal that that regional representation consist of mana whenua, as happens in local government every day, alongside local authority representatives. I would point out to the member that recently, when we went to a group of local government representatives to ask them for their views on those arrangements, they came back in support of the regional representative group structure we had proposed.

David Seymour: Point of order. It was actually a very simple question about how the composition of governance bodies for three waters would improve the performance and outcomes of infrastructure management. Now, the Minister described a whole lot of features of the policy, but she never came close to addressing that actual question.

SPEAKER: I think she did address the question.

David Seymour: Does the Prime Minister stand by her Government’s policy of having Ngāi Tahu appoint two councillors to Environment Canterbury alongside democratically elected councillors, and, if so, can she explain how that policy will deliver better air and water quality for the people of Canterbury?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: If the member wishes to speak to the arrangements that actually exist across the board in many areas of local government, including currently on some of the water issues down south or even maunga management up north, the member takes issue with that. He may wish to reflect on his role in the time that National was in Government, where many of those arrangements were established. What I would be interested in is, actually, if the member could articulate what it is that has been generated by those groups and those arrangements that the member finds particularly problematic; what is it about local government actually acknowledging that, to date, we haven’t had fair representation of Māori in local government; and what it is about the changes that have come into place that the member finds particularly problematic? Let’s discuss the issue, rather than what I’m worried about is just blatant politicisation.

David Seymour: Does she agree with this statement: “All political authority comes from the people by democratic means including universal suffrage, regular and free elections with a secret ballot.”, and, if so, how is that consistent with more and more governance roles being appointed along ethnic lines instead of elected?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Of course, I support the longstanding principles of democracy in this nation, but the idea that that cannot sit alongside Te Tiriti o Waitangi, I take issue with that. We are more sophisticated than that, surely, than to take such a simplistic view.

David Seymour: Does she see any distinction between co-governance arrangements for specific taonga returned through Treaty settlements, such as the arrangements for Auckland’s maunga, on the one hand, and co-governance of entities that did not exist in 1840, such as public healthcare systems and three waters infrastructure, on the other, or is co-governance now a wholesale policy, regardless of that distinction?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Perhaps we should come at it from a different angle for the member. We have not, since the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi, had the Māori Health Authority. Yet what we have had is a national health system that has generated an outcome where Māori die younger than other New Zealanders and where Māori have worse health outcomes, for instance, in cancer care and treatment for every cancer there is other than melanoma. It is not right in this country that because you’re Māori, you are often sicker and you have poorer treatment in our health system. So we are responding to that, yes, with an entity that didn’t exist before, because this is a problem that has existed because we have not confronted it as we should.

Question No. 10—Emergency Management

10. ANNA LORCK (Labour—Tukituki) (remote) to the Minister for Emergency Management: How has the Government responded to the Tairāwhiti and Hawke’s Bay floods?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister for Emergency Management): On 24 March, I announced that the Government would provide $175,000 to the Gisborne District Council for a Tai Rāwhiti mayoral relief fund to support a community that has had to deal with five significant weather events in the past year, alongside COVID. On 25 March, my colleague the Hon Damien O’Connor declared a medium-scale adverse event for the flood damage across the Tai Rāwhiti district and Hawke’s Bay region, unlocking $150,000 of Government support for farmers and growers as part of the clean-up. The Ministry of Social Development has activated civil defence payments to those needing immediate support, and New Zealand Defence Force personnel were deployed to the region and distributed food, water, and medical supplies.

Anna Lorck: What further support is being considered?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: In addition, the New Zealand Defence Force has deployed a reconnaissance crew that was deployed on Monday to determine what further assistance the region requires, including, particularly, roading requirements and support. A report detailing these requirements is expected to be provided to the National Emergency Management Agency and the Civil Defence Emergency Management Group within the next couple of days. In addition, Waka Kotahi and its roading contractors have been working tirelessly to clean up the debris across the State highway network and to safely restore lifelines in and out of the region.

Anna Lorck: What roles have the local community and volunteers played in the response?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: Alongside the Prime Minister this week, I have witnessed firsthand the many volunteers and communities reaching out to support Te Tai Rāwhiti and the Hawke’s Bay communities impacted by the weather events. These communities, often hailed as resilient, are tired and they have been operating in isolated areas, but nevertheless they have rallied together to support each other. I want to acknowledge the Tai Rāwhiti civil defence emergency management groups in particular that have enabled the communities to stay well connected, and I also acknowledge the role of Ngāti Porou and the hapū leads that have rounded around to support the communities. I commend the efforts of all of those that have been engaged and continue to be engaged in the current state of emergency that is occurring in the region now.

Question No. 11—Commerce and Consumer Affairs

11. RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori) (remote) to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: Kia ora e te Pīka. Otirā, kia ora tātou e te Whare. Tuatahi, kei te tangi atu ki tērā kuia, Kahurangi June Jackson e takoto mai rā ki runga i tōna marae – haere atu rā, e kui.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker, and thank you to the House. First, I would like to acknowledge the elder Dame June Jackson, who is lying in State on her marae—I bid you farewell, my lady.]

My question is to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs. Does he stand by his statement that “competition in the retail grocery market is not working”; if so, what steps will he take, if any, to break up the supermarket duopoly?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): I do want to acknowledge the member’s question and the respects to Dame June and agree with those sentiments. In answer to the question, yes, I stand by my statement that the report is clear: competition in the retail grocery sector is not working, and consumers will get better prices, range, and quality when action is taken to address this. It’s clear that we need to improve competition and that there is a desire to see quick action. That is what we are doing. My officials are currently working through the recommendations of the 607-page report, but I have been clear that we will not rule out exploring further measures if the recommendations in the report don’t achieve the level of competition we need. We’re looking at establishing a new regulator and dispute resolution scheme, developing a mandatory code of conduct, and how we can ban land covenants to free up space for new supermarkets. These actions can have a real impact on improving competition in New Zealand. This issue is simply too important not to get a response right on, on behalf of New Zealand consumers.

Rawiri Waititi: What is his response to the Commerce Commission’s recommendations that Government should free up land and supply chains for independent grocers, considering that the current market locks out the potential for tangata whenua - owned supermarkets that operate with Māori values?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The commission has recommended, in terms of supply chains, that there’s a code of conduct that changes the relationship between the supermarkets or the retail grocery sector and their suppliers. Indeed, I do want to acknowledge in particular the role of Māori in our grocery sector as store owners, suppliers, and consumers, because in particular Māori have a strong role as growers and primary producers, including owning 50 percent of the fishing quota; 30 percent of lamb, sheep, and beef production; and 10 percent of dairy production and kiwifruit. The commission made recommendations to address the imbalance of power between the major retailers and their suppliers, including the code of conduct and a regulator overseeing it. In respect of land covenants, they are something I’m also seeking to ban.

Rawiri Waititi: Will Government regulate the sector to stop price gauging at our supermarkets and prevent low-income people being lumped with regular cost increases—like in my electorate of Waiariki, where cabbages seem to cost up to $12 and cauliflower costs more than $10—just to feed their whānau; if not, why not?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The Commerce Commission found that competition was not working as it could be and should be in the sector. Improving the conditions for competition should lead to better range, prices, quality, and service across the sector. That is what the study is about. We agree with its findings and we look forward to responding to the recommendations.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Does he accept that the duopoly’s estimated $430 million in excess yearly profit shows people are being ripped off; if so, will he ensure that the option of a publicly owned competitor is on the table to address this?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I have said we have accepted the findings from the Commerce Commission. Even on their most conservative estimate, which is more conservative than the one the member draws on, they find that the supermarkets are making excess profits of $1 million a day across New Zealand. That is a substantial finding and warrants a substantial response. In respect of a Government owned or backed intervention, that is not something the commission recommends. They believe creating the right conditions for competition is what is essential. They don’t see Government as having specialist expertise in selling groceries in particular. They also warn against setting up a Government-owned or backed wholesaler simply on the basis of their analysis around how competition has improved around the world. That said, we are absolutely committed to the findings in the report and are working on the response to the recommendations so that we can see better competition in the sector and see consumers get sharper prices and get a fair deal at the checkout.

Question No. 12—Social Development and Employment

12. Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: How many people, if any, had received jobseeker support for three consecutive years or longer as at the December 2021 quarter and how many people, if any, had received jobseeker support for three consecutive years or longer as at the December 2017 quarter?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (remote): In December 2017, there were 36,906 people receiving jobseeker assistance for longer than three years; in December 2021, that number was 55,116—a difference of 18,210. We have been enduring a pandemic and the overall numbers of people on benefit have gone up, and, as you can imagine, that means in each time period the number of people on benefit have gone up as well. There are a group of New Zealanders who struggle to find employment during periods of economic shock and are further disadvantaged. This is why Government has increased our focus on getting people back into work, and we are seeing great results—more people moved off the benefit and into work in 2021 than any time since the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) began taking electronic records in 1996.

Hon Louise Upston: Why are almost 6 percent of working-age adults on the jobseeker benefit, almost twice the official unemployment rate, when local businesses like supermarkets are crying out for workers?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: One of the areas that we had to contend with when we came into Government was the area of upskilling and training for New Zealanders who were struggling to find employment. On the front line, there’d been a reduction of MSD work-focused case management, given that the front line was dealing more and more with hardship and hadn’t been given the resourcing that they needed to be able to support people—not only into the immediate employment that was available but the upskilling and training that they might need to get into employment. Since we’ve got into Government, we have focused on that investment, making sure that those on benefit do have access to upskilling and training and employment, and it’s paying off. We’re seeing—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member’s answer is too long.

Hon Louise Upston: Why are 6 percent of working-age adults on jobseeker when Stuff reports today that some kiwifruit companies are offering pay of up to $60 an hour?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Firstly, can I say that that would not be the norm for the kiwifruit picking or horticulture industry. I think that that would be the exception. With regards to some of those employment areas, it’s not easy with regards to the geographical location for some of the people that are unemployed to be able to get there. Even within the horticulture industry, they do need a level of skill that they don’t always have and we do hear that from the horticulture sector. We’re working with that sector to provide them and support them to get the employees that they need, and we’re very hopeful that we will be able to do that over the course of the season.

Hon Louise Upston: Can she explain how, at a time the Government is celebrating low unemployment and jobs are offering at $60 an hour, 36,000 more children are growing up in benefit-dependent homes?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I think we need to reflect on what was forecast initially a couple of years back: we have not reached the peak of beneficiary numbers that had been anticipated, and that’s due to the economic focus and health focus that we have had as a Government. Just last week, we saw benefit numbers come down under 350,000; there are over—I think—25,000 less on benefits than there were this time last year. With the investment that we are making, we are tracking in the right direction and we are supporting New Zealanders into employment more than ever, more than any other Government has done since electronic records were kept.

Hon Chris Hipkins: Does the Minister believe that characterising people on benefits as “pretty damned hopeless”, or more recently as “bottom feeders”, does anything to get them into meaningful employment?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Absolutely not. And that has been one of the shameful parts of our political history—that we have used beneficiaries as political footballs during political cycles. It does nothing to empower or support those whānau to get ahead. We won’t be doing that as a Government; we will continue to invest in them in the way that we have been. We see the potential of people on benefit and know that investing in them is investing in their children.

Hon Louise Upston: If she sees the potential of people on benefit, why is it that there are 116,000 on jobseeker that have been stuck there for over a year—an increase of almost 50,000 long-term unemployed under her watch?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I think it’s important to reflect on some of our policies and how, in that context, they are actually helping people get ahead. One of those policies is actually lifting the abatement threshold so that people can earn a little bit more money—they may keep their benefit, but they get to work a few more part-time hours without losing money. That’s really important, because we see part-time employment as a pathway to full-time employment. Also, if there are women that are on benefit but they are getting tertiary-level education because we actually reintroduced the Training Incentive Allowance, then I’m not ashamed of that, and that will help them and their children get ahead.

Mark Cameron: Does the Minister stand by her statement “even the horticultural industry requires some skill”?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Absolutely. And they say it themselves, that they need a level of skill amongst the employees that they support. And so we continue to work with them, and there are a number of supports and products in place where MSD can provide support for that occurring. That has resulted into people going into those jobs. But I do recognise the strain that they’re feeling, not necessarily just because of the domestic labour force but because of the lack of people that are here on visitor’s visas, and a range of other things. But we do see the light on the horizon, and we’ll continue to work with them.

Questions to Members

Question No. 1—Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee

1. MELISSA LEE (National) to the Chairperson of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee: When will the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee report its findings on the Inquiry into the Review of the Radio New Zealand Charter to the House?

JAMIE STRANGE (Chairperson of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee) (remote): The reporting of said findings is a matter for the committee.

Melissa Lee: Has the chair received any directives to postpone or delay the inquiry into the review of the Radio New Zealand charter’s final report to the House?

SPEAKER: Order! That’s not a matter for which the chair is responsible.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The question asks specifically about whether the chair had received—

SPEAKER: Yes, and the only things that the chair can report on to this House are matters of the decisions of the committee; nothing else. The member knows that—I think the member knows that—and if he doesn’t, he should have and, if he did, he’s being disorderly.

Bills

Appropriation (2020/21 Confirmation and Validation) Bill

First Reading

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I move, That the Appropriation (2020/21 Confirmation and Validation) Bill be now read a first time.

Bill read a first time.

Bills

Ngāti Maru (Taranaki) Claims Settlement Bill

Third Reading

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I present a legislative statement on the Ngāti Maru (Taranaki) Claims Settlement Bill.

SPEAKER: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I move, That the Ngāti Maru (Taranaki) Claims Settlement Bill be now read a third time.

Tākiri mai a na te ata, ki runga o ngākau mārohirohi. Korihi ana te manu kaupapa, ka ao, ka ao, ka awatea. Tihei mauriora.

Taranaki maunga, Taranaki whenua, Taranaki tangata. Ngāti Maru iwi, nau mai, haere mai. E mihi ana ki te hunga mate, haere, haere, haere atu rā. Ki a tātou te hunga ora, tēnā tātou.

He uri Pākehā au i tupu i te aroha o Taranaki maunga, o Taranaki whenua. Tēnei au, otirā mātou Te Kāwanatanga e mihi nei ki te kaupapa o te wā, nō reira rau rangatira mā tēnei taku mihi atu ki a koutou tēnā koutou, huri noa tēnā tātou katoa.

[Dawn breaks, a new morning and a dauntless heart. The voice of this issue now sings. A new dawn leads to the full light of day. I now begin.

Taranaki mountain, Taranaki land, Taranaki people. Ngāti Maru, welcome, welcome. I acknowledge those who have passed. May you rest in peace. And to us who remain, welcome one and all.

I am a Pākehā who grew up under the embrace of Taranaki mountain and Taranaki land, surrounded by the love of Taranaki people. I stand here, we the Government stands here acknowledging the issue of the time. Therefore to the many chiefs, this is my greeting to you all. Greetings, greetings one and all.]

I begin by acknowledging the people of Ngāti Maru today. E te iwi Ngāti Maru, tēnā koutou. It’s a great privilege and an honour for me to open this third reading debate as today marks this final stage in the progression of Ngāti Maru’s Treaty settlement bill. It is testament to the years of hard work of their people, of their leaders, and the dedication towards negotiating te herenga takitaki and the long-awaited day of celebration. Although many are still having to watch this bill reading remotely, I’m pleased that Ngāti Maru representatives are in the House today to watch this reading in person. I explained to Ngāti Maru folks who are here in te Whare Pāremata that for many of the Treaty settlement bills that we’ve had to progress in the last couple of years, many iwi representatives have had to do so from outside the Chamber, and it’s great to have members back in the gallery.

This is a special day for Ngāti Maru, and I’m glad that they are here to be able to witness this in person. I thank Ngāti Maru for their fortitude and patience in reaching this significant milestone. It is, as I said before, a great pleasure for me to stand here today to support the bill’s enactment.

I pay tribute to Ngāti Maru tūpuna on this occasion, for the grievances that they have suffered and for the legacy of peace, which serves as a basis for the identity of Ngāti Maru to this very day. I also pay tribute to those who initiated this Treaty settlement process who cannot be here today to celebrate this milestone. Moe mai, moe mai, moe mai rā.

I acknowledge and thank the Ngāti Maru lead negotiator, Anaru Marshall, for his work advocating for justice for Ngāti Maru and for his wisdom and leadership throughout the settlement process. I also acknowledge the wider Ngāti Maru negotiation team: Holden Hohaia, Nathan Peri, Jamie Tuuta, Karl Burrows, Tomairangi Mareikura, Emma Gardiner, and Paretutaki Hayward-Howie for seeing this settlement through.

On the Crown’s side, I acknowledge David Tapsell for his guidance and able leadership as chief Crown negotiator. I thank my ministerial colleagues for their work and support. Thank you also to the officials who worked to develop and finalise a redress package with Ngāti Maru.

The Ngāti Maru (Taranaki) Claims Settlement Bill gives effect to te herenga takitaki, the deed of settlement, between Ngāti Maru and the Crown, signed on 27 February 2021, and settles all the historical te Tiriti o Waitangi claims of Ngāti Maru. The bill, like the deed of settlement, acknowledges the Crown’s historic breaches of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. It also provides Ngāti Maru with a cultural and economic base to support future revitalisation.

Today, it is right to reflect on that history, a shared and troublesome history, and to record it in this House. For generations, Ngāti Maru cultivated the fertile land on the Waitara River flats and utilised resources from the forests, rivers, and wetlands. Because of their inland location, Ngāti Maru had limited contact with Europeans in the 1840s and 1850s, and were not involved in the Crown’s land dealings which led to the outbreak of war in Taranaki in 1860. Nor were they involved in the subsequent fighting. Their involvement was limited to providing refuge to Wiremu Kīngi Te Rangitāke, in accordance with the requirements of whanaungatanga.

However, when the Crown confiscated huge tracts of Taranaki land to punish the so-called rebels in 1865, approximately half of the traditional lands of Ngāti Maru were included. To repeat: half of the lands were confiscated. Many of their kāinga, urupā, and wāhi tapu were taken, and some have never been returned.

Following the confiscation, Ngāti Maru continued to live on their lands. In the early 1870s, the Crown attempted to promote European settlement on confiscated land by paying some Ngāti Maru compensation for the rights that the confiscation had extinguished. These deeds of session, covering about 60,000 acres, created significant divisions within the iwi, compounding the damage already caused by the Crown’s confiscation. Much of the remaining Ngāti Maru land was then put through the Native Land Court. Ngāti Maru had no other option but to use that court if they wanted a title that could be legally recognised and protected from other claims. A legal title was also necessary if Ngāti Maru wanted to lease or sell land. However, the individualisation of customary title made the land more susceptible to alienation and further damaged tribal cohesion. Ultimately, Ngāti Maru did not retain any of the land awarded to them by the Native Land Court.

In the early 1890s, some Ngāti Maru were virtually landless and appealed to the Crown for help. The Crown’s response was slow and ineffective. Legislation was not enacted until 1907, and the land provided was significantly smaller in size and not adequate to sustain the needs of Ngāti Maru. An agreement to consolidate individual awards into more economically viable family holdings was never carried out, and landless Ngāti Maru people who were not named in the 1907 Acts did not receive any land.

Despite further petitions from Ngāti Maru, in 1946, the Crown finally declined to provide them any further land. Much of the tribe’s remaining land later came under public trustee administration and were subject to perpetual leases that invariably benefited Pākehā farmers rather than the Ngāti Maru owners. The extensive loss of Ngāti Maru lands has eroded tribal structures; created severe poverty; and damaged the physical, cultural, and spiritual health of generations of Ngāti Maru people. The intense sense of loss and disconnection is expressed in the following Ngāti Maru lament: Maru hāhā, hāhā te whenua, hāhā te tangata. Maru of extreme loss and breathlessness, the land is deserted. The people are gone and gasping for breath.

I recognise that the Ngāti Maru settlement package does not fully compensate for the magnitude of loss they have suffered across generations. It’s testament to the extraordinary honour and dedication of Ngāti Maru that they have agreed to accept the current package and move towards reconciliation with the Crown. I thank you for your generosity of spirit and I am hopeful for what our shared future holds. Today is a day for reflecting on our shared history of the relationship between Ngāti Maru and the Crown, for acknowledging our troubled past and for recognising that the burden of history is one that Ngāti Maru will continue to bear.

The events I’ve described today may have occurred in the past, but for the people of Ngāti Maru, the legacy of loss, of deprivation, and of justified anger is ever present. It is my sincerest hope that this settlement will help Ngāti Maru build a more prosperous future.

Ngāti Maru are already doing work in their rohe to revitalise the iwi and teach rangatahi what it means to be Ngāti Maru. When enacted, this bill will further empower those efforts and will mark a new beginning in the relationship between the Crown and Ngāti Maru, based on mutual trust, cooperation, and true partnership. I look forward to meeting Ngāti Maru in their rohe sometime in the near future to deliver the Crown’s apology. It wasn’t possible during the time of COVID and the progress of these negotiations and of this bill to deliver the Crown apology prior to the legislation coming to this House, but I am determined that we will find a time, and I would be honoured, on behalf of the Crown, to deliver the much deserved apology to Ngāti Maru. On that note, I commend this bill to the House. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): It is a pleasure to rise as the member of Parliament for Southland, and the National Party spokesperson for Treaty negotiations, in support of this legislation at its final reading. Ngāti Maru iwi, he rā tino nui tēnei mō koutou, koutou te kaha me te manawanui. Nō reira e rau rangatira mā, tēnei taku mihi atu ki a koutou. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[To the Ngāti Maru tribe, this is a very important day for you, you of strength and patience. Therefore, to the many chiefs, this is my greeting to you. Greetings, greetings to you all. Greetings to one and all.]

It was a true privilege to meet a number of you this afternoon, and to the elders, leaders, and members of Ngāti Maru who are witnessing this auspicious moment, either here within Parliament or from their homes or wherever in the world they may be, I extend a very warm welcome this afternoon.

As we near the final stages of this bill’s journey through this House, I acknowledge that the signing of Ngāti Maru’s settlement, which took place in February, has been a long time coming for iwi who have been in negotiations since the late 1980s. This bill completes the settlement process, which began under former Treaty negotiations Minister Christopher Finlayson during the last National-led Government, and I wish to acknowledge Minister Andrew Little, who has laid the settlement to its final conclusion here in the House today. I also extend my gratitude to the settlement negotiators for the Crown and for Ngāti Maru who worked tirelessly to shape an agreement that we all hope heralds a brighter future for present and future generations of Ngāti Maru.

As I noted at the first reading of this legislation: with every Treaty settlement bill, we as the House of Representatives turn our gazes in three directions. We look to the past reflecting on traumatic histories and legacies that are very much a part of our story as a nation and need to be acknowledged. We reflect on the present moment acknowledging those injustices and through redress we seek to make right the wrongs of the past. Finally, we look to the future trusting that a re-forged relationship between the Crown and tangata whenua lays the foundation for our best days which lie ahead.

The historical account contained in this bill catalogues the extensive loss of Ngāti Maru lands, reduced access to mahinga kai and other natural resources, and the erosion of tribal structures and cohesion during the 19th and 20th centuries, which negatively impacted on all aspects of Ngāti Maru life and severely limited the ability of the tribe to participate in the development of the Taranaki region. Ngāti Maru have continued to suffer from the effects of poverty, unemployment, poor housing, and diminished physical and spiritual health as a result. Ngāti Maru calculate that by 1920, more than half of their people had no surviving children. Many Ngāti Maru were forced to leave the district in search of employment, resulting in further damage to their community. This intense sense of loss and disconnection within Ngāti Maru whenua, and whakapapa is hauntingly expressed in the lament “Maru hāhā, hāhā te whenua, hāhā te tangata.” Maru of extreme loss and breathlessness. The land is deserted.

In this bill, the Crown acknowledges and apologises to Ngāti Maru for its acts and omissions which breach the Crown’s obligations in the Treaty of Waitangi and for the damage that those actions caused to Ngāti Maru. These include acknowledgments relating to the wars in Taranaki in the 1860s, the Crown’s confiscation of approximately half of Ngāti Maru rohe, its imprisonment of Ngāti Maru men without trial following their participation in protests initiated at Parihaka regarding the confiscation of Taranaki lands and its subsequent invasion and destruction. The legislation also includes an acknowledgment that the Crown failed to ensure that Ngāti Maru retain sufficient land for their present and future needs, and that it failed to protect their rangatiratanga. Ngāti Maru will receive financial and commercial redress valued at $30 million. Cultural redress includes the vesting of 16 sites of cultural significance, including the Purangi Domain and Tarata Domain.

No redress can ever fully compensate for the wrongs of the past. However, we hope that this settlement will allow Ngāti Maru to realise their aspirations for a vibrant, economic, and cultural future, and restore a relationship between Ngāti Maru and the Crown based on mutual trust, respect, and cooperation.

In closing, I would like to share words which are very appropriate for today’s proceedings. Tēnei au e te motu, ko te kī mai a te ao nei kia hoatu ōna hara ki te rangi hao tina haere mai te taonga. It means “Here I am. The world instructs us to release the burdens of the past to the cleansing winds. Bring forth the blessings and opportunities of the future.” Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa. I commend this bill to the House.

TĀMATI COFFEY (Labour) (remote): Tēnā koe e te Pika, koutou mā o Taranaki maunga, ngā whanaunga, ōku whanaunga o Ngāti Maru. He mihi ki a koutou katoa ahakoa kei hea i Aotearoa nei.

[Greetings to the Speaker and to you of Taranaki mountain, to the relations, my relations from Ngāti Maru. This a greeting to you all, wherever in New Zealand you may be.]

Kia ora, Ngāti Maru. Today is your day. It was a while ago now that we stood in the House and we acknowledged you on the first reading of your bill. We’ve been through the submissions process, through the committee, and I want to take a moment to acknowledge all of those people that came forward from Ngāti Maru to put their whakaaro down on paper and to present to our committee. I am also regretful that we were unable to make it for the hearings, and I want to put this back out to you guys that are listening: if you want to invite us at a time in the future when all is safe and well and we’ve passed this COVID pandemic, then I know that on behalf of the Māori Affairs Committee, we would love to be able to come to your marae to tie up a loose end, actually, to do what’s right, which is to acknowledge you on your whenua and hopefully—as our Minister indicated earlier—when he comes, he will be able to read that apology as well and we’ll be able to stand by his side and feel the wairua and feel those tears as well that I know that I talked about in my first reading speech in the House.

In my first reading speech, I commented on an article that had been written by Stuff, and I wanted to acknowledge Tamzyn Pue, who has been one of the leading lights of this Treaty negotiation. One of her comments summed it up really well. She said that “This deed”—this bill; this settlement—“contains the tears of my ancestors, the truths of the history that left Ngāti Maru landless, with no reo, no tikanga, and no identity.” I really do hope that this is going to help put Ngāti Maru back on its own journey, as it should have been all those years ago.

I want to just acknowledge that the work that’s been done to get to this point has been a collaboration of many people, many hours, many documents. I want to acknowledge everybody that put effort into getting us to the point where we’re at today: our Crown officials, Crown negotiator, but also I thank the people of Ngāti Maru, for whom this means the most.

Ngāti Maru is the final of our Taranaki settlements, and rightly so. This was the final piece of the puzzle that needed to happen before we could say that Taranaki Maunga have settled their historical grievances with the Crown. But let me remind you: Taranaki whānui, the journey’s not over. We are currently in a space where we’re talking about co-governance, and in our media, all around the country, there are people that are pushing a political narrative that co-governance is a very bad thing and co-management is a bad thing as well, and I’m going to need your help on this one, Ngāti Maru, to be able to fight back on that kōrero. I need you and many of our iwi to be able to stand up and acknowledge that the historical wrongs and the Treaty settlement process will never truly account for everything that has been lost.

So what we’ve got to look for—and I’ve said this in other Treaty settlements and I’ll say it again in your one—what we need, is for the Crown to constantly remember the hurt and the pain that’s been caused through Treaty settlements and also through the historical injustices that have happened, and look for every opportunity to allow our iwi to be able to gain rangatiratanga for themselves. Ngāti Maru, today we recognise your rangatiratanga over your whenua, and we hope that in the future, with our support, we can continue to support you into arrangements—whether it’s co-management opportunities, co-governance opportunities, but ultimately to be able to allow you to have a seat around that decision-making table; those decision-making tables, because there are many, as you well know.

I look forward to travelling to your rohe. I know that we will do it, and I know that finally we’ll be able to see the final process of these settlements, be able to heal the past wrongs by hearing that apology, which I’m going to save for our Minister to be able to deliver, because it is a very important moment to be able to have the Crown—to be able to have representatives of the Crown—stand there on your whenua and acknowledge the hara, the mamae, and the aroha your people that have passed and that stand here and that will be creating generations of Ngāti Maru for generations to come. I acknowledge you all today, we see you, we hear you, we stand by you, and we look to support you in your future endeavours. Nei rā te mihi ki a koutou aku whanaunga o Taranaki maunga. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, mauri ora ki a tātou katoa.

[This is my acknowledgment to my relations from Taranaki maunga. Greetings, greetings, and life to one and all.]

I commend this bill to the House.

HARETE HIPANGO (National): Taranaki maunga, Taranaki whenua, Taranaki tangata. Ngāti Maru i roto i tēnei Whare, tēnā koutou.

[Taranaki mountain, Taranaki land, Taranaki people. Ngāti Maru inside this House, greetings to you all.]

It is indeed a privilege to stand to take a call at the third reading of this, the Ngāti Maru (Taranaki) Claims Settlement Bill, about to pass into law, as uri of Whanganui but uri of Whanganui connected also through whakawhanaungatanga and whenua to Ngāti Maru. Tēnā tātou katoa.

I share with the House and also New Zealanders, I hope, who have tuned in to listen to the kōrero today in this House, because this is a significant piece of New Zealand history, of Māori history, of Taranaki Ngāti Maru history.

“Maru Hāhā. Hāhā te whenua. Hāhā te tangata. Maru of extreme loss and breathlessness. The land is deserted. The people are gone and gasping.” I reference that as a lament that had been expressed at the signing of the deed of settlement at Tarata Marae on 27 February 2021.

A brief chronology for the benefit of New Zealanders, who I hope learn from the mamae, from the grievances, from the hurt, in moving forward to shape and make better our nation of Aotearoa New Zealand. But this bill is specific to shaping and making better, moving from the past into the future, the uri of Ngāti Maru. The agreement in principle was signed on 20 December 2017; the deed of settlement, as I’ve said, at Tarata Marae on 27 February 2021. The first reading of this bill before the House was on 6 January 2021; the second reading 1 March 2022. Here I stand alongside my colleagues in this House, alongside, in support of Ngāti Maru, on 29 March 2022, for the third reading and the passage of this bill into law.

As a member of the Māori Affairs Committee sitting alongside members of all political parties in this House, we prefer to put politics aside and to make right and to address, to redress, the grievances of the past, to make things right and just. As members of the Māori Affairs Committee, we hear and we feel the mamae of those who represent their people—your people, Ngāti Maru—who have gone before in speaking to this bill and making submissions to the Māori Affairs Committee for us to turn our minds and for us to turn also our hearts and our heads and our hands to making sure that the shaping of this legislation is correct and is just.

The select committee prepared a report for the benefit of Parliament, and in that report, after listening to the submissions from people of Ngāti Maru, shaped, in efforts to make better, this bill. The proposed amendments are outlined in the report, which is made available. One of the amendments that I do particularly recollect is in terms of the relationships that we of Whanganui, through Te Awa Tupua, the Whanganui River, have with Ngāti Maru—the life source and force that blends us together, not just our waters, not just our whenua, but our whakawhanaungatanga, our relationships that transcend through generations from the past into the future. I recollect the importance of ensuring that the relationship we have in Whanganui with Ngāti Maru blends in harmony, flows in unison.

In Whanganui, when the Te Awa Tupua bill was before this House, we had the human face and factor, the representation of the awa, our Te Pou Tupua [those that act and speak on behalf of the Whanganui River]. It was important that members of the select committee but also members of Parliament appreciate the importance that this legislation is an embodiment of life forces of our whenua, of our wai, of our awa, and of our people. So that’s encapsulated now by amending the relevant part within the bill.

I look, and time in the House is flowing very quickly, but I’m mindful also that the time for our tūpuna—this transcends, this transpires over generations, over lifetimes. It’s taken lifetimes and generations for this bill to come before the House. What’s generated from this is to look forward with hope and positivity, because there is so much that has transpired with the mamae, and today is a time to move forward, looking with hope, looking with possibilities, with probabilities, to make a better future.

I also recollect before the Māori Affairs Committee the kōrero about the Minister tendering an apology on behalf of the Crown. Aroha mai—my apology for not being able to be present at the mihi whakatau. My colleague Joseph Mooney, who is spokesperson for Treaty settlements, was able to be there. The apology is so important, and the usual procedure is that the apology to the aggrieved, the afflicted people of Ngāti Maru ought to have occurred before the passage of this bill into law. We’ve not been living in usual times, with the disruption of COVID and the impact of that in our lives. What I am aware is that Minister Little conveyed to Ngāti Maru that he will tender that apology in person, appropriately, back at the whenua, possibly—I’m not sure—where the deed of settlement was signed at Tarata Marae. I would hope that the invitation would be extended also to other members of the Crown. I’m in that rather privileged but dubious position as being uri of our people, with relationships to those of our people who have been aggrieved and afflicted, and being now representative of the Crown.

The apology: clause 10 is a significant part of this bill that is about to be inscribed and enshrined into law. That apology, appropriately, is to be tended in person by Minister Little on behalf of the Crown, to Ngāti Maru.

There are three key parts to this bill, as is well known by Ngāti Maru: Maru Mua, the historical account, the acknowledgment—some 16 of them—and, importantly, the apology; Maru Pae, the redress. The commercial redress of $30 million—a minuscule amount when one reflects on the passage of time and the losses that have occurred. The redress—Maru Pae. The third part is Maru Muri, the commercial and financial redress—looking forward to being able to utilise and to make the best out of what has been tendered by way of an apology, to realise and to potentialise opportunities, possibilities, for prosperity moving forward into the future.

In closing, I share these words, these words that were my first words spoken at the first reading, these words that were, again, part of the deed of settlement signing at Tarata Marae: He ata ki runga, he ata ki raro, he ata ki te whakatūtū, he ata ki te whakaritorito, he ata whiwhia, he ata rāwea, he ata tānga—the dawn light appears above and below, the dawn light is happening and the dawn sprouts, morning is here, the morning wraps around, the morning has struck. It is a privilege to commend this bill to the House. Tēnā tātou katoa.

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Conservation): Mai i ngā tīpuna o Maruwharanui, mai i ngā waka o Tokomaru, Aotea, Takitimu. Mai i ngā awa o Whanganui, Waitara, Taramoukou, Manganui, Pātea, Tangahoe, Tāngarākau, Heao. Mai i ngā maunga o Taranaki Maunga, Te Ahurangi, ki a koutou te iwi o Ngāti Maru, tēnei te mihi ki a koutou.

Tahi tuatahi he maimai aroha tēnei ki ngā pou o Ngāti Maru kua ngaro ki te pō, ko Josephine Nona Woods rāua ko Hazel Pareteuira Ngātaierua Peri, otirā ki ētahi pou o te iwi Māori, ki te Tā Wira Gardiner, otirā ko te māreikura ko June Jackson. Kei te heke ngā roimata mā rātou. Hoea rā tō waka ki tō mātou tīpuna ki a Hawaiki nui, Hawaiki roa, Hawaiki pāmaomao. Moe mai rā ngā rangatira, moe mai rā.

Otirā, kei te huri a mātou ki a koutou te hunga ora. Ngāti Maru kua tae mai nei ki te whakatinana, ki te whakakapi tēnei pānui tuatoru o tō koutou pire, Ngāti Maru Taranaki Claims Settlement Bill.

Tēnei te mihi ki a koutou kua tae mai, otirā ka whiua ōku nei whakaaro ki a Ngāti Maru e kāore e haramai ki tēnei Whare i raro i te kapua o te taumahatanga o te mate urutā e noho haumaru i te kāinga engari me mātaki i runga i te TV. Kei a rātou, kei te mihi.

[From the ancestors of Maruwharanui, from Tokomaru, Aotea, and Takitimu canoes. From the rivers of Whanganui, Waitara, Taramoukou, Manganui, Pātea, Tangahoe, Tāngarākau, and Heao. From the mountains of Taranaki, from Te Ahurangi, to you the iwi of Ngāti Maru, this is my greeting to you.

Firstly, this is my expression of affection for the stalwarts of Ngāti Maru who have passed on, Josephine Nona Woods and Hazel Pareteuira Ngātaierua Peri, as well as stalwarts in the wider Māori world, to Sir Wira Gardiner and to the esteemed June Jackson. Our tears fall for them. Paddle your canoe to our ancestors, to great Hawaiki, to long Hawaiki, to distant Hawaiki. Rest in peace you noble ones.

I now turn to you, to the living. To Ngāti Maru, you have come here to realise and to finalise this third reading of your bill, the Ngāti Maru Claims Settlement Bill.

Greetings to those of you who have arrived here, but my thoughts are also with those who were unable to attend due to the dark cloud of the pandemic and are sitting safely at home to watch on the TV. To them, greetings.]

Oh, I got a bit choked up there, thinking about our dame who’s just passed this morning. So my thoughts are just with my colleague Willie Jackson and for the whānau, kua mate ana tana māmā i te ata nei, heoi anō ka mihi aroha ki a rātou [and the family, his mother died this morning, therefore my compassionate greetings go to them].

Ngāti Maru, I’ve been thinking over the last couple of days about what this means for you all as the last of Taranaki iwi to settle, and what settlement means for a people who have lost their whenua through actions of the Crown. We acknowledge that period of time just in recent times that you’ve had to battle, again, the Crown, and we hear that karanga, whakahokia mai te whenua ki a mātou, a te mana whenua [call, return the land to us, to those with traditional authority over the land].

In these third readings, some parts are celebratory and some parts pōuri, because we know that it marks the end of one part of a journey, but it commences a whole ’nother, as now, on behalf of the Crown, we have to whakatinana the agreement that has been made through this part of the taupatupatu that you’ve made today, and we must now turn to acknowledge and make sure we don’t break yet again promises made to ngā hapū, ngā iwi Māori—kia koutou Ngāti Maru—and that’s not a smooth journey I have seen in my short tenure that I’ve been a Minister of the Crown. Minister Little will, in turn, make apologies on behalf of the Crown for the historical grievances at your marae in Taranaki, but I too want to acknowledge that the journey ahead, we must all bear in mind, is an untreaded path for Ngāti Maru and the Crown, that place. On my behalf, for the agencies that I have authority to, and, I know, my colleagues here, it’s now our duty to make sure that we do in every decision that we make whakatinana, whakamana tēnei kawenata mai i te Karauna ki a koutou a Ngāti Maru [implement and validate this covenant between the Crown and you, Ngāti Maru].

I also want to acknowledge those that have been the face of Ngāti Maru, who have engaged with the Crown since 2016 to land this agreement. Anaru, tēnā koe. Nathan, tēnā koe. The kāhui that have supported those: Holden Hohaia, Paretutaki—Pare—Hayward-Howie, Jamie Tuuta—otirā, koutou katoa.

Settlement processes are hard, eh, you know, and we have to go through a lot at home—you have to go through a lot at home. There are consequences of your decision making for those that are in the position of having to navigate at each turn. They are hard decisions to make, and I can only but commend you for the trials and the tribulations that you would have been through over the past few years to get to this point. I thank you for your patience, and I thank you for the way that you have engaged with your people so that we may commence this new journey today.

I stand here today in my capacity as the Minister of Conservation, and it’s those elements that I want to turn to in particular. Others have addressed the whakapapa and the history of the relationship with the Crown, but I want to acknowledge the Ngāti Maru rohe, centred on the inland of Waitara Valley, east to the Whanganui River and its tributaries, and west to Taranaki maunga. Whakahokia mai te whenua.

[Return the land to us.]

That is a karanga we hear from our people and it is one that we do not take lightly. Today, as we mark off this particular third reading of this bill, today marks the day when the lands of Ngāti Maru will be returned home. It is the start of a journey; it is not the end.

So these sites today that return back home include pā sites, battle sites, mahinga kai, historical and traditional pathways, and wāhi tapu. It is the aspiration that this particular redress of the whenua will provide Ngāti Maru with a renewed, visible footprint within their rohe, as well as the ownership of lands that have for too long been in the hands of the Crown.

Ngāti Maru are seen in part as being conservation warriors. So ko aku mihi ki a koutou, mō tō manaaki ki tō tātou nei taiao.

[So I acknowledge you all, for you care of our environment.]

I often think: what are we as mana whenua if we do not exercise mana over the whenua and if we do not exercise our rangatiratanga over the whenua ki te manaaki i a ia a Papatuanuku [our authority over the land to care for her, Papatuanuku].

This conservation redress in part: 16 sites are returning home, totalling 218 hectares. We have, in particular, the Purangi Domain, the former Tarata School and the schoolhouse, and property at Tarawai. Some lands are transferring back in reserve status, including Purangi Scenic Reserve, Waitara River No 3 Historic Reserve, and Tāngarākau River Historic Reserve.

Important among these sites is the transfer of over 100 hectares of the Tarata conservation area, which is situated just 500 metres from Te Upoko o te Whenua, Ngāti Maru’s sole marae, and my colleague the Hon Anaru Paku has committed to reading the Crown apology, and less than a kilometre from your former pā site, Te Kerikēringa.

Tarata conservation area is covered with incredible indigenous flora and fauna. Pukatea, rimu, nīkau, and tawa are representative of a forest that once stood there at the lower stretches of the Waitara River. It’s a place of, I understand, reflection and significance to Ngāti Maru, and it’s hot that this transfer, particularly in light of—I’ll just throw it in there—Matariki, the new pounga, another time to commemorate. Maybe this will be an appropriate time to rekindle that unbroken relationship that Ngāti Maru have had with the taiao mahi that has continued in those areas to improve the mauri of the ngahere hei korā.

There are a range of deeds in recognition of statutory acknowledgments, including from where you’ve drawn from your eponymous tupuna, Maru Wharenui, and drawn from the sustenance of the Waitara River. I know that these have been expressed in the course of this settlement bill. With time concluding, may I just say, may this be the beginning of a healthy relationship between the Crown, Te Papa Atawhai and Ngāti Maru, nō reira kei te mihi ki a koutou [the Department of Conservation and Ngāti Maru, and so I greet you].

JAN LOGIE (Green): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. E mihi ana ki a koutou Ngāti Maru. It is a beautiful sight to see some of you in the gallery today. It has been far too long where we’ve been without people affected by these bills being able to observe this process, and I want to acknowledge the importance of this day and all of the work that has gone into getting to this point. I stand as the Green Party spokesperson for Te Tiriti to recognise the significance of this third reading for Ngāti Maru. This is a huge milestone in their journey towards the restoration of Maru ora that has been so attacked and undermined by the perfidy of the Crown over many generations.

I want to, along with everybody else in the House, acknowledge the negotiators, who have done the front of the work, and all of the leaders behind, and the people behind the scenes and in the kitchen who manage to hold tight to the vision of Tihei a Maru Ora [behold the vitality of Maru] that has brought us to this day, and our wish, I’m sure, is a collective wish for that to take Ngāti Maru forward in strength. We remember too on this day, the many who have died along the way but remain present in this work and this day.

For those listening who don’t know—and, sadly, there will be many because our mainstream education system has mainly taught us only colonial districts and cities and town names, and not the nation States of hapū and iwi—the iwi rohe of Ngāti Maru stretches from the eastern side of Mount Taranaki to the source of the Waitara River, across the Heao Stream and down to the Whanganui River, and back across the Matemateaonga Ranges to Stratford. This is the nation of Ngāti Maru.

It is worth noting that Ngāti Maru is the final iwi of Taranaki to complete the Treaty of Waitangi settlement process at this point. I want to draw attention to that, because that is actually significant, and note that in the general manager’s report in the Ngāti Maru annual report during the settlement negotiations, they pointed to the conflict that had arisen with whanaunga over the last few years because of the settlement process, and how they had started work to re-establish links and connections based on whakapapa and a shared interest to see each iwi benefit and succeed.

But I want to quote from that, because I think it’s really important for us to reflect on as we take responsibility for our part in this process, where they spoke about using the term “re-establishing” to describe what they’re trying to achieve, because these relationships did exist at one time and have fallen out of existence over the last few decades. This is a consequence of the Treaty of Waitangi settlement process, where iwi are required to differentiate themselves from their neighbours by claiming specific rohe and mapping these, which, in turn, excludes others. This is an antagonistic practice that creates division and breaks down relationships.

I want to acknowledge Ngāti Maru for their work to re-establish those links and those connections, and to state again that the Green Party still holds to the possibility of a settlement process that is tikanga based—that, actually, is not full and final; does not force people into large, unnatural groupings; and is led from the ground, not from the Crown’s self-interest, which is still, we recognise, a large part of this process. The generosity—that has been acknowledged in this House—of Ngāti Maru, in accepting this very hard-fought for settlement, cannot be restated often enough.

I do hope, though, that, in this process, something has been regained for Ngāti Maru, from the process of uncovering your shared stories and having some of the wrongs acknowledged. I hope that this may help your moko to feel proud of being Ngāti Maru. My hope too is that tangata Tiriti will read this historical account, and those of other settlements, and understand how much our current way of life, for good and bad, may be a result of the failures of the Crown to honour Te Tiriti o Waitangi. I think, more often, the value for us as a country, for the future, would be if we would learn those lessons as Pākehā. But today I thank you for the reliving of those stories and the collecting of those stories in the hope that we can have a better shared future together.

In 1865, Ngāti Maru had 220,000 hectares of land. The vast majority of this was illegally confiscated by the Crown or sold through dubious deals done without the permission of iwi members. Large tracts of this ended up in the conservation department holdings. We’ve heard the discussion, and I will repeat it again because I don’t want to be the only one who doesn’t evoke that incredibly powerful saying of Ngāti Maru’s that comes out of such grief and loss, but feels as if needs to be said to be able to have a sense in this House of what happened, of “Maru Hāhā. Hāhā te whenua. Hāhā te tangata.” The English language doesn’t seem, to me, to be able to compete with the sense of truth within that.

I also want to point to a couple of other small parts of the apology from the Crown, acknowledging, as well as the confiscation of the land, the imprisonment of Ngāti Maru men without trial following their participation in protests initiated at Parihaka, which now, with the benefit of hindsight, we would say that, as a country, we should have been so proud of those people involved in those protests, providing a vision for the world of peaceful resistance and community building. To see them imprisoned for that without trial is, again, the injustice of all of this—and then the subsequent invasion and destruction of Parihaka; also—and this has been outlined by the Minister—the failure to ensure that Ngāti Maru had, and retains, sufficient land for the present and future, and the massive impact that has had on the entire Ngāti Maru society.

I also want to point to what has been spoken about by others—that, in many ways, the power of the settlements is that they are hard-fought for but it is about the shifting in relationships for the future, and providing even that small bit of an economic base to help people rebuild. But, in this instance, it is, as the lead negotiator noted, significantly about the return of land, where Ngāti Maru started with 220,000 hectares; that, over the years, was whittled down to less than 900. So the land-return aspects of this are profoundly important. The Greens would still say that this shouldn’t be full and final, and that there should be an opening for more, but this is significant, and that’s not meant to undermine the negotiators by any means. It has been a great result.

But I also just, finally, want to point to the settlement trust’s vision and values of Maru Ora, Maru Pae, Maru Rota, Maru Taha, Maru Muri, and Maru Tiketike, and that summing up of what’s wanted for the future, and the attention on rebuilding society that comes now, at this point of the process. From the Greens, we wish you all the best, and we will do everything we can to get the Crown out of your way so you are able to rebuild your connections. Kia ora.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The ACT Party supports the Ngāti Maru (Taranaki) Claims Settlement Bill and we look forward to seeing Ngāti Maru receive the benefits which they are due as a result of breaches of contractual obligations by the Crown.

It’s important that this includes an apology, because, when we are prepared to admit that we’re wrong, that is often the first and perhaps the most important part of healing differences from the past. It’s also important to acknowledge that this settlement relates primarily to land and to rights in water. So where the bill provides for cultural redress, such as vesting 16 sites—specified in Schedule 2—in Ngāti Maru as cultural redress properties, that seven sites are vested in fee simple, in other words Ngāti Maru can choose to do what they want with the land when they want, but nine sites to be vested as reserves. So that acknowledges that, in fact, there are limits in the interests in this land and recognises that, in fact, there are rights of other New Zealanders in this reserve land which is held for the benefit of the entire community, and so that is one of the dilemmas that we face when looking at whether these settlements, in fact, address in the most efficient way, in the most enduring way, the breaches of contractual rights that the settlement is trying to remedy, because it does require a balancing of property rights between the individual and collective ownership that Ngāti Maru will have over this land, and the public interest, for example, in conservation or reserve land which has been allocated to Ngāti Maru as part of a vesting of properties as part of the cultural redress.

So ACT supports the remedies, largely, set out in this settlement bill but we do have some concerns about certain aspects, because we think, actually, they can be improved on. So when we looked at the statutory acknowledgments, that relevant consent authorities record the statutory acknowledgment, that Ngāti Maru has a particular interest in relevant resource management—resource consent applications, I would assume that’s because there are certain matters around land use or water rights, use of water or discharges to water, which Ngāti Maru has an interest in. So when others are making applications for resource consents, then they would be regarded as an affected party, and it’s important, where in the past regulatory agencies like regional councils or district councils haven’t known who has an interest in particular land and water, that that is recorded formally so that people who wish to make a submission should be able to, where they have an interest, where they have standing. But one of the concerns that the ACT Party has with the Resource Management Act—and while it’s not addressed in this bill—is that too many people have standing and get to have a say about how private property owners use their land. So while it’s not addressed in this bill, it’s important to recognise that there must be limits to who has standing. But in this case, the bill provides for Ngāti Maru to have its standing formally acknowledged.

Then we come to the deed of recognition, where the Crown is obliged to consult with Ngāti Maru on specific matters and have regards to their views on special associations that they have with certain areas. So, look, that’s an appropriate thing for a settlement bill to address. Then we come to the natural resources redress. That is where the settlement process potentially could be improved on, because while this bill attempts to address the problems that have arisen through a breach of contract by the Crown, the alienation of Ngāti Maru from their lands and natural resources, the way that this bill attempts to do it and that others attempt to do it may not in fact be as effective and enduring as they could be.

When we look at a joint management agreement, which provides for Taranaki Regional Council and Ngāti Maru to exercise any of the local authority’s functions, powers, or duties relating to a natural or physical resource jointly, there are problems with that, because rather than actually giving the property rights redress that Ngāti Maru deserve as part of a settlement, this gives another form of right to make decisions over other people’s property through the resource consent process. So it becomes problematic when we think, “Well, how is it that addressing the breach of contract by the Crown with Ngāti Maru then leads to giving Ngāti Maru decision making, potentially, over other people’s consent applications?” So decision makers in consent applications have derived their powers from democratically elected councils. Yet in this case, the bill appears to confer those rights of decision making to Ngāti Maru as part of a settlement, and that is not through the normal process through electing regional and district councils.

Then we look at the role of iwi in monitoring the river—that is important. It’s important that we develop a better understanding of the natural environment and the effects of human activities on the natural environment. The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment has pointed out repeatedly that there are huge gaps in our understanding of the natural environment, and only by more comprehensive monitoring, recording the data, and observing discharges to the natural environment, how water take and how land use affects biodiversity and affects the natural resources, will we actually be able to come up with better management plans. So I think it’s very important and worthwhile that Ngāti Maru have a role in environmental monitoring of the river.

So on balance, ACT will support this bill, but it is important at this time that we actually question whether giving co-governance or joint management responsibilities and roles to Ngāti Maru—just as an example—is as effective as actually addressing the breach of property rights. Would be it be more effective, rather than giving joint management, to say, “Well, actually, there’s some property rights”, whether it’s rights and interest in water, and that, potentially, in the future giving property rights in water would be more effective than management and decision making over how other people use the water.

So the ACT Party continues to explore what is best for New Zealand, what is enduring, and what is efficient. In this case we will support this bill—it’s progressed a long way through the House, it has the support of all parties, and it goes a long way to addressing the breaches of the Crown in the past. On that note, ACT commends this bill to the House.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. Te Kāhui Maru, te iwi o Ngāti Maruwharanui, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, hurinoa i te Whare, tēnā koutou katoa.

[To the cluster of Ngāti Maru iwi, to the people of Ngāti Maruwharanui, greetings, greetings to you all, and greetings to all sides of the House.]

I rise this afternoon and feel the need to apologise. Yes, it has been 200 years, but, even today, as you’ve sat in this House, as you arrived in this House and as you’ve sat here this afternoon, there have been things and words and phrases that I know trigger and challenge, and I apologise for that. Even though we are here in the third reading, even though we’ve come to this place of settlement with you, we still get our language wrong. In many times and in many places, many of us have our thinking wrong, I believe, but I’ll save that for another time.

You’re welcome here, and I thank you for the friendships that I see, both in the gallery and those who aren’t here today. Those fierce friendships that have crafted and honed who I am, and I hope will continue to craft the person I am, not only in this place but as a member of our society and as a member of our Taranaki community.

We’re here today to reflect on the legacies, the losses, and the oppression that, as I said, is ever-present even today, and I know it’s been a long hīkoi: 200 years. I know, and I talked about it in the first reading and it’s been mentioned today, that the first time that grievances were brought to this House was 1891. It went on and it went on and it went on, and here we are today, and I will go on with our challenges in trying to forge our partnership together, but I hope it moves forward in a place of friendship, of togetherness.

This afternoon, I want to acknowledge those that have gone before us. To your ancestors, to those who began this journey many years ago who aren’t with us but also those of Ngāti Maru, who have forged a path for you to be here today and for us to be at our third reading.

Now we reflect, I guess, that today is very much around the future, but as I sat up in the Banquet Hall when we welcomed you, I asked the person next to me, “Did you come down this morning from Taranaki?”, and the answer was “No, no, no. Actually, I live elsewhere.” It’s interesting that when land loss and oppression and loss of culture happens, there’s a dispersion that goes on, and so I understand that for many of your people, they are dispersed because of what went on as a result of decisions made by Governments past. But today is very much around our future. We always need to hold on to what has gone before us, but it’s looking to what is possible, and I hope what is possible—and I commit myself to this today—is that shared future. That partnership gets thrown around, but that partnership, like I said, is actually friendship. It is actually walking together in friendship, which is equal.

Today is around the restoration of mana. There is a financial space to this which I know is only a small part of what was lost, but, hopefully, this financial future sets you up for what can be a future for your people, a future for our region. As you are the eighth iwi to settle in Taranaki, I look forward as I get around our region—watch out—the iwi, the Māori economy, is the one to watch as we move forward as we are all settled. So watch this space. I will walk alongside you with that as well, and, of course, I know you’re part of the future of Maunga Taranaki, working with the other seven iwi around your tūpuna and what that future looks like. Very much, again—as Pākehā I’m stating the obvious, but you knew it already—it’s just bringing us to the party yet again, bringing us to that place of understanding.

So, as a post-settlement region, I look forward to our future as friends. As I look in the gallery, and I saw it today, I love the fact that there are a number of rangatahi here. There are a number of rangatahi and there are a number of tamariki who are here to witness this, and, hopefully, there’ll be children and young people of the future. The fight will continue, I know, in many ways, but that fight, hopefully, will be a different one—one with some resource, one with a clearer path that you can forge your future—and people like me can be friends and walk alongside but also get out of the way when we need to, because that’s probably quite helpful as well, right?

What I’m glad about in listening today and hearing the stories of land that was lost, of resources that were taken, and of your dispersion, is that as we begin to teach New Zealand history in our schools, our tamariki and our rangatahi will understand your stories, understand your loss, and understand the mamae and why that exists in order to learn, to grow. Again, I don’t feel like I’m speaking to Ngāti Maru here; I’m speaking to myself and to my people.

I’m really encouraged to see what you’re already doing as iwi, whether it be in the conservation space, working with young people—I know the conversation with Feats and what that future looks like—and it’s exciting to see, again, you’re grasping the future and taking it and running with it. I look forward to heading back out to Tarata and accompanying the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, the Hon Andrew Little, for that official apology. Another excuse to hang out there but also, this time, when we can come together and your people can be in that space, we can listen to words that need to be said so that we can ensure that we move forward together into the future.

For me, as tangata Tiriti, and as the MP for New Plymouth, which isn’t technically your lands, but we all share—we all mix and mingle and move around, right? Yeah. My commitment today is to be a friend in that partnership sense. It’s to be a friend in terms of saying, when we aren’t getting it right, that my door is open—I would share my cellphone number here, but maybe it’s too public a space—and to come and see me and challenge me and to encourage me but also to push for what is needed in terms of not just signing a settlement, not just making this third reading today and saying, “We’re moving on. Sweet—we’re done.”, but, actually, this is partnership, this is friendship. So I commit myself, as I do to the other iwi of Taranaki, to saying that my door is open because I want to be a true friend—not how it’s been, but how it can be—and to learn from that.

So today is another step in 200-plus years of struggle but, hopefully, it’s a step in optimism and possibility in what can be, and so that Ngāti Maru—your people, our iwi in Taranaki—will lead our journey forward to what is an exciting future. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): I call Penny Simmonds for a five-minute call.

PENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a privilege to give a short but heartfelt speech in support of the Ngāti Maru (Taranaki) Claims Settlement Bill in this, its third reading, and although I can’t see you up there, I want to acknowledge and welcome Ngāti Maru iwi representatives who are here today. I also want to acknowledge and thank members of the wider iwi who have shown such tremendous perseverance, resilience, and fortitude over what has been almost 40 years securing this settlement. Can I particularly acknowledge your hard-working negotiators.

Physically, Ngāti Maru will receive financial and commercial redress valued at $30 million, but, as my colleague has said, that is a drop in the ocean. Cultural redress includes the vesting of 16 sites of cultural significance, including Purangi Domain and Tarata Domain. The legislation records the acknowledgment and apology given by the Crown to Ngāti Maru in the deed of settlement, which was signed just over a year ago on 27 February 2021, and the legislation gives effect to provisions of the deed of settlement that settles the historic claim of Ngāti Maru.

I want to acknowledge the beautiful lands, the rohe centred on the inland Waitara River valley, east to the Whanganui River and its tributaries, and west to Mount Taranaki. We know that for generations, this land was where Ngāti Maru cultivated fertile soils and got resources from the area’s forests, rivers, and wetlands. We also know that Ngāti Maru were not involved in the land dealings which led to the war in Taranaki in 1860 and were not directly involved in the subsequent fighting. Despite this, when the Crown confiscated huge tracts of Taranaki land to punish so-called rebels, approximately half of the traditional lands of Ngāti Maru were included. Many of your sacred cultural sites were taken and some have never been returned. The extensive loss of Ngāti Maru lands impacted so significantly, eroding tribal structures, creating severe poverty, and damaging the physical, cultural, and spiritual health of so many generations of Ngāti Maru people.

This settlement recognises the wrongs of the past and seeks to strengthen partnerships between Crown and iwi. We hope that this settlement will help iwi to unlock the economic potential that we know is there to provide employment opportunities and to boost regional and provincial areas. While no redress will ever fully compensate for the destructive and demoralising effects of the Crown, we must have hope that this settlement will allow Ngāti Maru to realise their aspirations for that vibrant economic, and cultural future, restoring the relationship with the Crown. While the previous speaker spoke of restoring their mana, I acknowledge that their mana has always been held intact. This gives a future going forward. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Making a remote contribution, I call Debbie Ngarewa-Packer—five minutes.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori) (remote): Tēnā koe e te Pīka. Te Upoko o Te Whenua ka riro ngā ia o Te Awaroa whakaaria nei e kore e mimiti. Koropupū ake i Waitaraiti. Koia rā te waka o te atua kei Pūrangi. Tū ki te Arero te whare karakia. Maru pūmanawa. Kei whea ōku tumu makaurangi rā hei herenga mō taku waka. Upoko o Te Whenua te marae. Ko Ngārongo te whare. Kohia ngā maramara katoa o Maruwharanui. Tēnā koutou te Kāhui o Ngāti Maru. Tēnā koutou e ngā whanaunga.

[Te Upoko o Te Whenua that receives the currents of the Waitara River never runs dry. Its source is from the hill of Waitaraiti. This is the vessel of God at Pūrangi. Tū ki te Arero was the church and the heart of Maru. Where are my spiral carved posts to which to tie my canoe? Upoko o Te Whenua is the marae. Ngārongo is the meeting house. Gather all the descendants of Maruwharanui. Greetings to the cluster of Ngāti Maru. Greetings to my kin.]

I stand for Te Paati Māori to mihi to my whanaunga, whānau that are there in Pāremata, to our whānau that are at Tarata Pā watching, to our whānau across the motu, to our whānau across the ao watching this reading and supporting. I stand for Te Paati Māori in support of this third and final reading. I mihi to you all for your generosity to the motu, acknowledging the unrecoverable hours; the tears, the heartache; the advancing, retreating, advancing; and the many hui and the hui before the hui, to those we have lost and to those who today carry this kaupapa, the burden of the legacy. I mihi to your humility and acknowledge all that you have done to get to this point, working with the Government, trying to get the best settlement within fiscal envelope restraints.

I want to use my five minutes to help the world understand what goes on behind the scenes to get you here today, to share the extent of your commitment to developing a peaceful, future-focused Aotearoa. I want to help the world understand that after years of Government systemic failures; legislation that worked against you, nearly wiping out your history, your stories, your language; being educated in education systems that don’t recognise you; your native language, having to learn again; and local government that forgot your roles as kaitiaki, Government that forgot your roles as mana whenua, and us as whanaunga forgetting how we lived together, here you are. To the songs and karakia you’ve had to relearn, the wānanga you recreated to learn about our tūpuna, the pain you endured, and the huge hours outside of your normal jobs, the time away from whānau, the travelling, and all you did to remember ourselves. The research you spent hours and hours finding to unravel the many stories, the agreements, agreeing to disagree, walking away when you couldn’t agree, the need to reset and try again—all of that, and it’s all still related. Nowhere else in the legal system is the perpetrator allowed to determine the process, yet here we are, whānau mā.

We are very clear: justice is not served by this House today. Do not kid ourselves otherwise. It is the pure love for our nation that sees Ngāti Maru accepting this settlement, as many iwi before it, and as long as our mokopuna thrive, this will never be full and final, just as relativity will never be off the table.

Before you is a people—Ngāti Maru—who while negotiating with the Crown has focused on its post-settlement governance entity, an entity to launch their rangatahi kaupapa, Te Kōpae Whanake o Maru. How perfect to show the love of Ngāti Maru aspirations for their future reo and kaupapa.

Before you is a people who focus on the Maru Taiao plan to reassert the kaitiakitanga that was never lost, nor were their rights or interests ceded. Many improvements could have included the return of private land, water and mineral rights, or asserting tino rangatira, as Te Tiriti states, equally on everything, even governing ourselves—imagine ACT’s reaction to that.

Elections will come, and this will be a hard but an exciting era for Ngāti Maru, because you will see before yourselves each other’s strengths, your mokopuna’s strengths—those you have grown in spite of all odds. Hopefully, there will be some that will be able to consider, for Ngāti Maru, local government and maybe Te Paati Māori. As you grow, so too will your economy, and to grow also is your political advocacy to fight for those who don’t believe in your tino rangatiratanga co-governance and want to rewrite Te Tiriti.

To Matua Pono, Polly Kopu, Tainui Tukatoa, Poi Pue, Ray Peri, Hazel Peri, Rata Pue, Kauika whānau, Puata and Patu whānau, Anaru Marshall, Karl Burrows, Holden Hohaia, all my whanaunga, Jamie Tuuta, Tamzyn, and, most of all, to your tamariki. To all your tamariki and your whānau, your partners, thank you for all you did to share your mātua with Ngāti Maru to do everything they did for us. To all of our tamariki, our rangatahi—Aroha, Rākaiao Nuri—all our rangatahi, our mokopuna, that’s in Te Upoko o Te Whenua watching this at the moment, the sacrifices that your whānau have done will always be remembered and recorded in Hansard.

Ko Maru tuatinitini. It speaks to the many Maru on earth. You are here, Ngāti Maru, you have arrived. Tihei a Maru ora! Kia ora koutou.

ANGELA ROBERTS (Labour) (remote): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. I’d just would like to start by acknowledging all of the 50 of you who are in the House. For those of us who are still in Taranaki, it is hard not to be there. I want to acknowledge everyone who is watching from Te Upoko o Te Whenua Marae, down the road from here. It is a beautiful day in Taranaki for such a moment.

For those of you who haven’t been down to that beautiful valley, it sits nestled on the banks of the Waitara River in the heart of the territory that from the outside may look isolated and rugged, but traditionally was criss-crossed with important tracks and trade routes. We have heard much over the three readings of the history and we have heard your lament. We have heard the lament for the loss and the degradation of the forests, the rivers and wetlands, and the maunga, and the deforestation, the pollution, and the run-off has had such a significant impact on the Waitara. The Waitara, obviously, we’ve heard today, isn’t the only river that is connected to you, but it was one that has had such an impact on this traditional source of transport and sustenance and inhabitation.

So what I want to do, though, is take some time to take inspiration from Ngāti Maru and look at their horizons and their new opportunities that they are taking, and speak a little bit about the real impact that their leadership and their mahi and their vision has already impacted on our local community. They haven’t sat around—that is for sure. They’re so modest. They say that they are starting small, but they have big dreams, and it’s been fabulous to see that they are focusing on the growing and the education of their rangatahi and the restoration of their whenua.

So I just want to take a moment to recognise Tupu ā nuku, which is, broadly speaking, a workforce development programme, including a forestry and conservation course, and I think it’s a really good example of how they look at how to sustain and thrive in the future. Ngāti Maru realised that the forestry jobs connected to the local land were taken by contractors from other regions, so they saw the opportunity to train their local rangitahi for the forestry season, not just in forestry, health and safety, and those really particular skills and everything that’s needed to work the forests, but to make sure that tikanga and Te Ao Māori were incorporated to make sure that the forestry service that they are developing for themselves is a sustainable one. They’ve worked on riparian plantings and are developing their young people to restore their whenua.

These courses are so broad, they include financial literacy and, like I said, tikanga and health and safety. They’re looking at pastoral care and support to really ensure that there is a pathway to a sustainable future and sustainable employment.

I need to shout out to the partnerships—the real partnerships—that they’ve had with people like Dave Hare and his team of mentors at Tree Machine Services, and the impact that is having on our young people and the future of this community. They’ve brought in rangatahi from New Plymouth, from Waitara, from down in Pātea, and, of course, from Stratford and Hāwera, and it’s a really important piece of work that they are doing. They’re just getting on with it. It’s fabulous to see.

They have a really broad vision for their youth. It is ambitious. They are maturing the relationship with local secondary schools such as Stratford High School, and helping to strengthen their alternative education and make sure that our young people are accessing higher education and are successful lifelong learners. It’s really exciting to watch the very real work that they’re doing. They’re working at developing leadership, not just as iwi with other governance bodies such as the regional council and the Department of Conservation but, like I said, with schools and with the Ministry of Social Development about helping to build really strong pathways to support our young people with not just entry-level qualifications but further along into tertiary qualifications, and it’s broadly done. Pastoral care is important, and these young people are going into jobs. They’ve been going for nearly three years and they’ve had more than 30 young people come through these programmes.

So it’s wonderful to see the focus on conservation. Alongside these programmes, they’re strengthening the relationships with other iwi. Ngāti Tama and Ngāti Mutunga are helping to build those relationships with environmental organisations such as the East Taranaki Environment Trust, and they’re helping to restore some precious little pockets of paradise like Pūrangi to really help this part of the world to heal. A really great example of that is they’ve had young people come through their programmes, they’ve now got an apprentice ranger working with Pūrangi, and you hear these young people talk about how passionate they’ve become about conservation, particularly for their iwi’s rohe. They are going to go on and be leaders in our community to help all of us in what we need to do to restore our whenua and to nurture the growth of our young people.

I just want to finish off by reflecting on something I was told this morning by someone from Ngāti Maru about their big dreams. I’ve just reflected on some of the mahi that they’ve done over the last few years and that they will continue to build on, but I was told that there will come a time when they will tell their own story. Until now, this story has mainly been told by those outside of the iwi—commentators and historians—and now they can take the time to, in their own voice, tell their own story. That is really important for the rest of us because we’re going to be better off for hearing that, and we will be able to be better Treaty partners. For those of us who live as neighbours to Ngāti Maru who are involved in education and who are involved in conservation, it will help us to be better in walking beside them and doing what we need to do for them to realise their dreams as we work together to restore and realise the potential of all of our people and of our land.

It’s really humbling to be here today to be a witness to the decades of work that has gone in. I look forward to the day, and I think we heard from a Minister earlier that there might be a really good Matariki celebration to be had a little later in the year down the road at Tarata. So at this point, I will commend the bill to the House.

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): Thank you, Madam Speaker, and welcome, Ngāti Maru. Apologies that I couldn’t be with you at lunchtime. I had a prior engagement, so I wasn’t able to join you then. But I am very pleased that for this third reading, you are able to be in Parliament with us, because it’s been a very lonely journey, standing here and speaking to the past readings of the bill and feeling like we’re speaking to an empty House. But that is just the time and the place that we live in due to COVID-19. But it is excellent that at least a small number of you are able to attend today.

As I think about many of the atrocities that are happening in the world today, it really makes us feel very humble about the atrocities that happened in our own country all of those years ago and those that did happen to Ngāti Maru. It was very sad to know that Ngāti Maru were not involved in the land dealings which led to the war in Taranaki in 1860 and were not directly involved in the subsequent fighting. Involvement was limited to providing refuge to Wīremu Kīngi Te Rangitake in accordance with the requirements of whanaungatanga, but then it all changed and the Crown came along and confiscated huge tracts of Taranaki to punish the so-called rebels.

In 1865, approximately half of the traditional lands of Ngāti Maru were included. As I mentioned before, Ngāti Maru were not involved in the land dealings and not involved in the subsequent fighting, and yet the Crown actually had the gall at the time to call Ngāti Maru rebels and go ahead and confiscate the majority of their land. The main kāinga, urupā, and wāhi tapu were taken, and some of those have never been returned.

So, following the confiscation, Ngāti Maru continued to live on their lands that they still managed to have left, and in the early 1870s, the Crown attempted to promote European settlement on that confiscated land by paying some Ngāti Maru compensation for the rights that the confiscation had extinguished. These deeds of cession, covering about 60,000 acres, created significant divisions within the iwi, compounding the damage already caused by the loss of the land. But it seems a lot of the promises and a lot of the conversations that were held in the early days never really came to fruition.

So, in the early 1890s, some Ngāti Maru were virtually landless and they appealed to the Crown for help. The Crown’s response was slow and ineffective, and if it was slow and ineffective in the early 1890s, we have already now had the 1990s and we stand here in this House today, in 2022, talking to fix that. The response from the Crown was slow and ineffective and it’s been a long time coming, this agreement that’s been reached by Ngāti Maru.

I acknowledge everyone who’s played a part in this, because it is never, in my view, a complete settlement. It is, in my view, an agreement between two parties to in some part make up for the things that happened a very long time ago, and I would commend the generosity, as I often do, of the iwi in coming to this place and accepting this settlement.

All the way back then, an agreement to consolidate individual awards into more economical, viable family holdings was never carried out. Landless Ngāti Maru people not named in the 1907 Acts didn’t receive any land, and despite further petitions, in 1946, the Crown finally declined to provide any further land for Ngāti Maru. Much of the tribe’s remaining land came later under the Public Trustee administration and it was subject to perpetual leases that invariably benefited Pākehā farmers rather than the Ngāti Maru owners. The extensive loss of the Ngāti Maru lands has eroded tribal structures, created severe poverty, and damaged the physical, cultural, and spiritual health of generations of Ngāti Maru people.

I only hope that in coming to this place to reach a settlement, you have the opportunity to rebuild as much of your structure, your culture, and the spiritual health of the generations. You know, it’s many generations. There’s a lot of generations that have gone before that won’t be around to see what’s going to happen in the future, but I guess as you move forward—and today you will move forward—these people will be in your mind, and you will know who they are much better than I will because they will be your parents and your grandparents and your great-grandparents and probably your great-great-grandparents, who went through the worst of these atrocities.

The intense sense of loss and disconnection is expressed in the following Ngāti Maru lament:

Maru Hāhā

Hāhā te whenua

Hāhā te tangata.

Maru of extreme loss and breathlessness

The land is deserted

The people are gone and gasping for breath.

So post today and following today, I really have high hopes that that breathlessness in some part—that the breath will be returned to your iwi.

I really look forward to some of the exciting moments that are going to happen in the future. I was out at the signing of the memorandum, which was going to be a massive event at the time of about 600 or more people. Unfortunately, due to COVID-19 at the time, that wasn’t able to be a full attendance, and it was attended by about 40 or 50 of us. At that time, Minister Little, because the apology was not able to be made to everybody, committed to come back and to personally pass on the Crown’s apology to the other members of your iwi who weren’t able to attend on that day.

So I look forward to that day. I look forward to that day in Taranaki, where Minister Little can come back on behalf of all of us and make that apology. Also, coming back, I know you’ve got a new marae in the making, and it is probably at this time largely completed, we hope: a new home for your people to gather at. I think it’s just an excellent time for you to move forward, and, hopefully, this will redress at least in part some of the wrongs of the past.

I heard Angela Roberts speaking before me about the whenua, the land, the conservation, and the maunga, and when I look at Part 2 of the bill and the areas that are subject to the acknowledgment in the deed of recognition, there are some fantastic conservation areas in here. I know they’re in good hands—they’re already in good hands—and together we can help improve our land in Taranaki with our working together and making sure that we look after our lakes, our rivers, and our biodiversity. I know that you will put every effort into the conservation projects that are in front of you because that’s where your heart is and that’s where our heart is, so congratulations on reaching this point. We’re almost at the end of the reading, and I encourage you to celebrate. Thank you.

ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru) (remote): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. E tika ana kia tuku te reo mihi atu ki a rātou katoa kua hinga mai nā puta noa i ngā moutere tae atu ki te kuia e takoto ana ki Ngā Whare Wātea nō reira e te kuia Dame June Jackson. Hoki wairua atu ki a rātou mā. E oki, e moe, e moe, ā, kāti noa tēnā.

Ki a tātou ngā kanohi ora, tuatahi ki a koutou o Ngāti Maru, anei i ahau e tuku te reo mihi atu ki a koutou katoa. E ngā whānau me ngā hapū katoa o Ngāti Maruwharanui, Ngāriki, Ngāti Hinemōkai, Ngāti Kōpū, Ngāti Kui, Ngāti Tamatāpui, Ngāti Tamakehu me Ngāti Te Ika, tēnei te mihi ake ki a koutou katoa, tēnā rā tātou katoa.

[It is appropriate that I acknowledge all those who have passed in all parts of the country, including the female elder who now lies at Ngā Whare Wātea, which is Dame June Jackson. Return in spirit to your ancestors. May you rest in peace.

To us all, the living, firstly to Ngāti Maru, I stand and acknowledge you all. To the families and all the subtribes of Ngāti Maruwharanui, Ngāriki, Ngāti Hinemōkai, Ngāti Kōpū, Ngāti Kui, Ngāti Tamatāpui, Ngāti Tamakehu me Ngāti Te Ika, I acknowledge you all. Greetings one and all.]

I join together with colleagues around the Chamber today. It is a great honour and privilege to be the last speaker in the third reading of the debate on the Ngāti Maru (Taranaki) Claims Settlement Bill. I just want to reiterate a number of things that we’ve heard from all across the House, and, in particular, to say that I agree that this is not the end of a process. This is the beginning of a new legacy, one that has seen the representatives of Ngāti Maru traverse the process of settlement and they have done it with tenacity and with inspiration and, I’m sure, with a view of making a better life for the rangatahi, the tamariki mokopuna of Ngāti Maru. So it’s good to hear that there are rangatahi witnessing this debate today in the Chamber. I apologise for not being there with you today, but I’m thankful for being able to speak to this third reading, even though it’s virtually.

I want to just highlight a couple of things. One thing that I really wanted to talk about was cultural revitalisation, and I was pleased to see that this is a mechanism that’s been used within this settlement. I think the cultural revitalisation aspect of the settlement will provide a real opportunity for Ngāti Maru to do exactly what the mechanism says—to revitalise its culture—and we’ve heard from a number of members around the House speaking about how that might be approached. So I want to add my kōrero to those hopes and aspirations that you will have for your people moving into the future.

It’s also an opportunity to use the pūtea that comes along with the cultural revitalisation to tell your own story in your own words in the way that you want to. I think I said in the first reading that the historical account is a negotiated, agreed historical account, where no doubt your negotiators would have had to argue with the Crown over exactly how things were expressed within that account. I look forward to reading your own stories that you write yourself, which is not negotiated with the Crown, and I’m sure it will bring to light a number of different aspects about your experiences as you’ve gone through not only the history but also this process. I know how challenging this process can be, and I just want to acknowledge the leadership of Ngāti Maru and the negotiators for having the tenacity to get through this whole process unscathed and united. It is an incredibly important process not only to navigate but to settle.

We often hear in these debates what’s wrong with this process, and I have to agree that this process is by no means perfect. I guess it forces every negotiating team and every iwi to ask itself, “If it’s not perfect and yet we still go through this process, why would we do that?” Having gone through it myself, the answer that I came up with, along with my whanaunga, was we decided that it was the best way forward to use the settlement assets to improve the lives of our iwi. So even though it’s an imperfect process, there is some perfection in knowing that we are in control of our own destiny by taking these assets and using them to better the lives of our people.

I’m not going to prolong the vote on this bill. I think Ngāti Maru has waited long enough, so I’m going to cut short my contribution with these words. Ki a koutou o Ngāti Maru, ko te tūmanako kia uhia mai e te Runga Rawa ōna manaakitanga ki runga ki a koutou mō ngā wā katoa. Tēnā rā tātou katoa.

[To you of Ngāti Maru, my hope is that the Almighty above places his protection upon you for all time. Greetings one and all.]

Bill read a third time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, I understand that permission has been granted for a waiata.

Waiata

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): If members would just pause for a moment to allow iwi to make their way from the Chamber, and we bid them farewell.

Bills

Taxation (Annual Rates for 2021-22, GST, and Remedial Matters) Bill

Third Reading

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): I present a legislative statement on the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2021-22, GST, and Remedial Matters) Bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

Hon DAVID PARKER: I move, That the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2021-22, GST, and Remedial Matters) Bill be now read a third time.

The role of tax in our society is a big and crucial one. It provides the funding for important Government services and functions that New Zealanders want, need, and value, and it can help support citizens and businesses in difficult times, such as those which we have been recently encountering. To achieve these things, tax rules must be applied as fairly as possible and the integrity of the tax system must be protected. That’s what this bill seeks to achieve.

The most significant measure in the bill relates to the deductibility of interest on residential investment property. The bill limits the deductibility of interest expenses incurred by residential property investors, and I want to start out by briefly covering the rationale behind these changes.

Firstly, New Zealand does not have a comprehensive capital gains tax on residential property, despite capital gains making up a significant proportion of the income from residential property investment. Despite this, our current tax law allows full deduction of interest costs. This leads to a situation where landlords aren’t taxed on a large portion of their income from their investment but can deduct their interest costs on highly leveraged assets in a way that doesn’t occur in other parts of the economy—or doesn’t generally.

Secondly, interest deductions are based on nominal interest. Some of that interest cost is simply compensation to the lender for inflation. That is to say, some of the interest is not a real cost but it has been tax deductible. For example, if inflation’s running at 3 percent and the mortgage interest paid by an investor is 6 percent, then the real interest being paid by an investor is only the other half, the other 3 percent. In real terms at the end of the year, the investor only owed 97c adjusted for inflation. Yet investors have been getting a deduction for the full 6 percent interest charge. They get a deduction, effectively, for the inflationary component of their interest payment, but normally don’t pay tax on either the real or nominal increase in the value of their asset upon sale.

Over time, this is a huge tax break. If their debt is 60 percent of their property, then the excessive deduction in this example is 1.8 percent per annum. Over 20 years, that is a 36 percent tax deduction of the original purchase price. That amounts to a distortionary tax setting and it’s one of the reasons why house prices have become so inflated in New Zealand and one of the reasons why residential rental owners have been able to outbid a first-home buyer because they have a tax advantage over their competitor for a house if that competitor is a first-home buyer or an owner-occupier. As the Finance and Expenditure Committee pointed out, there have actually been times recently where real interest rates have been less than zero.

Now, all of this is complicated, and it’s very difficult to ever get the tax system to tax everything absolutely perfectly. But over a long time, we’ve allowed, significantly, over-deduction of interest on residential investment property. This has caused investor demand to massively increase and squeezed out first-time buyers. So the Government’s decided to act by removing the ability of investors to deduct their interest. For clarity, that interest can still be deducted against profits under the brightline test because that’s fair too. The objective is to reduce investor demand for existing residential property and, thus, make it easier for first-home buyers to successfully compete to purchase a home.

However, we also want to ensure there’s no obstacle to new supply. So the bill proposes exemptions from the interest limitation rules for land businesses, property development, and for new builds. There are also proposed changes to the brightline test for the benefit of residential land. Also, the bill makes owners of new builds subject to a five-year brightline period, reducing that from the 10-year period before this bill passes. It proposes limited extensions to roll over relief from the brightline test for some common ownership change scenarios where the economic ownership has not changed or is materially the same as it was before.

The bill contains other measures to ensure that the tax system continues to be applied as fairly as possible. It confirms rates of income tax, including the 39c rate on incomes over $180,000, and we believe that this is appropriate that higher-income earners pay what we think is a fair share. There are a number of amendments to the GST rules, and they’re aimed at making life easier for businesses and helping our economy. Chief amongst these are proposals to improve GST apportionment rules. These have the effect of helping ensure that the sale of an asset of mixed use, some of which is taxable, some of which is non-taxable, which has appreciated—the profits on sale or the GST on sale is not an overtax.

Proposals also reduce compliance costs for smaller GST-registered suppliers by allowing them to apply to the Inland Revenue for an improved alternative apportionment method. There’s a proposal to zero rate the domestic leg of international transport services, applied as part of international transport of goods. This addresses a current inequality where the domestic transport of goods within New Zealand is taxed differently where it’s part of international transportation of goods. We propose to expand zero rating of accommodation to subcontracting arrangements.

We’re also keeping up to date with technological innovation and new business practices. The bill proposes to exclude crypto-assets from GST. This ensures that people are not disadvantaged when investing via crypto-assets or using them to raise capital, and it enables the use of these new technologies. The bill also proposes that tax pooling be able to be used to satisfy a tax obligation, but where there is no existing tax assessment or where the tax obligation has not been quantified.

An important function of maintaining the tax system is to be vigilant against attempts to defeat the tax rules. We must continually work to uphold the integrity of the tax system so that everyone pays their fair share and they’re not left carrying the burden or the share of others. Current tax laws allow tax authorities to transfer the benefit of their tax-exempt status to their taxable council-controlled organisations. This means that local authorities—or some of them; most of them haven’t been doing that, but some of them started—are able to shelter their controlled organisations from tax The integrity of the tax system is jeopardised if local authorities can, effectively, extract profits from the council-controlled organisations tax free. This also provides certain council-controlled organisations using this mechanism with an unfair competitive advantage against private sector competitors. The bill therefore improves the integrity of local government taxation.

It introduces new penalties on the sale and acquisition of electronic sales suppression software—again to protect the tax base. Such software is explicitly designed and sold with the sole purpose of misrepresenting and under-reporting taxable income artificially and deceptively.

Other measures in the bill include removing the time limit from COVID-19 information-sharing purposes, thereby allowing it to remain in effect without need for repeated extensions through Order in Council. That, though, is linked to the COVID pandemic. This information-sharing has been very important to allow Government agencies to help respond swiftly and efficiently to the pandemic, including with support for taxpayers.

The bill proposes 11 New Zealand charities with overseas charitable purposes to be given overseas donee status, which supports wider overseas development aid objectives in the Pacific and in other developing countries. In addition, the bill contains a number of other minor technical and remedial changes to the legislation.

The final point I will make relates to the committee stage of this, where the Opposition proposed large tax cuts for those earning over $180,000 a year. I won’t say much about that other than to note that last week when the IMF was here, as the Minister of Finance said in the House today, they said—and I have the article here—that now is not the time for any reduction in the level of overall taxation. And as veteran political commentator Richard Harman noted, “Ironically the IMF statement comes only three months after National Leader Christopher Luxon himself also said now was not the time to decrease taxes.” I agree with the IMF and the summer holiday version of Mr Luxon.

Lastly, can I think the select committee for its diligent work and also the policy officials and drafters for their work. I commend the bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ian McKelvie): The question is that the motion be agreed to.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Interesting final comments from the Minister, and I think I’m going to address those shortly, but we will, of course, be opposing this bill, because this bill is all about imposing more taxes on hard-working New Zealand families and individuals. Of course, we don’t think that’s appropriate, particularly at a time when many of those people are suffering from this incredible high cost of living that’s resulted from Government policies that led to this rapid escalation in inflation, feeding through into higher fruit and vege costs, housing costs, building costs—it just keeps going on. As the Speaker knows—Mr Speaker does know—inflation is currently at 5.9 percent but wages are only going up by just under half of that amount. So New Zealand businesses and people are getting caught because they just have a less amount of money to spend on essential or household items. That’s why the tax rates that are enshrined in this bill, we oppose them.

I want to say that this is a Government that loves to tax. It has this wonderful need to tax because Mr Grant Robertson, of course, loves spending the money, loves spending that stuff—he’s addicted to it. Unfortunately, much of that spend is in poor areas that don’t derive real benefits for New Zealanders. Of course, just to give an example of that, we’ve had the fuel tax. Of course, now we’ve got the biofuels proposal to put a bit more tax on our fuel cost, even though they’re not high enough yet, according to the Labour Party; that’s not what my constituents tell me, particularly my farmers and growers in Pukekohewho do not get a discount for diesel at the moment. We have got the brightline changes, we’ve got the ute tax, we’ve got the interest deductibility—all new taxes coming in. That is why our leader Christopher Luxon proposed revision, a reversal of the tax creep that this Government has put in place since 2017.

What our proposals are about is not a tax cut, it’s actually about just scaring back to 2017 and allowing people to keep what they might otherwise have had, if it hadn’t been for this Labour Government. Taking into account inflation over the last four, five long years—gee, it’s getting to that stage, isn’t it, Mr Little, five long years. We propose that we just reverse the tax thresholds to take into account inflation. That would have meant that the first 10.5 percent is normally paid up to 14; it would mean extend it to 15.6—$15,500. Next threshold, rather than $48,000 at 17.5 percent would go to $53,500 and of course the 30 percent goes up to $78,000 rather than $70,000. That means that someone on $55,000 would be better off a year by $800. Someone on the average wage would be $870 a year better off, and someone over $78,000 would be better off by $1,000. Of course, the Labour members love to misconstrue the figures, because we were careful not to make any adjustments to the 39 percent tax thresholds. Of course, superannuitants would be better off by $540. What this is about is returning money that has been ripped off them by this Labour Government, and that’s the central opposition of this bill.

The second thing, getting back to the issue of interest deductibility; the Minister just spoke about this. He has broken the cardinal principle of deductible expenditure with assessable income. It is a cardinal rule that if you run a business, that if you have assessable income—which means you have to pay tax on it—it is only fair and legitimate that you should be able to deduct relevant business expenses off that—

Chris Penk: It’s called a loophole.

ANDREW BAYLY: That’s right, Mr Penk; my colleague here is just reminding me. He called it a loophole; it’s no loophole at all. In fact, this Labour Government has broken the cardinal principle. We fundamentally disagree with it, firstly on those grounds, because then, let’s say we take this and extrapolate this breaking of this principle that this Labour Government’s brought in, what does it mean for business expenses now, on someone legitimately doing an expense? Why don’t we just say you can’t deduct the price of fuel? Why don’t I say to my growers, or the Labour Party should say to my growers: you no longer can deduct the fuel expense from their business. It’s just the Labour Party, and Mr Parker in particular, have broken that cardinal rule, and that is wrong.

Secondly, when we started to ask how many people are going to be affected by this and what is the extent of this, the IRD came back and said there were 350,000 people who own investment properties in New Zealand—350,000. Contrary to what we hear from the Labour members, “There’s thousands of these rampant investors”, there’s 350,000, of which 75 percent, or about 260,000, claim interest. Of which, 75 percent claim less than $30,000 a year. Hardly a major investment group out there taking all this money and driving these huge businesses. We hear from the Labour members it’s always about these investors and they’ve got hundreds of homes. Actually, by far the most amount of homes are owned by mums and dads who are claiming no more than $30,000 interest a year. If you take it away, which is what’s proposed by this bill, what it will mean is that those people will be in a situation where they will not be able to claim the interest. In some cases, they’re going to have to sell the properties, and of course once they sell those rental properties, they’ll no longer be available to be rented and, if they do keep them, they’ve got to bear a $30,000 cost. If they don’t have the money, what are they going to do? They’re going to put up rents. This is what the tax officials, and this is what the experts said, “Don’t do it, don’t do it; it’s not good policy.”

Dr Duncan Webb: They didn’t say that.

ANDREW BAYLY: Yes they did. But, guess what! Labour, because they’ve got a philosophical issue, are going to ram this thing through, and it means that New Zealand mum and dad investors who, on the average own only one rental property as part of their retirement, are now going to bear up to a $30,000 loss.

The other major element is the brightline stuff. Unfortunately the debate on this during the committee of the whole House stage was brutally cut off before we even properly dealt with this issue. What it means, the brightline test, is that if you are out of your property for more than 12 months during a 10-year period, you will have to pay capital gains tax on your property.

Dr Duncan Webb: For that period.

ANDREW BAYLY: What that does not mean—and I hear Dr Duncan Webb saying it. This is where the practical considerations come into play, but, of course, we’ve got a Government who philosophically hates landlords and loves the idea of a capital gains tax on property. So if you’re in the military and you get posted overseas—like I have two constituents from Onewhero who have been posted overseas, on a military assignment, gone overseas, serving our nation, going to be away for three years because that’s a normal term to go on a military posting. Of course, they’re now in a situation, their home in Onewhero, because they can’t live in it because they live overseas, in Canada, now they’re going to have to pay tax on that property. They’re not going to get reimbursed during the military posting, of course; they’re going to have to pay tax. Same with our people in Foreign Affairs. Same with police and school teachers who normally and regularly get posted around the country to get a better opportunity, a new opportunity, or, in the case of the police, are literally told to go. Of course, now they go away—they may have a place in Pukekohe—, a great place to live—and get shifted to Eketāhuna. They want to keep their place in Auckland because they always want to come back to it. But under these rules that have been ill thought through by this Government, they will now have to pay capital gains tax because they’re out of their home—

Barbara Kuriger: Appalling.

ANDREW BAYLY: —for 12 months or more, and that’s what Barbara Kuriger is saying. It is appalling. It’s appalling.

Then we’ve got people going to hospital, and suddenly finding, hey, they’re really seriously ill and, gee, they’re going to end up paying capital gains tax. And then the worst one is mums and dads trying to support their children into a house. They’re now captured under these brightline laws. They will have to pay capital gains on the contribution of the deposit, if they do so for their children, and that is an outrageous proposition when we’re trying to get people into their first home.

Dr Duncan Webb: Kia ora, Mr Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ian McKelvie): Ah!

Dr Duncan Webb: It’s Duncan Webb, sir.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ian McKelvie): I’m caught betwixt and between, and I’m a bit frightened of the other one than I am of Duncan Webb, but I’ll call Dr Webb.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Mr Speaker. First of all, it’s always hard to follow the Minister the Hon David Parker, because he is so thoughtful, so thorough, so perceptive, and just so clear. So he hardly leaves me anything to tidy up, but, thankfully, we’ve got Mr Bayly, who I can follow with ease—where I understand.

But the thing I find most offensive about his speech is his continual harping on about “hard-working New Zealanders” as if bus drivers aren’t hard-working New Zealanders, cleaners aren’t hard-working New Zealanders, and people who are in the care industry aren’t hard-working New Zealanders. He seems to think that only people who earn a lot of money are hard-working New Zealanders, and, therefore, they deserve more back. Well, on this side of the House, as the Minister said, we think that people who earn a little bit more should pay a little bit more, and that’s what this progressive tax system does. And as the OECD said, this is not the time for tax cuts. This is the time to hold fast and have a rational tax system.

As for the interest deductibility question, the Finance and Expenditure Committee did have a good look at this question. Mr Bayly was in there when we got special advice—we asked specific questions from the IRD, and he knows as well as I do that the IRD said that inflationary effects skew interest deductibility, and that the real interest is usually a lot lower. And so that means that, in many cases, people are getting, fundamentally, a significant tax rate. They are deducting more expense than they are really incurring, and that’s what this fixes. And let’s face it, as I’m sure will be said by other speakers here, many people who have rental properties are in there not simply for cashflow returns, the money they make off rent; they are in there for long-term capital appreciation. The real income they make is made when they sell their house. And Mr Bayly himself said they are doing this so that they have an asset, an appreciating asset, for their retirement. And so they get a double win: a tax break on their interest, they claim more than they actually incur in real terms; and a tax-free capital sum at the end of the investment period. This addresses that skewing of the market. It says that’s not appropriate, the market isn’t actually operating correctly, as my friend, Mr Clark said, and what we need to do is to straighten that out and straighten the interest rules out. And that’s what we’ve done. That will correct, as we are seeing already, the out-of-control housing market, and slow down some of that price appreciation. That’s a good thing for people who want to buy their own home.

And, of course, we’ve made sure the rules allow for people to get tax deductions for building new homes, because that’s something we want to encourage. But trading in homes for simple capital appreciation is not something we want to encourage. We want people to be able to afford and get into their own homes.

And, of course, we looked at a whole lot of other things in there, GST rules; apportionment rules; cryptocurrency was interesting; and also that sales suppression software—absolutely offensive software that seeks to thwart the tax system by, essentially, lying and defrauding the tax system by creating fictitious sales records. There’s penalties in there for that. That also is a very, very good thing. I absolutely commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.

SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore) (remote): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It is a privilege to rise on behalf of the National Party and as the member of Parliament for North Shore to talk on the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2021-22, GST, and Remedial Matters) Bill third reading.

As we’ve heard from a previous speaker, Andrew Bayly, National oppose this bill. We oppose this bill for four key reasons, and I’m going to spend a little bit of time going through those. But firstly, I do wish to acknowledge the Finance and Expenditure Committee, of which I am a member, for the work that was undertaken on this bill. I acknowledge the officials and the specialist advisers and all of the taxation and special interest groups that provided submissions through that process. While we heard a number of your submissions, it is regretful that we weren’t able to get the numbers to change this, but we’ll talk about that a little bit more as we go through.

So National, firstly, oppose the limit on interest deductibility which is included as part of this bill. We know that this is basically stopping the ability for a business to legitimately claim a business expense. This is at the heart of taxation: that where a business incurs revenue, it should be able to offset that revenue with expenses—and, in effect, this will limit the ability to do that. The limitation of interest deductibility applies specifically for residential investment properties, and, as we’ve heard previously, that will impact a number of middle-income Kiwis, mum and dad investors, that are, in effect, claiming less than $30,000 of interest per annum. This has sort of been bandied around as these significant, big investors that will be impacted, but the reality is this will impact a number of middle-income New Zealanders, and that is why National are opposed to this.

New Zealand also has a housing crisis, and middle New Zealand is impacted most, through the impact of housing affordability, and the cost of living crisis, as well. What is interesting in regards to this bill is both Inland Revenue and the Treasury advised that the change in limiting interest deductibility would reduce housing supply and push up rents. So this is not just me and the National Party, as Opposition, saying that this is bad policy. This is consistent with a number of people that provided feedback through the select committee process that this is bad policy. This is Labour Party policy, driven by a Robin Hood ideology, and it is not backed up by those that are within the sector, and that is because it is an inconsistency which goes to the heart of the ability to deduct interest from business.

I want to also talk about the brightline test. National, obviously, oppose the extension of the brightline test. This is when a person sells a house within 10 years after purchasing it, and the sale proceeds may be, therefore, taxable. Labour are increasing this from five to 10 years, and our issue, primarily, around this—National support the brightline test of two years, but the extension of this to 10 brings a large number of unintended consequences. Some of those unintended consequences of this change are aspects that my colleague Andrew Bayly referred to before: it captures people within this net that may include a wide variety of individuals, but we did talk about service personnel who are deployed to other areas of the world, or, indeed, the country, which means that they will be outside of their home for that period of time. That is a significant issue for us. And, at the end of the day, the actual change in policy is not going to drive any of the actual intended benefits that have been discussed in regards to this. So, again, National would oppose the extension of the brightline test.

The third element I want to talk about is in regards to the 39 percent personal tax rate. National strongly oppose this element of the bill. This tax will affect nearly 120,000 Kiwi taxpayers. This is 44,000 more Kiwi taxpayers than the Inland Revenue originally and first estimated would be impacted by this change in the law. The IRD has noted, and I quote: “significantly higher than anticipated“—so that’s the number of people that are captured by this new tax. This element of the bill really acts as what I would describe as the driftnet of taxation that Labour are using to basically harvest and feed their addiction to spending—this driftnet of taxation that we’re seeing across the board. The 39 percent personal tax rate, the extension of the brightline test, the limit of interest deductibility are all examples of where this Labour Government are continuing to put pressure and increase taxation on hard-working Kiwis.

The fourth element of the bill relates to changes within the Goods and Services Tax Act. National supports the modernisation of our GST system. The issue that we have, particularly—and this was echoed by a number of submitters, as well—is that we need, and individuals require, a lead-in to implement the modernisation, particularly around information requirements for GST. We would have liked to have seen some practicality around providing additional time for people to implement these changes in regards to modernisation.

Those are the four areas in terms of the bill that National strongly oppose. Through the process, and post - select committee, we did provide some simple and effective contributions and ideas around effective tax policy to the Government, which were not taken up, but, you know, I’m looking forward to the ability in the future for National to implement positive changes to the tax system when we are in Government. One of those is around the inflation-adjusted tax bands to reduce the impact of cost-of-living increases that we’ve seen under this Government. That’s just a sensible change in taxation policy that is very disappointing that hasn’t been adopted and wasn’t considered as part of this bill.

We will, obviously, repeal the 39 percent personal tax rate. We’ll repeal the limits on interest deductibility. We’ll repeal the brightline test back to two years. And, of course, we’ll repeal the “ute tax”, which is completely ridiculous and does not deal with the underlying issues that we need to do. We would extend the loss carry-back scheme for up to four years for businesses impacted by COVID, and increase asset write-off on capital investment, and increase depreciation—all ideas that we contributed through this process in the bill which were not picked up by this Government.

Lastly, again, I wish to thank all of those who made submissions to this process. Their feedback is appreciated and National will oppose this bill.

BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Thank you, Mr Speaker. At this time, I just want to quickly pay tribute to a number of our Labour family who have lost really important people over the last 24 hours, particularly to our member, the Hon Willie Jackson. Haere, haere, haere atu rā, to his mother.

It’s always a privilege for me to speak on a tax bill. I’ve spent over a decade of my professional career in the area that is tax law or tax policy, and I fully appreciate the work and effort that has gone into making these omnibus tax bills. So I once again thank the work of the IRD officials, the Finance and Expenditure Committee team, independent adviser Therese Turner, and the Minister.

I appreciate the considered submissions provided by submitters not just on the bill itself but also as part of the generic tax policy process. As set out in the regulatory impact assessment, consultation was undertaken on some of the measures within this bill and helped to inform what has become the bill itself. I especially want to acknowledge a number of the tax practitioners who submitted, as their technical feedback ensures that the draft legislation is cohesive and identifies any unintended consequences.

It’s not unusual to have two to three tax bills per year because tax policy evolves quickly to cater for changes in technology, to cover fiscal or integrity risks, and as the deputy commissioner of IRD, Robin Oliver, once said, to keep the lights on. So here we have that, in the title: the “remedial matters” bill. The Minister, in a number of his speeches talked about why maintaining the tax system at this time is a crucial function, but particularly at this critical time for the health of our people and the economy it is absolutely vital. Although New Zealand has relatively strong tax settings, it is important to maintain the tax system and ensure that it continues to be fit for purpose. This also means, again, that it adapts to changes in business practices so that compliance costs are kept at a minimum.

I just want to talk briefly on a matter that our chair, Dr Duncan Webb, touched on, which is New Zealand does have a progressive tax system, and security guards, cleaners, our bus drivers are hard-working people. To reiterate what he said around the OECD and the IMF: that now is not the time for tax cuts—now is not the time. If you want to be able to increase income for those lower paid workers, you do it directly through tax transfers. That’s how tax policy has, a lot of the time, been made in New Zealand. That’s why we have Working for Families. That’s why we have the winter energy payment, and that’s why we’ve lifted the minimum wage.

I just want to touch briefly on probably the biggest policy item which is in this bill, which is the interest deductibility rules. The IMF also said that some of the domestic risks in New Zealand are centred around financial stability, particularly in relation to the housing market. We know that tax is not the cause of this problem, but it does contribute to the problem. So it’s our Government’s goal to level the playing field for existing homes in favour of first-home buyers and those moving to new homes compared to those investing in residential property. So investors can generally outbid first-home buyers, and we want to make sure that residential properties are less attractive for investors while stimulating new investment in housing. That’s why the deductions for interest expenses of residential properties will be restricted from 1 October 2021. We’ve tried to make sure that transitioning is possible within the bill by ensuring that the policy will be phased in so that interest deductions on a mortgage on a residential investment property acquired before 27 March 2021 will progressively be reduced between 1 October 2021 and 31 March 2025.

We are removing interest deductions as a business expense for residential investment properties, but allowing deductions for property developers or people purchasing a newly built residential property. Once again, this goes to around financial stability in trying to apply for supply because we know, again, that tax is not the cause of the problem but it does contribute. So we want to ensure that the playing field is even for those who are bringing in new supply.

So, once again, a real privilege for me to be able to stand to speak briefly on this bill. I really, again, thank our officials and thank our Ministers for bringing it to the House, and I’d like to commend this bill to the House.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): E te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. The Opposition has many times throughout the debating of this legislation invoked Robin Hood. I’m not sure if they recall from their reading of that childhood story that Robin Hood was, in fact, a good guy. He was the good guy who was pardoned by the king at the end, after implementing a fairer tax system.

All of that said, we’ve heard a lot from the National Party, who have been speaking, I think, out both sides of their mouth. What I mean by that is that we’re hearing, on the one side of things, that the National Party wants housing treated as any other business when it comes to tax deductibility rules but then, when it comes to things like the brightline test—or paying tax on income that you receive from capital sales—that they want housing treated differently to any other form of business. I think that that duplicity, or that difference of approach, is perfectly indicative of the fact that the National Party very much perceive those so called hard-working New Zealanders that they so frequently invoke not as those who work to earn an income for their living but as those who own assets and earn income as a result of that.

This is a huge missed opportunity, unfortunately, as a piece of legislation addressing our taxation system. It uses a scalpel to address the housing crisis—and, ostensibly, also the issue of inequality—when what is needed is a saw. What is needed is a far, far bigger tool for a far, far bigger problem. In fact, as all of us well know—and I’m sure you’ll hear from other speakers throughout this House—we’ve seen in the COVID context that the economic response, that is, the fiscal and monetary policy deployed by both the Reserve Bank and, via Treasury, by the Minister, has seen trickle-up economics, that is, estimated by economists, approximately a trillion dollars’ worth of wealth transferred to the wealthiest New Zealanders.

To that effect, addressing the points that have been raised by National Party speakers thus far around inflation or what they’re banging on about with regard to costs of living, cost of living is not something that is felt equally across all those of different socio-economic backgrounds. We know for a fact that inflation, if you own a house, has been pretty all right for you in terms of those capital gains, especially, obviously, on paper. To that effect, we know that New Zealanders who are of lower incomes have for a really long time—and Statistics New Zealand has research to bear this out—been paying approximately double the rate of inflation because they, of course, are paying the majority of their income on those essentials.

When I say that this bill is a missed opportunity, it’s, unfortunately, a missed opportunity because it doesn’t tackle those far more fundamental issues inside of our tax system. Whilst, again, the National Party has been banging on about the fact that this is really unfair that we’re extending this brightline test, it is, of course, the case that of the 35 OECD countries, Aotearoa New Zealand is the only one without a capital gains tax. In fact, I’d say, philosophically, that all of us should agree that there should be some form of simplicity inside of our tax system. When we’re talking about things like income earned on capital gains, it is, of course, the case that within the Income Tax Act, it was intended that those who were earning income on the sale of capital were supposed to be paying for that income tax. That is, of course, the reason that the former National Government introduced the brightline test in the first place. This is again why I would say to my Labour colleagues on this side of the House that this is a missed opportunity to not just straight up implement that simplicity in a capital gains tax.

To the other point, as raised by the National Party—because they have, in fact, been banging on about their policies as announced by their new leader—when they talk about wanting to lower income tax rates, when they talk about this trickle-down economics, I think that it’s important for all of us to recall how they paid for those promises in their former terms of Government. That was, of course, by increasing GST, which, again, had a disproportionate impact on lower-income New Zealanders.

Hon Member: They’re growing the economy.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: And I hear across the aisle that Mr Bayly is screeching once again about trickle-down economics.

What this bill does is nowhere near enough to meet the scale of what is necessary to tackle the climate crises nor the crises of poverty nor the crises of inequality nor the crises of biodiversity in this country, and we need to see far more substantive changes in the Budget, as well as the emissions reduction plan coming up.

Just finally, in summation, I’m sure we’ll hear over the next few contributions—probably responding to some of my points as already laid out—that the economy is a set of rules that are set in place by human beings about how we are going to organise our economic transactions and the rules about things like distribution, the types of spending that we want to do, and otherwise. The economy is not a deity that is set in stone nor is it a deity that we have to sacrifice to. It is the set of rules that all of us agree to about how we choose to govern society, and we get to make choices about how we want to do that, about how just and how fair and how equitable we want that system to be. Whilst this bill, again, uses a scalpel to address some of the issues around the housing crisis, we’re gutted, as the Greens, that it doesn’t go anywhere near far enough to address these crises of inequality.

The Greens will be abstaining on this bill, to that effect, noting that it again, unfortunately, simply does not go far enough.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s always a great pleasure, and sometimes a great amusement, to speak after the Green Party on a piece of legislation. And they’re speech number six and we’re speech number seven, so happily it happens very often. We’ve just heard Chlöe Swarbrick get up and say, “Isn’t it terrible that $1 trillion of wealth was added to property values because of cheap money?”. I don’t want to start beating the Green Party up with history, but which party voted for the Reserve Bank to have a dual mandate that led to the low interest rates, that led to the money printing, that led to the inflation of house values, that transferred so much money away from younger New Zealanders?

Hon Paul Goldsmith: The Labour Party!

DAVID SEYMOUR: Do we hear anything? Yes! The Labour Party and the Green Party. That’s right. So when we talk about hyperinflation of housing, they are absolutely guilty. And then the Green Party says, “The economy’s not a deity that we should bow down and make sacrifices to.” Well, I know that this is no longer a pagan world, but the ACT Party is not in favour of bowing down and making sacrifices to any deity—we’re trying to separate politics and religion in this country. We’re trying to have rational economic debate about how we create opportunity for the next generation of New Zealanders.

And that is why the ACT Party stands wholly opposed to this Taxation (Annual Rates for 2021-22, GST, and Remedial Matters) Bill. You see, Parliament does this every year. And I’ll give you one thing: it’s good that we live in a country where the Government can’t take your money in taxes unless this Parliament, that everyone can vote for, actually has a debate and a vote and agrees—in quite a few pages; 137 pages—that this is what the law says. No taxation without representation. That is a very good thing; perhaps the best of things in a free society.

The problem the ACT Party has is that there’s too much taxation and not enough representation in this particular bill. Where to start? Well, it starts off by selecting the tax rates that people pay. It says that if you earn over $180,000, that income gets taxed at 39c in the dollar. I know what people will say: “Stuff them, they earn too much money. They’ve got it, we’re going to take it.” That’s what they like to say, and I just ask the Labour Party: where is the future for a country where it is acceptable to take stuff because they’ve got it and we can? We’ve got to stop thinking that way, because we’re not going to become a wealthier country if we say, “39c in the dollar. You worked hard at school, you studied, you got qualifications, you worked hard at work, you saved your money, you invested carefully what you’ve put away, you have an income over $180,000. Well, stuff you, we’re going to put an extra tax just to take a bit more because we can.” That is the wrong values for any country.

Then it says, 33c from $70,000 to $180,000. Then it says, from $48,000 to $70,000: 30c. So you’re on $48,000 and you add an extra dollar of income—you work hard, you earn it—and you get to keep 70c. Well, the ACT Party says that’s wrong. And we put up amendments that no other party voted for, that would have given a generous middle-income tax cut: dropping that 30c down to 17-and-a-half. All the way from $14,000 to $70,000, you pay 17.50c under ACT’s generous middle-income tax policy. And it is a representative democracy. We put that up for every other party to vote on and none of them did. None of them wanted to give $2,000—a real tax cut for middle-income earners—back to Kiwis.

The funny thing about it is that the Government has increased the amount of tax it takes off the average person in the last four years by about $2,000—adjusted for inflation, which is significant now. We wanted to give it back; no one else did, and that’s a good reason to vote ACT—because taxpayers have had enough.

We had Barbara Edmonds get up and say, “This is not the time of tax cuts.” Well, let me just give you a fact into the debate. You know, the Government’s tax take in the last two years has gone from $85 billion up to $103 billion this year forecast. So when the Government takes an extra $15 billion in two years—you know, if the Government’s just taken $15 billion extra in two years and people are struggling to pay their bills, that’s not the time to let people keep more of their own money? What that tells you is that Barbara Edmonds and the Labour Party will never, ever leave you “Sure to Rise” because they don’t want anybody to ever get any of their taxes back, I can tell you.

What else does this bill do? It introduces the brightline test. How many stories have we heard of people who now have to change their plans? Can’t move for work because if they leave their house, when they sell it after 10 years, they’re eligible to pay income tax. Tens, sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars of tax people will have to pay just for doing what New Zealanders ordinarily do: living in their home. But if they live outside their home for a year over 10 years—perhaps they moved for a job or whatever—then all of a sudden, they’re liable for tax. How disruptive is that?

And I say to the National Party—the National Party say, “Look, a brightline test’s OK so long as it’s only two years.” I say to them what I said in 2015: “Don’t do it. Because if you introduce a brightline tax at two years, guess what! Taxes are like acorns. They grow.” You put it there at two years, then it’s five years, then it’s 10, soon it’ll be 15. It’s a de facto capital gains tax on your house right now because National introduced it, Labour expanded it, what do you expect? The ACT Party’s the only party that said “no” to a brightline test, and we predicted it would expand at the time. And Mr Speaker’s looking there wisely because he knows, he remembers it well too.

Then what else does it do? It takes mortgage interest deductibility away from landlords. Now this is probably the dumbest of all. And I just go back a step: ACT put up legislation saying, “Let’s get rid of the brightline test.” Every other party had an opportunity to vote to get rid of the brightline test. No other party did. The National Party said, “As long as it’s only two years, it’s OK.” Labour Party said, “We want it to be forever.” The Green Party probably wants you to be taxed indefinitely. The ACT Party says, “Let’s get rid of it.”

Then there’s the mortgage interest deductibility. Now here’s the thing, when this policy was introduced by the Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, she said, “We’re going to tilt the playing field towards first-home buyers.” Well, this is a case study in somebody who doesn’t know how to separate intentions from outcomes when it comes to setting policy. Here’s how it works. We have a tight rental market; that’s why rents have gone up like a rocket for New Zealanders up and down this country. And when extra costs go on to landlords in a tight rental market, what do they do? They increase the cost of rent. And if you put an extra tax on landlords, what is that going to do to tenants? They’re going to have to pay more rent to help the landlord cover the tax.

Now here’s the next question. What sort of people are tenants? If they’re renting, they probably don’t own a home—most of the time. And if they don’t own a home but they’d like to own one, then they are first-home buyers. So the Prime Minister—trying to tilt the playing field towards first-home buyers—has put extra taxes on first-home buyers, made it harder for them to save a deposit, and actually sabotaged her own policy. I mean, it’s incredible how big the gulf is between great Instagram and good intentions on the one hand, and actual policy that works and does what it says on the tin on the other hand. But that, sadly, is our first ever Instagram Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern. And people are hurting because of bad policy that she makes and promotes, and it’s not the first time she’s done it.

The ACT Party, of course, put up an amendment to this bill, where we said, “Let’s get rid of the mortgage interest deductibility removal.” Or, “Let’s keep mortgage interest deductibility for landlords, because actually it’s the right thing to do.” Every party had the opportunity to vote for it; none of them did. So what comes out of this is that if you believe in lower taxes, if you believe that people should be able to keep more of their own money, and if you believe that people that get up and try to make a difference in their own lives and the lives of people they care about, then, of course, there’s only one party in this Parliament through the passage of this bill—the annual rates bill setting the taxes for New Zealand this year—that has stood up for lower taxes and people making a difference in their own lives, and that is the ACT Party that proudly opposes this bill, which puts tall poppy syndrome in the tax code, holds us down, and hurts the very people the Prime Minister said she was trying to help. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ian McKelvie): Members, the time has come for me to leave the Chair. This fascinating debate will resume at 7 p.m.

Sitting suspended from 5.58 p.m. to 7 p.m.

HELEN WHITE (Labour): I rise in support of the third reading of this bill, and I come at a time when we’ve heard speeches from the National Party and ACT and the Greens. It’s always a privilege to come after those speeches, because it gives me the opportunity to actually think about the principles and values I stand for and what might be different. One of the things that I think we have a duty to do in this House is not mythologise, and I want to bust a few myths right now. The first is that people who raise these issues, things like mum and dad investors and the tall poppy syndrome, are myth-making—this is not what is going on in this House and not what this legislation will do.

I want to talk first about the mum and dad investor, and the myth of it. I lived at a time when a lot of people, because they were wealthy enough to have some capital, were able to buy a house, and they bought that house because they had the capital plus they had tools like interest deductibility, and that interest deductibility meant that they could offset a lot of those costs, and the cost wasn’t captured, because the capital gain wasn’t actually captured at any point. Those people are not mum and dad investors. They own a lot of land, and what we are actually doing if we don’t put this through is we are protecting those people at the expense of others—because there are losers in this system. One of the losers is the first-home buyer. They miss out on these houses. When they are sold under this scheme because somebody wants to invest in housing, that house investor will reinvest that money. They will invest it in things like the economy, which will be good for us all. They may well choose to invest it in new housing, and that will add to our supply. Those are win-wins people, because the other house that comes into the market will, hopefully, go to those first-time homeowners, and I’ll be pleased to see that happen.

So this is not about one group pitted against the other. This is about a piece of legislation that shapes the way that we think and shapes the way that we put investment, and, after all, isn’t that what we’re supposed to do? We are a Government, after all. We are supposed to shape policy that will actually change things that have been going wrong—and that’s been going wrong for a long time.

I want to talk about another tool in the tool box that’s being used and has been mythologised, and that is the brightline test. I was disturbed to hear Mr Bayly talk in his last speech about how this would affect people who were divorcing—that they would suddenly be caught by the brightline test. It is just simply not true. This is a main home exemption, so if somebody’s marriage breaks up and they have to sell their house at that time, they won’t be caught under this situation. The people who will be caught are people who actually are making an income out of flipping houses. Those are the majority of people who will actually end up having to pay the profit that they make.

Another myth that came out today was that for some reason the people who were out of the house for one year would somehow have to pay capital gain on the entire time in their property—that was the implication at least. So I want to put that straight for the New Zealand public—because that’s not what the story is. The story is that if you are out of your house for one year and you come into the new brightline, you will actually only have to pay the capital gain on the time you were out of the house. So if you have your house for nine years and for one of those years you have been out of the house, the other eight years are not ones that are subject to this—it is only profit while it is not your main home. This is a really important thing to get straight, because these myths are damaging. We need people to understand what the purpose of this legislation is, and it isn’t right to put the New Zealand public wrong about that.

I want to talk, finally, about the myth of the tall poppy, because this comes into the debate about our tax rates. Our tax rates are very moderate in this country; 39c will be paid by people when they have already earned $180,000, and those people who pay that extra tax have been supported in doing so over the last few years by our nurses, by our teachers, by our supermarket workers, who have earned nothing like that, and I want to see policies that target those people. I want to see tax policies that do that and I want to see other policies, and I certainly don’t want to see $8,000 for the Leader of the Opposition and $2.30 for somebody who is on the minimum wage. It is not good enough. I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): I call the Hon David Bennett—five-minute call.

Hon DAVID BENNETT (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, tonight’s debate will show you the true colours of the Labour Party and their members and their desire to really knock out of any New Zealander the aspiration to do well, to build a business, to actually get out there and do anything. Because they tell you, time and time again—and in these speeches they’re very confident around it, saying, “We actually have a duty to do this, as Labour Party members. Our duty is to make sure that anybody that makes any money in this country has to pay it so that we can distribute it to other people.” That’s their fundamental belief, and it is contrary to what human nature is, it is contrary to what the country has been built on, and it’s contrary to what good economic policy is built on.

Hon Damien O’Connor: That’s bullshit.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: Now, Mr O’Connor may say “rubbish” there, but, you know, he’s all the time saying that we need to trade with the world, we need to be in the business area, and yet he’s cutting out this very business that people are in of providing housing for other people. And he can’t explain that. And Mr Nash, who’s sitting beside him, is another reasonable member of the Labour Party. I remember Mr Nash saying that we should tax just income and not actually have any expenses that can be deductible, at one stage. He soon backtracked from that.

That was the same theory that we’re seeing here tonight: they are only wanting to tax income, and not the expenses that people have in that business. And it is not that they are doing some God’s work, that they are saving people and that they are providing some great country that will provide freedom and a free lifestyle for everybody. It is doing exactly the opposite. It is hurting those very people that actually need a hand in this country, who don’t want a skewed system around the business of owning homes. And that is what we are doing here. We’re skewing it completely differently from any other business. So those that go into the homeownership business, you can say, of providing rentals for somebody that can’t get there themselves, have now a different model from any other business. And so they have to earn more income. They have to charge more rent. It’s the only way they can do it. That then puts the cost of living up, puts inflation up, and the very people Labour say they’re there for are the very people that get hurt. It is the traditional Labour Party economic policy that’s failed for generations, and it will always fail.

Dr Duncan Webb: Oh, look at the bigger—

Hon DAVID BENNETT: And that member from over the other side, from Christchurch—he was very confident in his speech, saying, “This is our God-given right to do this. We need to do this. This is our job. We need a progressive tax system like this.” That’s his words. They are a failure waiting to happen.

And if you want to look at it, what’s happened to housing prices in New Zealand in the last year? Twenty-five percent increase in house prices. If it’s such a great policy, why hasn’t that stopped? Why is first-home ownership still dropping, as it has around the world, and it will continue to do because it gets harder and harder to do that? This policy won’t stop that. This policy is just for the ego of the Labour Party, and it will not actually help the very people that need assistance. This is lawmaking at its worst. It is bad policy being enacted by a bad Government. It will not achieve their purpose. What’s worse about it is that they present it in a way that it is there for the interests of those people in most need, when it will do exactly the opposite. It creates a system that will then mean more costs on those people that are renting, that then will reduce their ability to get into homeownership and keep them in that cycle of renting for ever and a day. It is stupidity of the highest level, but it is Labour Party policy, and we expect that from them. And that’s why you’ve got an economy that’s out of control at the moment. They’ve got inflation they can’t control. All those things come from—

Dr Duncan Webb: Low unemployment. High GDP.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: Low unemployment, that’s what he’s saying. Low unemployment, that’s the answer! There’s low unemployment. But we’ve got inflation going out of control—if you can’t get ahead, then that is not the answer. It’s about low unemployment! The reality is that their economic policies have failed. We’re seeing it coming home to roost now. This bill is another example of how they will continue to fail and achieve the wrong purpose. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Making a remote contribution, I call Anna Lorck—five minutes.

ANNA LORCK (Labour—Tukituki) (remote): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m speaking on the third reading as a member of the Finance and Expenditure Committee.

This Government is on the side of renters, first-home buyers, owner-occupiers, and investors in new builds. Some people say housing costs too much but then oppose every move to fix it. What is disappointing, but not surprising, is that tonight we have continued to hear the same deflating rhetoric from the Opposition, who claim to be business smart and yet are not smart when it comes to the business of investment—because the legislative changes this bill provides are a huge opportunity for property investors in modernising their portfolio. The more supply we have, the better we are at addressing housing shortages. So let’s build and, better still, invest in new for the rental market: grow the rental portfolio.

It’s working already, and it’s sending a very strong signal—a message that the Opposition refuses to talk about because members of the National Party don’t want anyone to know about it. One of the best things this bill actually does is encourage investors to build more and more new houses and new homes to rent. If you are planning to invest in housing for the rental market: build new. Build new and help contribute to the housing supply. Because the more we build the more affordable housing becomes for more people. Even if you are a mum or dad investor who has a rental property that you are renting out, and may well have had for more than a decade, here is an opportunity to take advantage of interest deductibility by building new and investing in new, and selling your old one. Be part of fixing the housing crisis by selling your existing rental and having a modern investment by investing in a new build for the rental market.

Now, in Camberley, a suburb in the electorate of Tukituki, where I am the local MP, I recently visited a new development of 10 three-bedroom, warm, affordable, dry rentals. All the interest is deductible for this investment, and, also, because it’s a new rental development, if sold after five years, it will not be subject to the brightline test. Affordable rentals are critical in dealing with the housing crisis. This Government recognises that new rentals play an important part: so that families wishing to rent can. When I see these positive investments happening, like they are in Camberley, I know that this legislation is sending the right signals to investors: build new. I commend this bill to the House.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak on what really is a technical bill, but, actually, the debate has turned much more on to inequality and has really highlighted some fundamental differences between this side of the House and the other side of the House. Because what this bill does is it levels the playing field in favour of first-home buyers rather than speculators, and that’s via the interest limitation. And, really, that is one of the most significant things that we can do to close the inequality gap in New Zealand. Now, the other side—National and ACT—are saying that tax cuts will do that. That is utter nonsense. Their tax cuts will benefit the top 2 percent—those who are earning $180,000 or more.

What we need to do, and what we are doing on this side, is two fundamental streams of work. One is around pivoting the housing market away from speculators, towards first-home buyers, and, secondly, we’re providing targeted support. Now, the benefit to the first-home buyers comes via this bill, and, as we’ve heard, investors can generally outbid first-home buyers, and that is because they have a significant tax advantage. We’ve heard from the Minister how inflation skews that interest advantage even more. Now, Simon Watts has revealed, and, actually, David Bennett as well, the view from the Opposition that housing is a business—they have spoken about that many times this evening—versus this side, where we see housing as a social necessity for all, and shelter as a human right. So what we want to do is make properties less attractive for speculators, but also stimulate investment in new housing, and that is very much what this bill does.

We’re also phasing in the interest deductibility changes so that they occur between March 2021 and March 2025 so that they do send a signal—as my colleague Anna Lorck has said—they provide those signals for investors so they can make wise choices with their investments. And really importantly for everyone to remember is that the main home is not affected by these new rules. So even owner-occupier rental situations where somebody is owning their home but renting it out to others as well while they’re in there, they can still claim interest deductibility.

It would be remiss of me not to mention the targeted support. I do this specifically in response to the claims made by Andrew Bayly and Simon Watts around closing the inequality gap, but also to the comments made by Chlöe Swarbrick. From 1 April, the second pillar of what we’re doing is we are doing very targeted support to help close this gap, and that’s around supported living, jobseeker support, sole parent support, the youth payment, the young parent payment, orphans benefit, Working for Families tax credit, Best Start tax credit, student allowance, superannuitants, and so on—the list goes on. It is all about reducing inequality, and it’s inequality that impacts on some of our hardest workers.

I absolutely reject the comments from the Opposition and also from the leader of the ACT Party, David Seymour, that only people who go to university and earn high wages are hard-working. We have seen through the pandemic that some of the hardest-working and most critically important workers are our bus drivers, our cleaners, our mothers, our security guards, and so on.

Now, National has said that there’s a housing crisis, but they refuse to take action. They appear to be supporting the highly leveraged speculators, and that’s not surprising given their interest in also providing tax cuts to the highest earners. But doing nothing is actually a really big risk to our economy. The IMF has not only said today that tax cuts would not be appropriate at this time they have also warned repeatedly that the ballooning housing market could trigger a housing slump. And so we have had to tackle this head-on.

In summary, what was actually a technical bill has been worth exploring because we’ve been able to see some fundamental philosophical differences. The other side see housing as a business; we see it as a social priority. National, I think, see the workforce as a hierarchy of contributions from the highest paid to the lowest paid; in Labour, we see that everybody has a contribution to make and everybody should be valued, and that some of those disparities have come about through history and through happenchance. So this is a great bill. It’s a bill that I expected to speak more technically on, but I’m glad we’ve had the opportunity this evening to reveal some of the fundamental differences in the way we view the workforce and the way we view inequality on this side of the House. I commend the bill.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Oh look, an unexpected pleasure to have to speak on this bill, but there is nothing more exciting in this House, I am sure, particularly for the Labour Party, than to discuss tax because, as we know, the Labour Party loves tax and this bill shows it abundantly—an increase of tax for what they deem to be the highest earners, and I think that’s a really important thing for the public to understand. On this side of the House, and certainly for myself, I’ve got no problem, actually, of people paying their fair share, but the issue is not so much the tax rates, it’s the fact of who the Labour Party decides has to pay their fair share and where they’re going to set that bar.

For those tonight who are thinking, “Oh, it’s great, those rich people are going to get taxed. That’s all fine.” Of course, the thing is that next week, next month, next year, they might be in the gun—amongst other reasons, of course, because the Government is not taking on very sensible ideas from the National Party, which is that we need to actually address tax bracket creep. So that, for people at home, is that as you begin to earn more—well, not in real terms; of course, any wage rise you’ve got has been completely wiped out, completely wiped out, by inflation, but as your income supposedly increases—you move tax brackets and I think, unfortunately, some Kiwis are going to get a bit of a fright in their back pocket.

Unfortunately, the Government has attempted to phrase this as an equity argument, and why I think it’s unfortunate is not because the concept’s a problem, I mean, go equity. You know, there we go—a bit of an endorsement and a bouquet for the Greens and left. Equity’s fine except the problem is that the Labour Party has delivered no equity; things are getting much, much worse. I just intimated at least one of them, which is the fact that inflation is way outpacing growth around wages. And yes, it’s all well and good that unemployment is low. I mean, partly, that’s not really a surprise. We’ve had our country sort of imprisoned and locked down for two years. We have not allowed any migrants in the country. That possibly has an impact. I also think we’ve moved a number of people on to the benefit, but that’s probably a debate for another night. But fundamentally, it’s great these people have got jobs but, as I say, inflation’s eating away at whatever they’re earning.

That underlines then probably the second major problem. Actually, I hadn’t quite finished on the equity comment that this tax change, all these tax changes—I see some of them come actually on 1 April, which I thought was some sort of joke, and that’s an incredibly bad pun. But equity is getting worse in this country. It doesn’t matter if you look at child poverty, the fact that we’ve got 26,000-plus people now on the housing register, gang crime, you name it—things are getting worse. And so here again, we have a terrible illustration coming from this Government of talking one thing and delivering the polar opposite.

So let’s delve a little bit into the rental changes because—well sorry, the taxation changes particular around the brightline test and around the inability now—to stress that—the inability for landlords to take their interest payments on mortgages as an expense. My honourable colleague David Bennett highlighted that. I mean in just about any other circumstances you are taxed not only on income but there’s allowance for what are legitimate expenses—and interest on a mortgage has been a traditional expense. Now we may disagree on that. That’s perfectly fine from the Labour side. But what really got stuck in my throat was the argument that these changes are going to help the rental market. In fact, they went as far to say that they were already making improvements to the rental market. I know I almost had a coronary, which is probably not a good thing to have. Things are getting worse.

If you are a renter in my electorate, and that’s in Auckland, your rent is going up—I think, is it $70 a week? I might actually have the figure wrong; I know it’s no lower than $70. It’s going up and up and up. I have constituent after constituent coming to me, tenants, saying it’s getting almost if not completely impossible. And landlords, to be fair, don’t want to put the rent up but they’re humans, they have to pay their own bills. They are responding to a Government which is making things less equal. I’ve actually mentioned it in the House before, particularly around rentals, particularly around this taxation suggestion, that the more that this Government tries to interfere in the market, they just make things worse. And so here we have more changes, supposedly to make things better.

We heard from one of the speakers tonight, one of the honourable members from the Labour Party, that one of the reasons they think this tax—sorry, it’s not strictly a tax; it’s more that they’re not allowing interest on mortgages to be used as an expense. They think it’s a good thing because that’s going to force landlords to sell the property and then somehow a first-home buyer or a person who is really struggling to purchase is just going to walk on in and buy that house. There’s two practical and fundamental problems with that. Firstly, the other side will probably find they won’t sell. People will just sit on their property. They just won’t rent it out. It just becomes not worth it and, unfortunately, I’m hearing that from a number of landlords: “It’s just become too expensive, too difficult. I’m just going to sit on the house.”

The second practical problem—and granted it’s probably come from my electorate, and I will acknowledge it’s not a representative demography. You know, Tāmaki, is by and large, very well-to-do and wealthy if you looked at any of the statistics. But just to use that as an illustration, when Bob and Mary sell that house that they’ve been renting out, it ain’t going to be affordable. That’s something that the Government might want to keep in mind because all that’s going to happen—and I suspect we will see—is more legislation from this left-wing Labour Government to try and force its view on to others. You heard a hint of that from, again, other honourable members who have spoken. They’ve talked about housing as a social necessity: “We, the Government, will decide what you can do with your house or houses. The greater good of the community deems that we will now dictate to you, including through this little piece of legislation”—well, actually it’s not too little; it’s quite a tome—”how you can and cannot operate your house.”

The final point I would make, and it’s really just a simple and fundamental one and, yes, I think members have rightly expressed tonight that debates around taxation, exciting as they are—Greg O’Connor, I can see it on your face—do highlight the difference between the left and right of politics. The two principles really are, ultimately, on this side of the House we believe that individuals and families can make the best decisions about how they want to spend their money. It’s why we are always trying to seek, ultimately, how we can deliver more money to Kiwis. In fact, I make an erroneous statement. It’s not even “deliver”. We just want to allow Kiwis to keep the money they have legitimately earned; keep the Government out of this.

But no, we have a left-wing Labour Government. They believe, they understand, they know how to spend your money better than others. I know that’s a trite statement that always comes out from the right. But you know, the thing is that what comes out of the right is right. It’s sort of a hint in the name, you know, right? You know, another bad pun—that’s two.

The last point I would make—the last point I would make—is that, ultimately—

Greg O’Connor: Three strikes, Madam Chair.

SIMON O’CONNOR:, I’m actually trying to just excite things here in this House tonight as we talk taxation. The ultimate one, ultimately—the last point I would make, and people in New Zealand should never forget this: when any Government, it doesn’t matter if it’s left or right, goes out and says to you “Look, all these amazing things we’re delivering by these extra taxes.”, that is simply you, the public, being bribed with your own money. Never forget. No Government makes a cent. They tax it off hard-working Kiwis day after day. I’m conscious on this side of the House every time we make a spending promise, every time we spend that money, we have generated that from Kiwis. And so when Jacinda Ardern and others—Grant Robertson—get up and talk about how wonderful they are and doing housing subsidies here and employment things here, and Working for Families there, in themselves they’re great. But New Zealand, you’re only being bribed with your own money, particularly when it comes to the likes of Working for Families, I’m afraid to say. You work hard, you pay all your taxes, which go into the great circus which is Working for Families, and then they spit some of it back at you.

Maybe I’m a simple man. I am an O’Connor. Looking at Greg O’Connor again—well, maybe we’re simple men. But do you know what? Why take the money off us in the first place? Anyway, with that attempt at somewhat levying, which I suspect was taxing on all concerned, that’s No. 3, I commend—no, I don’t, actually. I’m not going to commend the bill to the House. That’s probably the final point. I don’t know I can condemn the bill, Mr Whip, but I cannot support this bill tonight.

GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): Every family has a branch who’s put on Earth to make the rest of the family look good, and that member has just achieved his goal. Well, I am pleased to say there is no blood there.

I have sat and listened to this debate, and I’m sure that those at home will have too, and they’ll be confused because everyone’s been in that family situation where a child is demanding money be spent on a new toy, a new holiday, or a new something. The refrain from the parents is inevitable: “Do you think money grows on trees?”. Listening to the Opposition across the floor I would actually believe, apart from the infantile speech that we just had to put up with, clearly, they do believe that money grows on trees. Because if you sit through this House, through any day, starting at question time, going through the various bills we debate, what you will inevitably hear is demand that this Government does more. Latterly it’s been COVID: give hospitality more money; give tourism more money; give farmers more money. Although at $9.50 this year, probably even Mr Bennett’s probably not going to stand up and say that this year. But so often you’ll hear them stand up and make a speech that says “Give more money.” However, we then come to a piece of legislation like this, which actually tries to address some of those issues, to ensure that we, as a Government—any Government has the means to do what Governments do. It’s security. It’s ensuring that its citizens can go about their business free of interference by those who would stop them, to create that level playing field.

Now, this bill, when you look at a piece of legislation, it’s been talked about just another boring piece of tax legislation, it’s actually quite a significant piece of legislation because, certainly since through the 2000s, across two hues of Government, we have seen housing become increasingly unaffordable. Now there are those who will nostalgically look for the good old days, and the good old days are often not as good as people believe they were. It’s often said that pain has no memory. But one thing that was quite clear when we speak to people who did shift around towns, who did move, was that housing, while it was always a significant expenditure, was not something that was beyond the realms of anyone who had, essentially, a job. It was always going to be something that someone could—if all else failed, you had your own house. I had a grandfather-in-law who had lost his house during the depression, and he never got another house again. But through that time he could have afforded a house, it was just the fear of having lost that house was what governed him.

So, this piece of legislation, what does it do? It does two things around housing. One of them, it incentivises people to build more houses. Because if you want to escape the tax that has been so harangued here tonight, there is an easy way around it: invest that money in a new house, because you will actually be able to get the tax deductibility then for up to 20 years. So that’s a pretty good incentive to go out there and build a new house. What that will do is free up those other houses to be built.

I note the previous speaker said he will have people who will not rent the house, they’ll just sit and let it sit there. Well, in an environment where that house is not going in, those houses are being farmed or bought for capital gain. If there is no capital gain, why would someone possibly do what the previous speaker suggested and sit in that house where not only is it not going up, it is probably, quite possibly, going down, particularly as it is in many parts of New Zealand now.

ACT New Zealand, they amuse—we had a speaker from ACT speaking on an earlier part of this bill, who talked about how—we were talking about roading and how we should be more like Sweden because Sweden had these magnificent roads where down the middle they had a barrier which prevented the sort of accidents we have in New Zealand. And we should be more like Sweden. I did remind that speaker across the House of the very high taxation rate in Sweden, and that member really didn’t have an answer. Because we could have anything we like if, like Sweden, you do have absolutely free education—not that I’m advocating we go to those levels. But certainly someone has got to pay, which comes back to what I mentioned originally, that those opposite, in a relatively infantile way, obviously believe that money does grow on trees. They can have these things that we demand, that we can have all these things we demand, but no one pays for them.

Let’s give everyone a tax cut, which will see most people in this House getting, probably, up to five figure tax deductions, possibly more, while the very people—and what really does rile me, if I can finish on this, we’re the workers, the hard workers, well, in this building, do you know who I believe works the hardest in this building? It’s the people who come when we all go. The cleaners who are likely to come from one of the lowest socioeconomic parts of town, probably won’t own a house, will have one or two cleaning jobs at least, will be here through the night, will go home, get kids off to school, while another partner in the house or other people in the house will go and have jobs. They are the people who, I believe, work and keep this place operating more than, certainly, we do as MPs. But they’re the very people under the sort of tax changes that are being advocated across the room, will get the least.

This is an attempt to make our tax system fairer. I think history will be very good to this piece of tax. I think we’ll look back and say that we’ve actually now started to steer our way into a fairer system. New Zealand will become the New Zealand that we like to think it is, but unfortunately, perhaps, it is moving in the wrong direction. This will hopefully move in the right direction, and, therefore, as the last speaker, it’s my pleasure to commend this bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2021-22, GST, and Remedial Matters) Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 67

New Zealand Labour 65; Te Paati Māori 2.

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Abstentions 10

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Te Pire mō te Hararei Tūmatanui o te Kāhui o Matariki/Te Kāhui o Matariki Public Holiday Bill

Second Reading

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Associate Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage): Tēnei au te tāpae nei ki te aroaro o te Whare te tauāki ā-ture o Te Pire mō te Hararei Tūmatanui o te Kāhui o Matariki / Te Kāhui o Matariki Public Holiday Bill.

[I present a legislative statement on Te Pire mō te Hararei Tūmatanui o te Kāhui o Matariki / Te Kāhui o Matariki Public Holiday Bill.]

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: E mōti, Au kia pānui tuarua i tēnei wā Te Pire mō te Hararei Tūmatanui o te Kāhui o Matariki / Te Kāhui o Matariki Public Holiday Bill.

Ka nui taku harikoa ki te hoki mai ki te Whare mō te pānuitanga tuarua o te ture hiranga nei, te pire ka whakatū hararei tūmatanui e whakanuia ai a Matariki, Te Hararei Tūmatanui o Te Kāhui o Matariki. E ngākau whakahī ana i te pire nei i rikarika ana au ki te whakanui i te hararei tūmatanui tuatahi o te Matariki ā te Rāmere te rua tekau mā whā o Pipiri i tēnei tau. Ko te rā arohia ki a Matariki i te hararei tūmatanui tuatahi o te motu ka āta aro, ka āta whakanuia e te ao Māori. He rā ka whai painga ki te huringa tonu o tō tātou tuakiri ā-motu. He takahanga whakamua hiranga tēnei mō Aotearoa, kua noho nei hei iwi ki te Moana-nui-a-Kiwa o te ao hou. Kia hoki ki tāku i kī ai i te pānuitanga tuatahi e mārama ana te pire mō ngā tikanga whakatū hararei tūmatanui hou.

He tino poto te pire nei, heoi, ko tētahi huarua ōna kua toaitia kia pire reo rua kua tuhia ki te reo Māori me te reo Pākehā. Hiranga ana te reo rua o te pire nei ka mutu, e mārama ana tana whakamihi i ngā mātauranga i ahu mai ai a Mataraki, ko te reo o te ao Māori tērā. E kī ana te pire ka tū he hararei tūmatanui motuhake mō Matariki, ā, kua takoto mai ōna rā mō ngā tau toru tekau ki tua. Kua whakahou anō i ētahi atu ture kia uru atu ki te hararei tūmatanui o Matariki ki ngā tikanga o te rā mahi me te rā pakihi.

He mea nui anō te noho mai o te tauākī e whakamārama ana i te hiranga o Matariki ki a ngāi Māori. Ko tā te tauāki hiranga he tāpae tirohanga whānui ki a Matariki mō te whakatakoto i ētahi mātāpuna matua e toru kei te pūtake o ngā mahi whakanui i a Matariki o nehe, ko ēnei. Te maharatanga: te whakanui i te hunga kua riro mai i te aranga o Matariki i te tau o mua atu. Te whakanuia i tēnei rā te huihui tahi ki te whānau me ngā hoa, me te titiro ki anamata, te titiro whakamua ki ngā painga ka kawea mai ā te tau. He āhuatanga matua te tauākī hiranga o te pire. Kei a ia tōna whāroa. Ko ia e tohu ana i te hiahia kia kaua e tīhore te hararei tūmatanui motuhake hou ki te mātauranga Māori, otirā ki te whakaaro Māori.

Ko te noho mai o tētahi tauākī hiranga ki te pire e tohutohua o te Rōpū Arataki o Matariki, tētahi kāhui mātanga e kopoua i te tōmuritanga o te rua mano rua tekau anake hei tohutohu i ngā Minita mō āhea, me pēhea te whakanui i te hararei tūmatanui o Matariki. Ko te whāinga o te whakatū rōpū aratake ko te noho mai o te mātauranga Māori ki te iho o ngā whakatau e pā ana ki te hararei tūmatanui o Matariki kia tautokohia kia whakatairangatia te noho mātau me te ngākau pai ki te ao Māori. Nō rohe kē, nō rohe kē ngā mema o te rōpū kia uru atu ai ngā mātauranga o ngā iwi puta noa i Aotearoa. Mārama ana tā rātou kī ake hiranga te wāhi ki ngā uarā me ngā mātāpono e whakatinana ai a Matariki i te horopaki o te ao hou. Me te nui o ngā pēhitanga me ngā tikanga kua whakaritea i te hapori mō te āhua o te whakanui kaupapa i ēnei ra. Ka whakaaro ngā mema ki te hiranga o te whai whakaaro ki te tikanga tūturu me te aronga nui o Matariki kia whakanuia te kaupapa hiranga nui, hiranga nei. E haere tonu ana te ngākau whakamihi a te Kāwangatanga ki te Rōpū Arataki o Matariki, ki ō rātou tohungatanga me ā rātau tū pū arahi mō rātau āta whakaaro ki te āhua o te whakatinana i te hararei tūmatanui hou o Matariki. Tēnei te mihi ake ki a koutou katoa.

E hiahia ana au ki te mihi ki te komiti whiriwhiri ki tōna manukura, a Tāmati Coffey mō ā rātou mahi ki te āta whakaaro, whakaaroaro i te pire nei. Neke atu i te rua rau ngā tāpaenga whakaaro mai. Tata ana te tautokohia i te katoa te whakanuia o te ahurei mō te hiranga o te mātauranga Māori me Mataraki ki tētahi hararei tūmatanui hou. Kua hokia mai he kōrero mō te pire i te komiti whakawhiri, kāore he panonitanga kua tonoa o te hunga tāpae whakaaro ki te komiti rere whakanui ana te tautokohia o te pire. Tokomaha e toai i te kupu o te Rōpū Arataki o Matariki, arā kia whakatinana te mana o te mātauranga puta noa i te tukunga whakawhanake i te ture nei, ahu atu ki tua.

Ko te whānuitanga atu o te hunga tāpae whakaaro mai i tautoko i te whakatika o te pire i te korekore o te hararei tūmatanui e āta aro ana e āta whakanui ana i te ao Māori ka mutu, mā te hararei nei e whai huarahi ai te Karauna ki te whakaatu atu i tana haere kōtui ki te Tiriti me tana whakahau kia kaha ake te ngākau tuwhera ki a Ngāi Māori me tōna ao. E kaha anō te tautoko o te hunga tāpae whakaaro mai kia tāpirihia tētahi atu hararei e whakaanga ai, e hoki ai a mahara e tūhonohono anō ai te kaimahi. E whakatū anō ngā tāpaenga whakaaro ka mutu, he take matua tēnei mō tātou katoa i a tātou ka whakanui i te kaupapa ahurei ka parahia mai e te hararei tūmatanui o Matariki.

Kia māharahara tātou e kore ngā iwi katoa o Aotearoa e whakanui i te huringa o te tau me tau hou ko te kāhui o Matariki, ko te aranga o whetū kē pērā i a Puanga, i a Poutūterangi ka whakaatu i te mātauranga ā-iwi, heke iho i ngā whakatipuranga. E rite anō te hiranga o aua mātauranga aua tirohanga, ka mutu, kua kaha mātou ki te aro ki tērā i te ingoa tonu o te pire, te Kāhui o Matariki.

I a au ka kōrero nei mō te heke iho i te mātauranga i ngā whakatipuranga e taukapo ana i te mahana o ōku whakaaro taku ake whetū a Hiwa-i-te-rangi, he taonga i tukua mai ki a māua ko tana whaea, tā māua whakatinanatanga o Matariki. Ko ia tā māua haeata i ngā wā o te pōuritanga, te whetū rikoriko ka whakairia ō māua wawata, ō māua hiahia mō ōna rā ki tua.

Ko te iho o te pire ko te ngākau pūmau ki te hononga o ngāi Māori me te Karauna, me te āhua o tā mātou tuku, whakamahi, whakatairanga, tā mātou tiaki o te mātauranga Māori i runga i te kauanuanu. E mārama ana mātou kāore e tukua noatia ngā kōrero mō Matariki me te mātauranga Māori, kei te mārama anō mātou, kāore e rite i te wā whakanui ai i Matariki e ngā iwi. Heoi anō, e te Māngai o te Whare nei, ko tēnei te pire ka tāpaea i konei te pire ki te Whare nei.

[I move, that Te Pire mō te Hararei Tūmatanui o te Kāhui o Matariki / Te Kāhui o Matariki Public Holiday Bill be now read a second time. I am very pleased to return to the House for the second reading of this significant law, the bill that will establish a public holiday to observe Matariki, Te Kāhui o Matariki Public Holiday Bill. I am proud of this bill and excited to announce the first date of observation of the Matariki public holiday will be on Friday, 24 June this year. The day for the first observation of the Matariki public holiday was carefully chosen, and will be well celebrated by the Māori world. It will be a day that will contribute positively to our changing national identity. It is an important step forward as we aim to become a people of the Pacific in the modern world. With reference to what I said at the first reading, the bill is clear about the rules regarding creating a new public holiday.

This bill is very short, however, it has been repeated, with the bill being bilingual, that is, being written in te reo Māori and English. Its bilingual nature is significant, and its acknowledgment of the Māori knowledge that underlies Matariki is the language of the Māori world. The bill states that a specific public holiday will be created for Matariki, and the dates for it have been set for the next 30 years. Some other laws have been updated to include the Matariki public holiday where it affects work days and business days.

Another important thing is the statement explaining the importance of Matariki to Māori. This important statement provides an overview of the three main themes that form the basis of the observation of Matariki in the past, as follows. Remembrance: the commemoration of those that have passed since the rising of Matariki in the previous year. To celebrate on this day the gathering together of friends and family, and looking to the future, looking forward to the good that can be carried forward to the next year. This important statement is one a core part of the bill. It is wide ranging. It advises of its desire that the new Matariki public holiday should not take away from Māori knowledge and to Māori thought.

The inclusion of the important statement was requested by the Matariki Advisory Group, a group of experts which was only appointed at the end of 2020 to advise Ministers on when and how Matariki should be observed. The purpose of establishing an advisory group was so that Māori knowledge should lie at the core of the decisions related to the Matariki public holiday, to support and elevate our working with good intentions with the Māori world. The members of the group were from different areas of New Zealand so that knowledge from all areas was included. Their important statements were clear about the place of values and principles in the implementation of Matariki in the context of the modern world. There have been many pressures and rules laid down in the community about how these days should be observed. The members were mindful about the importance of traditional practices regarding the main purpose of Matariki so that this important practice could be observed. The Government continues to acknowledge the Matariki Advisory Group for their expertise, their specialist guidance, their focused thinking about how to realise this new Matariki public holiday. Thank you all once again.

I wish to acknowledge the Māori Affairs Committee and its chair, Tāmati Coffey, for their work, focused thinking, and consideration of this bill. There were more than 200 submissions, nearly all of which were supportive about celebrating the uniqueness and importance of Māori knowledge and the new Matariki public holiday. Reports were relayed back to the select committee that no changes were requested as a result of the submissions received by the committee. They eagerly supported the bill. Many people repeated the words of the Matariki Advisory Group, that we must embody the validity of Māori knowledge right throughout the development processes of this law, moving forward.

The breadth of the submissions supported that the bill be created due to the absence of a public holiday specifically for the Māori world and, by the creation of this holiday, the Crown is able to show how it works in partnership regarding the Treaty and its direction of being more open-hearted towards Māori and the Māori world. There was also strong support in the submissions that a new holiday was needed for reflection and remembrance and the ability for workers to connect with each other. The submissions also stated that this was an important issue for all of us as we observe this special event having had the way cleared by the creation of the Matariki public holiday.

We are aware that not all tribes in Aotearoa observe the turning of the year with Matariki, but with other stars such as Puanga and Poutūterangi, which in itself is an example of different tribal knowledge systems that have been passed down over generations. This knowledge is equally valid, and, to that end, we tried to capture this in the name of the bill, by including the term, “cluster of Matariki”.

As I was talking about the intergenerational transfer of knowledge, my thoughts warmly turned to my own star, Hiwa-i-te-rangi, a gift handed down to her mother and me. Indeed, this is our own realisation of Matariki. She is our ray of sunshine in times of sadness, the glittering star when we can hang our dreams and desires for the days ahead.

The essence of the bill is the steadfast connection between Māori and the Crown, the character of our sharing, our use of, our promotion, and care of Māori knowledge, with respect. We understand that not all things about Matariki and Māori knowledge will be shared freely, and we are also clear that not all tribes observe Matariki at the same time. However, I present this bill to the House.]

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker, and it’s a great pleasure to speak on this piece of legislation, Te Pire mō te Hararei Tūmatanui o te Kāhui o Matariki/Te Kāhui o Matariki Public Holiday Bill. Now, it’s very interesting: the National Party certainly supports the idea of a public holiday to celebrate Matariki. And what you have here in the bill is ensuring that over the next 30-odd years the holiday will be celebrated on the Friday adjacent to the weekend closest to the Tangaroa lunar phase—the point in the lunar month, as the Minister would have explained, where the last quarter moon rises—of the month of Pipiri, in the Māori calendar the period typically around June and July. So what we’re talking about is an important idea and principle in Te Ao Māori, the Māori sort of world view. And, of course, some groups have different views within Māoridom—that this is a time sometimes thought of as the start of a new year.

So the idea of having a public holiday celebrating that and drawing attention to those ideas and those views, of the Māori world, we support. The slight issue, however, is that if they were to replace one of our many other public holidays—say, Labour Day would be a good one to start with—so that we weren’t creating additional public holidays but we were reshuffling the public holidays, reflecting the passage of time, then we would support this legislation. But that, of course, is not what this Government is doing, and so we won’t be supporting this legislation.

Why? Because what we have here in this Government, currently, is one that seems to think that the purpose of government, or the role of good government, is just to throw treats, in terms of additional public holidays or various entitlements, out through the passage of law. This is just one of many that they’ve done over the last couple of years.

So there’s the idea: OK, we’ll pass a law and have an extra public holiday. We have 11 so far this year; also, workers have an entitlement to 20 days’ leave, so 31 days in total. Then, a few months ago, they passed another law, which is to say you can have an extra week of sick leave—up to two weeks. So that’s fine, and then they’ll pass another law, saying that we’ll increase the minimum wage very significantly, from about—it was around $16 when this Government came into power; up, now, past $20, and higher all the time.

But the problem is that the Ministers who stand up here and pass these laws and puff out their chests and say, “How wonderful we are, and what good people we are”, they’re not the ones who are paying the bill. It’s the private businesses that have to pay for it. So the legislation is passed, and the Minister stands up there and says, “Aren’t we wonderful, generous people, because we’re going to give you an extra public holiday.”, but somebody else has to pay for it, and, unfortunately, the reality is that collectively, all these additional costs are not insignificant. They make it more difficult for people to stay in a position to continue to employ other New Zealanders and to keep their businesses alive and competitive.

Hon Stuart Nash: What rubbish.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: And the Minister says, “What rubbish.” Well, of course. What would he care—what would he care? I mean, if you just add on—

Hon Stuart Nash: So are you going to roll back the minimum wage, or reduce the number of holidays workers have?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: So what you would say is the Minister seems to imply that adding additional costs on to business by substantially increasing the minimum wage—under the National Party, the minimum wage was increased regularly, but by the volume and increase of the minimum wage—doesn’t have an impact on businesses. That just shows how deluded and out of touch this Government has become—deluded and out of touch.

So what we have is a Government that genuinely seems to believe how you improve incomes in this country is simply by Government fiat—by legislation. You come into this House, you’re a Minister, you puff out your chest, and you say, “We’re going to increase wages: by increasing the minimum wage here, by increasing the entitlement to sick leave here, by giving you another public holiday.” But they don’t seem to understand that the only sustainable way—the only sustainable way—to increase incomes in this country is to have a more productive economy that produces things that the rest of the world is prepared to pay for, and never, ever would you hear from Minister Stuart Nash or any of the others any talk about how we are going to focus on improving our international competitiveness as a country. No. You wouldn’t hear that. You wouldn’t hear that at all, and you wouldn’t hear much in the way of improving productivity, and therein lies the problem.

So we’re not prepared to be party to just these incessant additional costs on to the people, the New Zealanders, who are running the small businesses up and down this country, who have been through the absolute mill through COVID over the last couple of years, struggling to stay alive, stay in business, many of them—and particularly in the hospitality and tourism sector. They look at this, and they say, “Well, heck, yet one more opportunity”—yet one more opportunity—“to add costs to the business.” And the Minister sort of implies that there’s nothing much involved here. The regulatory impact statement thinks that the cost will be somewhere around $443 million annually. Well, fiddlesticks, I suppose, in the big scheme of things, for this Government. I mean, who cares, $440-odd million—not a big deal—and why is that? Because it’s just another day of production taken out, and then there’s additional wage payments and loss of income.

Now, of course, everybody wants more holidays. I can understand that, and I can understand why all the submitters think it’s a good idea. And, like I say, the principle of having a Matariki holiday we agree with, and we’re very happy about that, but what we would have liked to have seen is just some recognition—just a moment’s recognition from this Government—of the difficulties of staying in business and staying afloat, and recognising that now maybe—maybe—this is just not the time for yet more entitlements in this country.

And maybe they could have considered Labour Weekend as a good alternative to remove. I don’t know why we don’t have a “National Weekend” that I’m aware of. We don’t have an “ACT Weekend”, but we have a Labour Weekend, and maybe it’s time in history that it’s moved on, and we replace Labour Weekend with Matariki, and that would be fine. Then we would have been able to support this piece of legislation.

And you might say it’s a little thing. One day extra holiday—what difference does it make? But the point that we would make is that this is just one of many things that this Government has done, on a regular basis, coming into this House time and time again, Ministers announcing new things, new entitlements for workers, that they’re not paying for; that private businesses are paying for. Those are the businesses that employ New Zealanders. They’re the businesses that create exports, that create our wealth, and need to be internationally competitive. And they also are the businesses that charge us for things. The cost structure that underlies those businesses is what flows through to the cost of living, and, as every New Zealander knows, the cost of living is going through the roof. Everything is more expensive. And the cost structure that our economy is based on is, actually, relevant in this context.

So that is why we applaud the thinking behind this bill, in terms of creating a public holiday to celebrate Matariki. We look forward to that celebration. We just wish there was as much empathy and as much thinking for the needs of the small and medium sized businesses up and down this country and their ability to stay profitable and in a position to continue to employ New Zealanders. I wish there was as much thought and empathy given to them, so that they could have substituted one of the existing holidays, rather than creating an additional one right here, right now.

TĀMATI COFFEY (Labour) (remote): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o tēnei Whare. Ngā mihi nui ki a koe me te Minita hoki mō tēnei pire, te Hōnore Kiritapu Allan, i whakaarohia ōna whakaaro mō tēnei pire, Te Pire mō te Hararei Tūmatanui o te Kāhui o Matariki/Te Kāhui o Matariki Public Holiday Bill.

[Warm greetings to you, and the Minister responsible for this bill as well, the Hon Kiritapu Allan, who has shared her thoughts about this bill, Te Pire mō te Hararei Tūmatanui o te Kāhui o Matariki/Te Kāhui o Matariki Public Holiday Bill.]

This is the public holiday of Matariki that we’re talking about, and I just want to take a moment to acknowledge the Minister, Kiritapu Allan, for her commitment to this bill, her commitment to te reo Māori as well, because that was a stellar effort to my colleague, and the ears of our mātua tūpuna [ancestors] will be listening down on you, e te Minita, i tēnei wā [Minister, at this time].

I also want to take a moment just to acknowledge the previous contribution from the Hon Paul Goldsmith, who decided that he’d support it after telling us all of this great stuff about exactly when the date is going to be landed. He understood about the maramataka Māori. He understood that it had to be taken on a certain date over our Matariki period. That there, in its essence, is part of the evolution of this public holiday: getting our people all around Aotearoa that don’t know about the maramataka, that don’t know how the traditional Māori new year was celebrated—to be able to actually dig into our roots here, in Aotearoa, and realise that we’ve got mātauranga Māori that should be uplifted. I commend him on his knowledge and I encourage him to keep learning.

This is a learning journey for everybody, not least for us as the Māori Affairs Committee, and I was proud to help shepherd it through our committee process. The submission period opened for six weeks and we got 212 submissions through, of which we listened to 12 oral submissions. We heard from our advisers, who were appointed from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, and I want to thank them for their work that they’ve done alongside the committee as well. We also decided to appoint a specialist adviser on this journey to help guide us in this mātauranga. It’s a new world and, as I said before, we’re all learning as we go. So thank you to Professor Rangi Matamua for the work that he did on the committee as our specialist adviser. We acknowledge you, your mātauranga that you’ve shared with us, and also your aspiration to make sure that this works, to make sure this is a public holiday that, actually, all of us, as people of the land, of tangata Tiriti, tangata whenua, that we can both enjoy this public holiday together.

Some of the feedback was very varied. We had some people that were incredibly supportive of the bill. We had some people that were very dubious about the bill, too. One of the concerns was, as the previous speaker mentioned, around the cost of what an extra public holiday would mean for certain demographics, for certain businesses. It was very hard to be able to land on exactly what that cost was going to be, such a wide range, actually. The kind of range that was landed on, through our advisers, was anything between a benefit for the country of $25.7 million to a cost to the country of up to $133 million, and somewhere in the middle.

You see it’s really hard to try and put a dollar figure on the benefits of a public holiday because, when you’re talking about it like that, it sounds very financial. Actually, one of our submitters said that trying to identify it through a financial lens actually takes a very Pākehā perspective on this whole public holiday. What he said, as one of our submitters, was that he wondered whether or not other perspectives, Māori perspectives, might better incorporate the wellbeing of workers when considering the financial implications. So on that, as I say, it was very hard as a committee to try and understand what exactly the cost-benefit analysis was because there is so much to consider in that space.

We had a big discussion about whether or not we use the name “Matariki”. Matariki is celebrated by some, but not by everybody. There are regional variations around Matariki, and I want to go on record, right here, right now, to say that Matariki is one word for a constellation of stars that we celebrate differently in different parts of New Zealand. Puanga—in different parts, that’s another term for Matariki, and there were many more. But what we decided was that, for clarity and simplicity, we would actually go with this. That was encouraged also by our specialist adviser, by Professor Rangi Matamua, acknowledging that there are regional variations, but actually deciding that we’ll stick with one for now, and, in the bill, we’ll make sure that we let everybody know that there are variations that happen across Aotearoa too.

There was some concern that we may be heading down a Christmas tree, Easter bunny kind of route with this public holiday too, that we were going to commercialise the sheesh out of this. I want to just speak to that for a moment. It is a concern. People that want Matariki to be acknowledged want the depth of the public holiday to be recognised, but also don’t want to show up at their local mall and see it plastered all over the windows of their favourite shops, trying to sell off cheap goods, fast clothes, that kind of thing. I want to acknowledge that because it’s something that I share as well. I don’t want to see the complete commercialisation of Matariki, but I acknowledge that through the learning journey there may be some opportunities in there too. Whether it be a Matariki calendar with the Māori New Year listed on it, if it’s T-shirts to help publicise the event—if it’s things like that, then we don’t mind.

But what we landed on, as a committee, was that we can’t control any of that. Once we put this on the map, we can set it forth with best intentions and we can monitor it over time, but, actually, it will be up to the people to decide which way it goes. But I really hope that our Māori communities all around Aotearoa help to educate our local non-Māori communities about the significance of this, and hoping to keep it away from that kind of tacky commercialisation that many of us cringe at as well.

I want to acknowledge our deaf community who came forward and said they wanted to go on record and say that if we’re going to be having festivals, we should make sure that, if they’re big festivals, we’ve got sign language interpreters as well, because they were very concerned that at some of our public holiday events and some of our big major events our deaf community are left out of that conversation because they don’t have access to interpreters. So we discussed that as a committee, we talked about how we could be more inclusive in it, and we heard about the fact that Te Arawhiti is indeed accommodating for that as they plan for the new holiday as well.

There were some concerns around resourcing and making sure that, as it rolls out in our education system, we’re saying good things but that there’s actually resources for our teachers to be able to share this mātauranga as well. We were also assured by the Ministry of Education that that was absolutely part of their considerations; there was a budget allocation last year to be able to help with that. I also note that the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment have also put out some funding for Matariki events around the country, to bring communities together, to help celebrate what Matariki looks like in your part of Aotearoa. So that fund is currently open, and I encourage people, as they’re listening to this, to think about putting in for some of that funding to be able to celebrate Matariki when it comes around—not just this year, but for the next 30 years that we’ve got to look forward to.

There is a lot to say about this bill but I just wanted to finish by thanking all of the officials that have helped us through the submissions process: our clerks of the committee, obviously all of those submitters—all 212 of them—as well as the 12 that submitted to us orally. We thank everybody for their thoughts but this is something that, I think, in years to come, we’ll look over our shoulder and we’ll be incredibly proud of being part of the team that actually helped usher through this bit of mātauranga Māori into our normal vocabulary, so that people like Paul Goldsmith can actually help to educate all of those Paul Goldsmiths around him about the significance of this event, Matariki. It’s an incredibly special event. Actually, I feel at a loss that when I was growing up as a primary school student I knew nothing about this. The mātauranga was out there but we’re only just discovering it, and that’s just the start. There’s lots more coming in this space, and I look forward to seeing the progress of this through the House but also the aspiration of what else we can use to help address that kind of bi-cultural relationship in our country.

For that reason I support this bill and I commend it to this House.

HARETE HIPANGO (National): It’s a reflective moment for me to be able to stand and speak to the second reading of Te Pire mō te Hararei Tūmatanui o te Kāhui o Matariki Te Kāhui o Matariki Public Holiday Bill. The first reading of this was on 30 September 2021. I pick up from my parliamentary colleague who has just spoken, Tāmati Coffey. A key phrase he talked about was “in years to come” so I’m reflective because it’s significant—the timing of when things are done. This is a bill that undoubtedly will be passed into law. It will be a calendared, marked, indigenous, New Zealand holiday of significance and relevance. However, the significance and relevance, in my submission, is the timing of this being passed into law.

The timing is about priorities that our country has been confronted with and the hardships that have been imposed on our people, struck down with COVID, the cost implications, not just fiscal but the impact on our communities. It’s known that the National Party does not support this bill, not because of the significance and the cultural relevance of this as a calendared marker within the shaping and history of the nation and where we are striving towards but because of the timing of the impact on our society. It’s all very well for members in the Labour Government to diminish the relevance of the fiscal cost and implications.

My colleague talked about a Pākehā perspective on this in terms of looking at the cost as it affects our communities. I am a former Māori business owner, and I know that many small to medium sized enterprise business owners who are Māori, along with non-Māori, will carry the fiscal implications of this. We acknowledge and recognise the importance of this as a cultural marker on our calendar. I heard my colleague also mention that he wasn’t aware growing up of what Matariki is. Well, some of us actually were in terms of the communities and those who shaped and influenced us. Where I come from in Whanganui, we celebrate what is called Puanga. Puanga is known as Matariki in other areas, and we have celebrated that without the necessity of a calendared public holiday. We have celebrated that because that is culturally significant and relevant in our lived life and experience, and we haven’t needed legislation to mark this as a significant event in the calendar of our lived experience.

The National Party does not diminish the importance of Matariki—or, where I come from, in Whanganui, Puanga—and we will continue to know it is Puanga whether it is going to be calendared as Matariki, which it will be. But the concern the National Party has is the timing of this. I believe in the values of the National Party. We espouse and we talk about, essentially, what is mana motuhake—self-responsibility, independence, and I reframe that as collective responsibility. I challenge members in the House to think about whether it is a collective responsibility to impose on our employers, our small to medium sized and even the bigger-business owners, the cost that this will be in a burden upon them.

When our country is going into a period of recovery—and I note that the days for Matariki, Puanga, will be marked off, calendared, 30 years in advance—from COVID; an economic, social, and cultural recovery that will take the next 30 years. It will be my children and my grandchildren who bear the cost of this on our society. Is this really responsible Government? Is this the appropriate timing to be passing something that, yes, is important and feels good—and we acknowledge that—but back home in Whanganui, we celebrated Puanga without the need or necessity for it to be calendared in as a public holiday, without the incursion of cost on people who are in work. And even those of us who are in work and employed, we took time out anyway without that cost being imposed on somebody else—we deemed it a priority to do so without it being calendared as a public holiday.

The National Party, and I personally, support the significance and relevance of Matariki—Puanga—being put into our calendar, but is the timing of this really appropriate? As I said, this is going to pass into law. The numbers are in the House, but for the public who are listening, the National Party does not diminish or demean or belittle the significance of this as a marker for the direction that we as a nation are going—and we need to go together, not separately. I do not tolerate just because I am a member of the National Party and a Māori member of the National Party that it be suggested, for the slur to be, that this is about racial preferences and divide—I do not tolerate that or accept that as a Māori or as a Māori associated with a party that espouses mana motuhake. Does this bill really require what has been a marker for those of us who come from lived experience within Māori communities to be locked in as a public holiday?

It is going to happen. The National Party is one of pragmatism and priorities and has put it to the Government that Matariki—Puanga—be a holiday in substitution of another party. I submitted that to the Māori Affairs Committee. Of course, it did not meet with any approval. I submitted that my birthday happens to fall on Labour Day so I was quite prepared to acquiesce and let that one go, but, really, Madam Speaker and everybody listening: timing is everything. This is going on to the calendar. It is a marker. It will be locked in for the next 30 years, but so too will the nation in recovery, and my mind and my heart turns to my children and my grandchildren yet to be born, because they are the ones who are going to endure the consequences of this COVID. They will also celebrate, because it will be locked into law—a Matariki public holiday. But I’ve raised and nurtured my children also to be practical. There are things that they wanted as children that they simply could not have or receive, because of timing and, quite frankly, what could and could not be afforded were issues taken into account.

In conclusion, the National Party cannot commend this bill to the House for the very reasons I’ve indicated. The principle driving Matariki as a public holiday and marker is supported, but the timing of the implications on New Zealanders and our business communities certainly has some bearing on cost. I do not commend this bill to the House.

PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. It’s an absolute pleasure to be talking on Te Kāhui o Matariki Public Holiday Bill. Can I say it’s a pleasure to be talking on this because I know from a previous role, prior to coming to Parliament, that the then Mayor of Wellington City was certainly keen on making sure that Matariki is part of the city rejuvenation here in Wellington to celebrate an indigenous public holiday based around Matariki. So in talking to Justin Lester, I know that he’s certainly celebrating there in Johnsonville, in North Wellington, saying this is a good thing and, I believe, so are many other people around Aotearoa New Zealand who have been hoping at some stage this Government would look at putting in place another public holiday to celebrate the Māori New Year. And we’ve seen in many parts of New Zealand, of the country, where different cities and districts have taken up the mantle to really look at our history and how this particular indigenous celebration can be applied locally.

I know, from visiting many schools and stories from other members of Parliament—colleagues who have been into a range of places, where they have certainly come back saying that the depth of understanding now about Matariki is certainly impressive, to say the least. They’ve certainly looked at what the meaning is, how it impacts locally, but how special it is to New Zealand. And so I’m really pleased to see that this year, on 24 June, we’ll have our first Matariki public holiday. As I said, different people have had a different understanding, but ultimately—and can I just acknowledge at this stage the Minister, the Hon Kiritapu Allan, for bringing it to the House.

I had the pleasure of accepting the petitions on her behalf at Te Papa from Action Station. I think it was from Lewis Holden as well, and there were thousands of people who had put their names to this, saying that we certainly want to build that greater national understanding and put a value on the Māori language, culture, and heritage. And in talking to the people who handed it over to me at Te Papa, they said to me, “Do you think this will have some impact?” Often we accept petitions and sometimes we just don’t know. But it was also, I think for me, pleasing to keep in touch with Laura and others who’ve been part of building this, I guess, movement around making sure that this public holiday was put in place.

But the good news is always when you can say to them that it’s actually going to happen. So can I just also acknowledge the Matariki Advisory Group and their work. They certainly took a different approach in terms of determining the dates, because it will shift to align to the maramataka, the Māori lunar calendar, for each year, but it will always be on a Friday. And in doing just a small bit of research and being on the Māori Affairs Committee, it’s good to be part of some of the submissions and listening to the feedback, which was positive. And look, we’ve heard from the previous speaker around the cost, but I think it’s one of those times, and particularly with what’s going on in the global context, that this is an appropriate timing for some good news and the fact that it will be a significant milestone for the Parliament: only the fifth piece of dual language legislation in our history. And so I think that’s symbolic in itself and signifies the work that’s been undertaken in terms of making sure that this will be passed in time for that celebration on 24 June. Good words have been said already, and I want to commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, before I take the next call, which I understand is going to be a remote contribution, the only way I can call a member who wishes to make a remote contribution is if they indicate in the chat function of the hybrid Parliament functions. So if there were a member who would like to take a call—I call Teanau Tuiono.

TEANAU TUIONO (Green) (remote): Tenā koe e te Māngai, otirā tēnā koutou katoa e te Whare. I whakaaro me tīmata au i taku kōrero i tēnei pō e pēnei ana te haere. E mihi ana ki a rātou mā ki a rāua mā ki a Tā Wira Gardiner rāua ko Kahurangi June Jackson i hinga ki roto ki tēnei wiki i tēnei rā. Ko tō mātou nei ngākau nā mātou ngā Kākāriki kei te taha o ō rātou nei whānau i tēnei wā i te mea mōhio tātou nō te ao Māori he tipua rātou, he toki, he mātanga, e ngākaunui ana o tātou nei whānau Māori kua noho taiwhenua, ahakoa noho tāone, nō reira me mihi atu ki a rāua me ō rāua whānau e noho pani ana ki tēnei o ngā rā, otirā ki te Hōnore Willie Jackson i tēnei wā ko tērā tōna māmā i hinga i kō ake nei, e mihi ana. E mihi ana ki runga i ngā whakaaro o Matariki, kia tae ki tērā o ngā kōrero i rangona whānuihia ki roto i ngā tangihanga ko rātou mā kua whetūrangihia, ko rātou mā kua whetūrangihia, kua whetūrangihia rāua i tēnei wiki. I whetūrangihia e piri ana ki te kāhui o Matariki me te whakaaro anō ko tētahi o ngā whetū ko Pohutukawa. I te wā o Pohutukawa ko tōna aronga mō te hunga kātahi anō kua rere atu ki roto i te tau.

I a au e haere ki ngā hui Matariki i te motu ki roto i ngā hekenga ngā toru tekau ngā tau, i whakatūria tētahi hui ahurei. I te tīmatanga o ngā whakaritenga Matariki kia maumahara rātou mā kua wehe atu, kua maumaharara o rātou nā i waiho ake mai ngā maramara mātauranga, ngā maramara wheako, he aha ai? Hei kohikohinga whakaaro, he kohikohingā manaakitanga, maumarahatanga ki a tātou ngā morehu e noho pani nei i tēnei wā. Nō reira, ko tērā tētahi o ngā wāhanga ki roto i te Matariki e taea e tātou, tātou o tātou nei hapori, otirā o tātou katoa i roto ki Aotearoa nei.

Te ruku ki roto i te taketaketanga o tēnei mātauranga i ahu mai o tātou nei tikanga Māori, āe ko tēnei Pire e piri ana ki a Matariki, te kāhui whetū o Matariki, ka noho matua mai i ētahi iwi hei tohu i te taka o wā, he tohu nui hoki a Matariki ki o tātou tuakana, mātou mai e noho ana ki ngā airani, ā, ngā tuākana rere i te Moana-nui-a-Kiwa mō te taka o te wā. Ko ētahi o ā rātou kupu mō te kāhui, ko Mataliki, ko ētahi ko Matali‘i, ko ētahi ko Matari‘i, ko Makali‘i anō hoki.

Tautoko katoa ko ētahi anō kōrero i puta mō tērā wā o te tau me tērā wāhi o te rangi, ā, mō tātou nei whānau e noho ana ki ngā rekereke o te maunga tītōhea ki Taranaki ko Puanga, i te mea mēnā ka noho koe ki tētahi maunga, ko te Puanga, ko tērā te whetū e kitea koe, pērā ki ō tātou nei whanauka ki Ngāi Tahu, ko Puaka tērā e karangahia. Mēnā ka noho koe ki wāhi kē atu nā te taiao i whakaritea ki a koutou. Haere he tikanga ki a tēnā iwi ki a tēnā iwi i te wā o Matariki ko ētahi ko ngā āhuatanga e pā ana ki tōna tīmatanga, ki tōna roa, ko te rerenga o te rā, ko te mata o te marama, ā, ko ngā marama ko te taiao te takiwā me te takoto o te whenua. Nō reira he piringa anō tēnei, ehara i te mea he hararei noa. Nō reira he piringa anō ki te taiao he oranga anō tērā mō tātou.

Kua whakaritea kētia ngā rā aro ki a Matariki mō ngā tau toru tekau tuatahi kia pai ai te taka mai o te hararei tūmatanui te Paraire e taka rawa ana ki te marama o Tangaroa, nō reira, o tātou nei mātau e mōhio e pēhea e haere ana ngā mata o te marama. Ko Tangaroa ko te marama ki roto i te marama o Pipiri e mahuta ake ai a Tangaroa. Nō reira, ko te raupapa e whakarite ana a te Rōpū Arataki o Matariki tēnei i whakatau nō reira katoa i te mea he mātauranga taketake, he mātauranga Māori tohaina ki a tātou katoa.

Ko tēnei pire, āe, kei te whakatū he hararei tūmatanui. E kī ana te pire ka tū tētahi hararei tūmatamui mō Matariki, heoi ko te mea hiranga katoa ko te poua hohonutia o ngā kōrero o te pire ki te mātauranga Māori. Kāore tātou i tētahi hararei e pērā ana. He pire, he hararei e piri ana ki te whenua i ahu mai tēnei whenua nō reira ko tēnei tana mana motuhake, nō reira i kōrerohia e au i mua engari nā mātou nō te waimarie i arahina mātou e te Rōpū Arataki o Matariki, nō reira me mihi anō hoki ki a Tākuta Rangi Matamua i te mea koia tō mātou mātanga mō mātou nei e noho ana ki roto i te Komiti Whiriwhiri Take Māori nāna noa i hautū tērā komiti i mua te tuhi o tēnei o ngā pire, heoi, i noho tahi ia ki a mātou i te wā e piri ana ngā kaupapa katoa mō Matariki ki roto i ngā matapaki kōrero.

I waenga i ngā kaitāpae kōrero, he whānui, he whāroa te tautoko o te pire, ngā kōrero hoki i whakaritea te Rōpū Arataki o Matariki e mau tonu ai te tapu o ngā mātauranga Māori i te roa o te tukanga nei. E whakaaro ana ngā kaitāpae ka ea e te pire nei te korenga o tētahi hararei tūmatanui māna nei te whakamānawa nei i tō tātou nei ao Māori. Mā konei hoki e whai huarahi ai ki te whakatinana i te mea nei te whakahoanga o te Tiriti me te akiaki anō kia whai wāhi nui ai te iwi Māori kia āta whakakanohitia nuitia ai. Kia kaha te kōrerotia o te hononga o te whakanuitanga o Matariki ki te taiao, tērā tētahi o ngā aronga nui nā mātou o ngā Kākāriki i te mea i kite mātou mēnā ka ora anō te mātauranga ki roto i a Aotearoa nei, mō tātou katoa, he oranga anō tērā mō te taiao.

Nō reira, i rangona aku nei taringa i tērā o ngā kōrero i tau i wā ki te Komiti Whiriwhiri Take Māori, heoi, e ai ki ētahi atu o ngā kaitāpae ko te whai rauemi a tētahi āhuatanga matua e whai whakanui ai kia toka ai te hararei tūmatanui o Matariki ki te ahurea. Me tiro tātou ki tērā ki roto i ngā kura katoa, ki roto i te marau, auraki mai, rūmaki Māori mai. Nō reira ko mātou nei e hiahiatia, mātou ngā Kākāriki kia tiro i tētahi āhuatanga kia puta mai i te Tāhuhu o Te Mātauranga, ngā rauemi me ētahi hōtaka anō kia hāpai atu i ngā pūkenga o ngā pouako ki roto i ngā kura i te mea, mā runga i te whakaako i te rawa o ēnei kōrero, te hōhonutanga o ēnei kōrero ko tēnei mea e piri ana tātou ki a tātou anō ki roto i ngā āhuatanga o Matariki. Nō reira, ko te taha o te rauemi he mea nui.

He mea e hikaka ana te whakaaro ki roto i ō tātou ngākau ō tātou nei tamariki mokopuna, nō reira, kia kaha te Tāhuhu o Te Mātauranga ki te toha atu ngā rawa, ki te toha atu ngā rauemi ki ō tātou nei pouako, ki ō tātou nei kura. I tautoko au i ngā kōrero o Te Tiamana i kōrero mai ia mō tō tātou nei hapori turi i kōrerohia mai, he mea tika te kōrero, e toru ngā reo o Aotearoa nei: ko te reo Pākehā, ko te reo Māori me te reo tohu o te turi, nō reira e tautoko ana mātou ngā Kākāriki kia whai wāhi anō rātou ki roto i ngā tahua pūtea kia āhei rātou mēnā ka haere rātou ki tētahi hui e hāpai ana ngā āhuatanga o Matariki ka taea e rātou te mārama ana ngā kōrero. Nō reira tautoko ana mātou ki tērā, tērā o ngā whakatau mō ō tātou nei hapori turi, ō tātou nei whānau turi.

Ko tētahi āwangawanga nui i puta ko te whakapūteatanga—me pēnei ana ki? I te mea he māharahara anō tērā nōku nei kia kaua e Makitānara ko tātou nei Matariki, kia kaua Rua Tāra Toa, Te Warewhare tō tātou nei hararei Matariki, kia mau tonu ki tonu ki tōna taketaketanga, kia mau tonu ki tōna ki te ia o tōna hōhonutanga ki tana piringa ki te taiao, te taiao ki te tangata, te tangata ki te whānau, te whānau ki te hapori, te hapori ki te iwi, otirā ki a tātou katoa. Nō reira, i rangona i aku nei taringa tērā o ngā āwangawanga he āwangawanga anō tērā anō hoki nei, heoi ko te mea nui i a tātou e whakarite rautaki ana mō tēnei kaupapa me āta whakaarohia tātou ki roto i ngā kaupapa here ka puta mai i te ture me ōna waeture anō hoki.

Nō reira, tērā noa iho tō mātou nei kōrero heoi anō, me hoki atu anō ki te tuatahi o tātou nei kōrero e mihi ana ki a rātou mā kua hinga atu, e mihi atu au ki a rātou mā kua whetūrangahihia, rātou anō, kua piri anō ki te kāhui o Matariki. Ko te tūmanako ka rapu anō tātou ō rātau nā maramara matauranga o rātou nei maramara wheako anō kia mau tonu tātou ki a rātou, tērā anō te takoha mai o ngā ahurea o Matariki ki a tātou anō, te piringa o te hunga mate ki a tātou, te hunga ora otirā āhei koutou—

[I thought I would begin my speech tonight in this way. I would like to acknowledge Sir Wira Gardiner and Dame June Jackson who have passed on this week and today. The hearts of the Greens are with their families at this time, because we in the Māori world know that they were legends, champions, experts and also committed to Māori, whether they lived rurally or in towns, so I must acknowledge them and their bereaved families on this day, as well as acknowledging the Hon Willie Jackson, as this was his mother who recently passed. I acknowledge them, in the language of Matariki, by using one of the phrases widely heard at funerals, they have all become stars in the heavens, they have all become stars in the heavens, both of them have become stars in the heavens this week. They have become stars connected to the Matariki cluster in the knowledge that one of those stars is Pohutukawa. At the time of Pohutukawa its focus is those who have died that year.

As I have been going to Matariki gatherings around the country over the last 30 years, a cultural gathering was set up. At the beginning of the observation of Matariki it was as a remembrance of those who have passed, and for the things they left behind, the gems of knowledge and experience, and why? As a collection of ideas, of generosity, and memories, of those of us who remain, orphaned, today. Therefore, this is something within Matariki that we can all do, in our communities, and throughout New Zealand.

To dive into this ancient knowledge which comes from our Māori conventions, yes, this bill adheres to Matariki, the Matariki cluster which primarily, for some tribes, is a sign of the passing of time. It is also an important sign to our relatives who live in the islands—that is, our Pacific relatives. Some of their names for the cluster are Mataliki, Matali‘i, Matari‘i and Makali‘i.

I support everything that was said about the time of year and the place in the sky and, for our kin who reside at the base of the barren mountain, of Taranaki, it is Puanga, rather, that signals the passing of time, because if you live near a mountain range that is the star you will see, just like it is for our relatives of Ngāi Tahu, it is called Puaka. If you live in another place your environment will determine this for you. Each tribe has its own practices relating to the time of Matariki, when it rises, for how long, the path of the sun, the phase of the moon, the months, the environment, the location, and the lay of the land. Therefore, this is a relationship, not just a holiday. It is a relationship with the environment, and that benefits us all.

The days of observance of Matariki for the first 30 years have already been set so that we can solidify there is a public holiday that will fall on a Friday in the phase of Tangaroa, according to the moon-phase experts. The Tangaroa phase in the month of June which signals the correct time. Therefore, this series has been decided upon by the Matariki Advisory Group, rightly so, as it is ancient knowledge, it is Māori knowledge that has been shared with us.

This bill, yes, it establishes a public holiday. The bill states that a public holiday will take place, but the most important thing is the connection of the content of the bill to Māori knowledge. We have no holiday like it. It is a bill, a holiday that connects to a place from where this land arose, and that is its unique feature, therefore. I spoke earlier about how we were fortunate to be guided by the Mataraki Advisory Group, so I should acknowledge again Dr Rangi Matamua. He was our expert, for us of the Māori Affairs Committee. It was he who guided that committee prior to the writing of this bill, however, he sat with us as we tied together all the aspects of Matariki in our discussions.

In the submissions, there was broad support for the bill, and the content created by the Matariki Advisory Group has stayed true to the sacred nature of Māori knowledge for the whole length of the process. The submitters thought the bill satisfies the need for a public holiday that venerates the Māori world. Also, this provides a pathway to manifest the Tiriti partnership and to encourage engagement by Māori and for them to be able to play a leading role. We should keep talking about the connection of the celebration of Matariki to the environment. That is one of the Greens’ main focus points, because if Māori knowledge thrives in New Zealand, it will also benefit the environment.

I am also cognisant of issues around resourcing brought to the attention of Māori Affairs Committee by the submitters and that this should be a priority in order for the Matariki public holiday to be firmly established in our culture. We should implement this in all schools, in the curriculum, in both mainstream and immersion Māori schools. Therefore, what we of the Greens would like to see is the Ministry of Education producing these things, resources, and more programmes to support the skills of the teachers in the schools, because by teaching the value and depth of these stories we will enable us to connect to each other through Matariki. Therefore, resources are an important part.

This is a source of enthusiasm in our hearts and those of our children and grandchildren, so, I encourage the Ministry of Education to share resource material with our teachers and our schools. I support the position of the chair who talked to us about the deaf community. What he said was correct; there are three languages in New Zealand: English, Māori, and sign language. Therefore, we the Greens support that they should have access to funding so that if they go to a gathering supporting aspects of Matariki they will be able to understand what is going on. Therefore, we agree with that, that decision about our deaf community, our deaf family.

One big concern that arose was the potential commodification—how should I put it? There is a concern that our Matariki holiday turns into another McDonald’s, the $2 Shop, or The Warehouse. It should rather hold firm to its origins, to the depth of its connection to the environment, the environment to the person, the person to the family, the family to the community and the community to the nation, to all of us. Therefore, I heard that concern, and there were other similar concerns, however, the main thing as we were establishing a strategy for this issue was to carefully consider the policies emanating from the law and its regulations.

So that is all we have to say, however I should return to the start of our speech and acknowledge those who have passed, those who have become stars in the heavens, once again connected to, and close to Matariki. Hopefully, we will be able to rediscover their educational and experiential gems so that we hold on to them. That, again, is the gift of the culture of Matariki to all of us, the relationship of the dead to us, the living, and the ability—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! The member’s time has expired.

CHRIS BAILLIE (ACT): I rise on behalf of ACT to speak to the Te Kāhui o Matariki Public Holiday Bill. It’s a purpose of the bill to establish an annual public holiday to acknowledge Matariki, and we think it’s a great idea to celebrate Matariki. It’s a great, significant event, and an occasion that certainly deserves its own special day. The use of the stars in migration of Māori to New Zealand is of great significance and really should be taught in school history classes.

But we oppose this bill because businesses simply can’t afford it, especially at this time. The cost of creating a twelfth public holiday is estimated to be around $450 million, and we believe if the Government wants to indulge in this sort of luxury of another holiday, it needs to identify another day to be removed from the calendar. We’ve got 11 to choose from—that’s over two working weeks. Add four weeks annual leave—that’s over six weeks—bereavement leave, family leave, and maternity leave. Sick leave has just doubled, at a cost of almost $2 billion to businesses. This Government even made businesses pay employees four weeks’ pay if they chose not to get vaccinated.

Even the most union-loving lefty must admit that owning and running a business is tough. But I know they don’t actually understand, because we’ve got a Government totally devoid of business experience, who think business owners are like Grant Robertson and have a never-ending supply of money. I had to laugh when I was listening, in the debate on the last bill, to Greg O’Connor lecturing this side of the House about how money doesn’t grow on trees. I just shook my head.

They believe all employees want to work hard and business owners are just nasty, self-serving people, and anyone who actually manages to be successful got there by treading on their employees—just after profit. It’s a shame, but, as a nation, we simply can’t afford to have more holidays. The fact is that the vast majority of business owners get no leave at all. Most businesses across the country—if they’re still operating—are already fragile from the effects of COVID-19. That’s not to mention the many impositions this Government has inflicted on business in the last few years, impositions that have had very little thought on the effect they would have on the success of a business—success that is necessary to employ and look after employees.

The relentless minimum wage increases show that this Government just doesn’t understand how business works and that they only listen to their advisers when it suits their agenda. They are career politicians who have never had to worry about whether they’ll have enough money in the bank to pay their staff, never had to borrow money off family and friends to pay the bills to keep operating, and never had the feeling of whether it’s worth it to keep going when you keep getting kicked when you’re already down. The response from a Labour backbencher that if a business can’t survive seven weeks without an income, they probably shouldn’t be in business really sums it up for me.

I received a letter yesterday from a refrigeration company that I deal with, and I’ll just read the first paragraph. It says, “This letter is to advise you that there will be an increase on our hourly service rates, our vehicle fee charge, and our call out rate to be put into effect on 1 April 2022. This increase is due to inflation, minimum wage increases, and the cost of fuel over the last year.” That same letter would be going out to hundreds of hospitality and other businesses. It’s real.

A hospitality owner told me over the weekend that they needed another worker. They interviewed a 17-year-old high school student, a year 13 student who lived at home and wanted to earn some money to go to university. However, they needed some training, needed someone else working alongside them for a short time to get the experience, and it just wasn’t worth the risk to that owner of that hospitality business. For another dollar, they said no and employed someone with a little bit of experience. The unintended consequences of this sort of legislation on young people, disadvantaged people, and disabled people is huge.

In 2018, seventy-one thousand people were on the minimum wage. Last year, 160,000 people were on the minimum wage. This isn’t a good thing for hard-working New Zealanders. It just means that those with experience, those who have shown loyalty, and those who have made an effort in their work are not getting the increases that they would have got if businesses just can’t afford it.

With any pay rise, leave entitlement, or other changes in employee conditions, we must look at productivity to make sure we can pay for it. We constantly compare ourselves with other countries when it comes to the minimum wage, conditions, and leave provisions, but we constantly ignore productivity—the most important factor that enables these countries to provide different conditions to their employees. Paying people more while expecting no extra productivity is just naive. People who work hard should be paid more. Unfortunately, Labour, the Public Service Association, and the Council of Trade Unions don’t agree. Productivity seems like a dirty word.

Business owners are asking “Where will it end?”, and then today we hear the Government introduce the so called Fair Pay Agreements Bill. The absolute lunacy of this bill will be debated later, but, for the sake of hard-working employees, ACT will repeal it in 18 months’ time. I’m sure we’ll hear that an extra public holiday will actually be beneficial to businesses—again, from those who have never owned a business: the same people who tried to convince us that more sick days increases productivity. The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment disagree, but we know that they’re only listened to if they agree with the agenda.

The Government has tried to convince the public that businesses were looked after during COVID, and the daily spin surrounding the COVID business support has been masterful. Businesses are struggling and going under—the stress is huge—and through no fault of their own. A Government that genuinely cared would take a breath; think about families, employers, and employees; put their ideologies aside; and help this country to recover from the tumultuous last two years, and this sort of nonsense is doing the opposite.

ACT will always support the employer because, if their business isn’t successful, it’s the employees that will suffer. We know they need tax and regulatory relief, and we’ll fight on their behalf for more sensible, sustainable economic policies so that they can grow their businesses and employ more New Zealanders.

ACT appreciates the significance of Matariki—not just for Māori but for all people of New Zealand who have studied and observed it at schools and in their communities throughout the country for a number of years. It is part of the curriculum. We appreciate the importance of everyone learning about and acknowledging the new year, the various reasons for the celebration, and, especially, its use as a navigational tool for the migration of Māori to this beautiful country. But New Zealand businesses cannot afford this extra holiday, and ACT opposes this bill. Thank you.

SHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote) (remote): E te Māngai o te Whare, tēnā rawa atu ki a koe. He mihi ki ngā rangi, he mihi ki ngā whenua, tēnā koutou katoa, he mihi ngā whetū o Matariki. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Mr Speaker, warm greetings to you. Greetings to the skies, greetings to the lands, greetings to you, and greetings to the stars of Matariki. Greetings, greetings, greetings, one and all.]

Mr Speaker, thank you very much for the opportunity to speak this evening on Te Pire mō te Hararei Tūmatanui o te Kāhui o Matariki/Te Kāhui o Matariki Public Holiday Bill. The Matariki bill is in front of us this evening at this second reading, and it’s been an honour to be a part of our Māori Affairs Committee, who have heard the oral submissions, heard from communities, heard from Māori, heard from business owners about their aspirations for this particular kaupapa, what Matariki can bring, and the economic benefits of Matariki too. I want to reflect on my time, and I take the point from the chair of our Māori Affairs committee, Tāmati Coffey. He acknowledged that there was once upon a time where all of us, even being Māori, didn’t know the knowledge, the mātauranga, of Matariki.

In fact, I go back to part of my career in communications and marketing and working for an organisation who picked up Matariki as a kaupapa. Te Wananga o Aotearoa is a tertiary organisation, but plays a role in educating and inspiring Aotearoa, not just Māori—educating all of Aotearoa New Zealand, in particular a large number of Pākehā in our country who are passionate about culture and passionate about culture in our country. Matariki, in this sense, starts to feel like a bit of a natural step in some instances. I go back to a piece of work with, back then, Dr Rangi Matamua, with Paraone Gloyne, and the work that they did to start to talk about te iwa o Matariki, the nine stars, as opposed to what we understood as the seven at that particular time. We worked with kura, with schools, with tamariki, with businesses to communicate our knowledge around Matariki: the stories of nine stars, the names of each star. I acknowledge Minister Kiritapu Allan, who spoke of her daughter earlier on, who is named after the wishing star, Hiwa-i-te-rangi. Beautiful.

Throughout that project, we learnt a lot, and then that morphed into a partnership with Te Kaunihera o Tāmaki Makaurau / Auckland Council, who launched a large Matariki festival, both for cultural reasons and educational reasons, but to bring economic benefits to the city of Tāmaki-makau-rau. They set up a number of events—and can I acknowledge Anahera Higgins and Ataahua Papa, incredible people who started the journey to share the stories of Matariki, to share a festival across New Zealand’s largest city, and to bring all of Aotearoa out to celebrate this particular event, just like we do at New Year’s.

I go back to reflecting on the last speaker, Chris Baillie, who doesn’t think there’s any economic benefits to such events, such activation, to bringing all of New Zealand together out and about, particularly at this time, post - COVID-19, when businesses desperately need a reason for people to come out of their homes, to build their confidence, to spend their money, to feel good, and to have something to celebrate. What better than a kaupapa of Matariki, which is about starting fresh, resetting, starting the new year together, and wishing about what are our future aspirations? That is what Matariki brings for all of us.

I want to go back to some of the research that I did and some of the information that we heard from businesses, and just to put on record the important facts about Matariki, this public holiday that we’re proposing and at our second reading of. It is expected to have a net benefit of $25.7 million and a net cost of $133 million, and this calculation is based on estimated economic benefits of between $310.4 million and $496.1 million and estimated costs of around $443.4 million. Now, I’m no mathematician, albeit I’ve worked in marketing communications—some would call that business—but that tells me that there definitely are economic benefits. I’ve spoken to businesses, to hospitality owners, to tourism operators in Tāmaki-makau-rau. They know that Matariki as a public holiday will enhance their business, because it will get people out and about, spending the money that they desperately need.

I’m excited about this bill, not just because of the opportunity to continue to educate and inspire Aotearoa, but I see it as another opportunity to reactivate Tāmaki-makau-rau, to bring our people out to celebrate, to share the economic benefits that this presents. And so without further ado, I commend this bill to the House. Tēnā tatou.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ian McKelvie): The next call is a split call. I call Joseph Mooney.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): I rise as the member of Parliament for Southland to speak on Te Kāhui o Matariki Public Holiday Bill. The National Party supports Matariki and a Matariki holiday. But as other speakers before me have said, there is a time and a place for the Matariki holiday, for it to come into law. And we have put forward our view, very clearly, that if it is to come in now, it needs to replace another public holiday. This country already has 11 public holidays, and at this point in history, there is a huge amount of pressure already on New Zealand businesses and the people they employ, and we need to make sure we take the pressure off them so that they can continue to trade and to operate.

I’ll speak very briefly, in turn, on Matariki because it’s quite a special thing. The appearance of the seven stars of Matariki in midwinter marks the start of the Māori New Year. Matariki can be translated as Matariki: tiny eyes; or Mata Ariki: eyes of God. The Matariki stars can be seen all over the world, and also known as the Pleiades, the Seven Sisters, and Subaru. According to one legend, the stars show a mother and her six daughters, with the mother—Matariki—in the centre. Matariki is not a constellation, but a star cluster. A star cluster is where the stars are situated near each other in space, whereas a constellation is a collection of stars that only appear to be close to each other from our view here on Earth. Matariki is one of the closest star clusters to Earth, a mere 444.2 light years away. While only seven of the stars are clearly visible to us, the star cluster actually consists of more than 1,000 stars. Traditionally, Matariki was used to determine the coming season’s crop here in New Zealand, Aotearoa. A warmer season, and therefore more productive crop yield, was indicated by how bright the stars were. The rich tradition of Matariki provides an ideal opportunity to explore the ways that people pass on and sustain aspects of their culture and heritage.

As I said, the National Party welcomes a publicly observed Matariki holiday. We oppose imposing a potentially $450 million burden on our businesses, and particularly on our small businesses. Many small business submitters expressed their concern about the cost an additional public holiday might present to businesses that are already facing increased minimum wage, additional sick leave, and the ongoing effects of COVID-19. New Zealand is a nation of small and micro businesses, including the self-employed. There are approximately 530,000 small businesses in New Zealand, representing 97 percent of all firms. They account for almost one-third of all employment and contribute over one-quarter of New Zealand’s gross domestic product.

New Zealand has a higher percentage of small and micro businesses than other countries. The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment has noted that the recovery of New Zealand’s small businesses post-COVID-19 is vital to the sustainability and growth of the economy, and to the wellbeing of thousands of small business owners and the people that they employ. And I would note that the people they employ are the people who put food on the table for their children.

I have been around and spoken to many, many small businesses in my electorate—and I’m sure colleagues in this House have done the same—and I’ve heard stories, for example, of many business owners I’ve spoken to where they have fought incredibly hard over the last two years to keep the doors open and keep their people in jobs. I have talked to business owners who have taken out mortgages on their family home, taken out second mortgages—and in some cases, even third mortgages—just to keep their staff employed; keep their business operating in the hope that they will have a future. We should not be placing more burden on these small businesses now, at a time when they are doing everything they can do survive and keep their people employed. That is why this Matariki bill coming in as an additional public holiday is the wrong step at the wrong time—despite noting that we do support Matariki and what it represents wholeheartedly.

So we need to note that there has been a number of cost projections, which vary quite significantly. It’s estimated that the net effect on the economy is somewhere between $25.7 million in the positive and $133 million in the negative. This calculation’s based on estimated economic benefits of between $310.4 million and $496.1 million, and estimated costs of around $443.4 million—in other words, almost half a billion dollars.

We’re advised that the additional costs of implementation are likely to be similar to those of New Zealand’s existing public holidays. So we need to note there are 11 existing public holidays, placing costs already on our small businesses in particular. Quite simply, the proposal to create a new holiday will add more stress and strain to small businesses who are already dealing with inflation that’s at three-decade-highs before we’re even headed into a period with Ukraine and Russia added to our inflationary impact. I cannot commend this bill to the House.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori) (remote): Tēnā koe e te Pīka. Tēnā tātou e te Whare. It’s a pleasure to speak to the second reading of Te Kāhui o Matariki Public Holiday Bill. Te Paati Māori is, of course, proud to support this bill. We acknowledge the leadership of our people, including Dr Rangi Matamua, who have offered their time. Many have offered their time, energy, and mātauranga to advance this kaupapa. We have spoken with and been met by many kura, many kaiako, many mokopuna who are already celebrating this and asking us to support this call. It is long overdue. And it is long overdue that the Crown officially recognises our indigenous New Year traditions in Aotearoa. It is long overdue that we have, in fact, an indigenous public holiday.

As Rawiri said in our first reading contribution, Matariki did not mark the new year for all hapū and iwi in Aotearoa, and we maintain many traditions across the country. Rawiri acknowledged, also, the tradition of his people, Autahi, while my people of Taranaki and Whanganui and others acknowledge Puanga. Puanga, for people of Taranaki especially, is about the recognition of lost ones who have passed beyond the veil during the year gone. Puanga also acknowledges the environment and ecosystems of our land and our water. It would traditionally be a signal of time for our people to get their crops in order and to hunker down for winter. It now also is a time for planting and sowing the soil for preparing for the coming year and for strategising and planning as a people. It represents change that is needed in Aotearoa, especially now we have left what was the new old norm to go to a new norm. According to a whakatauākī, “E rua tau ruru, e rua tau wehe, e rua tau mutu, e rua tau kai.”

[Two years of wind and storm, two years when food is scarce, two years when crops fail, two years of abundant food.]

In recent years, we’ve seen the strong revitalisation of our Puanga traditions across Taranaki and beyond. Parihaka now hosts an annual Puanga Kai Rau festival, which celebrates our land, our people, our uniqueness. This serves to strengthen our collective bounds as a people and honour our whakapapa and our tūpuna. The passage of this bill will enable the continued growth and revitalisation of our many traditions across Aotearoa, and we acknowledge the submission of Dr Matamua, who confirmed that this is not about celebrating Matariki to the exclusion of our other traditions. We also acknowledge all those who submitted on the bill.

This should be only the first step. We should see this moment in time as an opportunity to reindigenise the way we live in Aotearoa. We have seen a recent widespread restoration in the use and understanding of maramataka. Now we should affirm our maramataka as the foundation for the way we do things: holidays, calendars, ways of working, ways of how we look after each other. We know that the maramataka is intrinsically derived from this whenua, from this climate, from these ecosystems here in the Pacific. The Gregorian calendar has no such relevance for all of us at all. Shifting away from that just makes sense. It’s actually what the next generation are already doing; we’re just catching up. Recognising Puanga and Matariki makes sense. Let’s not make any delay. For Te Paati Māori, we say, “Let’s get it done.” Nō reira, tēnā tātou katoa.

WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour—Northland) (remote): E te Māngai o te Whare, tēnā koe. Tēnā tātou katoa. E rongo atu ana koutou i ahau? Āe? Ka pai. Tēnā koutou. Aroha mai koutou. Ko tēnei taku wā tuatahi ki te kōrero i runga i te rorohiko mai i tōku kāinga i Te Tai Tokerau ahakoa kua tahi marama tātou e mahi ana i tēnei momo rauemi, nā te mea e noho haumaru ana tōku whānau i Te Tai Tokerau nei.

Nō reira ka tīmata ake taku kōrero mānawatia a Matariki. Kua roa ahau e ako e pā ana ki te māramataka Māori, e pā ana ki a Matariki. I te whā tau kua pahure ake nei i haere ahau ki tētahi wānanga ki roto i Whangārei-terenga-paraoa ki te whakarongo ki ngā kōrero a te tākuta a Dr Rangi Matamua i kōrero ia mō Matariki, i kōrero ia e pā ana ki ngā tohu o te wā me te māramataka Māori. I taua wā kātahi anō taku pāpā i hinga i ako ahau ngā kōrero e pā ana ki Te Waka o Rangi, arā ko te tupuna o Taramainuku e pupuri ana i ngā wairua o ngā mea o te tau kua pahure ake nei, ā, nō reira i runga i tēnā kōrero, e mihi ana ki ngā mate huhua o te wā. Matariki tohu mate. Ko tētahi ko Tā Wira Gardiner, ko tētahi ko Kahurangi June Jackson. Nō reira e mihi ana ki te hunga kua whetūrangitia.

I runga i tēnā ka hoki ki a tātou te hunga ora. E mihi ana ki te Minita, te Hōnore Kiritapu Allan. E mihi ana ki a ia me tana pēpi, a Hiwa-i-te-Rangi. I rongo i ngā kōrero e pā ana ki a Hiwa-i-te-Rangi i tēnei pō. Ko Hiwa-i-te-Rangi tetahi o ngā whetū o te kāhui Matariki. Nō reira, te hunga ki a rātou, tātou te hunga ora ki a tātou. Te pēpi, ko tātou pēpi a Hiwa-i-te-Rangi, ka nui te mihi ki a tātou i tēnei pō.

E hiahia ana ahau ki te mihi hoki ki te Ropū o Matariki, a te Rōpū arā Te Māori Advisory Group me ngā mema i runga i tēnā, ko Rangi Matamua tētahi, tētahi nō roto o Te Tai Tokerau te matua Rereata Makiha a matua Hoturoa Kerr, Victoria Campbell, Pauline Harris, Ruakere Hond me Jack Thatcher hoki. E mihi ana ki a rātou katoa. Nō ngā tōpito o te motu rātou, ko ngā kōrero, ō rātou mātauranga i mau mai ki te tēpu ki te whiriwhiri i ngā take e pā ana ki tēnei pire, e mihi ana ki a rātou.

Me ngā mema o te Komiti Whiriwhiri Take Māori, ki a koe Tāmati te heamana o tērā komiti me ngā mema katoa i noho ki te whiriwhiri i ngā take e pā ana ki tēnei pire e mihi kau ana ki a koutou me ngā tāngata i pono e pā ana ki tēnei pire. Ka tino nui taku hari me taku koa te kite i tēnei pire i roto i te Whare Pāremata.

Ko te mea nui ki ahau ko te mātauranga kei roto i tēnei mea te kāhui o Matariki, āe e tika ana ngā kōrero ko Puanga i roto i Tai Tokerau te tohu o te tau hou Māori, me kī, te wā o Ōturu, o Pipiri engari kei reira hoki ngā kōrero e pā ana ki Matariki i te wā i te takiwā o ngā marama o Tangaroa i te marama o Pipiri, nō reira ko ngā mātauranga e pā ana ki te maramataka, hono ana ki te whenua, ki te moana, ki ngā mate me ngā hiahia mō te tau e heke mai nei. Āe, tika ana te kōrero o Debbie e pā ana ki te rerekētanga o te whakanui i te tau hou i te tīmatatanga o te tau i roto i te raumati nā te mea e ai ki te maramataka me ngā mahi te rautaki o te tau ko te mahi kaha i roto i te māra i taua wā, ka tupu ngā kai kia hauhake ā te wā i mua tata i Matariki, ā, nō reira he mahi nui tonu i mua o te aroaro kia ako i ērā mātauranga katoa hei whai mā tātou katoa.

Kua poto te wā ki ahau ki te kōrero e pā ana ki tēnei i tēnei pō engari ko te pānuitanga tuarua tēnei mō tēnei pire e tautoko ana ahau pau te kaha. I mua i te otinga o taku kōrero e mihi ana ki tētahi tokorua i roto i Te Tai Tokerau kua homai ki a ahau me tōku whānau ō rāua mātauranga e pā ana ki te maramataka arā, ko Rueben Taipari Porter, ko Heeni Hoterene. Nō reira e mihi kau ana ki a rāua mō te mātauranga kua whāngai ki a mātou i te kāinga nei. Ka kaha tonu tātou ki te whakanui i te kāhui Matariki, Puanga hoki. Ngā mihi.

[Can you hear me? Yes? Good. Greetings. Apologies, everyone. This is the first time I have spoken remotely from my home in Northland, although we have been using these resources for a month. I am with my family keeping safe at home in Northland.

So I will begin my speech welcoming Matariki. I have been learning about the Māori calendar as it relates to Matariki for a long time. Four years ago I attended a seminar in Whangārei-terenga-paraoa to listen to Dr Rangi Matamua talking about Matariki. He talked about the current signs and the Māori calendar. At that time, my father had just passed, and I learned about Te Waka o Rangi, and the ancestor Taramainuku who bears the spirits of those who died in the previous year, and so, on the basis of that I acknowledge the many dead at this time. Matariki: a time to remember the dead. One of whom is Sir Wira Gardiner and another, Dame June Jackson. Therefore I acknowledge those who have become stars in the heavens.

With that, I now return to us, the living. I greet the Minister, the Hon Kiritapu Allan, and I greet her baby, Hiwa-i-te-Rangi. I heard the stories of Hiwa-i-te-Rangi this evening. Hiwa-i-te-Rangi is one of the stars of the Matariki cluster. Therefore, let the dead be with the dead, and the living with the living. The baby, our baby, Hiwa-i-te-Rangi, warm greetings to one and all this evening.

I would like to acknowledge the Māori Advisory Group and the members thereof. Rangi Matamua was one; one from Northland was Rereata Makiha—Hoturoa Kerr, Victoria Campbell, Pauline Harris, Ruakere Hond, and also Jack Thatcher. I acknowledge all of them. They came from all corners of the land so that the stories and their knowledge could be brought to the table in the discussions regarding this bill. I thank them.

And the members of the Māori Affairs Committee, to you Tāmati, the chair of that committee, and to all the members who sat and discussed the issues related to this bill, I sincerely thank you and the people who were genuine about this bill. I am very happy indeed to see this bill in the House of Parliament.

The important thing for me is the Māori knowledge about the Matariki cluster. Yes, it is true that in Northland Puanga is the sign of the Māori New Year, that is, at the time of Ōturu, but there are as well the stories regarding Matariki at around the time of Tangaroa in the month of June. Therefore, the knowledge about the lunar calendar connects to the land, to the sea, to the dead and the desires for the following year. Yes, what Debbie said was correct about the difference in observing the new year at the beginning of the year in summer, because according to the lunar calendar there is much to do in the garden at that time—plants are grown to be harvested later, just before Matariki. And so, there is still a lot for us to learn about all this knowledge so that we can follow it.

I have a very short time to talk about this tonight but I support, without reservation, the second reading of this bill. Before I finish speaking I would like to acknowledge a Northland couple who have shared their knowledge about the lunar calendar with me and my family, they are Rueben Taipari Porter and Heeni Hoterene. Thank you for sharing your knowledge with us at home. We must stay strong in observing Matariki as well as Puanga. Thank you.]

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you, Mr Speaker. That speech stopped abruptly, so excuse me if I was a bit slow jumping up there. This—

Paul Eagle: You weren’t listening.

ANDREW BAYLY: Oh, I was listening very carefully to the member on the other side there.

What I’m just going to enjoy talking about is the second reading of this bill, and, of course, I don’t think there’s anyone in New Zealand or even, indeed, in this House who would not like to have another public holiday. So there’s pretty uniform support for this bill in terms of the significance of Matariki—particularly to Māori but also to all New Zealanders—and it’s been very useful listening to the contributions tonight. I thought some of the contributions have been very thoughtful in, particularly, providing a perspective on the importance of Matariki.

So the big issue, of course, is why do we have to have this new, additional public holiday—our 12th public holiday? Effectively, we already have 31 days of holidays in New Zealand, of four weeks’ leave plus the 11 public holidays, and, of course, here we are, going to pass a bill which says, “Let’s have another one.” Our strong view was that we understand the significance of Matariki and agree with the principles of that. But we were just very, very keen, particularly at a time when people are struggling, people are losing their businesses, the staff working in those businesses have been under a lot of stress—and we’re in a situation where we’re going to impose additional costs on, particularly, the businesses and business owners at a time when they are struggling.

Our strong proposition, as we’ve heard tonight, is that, yes, we should do Matariki, but we should replace another holiday. Of course, the Hon Judith Collins suggested Labour Day, which many of us thought was a good recommendation. So, effectively, we’d end up with a net sum gain, but move to a situation where we move away from Labour Day, which probably has very little relevance now, to one that does have significant relevance to many people who live in New Zealand.

So it’s just the issue around the cost. I’ve heard some of the contributions talking about it and we’ve heard the figures. Nearly half a billion dollars—$450 million - odd—this is going to incur. I heard one of the contributions from a Labour member earlier talking about “Hey, there are some significant upsides because it’s going to lead to other increases.”, and no doubt there’ll be tourism, there’ll be mental health issues, and all that sort of stuff that it will support. It’s useful in terms of having time off—I understand that—but the reality is that the people that pay for this and who do not necessarily get the benefit are the business owners. They are the people who are going to be writing out the cheque to pay for their staff to have another day off.

So if the benefit was to accrue back to the same people, then I’d accept the argument, but it doesn’t. The argument is that the cost to this accrues to only one category of person or individual or business owner, and that is the big issue about it. When you’re talking about $450 million of additional cost at a time when the Government has already imposed an estimated $2.8 billion of additional cost through things like minimum wage increases and all the other allowances they’ve done, we just keep building cost, where now it puts the score—particularly for small businesses—well over $3 billion of additional cost that someone’s got to write out a cheque for.

If it was the Government writing out the cheque for it, that’s a different point. But this is not. This is a Government who does not respect business owners and thinks they’re all good for it and that they should pay for anything and that they can pay for it. That’s not the reality, unfortunately, and this is another half a billion dollars of cost that’s going on small-business owners. We support the holiday—that is not the issue. What we are saying is that we should be replacing this for another holiday and allow people to enjoy and celebrate what’s important now—particularly and especially with regard to Matariki—but actually remove some of the other legislation that’s less important.

So look, I just think the debate around this has been canvassed tonight. I don’t want to talk much more about it. I know the first scheduled date is Friday, 24 June, and the big issue is: why is it always on a Friday? Of course, again, the contribution around that is that it makes it nice for a long weekend, but, again, in the scope of trying to look after and support the key powerhouse of the New Zealand economy, which is small businesses, is that the best thing? Is that the best thing for New Zealand and for New Zealand businesses, because, after all, they are the people that employ most of the people in New Zealand: 97 percent of employees are employed by small businesses. So, again, we just need to be mindful about how we protect our small business base because, as I said, they are the powerhouse.

I think the Government should have been more cognisant and open to the idea of replacement. I note that the officials put up a number of recommendations, none of which the Government took up, and so here we are tonight. This bill will, obviously, go through. We will celebrate Matariki, but it’s a mistake, and it should have replaced another public holiday.

Glen Bennett: Which one?

ANDREW BAYLY: Labour Day.

JO LUXTON (Labour—Rangitata) (remote): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Look, I’m really pleased to take a call on this bill, Te Pire mō te Hararei Tūmatanui o te Kāhui o Matariki/Te Kāhui o Matariki Public Holiday Bill, in its second reading. I’d like to commend the Minister, and I’d like to acknowledge the select committee and all of those that submitted to the select committee. I just wanted to touch on a comment that Mr Bayly made around Labour Day and getting rid of Labour Day. It just speaks to the way that the National Party feel about our hard-working New Zealanders out there when Labour Day actually commemorates the struggle for an eight-hour working day. New Zealand was the first country in 1840 to claim that right so it’s actually very relevant and very important to our history as a country.

So coming back to this piece of legislation though, I note that the Māori Affairs Committee have reported this bill back to the House, recommended by majority that it pass without amendment. We’ve heard that it will establish a new public holiday here in Aotearoa, celebrates Matariki, and it is the start of the Māori New Year, and it has become a time of celebration actually not only for Māori but for many people around New Zealand. It’s going to be the fifth bill that we have in New Zealand to be a dual language in both te reo Māori and English, which again is another thing that we should celebrate as a country. We heard that it’s going to be observed annually on the dates set out in the current bill for the next 30 years, with the first date being 24 June in 2022.

It’s the first such public holiday that’s going to distinctly recognise and celebrate Te Ao Māori, and it’s something that we, as a nation, we can share together. It comes at the perfect time of year: June-July. It’s winter; it’s cold. You know, people often need a bit of a break, time to recharge, or simply be with family and friends. It is actually often a quieter time for businesses and tourism and hospitality, and I know that in my electorate here, I think Mount Hutt and Ōpuke hot pools will be quite thankful that we are having a public holiday at that time of the year because that will be a peak for them and the fact that it’s going to be an extended—or on a Friday, that will create a long weekend and will certainly encourage people in the electorate to spend their money, which I think will be very welcome by those sectors.

Within the select committee, though, there were other options that were discussed, such as replacing another holiday, and we’ve heard members opposite talk about replacing Labour Day, which maybe they’re trying to make a bit of a funny pun, I guess, because of the name, but actually it is really significant to our workers here in a New Zealand. It is part of our history. So I don’t see the sense in replacing that. You know, it’s far more relevant than something like Boxing Day, for example. So there were other options that were discussed, as I said, about perhaps having it on Monday, replacing a different public holiday. But my understanding is that the committee supported the initial proposal in the bill, with the holiday being determined by the maramataka and falling on a Friday.

We heard Mr Bayly talk about “Why a Friday? Why a Friday, for goodness’ sake? You know, it’s just another cost. Think about this.” Well, I just wanted to remind Mr Bayly that it was the National Party that Mondayised public holidays, so when a public holiday might fall on a Saturday or Sunday it moved to a weekday, which therefore incurred a cost to employers also, so his point is a bit moot there, I think. As for Friday versus Monday observance, the committee was advised that the cost to the employer would be similar and so would the social and cultural benefits. But one of the points about having a public holiday on a Friday is, if you think that the majority of our public holidays are actually on a Monday, what it would mean is that for those who don’t perhaps ordinarily work on Mondays, they would be able to partake in a public holiday on a Friday and enjoy that.

We’ve heard that we have 11 public holidays currently. If we compare ourselves to other OECD countries, there’s at least 18 others that have more than us and 12 that have fewer, so we’re actually mid to low range when you think about it in that respect. I’m really proud of this bill and I’m proud that we have a public holiday that is unique to us, that celebrates Te Ao Māori, that all New Zealanders can celebrate Matariki and learn more about it, because that’s what it’s all about. It’s about learning more about things that are special and traditional and specific to our culture here in New Zealand and our Māori culture in particular. It’s an opportunity for us to enjoy time with our loved ones and something that we’re all in particular need of, particularly after the last couple of years, is being able to spend time with each other, family and friends, and making the opportunity when it comes around, and Matariki will be the perfect opportunity and time of year to do that. So, I commend this bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Te Pire mō te Hararei Tūmatanui o te Kāhui o Matariki/Te Kāhui o Matariki Public Holiday Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 77

New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

COVID-19 ORDERS

Approval

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): I seek leave to revise the wording of Government notice of motion No. 2 to correct the title in one order by inserting the word “requirements” after “self-isolation” in the order COVID-19 Public Health Response (Self-Isolation and Permitted Work) Order 2022 (SL 2022/46). Just to explain what I’m seeking leave for, it was discovered earlier today that there was a typographical error in one of the titles of the orders to be approved by the House, and so this leave is simply correcting the title of the order in the motion before I move the motion.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ian McKelvie): Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I move, That this House approve the following orders made under the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020:

COVID-19 Public Health Response (Protection Framework and Other Matters) Amendment Order 2022

COVID-19 Public Health Response (Protection Framework and Other Matters) Amendment Order 2022 Amendment Order 2022

COVID-19 Public Health Response (Vaccinations) Amendment Order (No 2) 2022

COVID-19 Public Health Response (Isolation and Quarantine and Maritime Border) Amendment Order 2022

COVID-19 Public Health Response (Isolation and Quarantine) Amendment Order 2022

COVID-19 Public Health Response (Self-Isolation Requirements and Permitted Work) Order 2022

COVID-19 Public Health Response (Air Border) Order 2021 Amendment Order 2022

COVID-19 Public Health Response (Isolation and Quarantine and Other Matters) Amendment Order 2021 Amendment Order 2022

COVID-19 Public Health Response (Air Border) Amendment Order 2022

COVID-19 Public Health Response (Isolation and Quarantine) Amendment Order (No 2) 2022

COVID-19 Public Health Response (Testing for COVID-19) Order 2022.

This is a regular fixture for the House at the moment as we deal with a global pandemic and as we particularly enter a phase of the global pandemic where things have been moving and changing at a fairly steady clip. Under the COVID-19 public health legislation, the Government is able to move quickly in order to put in place and in order to remove certain restrictions, certain rules, and certain processes that are required for our management of the COVID-19 response.

This motion today approves 11 orders that have come into force on various dates between 3 February and 2 March this year. Though none of these orders are more than two months old, it is worthy to note that some of them have already been amended or replaced. A significant number of the provisions in the orders that we’re confirming today are actually now obsolete, which I think shows how nimble and flexible and responsive our overall response to managing COVID-19 has been and how it will continue to be.

We are moving pretty rapidly through the post-peak plan, and life is starting to return to something that feels a lot more normal. So aspects of the response that are covered in the orders today include changes around the rules for face coverings—those still largely remain in place; reductions in period of isolation and quarantine—most of those have now been superseded; changes in some of the rules for people who are self-isolating—some of those do continue in place; the loosening of some travel restrictions—in fact, there has been a much, much more liberal loosening of travel restrictions since those orders were put in place; and the lifting of the requirement to self-isolate or for managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) for some travellers arriving in the country—and I would note that, in fact, again there’s been a significant extension of that since those orders were put in place.

So the great majority of the amendments that these orders brought about were to ease restrictions as part of our managed transition, as we wound back many of the restrictions and many of the aspects of our COVID-19 response. There are some other significant ones still to come before the House, including removing vaccine pass requirements, removing vaccine mandates, and the changes that we’ve made to the traffic light system. Those will be covered in a subsequent motion; they’ve yet to be reviewed by the Regulations Review Committee.

I do want to acknowledge the work of the Regulations Review Committee in very conscientiously going through all of the orders that I have made under the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act and identifying a range of very useful questions, some of substance, some of style, but all of them, I think, underpinning that the committee has not in any way regarded this as a rubber stamp exercise. It has been a very important part of our continual review and improvement cycle. Often issues that have been identified by the Regulations Review Committee have been picked up on the next iteration of the orders in question. These orders have regularly been amended, regularly been updated, and are regularly changing; so the suggestions and the feedback from the Regulations Review Committee have often been incorporated.

The committee was particularly concerned, for example—just to highlight a few of the examples, but to highlight one—that a provision that was designed to mean that you wouldn’t necessarily need to turf someone out of an MIQ facility in the middle of the night could result in people having to stay at an MIQ facility for longer than they might otherwise be required to, and that wasn’t the intention of the order. The intention of the order was simply to make sure that, if somebody had nowhere else to go, they were able to stay there, because under the old order they would have had to be turfed out. So what we had to do was make sure that we got the balance right there, between saying, “Yep, you can stay if you need to stay for a bit longer, but you’re under no obligation to do that.” So, I think, with the exchange that we had with the committee, we were able to actually provide even better clarity in the next iteration of the order, which, of course, is now superseded because no one’s going into MIQ now in the way that they were before. So I think that is a really good example of how the committee was able to contribute constructively to the process in order to keep improving these orders.

The orders—I do want to again acknowledge that they were often drafted and put in place with a sense of urgency because they were responding to a particular situation, a particular series of events, and so there has been ongoing, regular improvement as the opportunity has allowed.

In regard to the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Self-isolation Requirements and Permitted Work) Order of 2022, the committee was concerned that people who had to go into quarantine because they were unable to self-isolate in appropriate surroundings might face greater restrictions than they would if they were in self-isolation. We were able to explain that this may reflect the wider public health circumstances of why the person needed to go into MIQ facilities in the first place, and there are provisions there that allow for them to leave early, as that is required. The good news is that most of that, as I said, is now redundant, because we’ve moved to a new phase where the use of MIQ now has significantly diminished and, in fact, for most of those in MIQ—and there’s very, very few—it is because they are in a particular category. So, for those who are interested in MIQ, as of today it’s a couple of hundred people; mostly refugees, people who are coming from other parts of the world where they need a place to land when they get into the country, effectively—that is who MIQ are accommodating in their facilities at the moment.

The Regulations Review Committee, I think in their diligent scrutiny, looked right at the detail of some of the orders, including, I’m told, a detailed discussion of what “contactless delivery” actually is. I can say that the Cabinet committee had very similar conversation as we’ve unfolded our COVID-19 response over the last two years. So I welcome those kinds of conversations.

In May—so we’re not far away from May now—it will be two years since the House passed the bill that became the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act of 2020. The powers given by that Act have given the Government the ability to move quickly to respond to the challenges that COVID-19 has brought about, and we’ve continued to evolve as the response to the virus has needed to evolve. It has been a big part of us being able to come through the global pandemic in a very strong position. We’ve got a strong economy, we have record low unemployment levels, and we are now in a very strong position to accelerate our recovery from COVID-19. It has been the orders made under the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act that have put us in that position.

But I also want to acknowledge, given that—I’m hoping—there may not be many more of these motions in the House, that there have been some really difficult trade-offs that have been involved in the response. There have been limitations on people’s rights and freedoms—there’s been no question about that. For many people, that’s resulted in some hardship. So I want to acknowledge that, and I also want to acknowledge that I think everyone is feeling a degree of relief that we are getting to the point where our restrictions are much fewer than they have been for much of the response. We are returning to something that is much more normal. I look forward to continuing along that particular path.

CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, and it’s a pleasure to speak to these COVID-19 orders and the examination thereof. I wear a couple of different hats, so to speak. One is that I am the chair of the Regulations Review Committee. I am grateful to the Minister for his engagement with us throughout. He’s been kind enough to acknowledge the committee in his remarks tonight, characterising our diligence as not seeing ourselves merely as a rubber stamp, and that’s true enough, but I do also think that, because it takes two to tango, it’s only fair to acknowledge that we’ve had a really good quality of interaction with the Minister in his response to the points that we’ve been making. So it has been, actually, an enjoyable task, believe it or not, which says something probably quite sad about the members of the committee. But, nevertheless, we have enjoyed our work, and we’ve been well supported in that work by the legislative counsel, as well as the committee staff more generally.

So, while it’s tempting to view these debates, at 9.30 at night in this case, as being almost a moot point—from the perspective both of the Regulations Review Committee, in the sense that we make recommendations and the House will confirm the orders even if we were to recommend otherwise, potentially, and from a National Party perspective, if I were to adopt that hat for the moment, in that we’re a minority in this Parliament—but, nevertheless, these are important accountability mechanisms. I guess, the other one to acknowledge—and the Minister’s alluded to this in his own remarks—is the temporal restriction on the usefulness of the exercise; that is to say, a number of the orders have actually already been revoked, or are in the process of being revoked or, effectively, overtaken by events. So here we are, discussing and debating, but I think it’s still worthwhile, because, as the Regulations Review Committee is a creature of Parliament, and Parliament itself now is sitting to consider these motions, it’s an opportunity for us to provide some accountability for the executive, in the person of the Minister for COVID-19 Response in this case.

So I don’t intend, obviously, to attempt to cover all the detail. I’d rather take the approach, actually, as the Minister did, of providing a couple of examples, by way of illustration, of the approach that we took throughout our consideration of these orders—which, as he’s quite rightly noted, actually only cover the span of a couple of months, but, nevertheless, a high volume of secondary legislation in that time, for obvious real-world reasons, namely the evolution of the pandemic and its response at that time. One of the issues that we looked at, for a start—and I take you back to early February, which seems so long ago—there was an order providing, and I’ll use shorthand, “Protection Framework and Other Matters”. Well, that’s not very descriptive, is it? Anyway, it’s the first one, so “start at the very beginning, a very good place to start,” as they say.

Hon Chris Hipkins: You need to sing it.

CHRIS PENK: Ha, ha! There’ll be no Mary Poppins in the House tonight, Mr Hipkins. “Definition of a medical-grade face covering”—so that was extending the application of that rule to younger people, and from a National Party perspective we had views on the anomalies that we said were created in terms of the way that that played out, for example, on sports fields—school versus club. But, nevertheless, the committee had no concerns about the order. The rule, we thought, was well expressed and was not problematic from the point of view of the appropriateness of the order or the way that it was made—as distinct from the policy.

The next one I actually found quite interesting. It was an amendment order to an amendment order. It said it was to come into force at 11.58 p.m. that day, and that’s kind of a funny time; 11.59 p.m. we’re all very familiar with, because, of course, it’s ambiguous to say “midnight” on a particular day; it might be the start or the end of the day. And in the military, the 24-hour time, the last minute of the day is 2359, and the first minute of the following day is 0001, so there’s a minute that’s 120 seconds, because, of course, you don’t want the confusion, again, of all the zeros. Anyway, so this is 11.58, and the specific reason for that was to do with sequencing in relation to other orders coming into effect, and the relevant one at 11.59—so this one had to get in ahead. I found that interesting, anyway. I’ve spent, now, more than a minute discussing that, so it would be disproportionate for me to continue.

Talking about the language used in relation to premises used for a private function in this particular order—just by way of example, a bit of flavour if you will—the amendment was needed to clarify that the order applied to premises whether or not they’d been hired. Logical enough, I suppose, to apply restrictions regardless of the way that a venue was coming to be used, from a public health perspective come to the same thing.

The other one, in relation to this first tranche, which was 2 to 14 February, received on 14 February—what could be more romantic than a COVID-19 order on Valentine’s Day? But the purpose of the order was quite expansive; it was talking about not only avoiding adverse effects of the outbreak but also ensuring continuity of services. The scope of the purpose of the order was a theme to which we returned in relation to some other orders which were a bit narrower in the way that they stated their particular intentions.

Moving ahead now—we’re in mid-February if you’re following along, Mr Speaker, on your Order Paper or indeed on your calendar—we had an extension of a deadline date for student workers in the health and disability sector to receive a booster. This is an example of an order that had a liberalising effect, as restrictions began to be removed. While the National Party had mixed feelings at times about the regime as a whole, nevertheless in these orders we saw a move away from restrictions in a way with which we agreed and approved. I should actually point out before going any further, having left it almost to the end, that National will be supporting the confirmation of the orders by the House.

Similarly, the reduction of the period of time in which a person needed to remain in isolation, or quarantine, down from 10 days to seven days—again a sensible move in the context of what was happening at that time. Minister Hipkins already talked about the need for flexibility in relation to when a person would leave a managed isolated quarantine facility—not wanting to have them arbitrarily detained for longer, or by way of unintended consequence, given that the intent we accepted in the committee was to allow an orderly departure and not have someone thrown out on to the street at midnight, not to put too fine a point on it. So this was an example of an engagement with the Minister, by way of letters of course, and it happens over a period of time, but the response was along the lines that the Minister stood by his interpretation, I guess, in terms of the way that order could be interpreted. We were satisfied that that point had been noted and understood, and as the Minister has already said, sometimes these things would flow through to subsequent orders—a lesson having been learnt, as opposed to necessarily meaning that the order would be amended on the spot, or let alone struck down.

A couple of other ones, if I may, Mr Speaker, in my remaining time. The order that was presented in now late-February regarding requirements for close contacts that was talking about—and we did have a few concerns with that one—requiring that close contacts have the ability to stay in touch with the Government. For those who are not able to do that—whether it’s a limitation of IT, or perhaps mobile phone coverage, or internet access—we thought that it wasn’t reasonable to state, in mandatory terms, that a person must stay in contact with the Government agency if they were not physically able to do so. So we made that point, and I think, again, we got a pretty fair hearing from the Minister; and at the point that we’d had that interaction, in fact, that order was revoked and had been replaced in any case. So that was, I suppose at that point, a moot point but nevertheless illustrated the kind of serious attention to detail with which the committee was approaching its task.

Moving quickly through now my remaining minute, we did talk about the purpose of orders quite considerably, because, with such great powers being given to the executive, it was important at least to be able to constrain his powers by saying at least that the detail of the order should match its purpose. And, in a particular case regarding self-isolation requirements and permitted work, we pointed out that the purpose appeared to be relaxing restrictions, so it couldn’t fairly be said to fit under a purpose that was merely about preventing an outbreak. Of course, an order that imposes any restrictions at all is preventing an outbreak relative to not having the order at all, but nevertheless we thought that it would be helpful to have a more expansive purpose, and so we got there in the end.

Discussions about navigability and accessibility of orders I won’t trouble the House with, but suffice to say that we, obviously, had a pretty detailed look at all the detail, including even being so precise about what contactless delivery means—whether it’s just physical distancing to be maintained or specifying a 2-metre limit, which is, of course, much more quantifiable, measurable, and enforceable. So, anyway, Mr Speaker, I hope that’s given you a good insight into our work in examining the orders, and as I’ve said we do in fact support these orders in the House tonight.

TEANAU TUIONO (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and also thank you to the previous speakers as well. I’m like the last speaker, Chris Penk: I wear a bunch of hats. I’ve literally got one on my head right now! Thank you for the detail that you went through with the Regulations Review Committee. Going through that detail, I think, is really important, as is acknowledging how fast things are moving. Things are moving very, very, very quickly.

My understanding with these orders is that they were predominantly made during the period of phase one and two of the Omicron outbreak, as case numbers initially grew slowly while contact tracing was able to limit the spread. They also cover the beginning of phase three, as numbers increased quickly and contact tracing and isolation requirements subsequently changed as well. As I flicked through them, I noted that the main issues that were covered were self-isolation requirements for contacts at various points of the outbreak, and border controls, isolation, and testing requirements for incoming travellers. The Minister and the member before both picked those things up.

Some of the orders—there’s a few of them, and I do appreciate that they have moved quickly. I’m just looking at a couple of them here, like the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Protection Framework and Other Matters) Amendment Order 2022—that’s such a long, long name—which was an order made to strengthen the rules around masks and face coverings to make it mandatory for a mask to cover both the mouth and nose and have straps that go around the ear or head and extending the mask mandates to children under 12. For some of those ones, we’re here to confirm it, but, actually, the deadline has been and gone because things have been moving so quickly, such as the COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Order (No 2) 2022—another long order name—“SL something or other”. This was to change the deadline from 15 February to 25 February to get a booster shot for someone who is in the health and disability sector.

I appreciate how fast things are moving, and we do need to be nimble. It’s great to see that the Parliament has seen that we can make our response as quick as possible and as nimble as possible. I do worry, though, sometimes—particularly within the context of the announcements made last week—whether we, in moving so fast, have missed the opportunity to actually take a pause to really ground ourselves on those sorts of issues and those sorts of voices that we should be listening to. For me, there’s been a lot of noise. There’s been a lot of banging on the business drum, and folks outside on the Parliament lawn were loud. We could hear all those issues. But then we couldn’t hear the voices of some of the other communities. I worry about the speed of things and the shifting of focus away from immunocompromised and disabled whānau and what this means for Māori and Pasifika leaders, and—as a parent myself—what this means for parents and teachers. And I know that people have been reflecting on how it feels like we’re going back to normal, but the pandemic isn’t over—we’ve had a number of deaths today, as well as over the past week as well—and I think it’s really important for us to continue to hold on to that. Yes, we need to be nimble. Yes, we need to be quick. Yes, we need to adapt to the situation as best as we can. But we also need to remain grounded in the fact that this pandemic is actually not over.

For me, that throws up a whole lot of issues—and I expect these will come up somehow, somewhere, and will probably show its way at the Regulations Review Committee in some way around what we do around clean air standards for adequate ventilation and air filtration, because that’s going to become a bigger issue. What are we going to do about what that means for schools and what does it mean for public buildings? Access around making sure that teachers and staff at all the schools get access to N95 masks as well. As I’d been talking to friends of mine about the impacts of long COVID—I mean, what does that mean, particularly when it impacts our rangatahi, when it impacts our children as well—then, I think making sure that we hold on to those things that have gotten us through. And sure, things have moved—and I was just thinking about the traffic light system and the system we had before, and the importance of kind of acknowledging that this pandemic is not over. We’re in this particular Omicron wave at the moment, but who knows what the next wave is going to look like? It could be more severe—so making sure that we hold on to those lessons, hold on to those details as well, and of course making sure that we have that equity in vaccine roll-out for boosters and for kids, particularly for Māori in rural areas, for our tamariki Māori. And I noted a couple of weeks ago the high levels of hospitalisation of Pasifika as well. And then, what does it all mean for workers as well around workplace health and safety, and those kinds of things?

So, yes, acknowledging the nimbleness and the speed at which we can do things—and that’s a great thing in being able to have that flexibility—but hey, let’s continue to be grounded and to filter out the noise and listen and focus on those voices that we need to be listening to: the voices of immunocompromised whānau, disabled whānau. What does it mean for Māori and Pasifika communities? What does it mean for school communities? What does it mean for parents, who are navigating all of this stuff with our parents at school? And then, of course, what does that mean for our young tamariki in early childhood education settings as well?

On that, we will be supporting these orders, but also a reminder to all of us, I think, that let’s continue to stay grounded and to recognise actually this is not over, that people are in hospital, and that people are dying. And let’s continue to reach out to each other and to really hold on to that whole idea of being a team of 5 million. And so, on that, I commend these orders to the House.

MARK CAMERON (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, I apologise, my colleague has been waylaid. ACT won’t be supporting this piece of legislation. I think it’s clearly obvious the world is moving on, and, yeah, look, I have got nothing further to say on that matter. But, yeah, so we won’t be supporting this piece of legislation. Thank you very much.

A party vote was called for on the question, That this House approve the following orders made under the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020: COVID-19 Public Health Response (Protection Framework and Other Matters) Amendment Order 2022, COVID-19 Public Health Response (Protection Framework and Other Matters) Amendment Order 2022 Amendment Order 2022, COVID-19 Public Health Response (Vaccinations) Amendment Order (No 2) 2022, COVID-19 Public Health Response (Isolation and Quarantine and Maritime Border) Amendment Order 2022, COVID-19 Public Health Response (Isolation and Quarantine) Amendment Order 2022, COVID-19 Public Health Response (Self-Isolation Requirements and Permitted Work) Order 2022, COVID-19 Public Health Response (Air Border) Order 2021 Amendment Order 2022, COVID-19 Public Health Response (Isolation and Quarantine and Other Matters) Amendment Order 2021 Amendment Order 2022, COVID-19 Public Health Response (Air Border) Amendment Order 2022, COVID-19 Public Health Response (Isolation and Quarantine) Amendment Order (No 2) 2022, and COVID-19 Public Health Response (Testing for COVID-19) Order 2022.

Ayes 110

New Zealand Labour 65; New Zealand National 33; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.

Noes 10

ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion as amended agreed to.

Orders approved.

Bills

Natural Hazards Insurance Bill

First Reading

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission): I present a legislative statement on the Natural Hazards Insurance Bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ian McKelvie): That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I move, That the Natural Hazards Insurance Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Finance and Expenditure Committee to consider the bill.

New Zealand has the world’s second-highest natural disaster costs in the world as a proportion of GDP. It’s one of the reasons we’re called “the Shaky Isles”. On the flip side, our natural hazards insurance scheme supports us to have one of the world’s highest rates of residential property insurance. For a multitude of reasons, it’s crucial New Zealanders can continue to get affordable insurance cover, and their compensation paid when it’s due, as quickly as possible. Insurance is fundamental to helping communities recover after an event. Compensating policy owners for the damage caused by a natural hazard means they can repair their home and move on with their lives.

After the Canterbury earthquakes, this wasn’t always the case. So we have taken the time to learn from the Canterbury experience to ensure no one needs to be traumatised again by the claims process. The Natural Hazards Insurance Bill builds on the important lessons we’ve learned during the past decade. It streamlines the current Earthquake Commission Act and incorporates many of the recommendations from Dame Silvia Cartwright’s public inquiry into the Earthquake Commission (EQC). I want to, at this point, put on record my thanks to Dame Silvia for her very comprehensive report and well-considered recommendations, which have provided a fantastic platform for futureproofing the scheme. Dame Silvia made 70 recommendations in her inquiry. I’m proud to say that 49 of these have been completed or are close to completion, including 10 recommendations being completed by the passage of this bill itself.

Two inquiry recommendations were to change the name of the Act and the scheme’s administering organisation to recognise natural hazards insurance being not just about damage caused by earthquakes. The name “Natural Hazards Insurance Bill” acknowledges the scheme also covers damage caused by landslips, volcanic eruptions, hydrothermal activity, and tsunami. Therefore, I would also like to introduce the House to Toka Tū Ake - Natural Hazards Commission. The Earthquake Commission has changed significantly from the small, 22-person organisation it was in September 2010. It has now evolved into a modern, forward-looking, and resilient organisation. The recommendations made by the public inquiry have been embraced by the staff, none more so than identifying a name for itself to better reflect its role and place in New Zealand. Toka Tū Ake represents the foundation from which we stand strong and revive together.

The people of Canterbury told the public inquiry of difficulties they had working with EQC. We don’t want this to happen again; so the bill proposes a code of conduct defining the rights of claimants. The code will be published as part of the statement of performance expectations, and claimants will be able to have their issues heard.

The inquiry also recommended a dispute resolution service be available to claimants when they were unable to reach an agreement with Toka Tū Ake. The bill requires Toka Tū Ake to participate in dispute resolution as an alternative to the court action many Cantabrians felt forced to take. We don’t want claimants feeling they need to pay to resolve issues they have. Many features of the current scheme are not changing, such as cover being attached to private fire insurance policies. EQC will remain a Crown entity, and the Crown will guarantee the scheme. Toka Tū Ake will continue to have a strong role in education, in research, and information regarding natural hazards.

So what are we proposing to change, in the bill? The bill introduces a range of measures to update the financial governance of the commission to reflect modern practice and to require at least a five-yearly review of the scheme’s key financial and risk management settings. Many of those living in mixed- and multi-use buildings across Canterbury—and, again, in Wellington, following the Kaikōura earthquake—had a difficult time resolving multiple insurance claims for damage in their building or complex. The bill proposes rules that are clearer and easier to determine the amount of compensation to be paid. Changes proposed will make it easier for people with retaining walls, bridges, and culverts to understand what compensation they could receive if these are damaged. There’ll be caps of $50,000 per dwelling for retaining walls and $25,000 per dwelling for bridges and culverts. This allows people to purchase further cover if, for example, their property has considerable retaining walls.

The bill clarifies regulations relating to repairing buildings and land following a landslip or other land damage. It also sets a date for the increased EQC cap of $300,000 to come into effect. Increasing the EQC cap should lead to reduced premiums for many New Zealanders as the Crown absorbs liability and risk from private insurers. This change means the Government, through EQC, will formally take on a greater portion of risk, although as the AMI example in Canterbury shows us, the Crown is often on the hook either way. I’d expect to see insurers reflect reduced risk in their pricing for residential property insurance purchased by New Zealanders after October 2022.

The bill proposes the Act come into force on the latter of 1 December 2023 or 12 months after Royal assent. And that ensures there is at least a 12-month gap between enactment and entry into force. The bill also provides for the Governor-General to be able to, by Order in Council, defer commencement.

In closing, I do want to acknowledge the work that’s gone into this—particularly with officials at both the EQC and Treasury, working together constructively, agreeing many things, disagreeing other things, and seeking clarification from the responsible Minister. A huge amount of effort has gone into getting the technical detail right, to looking at how claims have been settled customarily, to ensure that the rules are clarified to the extent possible, to ensure that the process can be as simple as possible for those who are trying to recover in the face of a significant natural event.

I recommend the bill to the committee and look forward to them working on it and working through the detail to ensure that this scheme continues to work for New Zealanders in the future. It gives me great pleasure to commend the Natural Hazards Insurance Bill to the House.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. This is a very timely bill, and one that I think the National Party will enjoy working through with the select committee process. It has enormous advantages in it for New Zealanders. While it’s true that, in 2010, the Earthquake Commission (EQC) was a bit of a sleeper—that no one had ever really thought we’d ever face the problems that it faced, both in September of 2010 and then February of 2011—that is no particular excuse for them not being ready for those sorts of events in the future. But the Minister said there were 22 people working for EQC in September. It’s grown by four. My recollection is that they told us 18, but whatever, it was a very small group of people. It had been quite an easy task for them to operate, over the 17 years the Act had run, without any particular consideration of the need for change.

The organisation did swell by quite a few—to, I think, over 1,800 people eventually working for it in a relatively short period of time. When any organisation has that sort of growth over a matter of months, there is inevitably going to be some problems. I think it’s worth remembering, though, that the total number of claims that were dealt with as a result of the Canterbury earthquakes was in excess of 700,000—spread across land claims, building claims, and personal property. I think their decision that was made, eventually, to remove personal property—so, in other words, breakages that you get around the house, etc.—from the EQC coverage was the right thing at that time.

What has always been difficult has been the issue of land claim and the extent to which there should be coverage on the built property as well; then, of course, the breadth of which coverage should be administered or available, depending on the type of natural disaster that might have been experienced by someone. It is a very good scheme and well worth holding on to—quite unique in the world—and the only scheme, that I’m aware of, that actually does cover land damage. While there is a problem with how you might define that, it is enormously valuable. One of the things that I think it’d be worth the Finance and Expenditure Committee teasing out a bit further, notwithstanding the fact that officials have clearly done quite a job among themselves in debating these issues, will be whether or not those amounts, those caps, for retaining walls and for bridges, etc., are sufficient.

If one were to take a city like Wellington, many dwellings cannot exist without their retaining walls, and those retaining walls might be both forward and back of the property, or to one side—whatever it might be. If the property cannot be repaired without the retaining wall being repaired, I think there’s a real question about how much should be embodied in the whole of that cap coverage. No one will ever get this totally right, and it would be a good idea if we could have enough time at the select committee to go through all of the circumstances that people have had to deal with in the extraordinary events of Christchurch.

It’s worth noting, too, that of that large number of claims—that very large number of claims—over 160,000 of them were repaired through the EQC process. So they were houses that were damaged up to the then cap of $100,000. Yes, there were circumstances in that that were difficult for some people, but the vast majority managed to get their lives back together relatively smoothly. One thing I’ve always said is that EQC can’t go away, nor can the natural hazards arrangements that will come after this. They’re there permanently, and those claims don’t shut. And that, I think, has been a cause of quite a bit of difficulty for successive Governments as they’ve dealt with those particular issues. But I think it’s important that that remains one of the open aspects of this type of coverage. EQC was one of the biggest purchasers of reinsurance of any company in the world. It’s something that perhaps we struggle to get our heads around. We’re only covering 5 million people. We’re covering the dwellings that exist across the country that number only in the few million. But, none the less, because they were one big buyer, they were able to buy very, very well.

The argument always against raising the cap from initially $100,000, then to the $150,000, and then to the $300,000, as proposed in this bill, was that it would mean that the Government agency was subsidising the private sector—the private insurer who picks up the balance of that. That is the sort of nonsense argument that Treasury needed to be completely debunked on. The reality is that the cost of that insurance is the cost of that insurance, no matter who buys it. It’s arguably more expensive for private companies to buy smaller chunks to cover that first $300,000; so I personally welcome that new figure.

But I do offer this caution: in 1992, when the legislation first came into the House for the 1993 Act, $100,000 would pretty much replace, quite easily, the average home in New Zealand. That is not the case with the $300,000 proposed in this. When you look at the cost of building these days, you look at the cost of the average home, and you look at the price of new builds, then you know that we’re possibly not even at the halfway point with that particular figure. So it will be interesting to hear through that committee process from officials as to how they’ve managed to come to that figure and justify that figure. Remember too that the reason that the EQC was structured the way it was in 1993 was because the insurers of the day had decided they weren’t going to cover New Zealand for earthquakes any longer. That, I think, is an ever present threat. But, even with the huge costs that have been met by insurance as a result of Canterbury and Kaikōura and other smaller tremors around the country and other events around the country, the reality is that it remains a very good market for insurers because of that deep penetration that we have in our market.

It’s worth noting that, when there was the proposal for the Government to buy out properties that were so badly damaged they were difficult to repair, if at all, or couldn’t be repaired and where the land was so badly damaged it couldn’t be built on again, the expectation was that up to—working on international figures—15 percent of households might be uninsured. In the event, it was under 2 percent—quite an extraordinary thing. That indicates that New Zealanders do value their properties, and it reinforces the obligation that falls on a Government to ensure that there is a structure in place that will give people the sort of surety that they need.

The questions that will come into play here will be that question I raised before—the question of: is the coverage amount enough for the retaining walls and bridges and other ancillary structures around a home that might actually be the reason why the home is able to be built in the first place. Then, of course, that big discussion about the level of coverage at the current rate looking to be less than 50 percent of the cost of a new house. But, none the less, all of that might be quite reasonable. We look forward to the select committee process and participating fully to get a better bill, a better legislative arrangement in place for New Zealanders wanting to protect their assets.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ian McKelvie): Members, the time has come for me to leave the Chair. The House is adjourned until 2 p.m. next sitting day.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10.02 p.m.