Wednesday, 21 June 2023
Volume 769
Sitting date: 21 June 2023
WEDNESDAY, 21 JUNE 2023
WEDNESDAY, 21 JUNE 2023
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 King 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.
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 Jian Guo Yang requesting that the House impose harsher penalties for criminal offences
petition of Sunny Kaushal requesting the House urge the Government to act on what we believe is a retail crime emergency.
SPEAKER: Those petitions are referred to the Petitions Committee. Ministers have delivered papers.
CLERK:
Hutt Valley District Health Board annual report 2021-22
Lotto New Zealand statement of performance expectations for the financial year ending 30 June 2024
Government response to the report of the Regulations Review Committee on its interim report on its briefing about orders made under section 70 of the Health Act 1956.
SPEAKER: Those papers are published under the authority of the House. No select committee reports have been delivered for presentation. The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of bills.
CLERK:
Regulatory Systems (Primary Industries) Amendment Bill, introduction
Regulatory Systems (Climate Change Response) Amendment Bill, introduction
Corrections Amendment Bill, introduction.
SPEAKER: Those bills are set down for first reading.
Oral Questions
Questions to Ministers
Question No. 1—Prime Minister
1. CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all of his Government’s statements and actions?
Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Prime Minister): Yes.
Christopher Luxon: How are Kiwis expected to believe that Michael Wood, Kiri Allan, and Stuart Nash are all just one-off bad eggs instead of a repeated failure by his Government to follow and enforce the rules?
Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I don’t believe that those people are bad eggs. I believe that in two of those cases they made a mistake. In terms of Kiri Allan’s inclusion in that, the reason that we’re having that discussion is that she did disclose and manage conflicts of interest.
Christopher Luxon: Why did he say just two weeks ago that he had trust and confidence in Michael Wood, and how can Kiwis trust him or his Government?
Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Of course, I have to rely on the information that I’m given at the time. The information that I was given was incorrect and there has been a consequence for that.
Christopher Luxon: Did he seek or receive assurances from Michael Wood that there were no other conflicts of interest after it was disclosed that he had failed to sell his airport shares?
Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes.
Christopher Luxon: Why does that keep happening with his Ministers; when he asks for clarity of whether they’ve got conflicts of interest, they keep saying, “No, no, no, I don’t.”, and then they do?
Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: In this case, the Minister indicated there was nothing further I needed to know. There clearly was information further that I needed to know. He is no longer a Minister.
Christopher Luxon: If his own Ministers don’t take him seriously enough to tell him the truth when he asked them, how on earth should New Zealanders take him seriously as Prime Minister?
Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I believe in this case Michael Wood failed to identify and manage his conflicts of interest appropriately. I think New Zealanders can trust me because in that circumstance I have accepted his resignation as a Minister.
Christopher Luxon: Why does it always take him so long, whether it’s Stuart Nash, Michael Wood, or Kiri Allan, to actually hold his Ministers to account for their rule-breaking?
Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I absolutely reject that. I found out about this yesterday. I took action almost immediately. These processes take a period of time. Someone is entitled to a process of natural justice. He has made mistakes and there have been consequences for those.
David Seymour: Does the Prime Minister accept New Zealanders are frustrated with crime on the streets and potholes on the roads, and, if so, can he assure them that those problems have not been caused by Ministers in charge of their portfolios who can’t even keep within the basic rules of being a Minister?
Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes, I do accept that New Zealanders are concerned about crime and they are also concerned about potholes on the roads. In terms of the last part of that, potholes on the roads, had there not been such a woeful under-investment in road maintenance we might not be in this position.
Christopher Luxon: Is this Government so incompetent that it can’t follow the rules or so arrogant that it doesn’t believe that the rules apply to them?
Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Ministers who don’t follow the rules face consequences for that.
David Seymour: Would it be helpful, does the Prime Minister suppose, if he stopped blaming the last Government that went out of office nearly six years ago and started holding accountable the Ministers in his Government now for their performance or lack thereof?
Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I’m very proud of the fact that under this Government the budget for road maintenance has increased significantly. The number of potholes being repaired has increased significantly. I do note the previous Government decided not to invest in those things so that it can invest in roads of national significance. The reality is we need to build new roads and maintain the roads that we have at the moment. The last Government chose to prioritise one over the other when we need to be doing both.
Ricardo Menéndez March: Does he accept that living in poverty is one of the biggest drivers of health inequities for Māori and Pacific families; if so, will he commit to ending poverty for all families by introducing an income guarantee and a tax-free threshold of the first $10,000?
Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: In answer to the first part of the question, yes; in answer to the second part of the question, no.
Christopher Luxon: Is he confident none of his other Ministers have undisclosed conflicts, undeclared shares, unreported links to donors, undeclared donations, or any other violation of the rules?
Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I have confidence in the Cabinet Office processes to identify those things and I’ve just outlined further steps that are being taken to strengthen those processes.
Christopher Luxon: How many more Ministers does he expect will resign or be sacked before the election?
Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I think that’s a ridiculous question. I would have thought the member should be more concerned about the conflicts of interest in his own team, which he doesn’t seem particularly focused on.
Question No. 2—Finance
2. Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister of Finance: Is he concerned at the findings in the Productivity Commission’s A fair chance for all report that nearly 1 in 5 New Zealanders experience persistent disadvantage; if so, will he commit to making the changes needed to end persistent disadvantage in New Zealand?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): In answer to the first part of the question, yes. I believe that all parties in this House should be concerned when segments of our population lack economic opportunities, social connections, or experience economic hardship, particularly when those patterns of disadvantage are intergenerational. In answer to the second part of the question, I believe that ending persistent disadvantage is something that all Governments should be committed to. The Productivity Commission’s recent report is a useful contribution to the debate as to what changes are necessary to reduce persistent disadvantage. I look forward to engaging with that work more fully and, as with previous Productivity Commission reports, there will be a full Government response as to some of the specific measures that the Government might want to take forward.
Hon Marama Davidson: Does he acknowledge that an income guarantee could be a central pillar of the social floor recommended in the report, ensuring that communities and whānau have basic public supports and incomes when they are experiencing disadvantage?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I congratulate the member on shoehorning into that question the Green Party’s policy. I do think it is important that we provide support for people when they need it and in the ways that they need it, and ensure that every New Zealander can live with dignity.
Hon Marama Davidson: Does he accept findings that institutional racism and discrimination against Māori and Pacific peoples is contributing to poor health outcomes and disadvantage for these communities, and, if so, will he prioritise equity in healthcare?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Absolutely we will, and are indeed prioritising equity in healthcare. The creation, through the health reforms, of Te Aka Whai Ora was an important moment, I think, in how we can take steps forward on that—and actually significantly in line with the report’s recommendations, because the report focuses particularly on institutional arrangements and systemic changes, and I think that’s exactly what we’re doing in healthcare.
Hon Marama Davidson: Does he agree that Aotearoa will be unable to meet its 10-year target to halve child poverty without significant investment to end persistent disadvantage affecting 1 in 5 New Zealanders?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No, I don’t. I think that is a goal that will require a lot of effort from the Government over the next few years to be able to reach it, but it is one that we have committed ourselves to. I note that in the latest Budget, around material hardship—which is the closest thing, in terms of a proxy, for what we measure at the moment, to persistent disadvantage—we have seen a reduction by 3 percentage points since 2017-18 of children living in those circumstances.
Hon Marama Davidson: Will he commit to the recommendations made in this report and to ending persistent disadvantage so all whānau have warm, dry homes, enough food on the table to feed tamariki, and so our young people can go to school instead of working 20 or 30 hours a week to support their families?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I noted in my primary answer, we will work our way through the specific recommendations that have been made in the report. So, rather than responding to that part of the question directly, I would say that the themes in the report are ones that this Government has been working on. We know that there is always more to do, and we commit to working on those issues.
Question No. 3—Finance
3. INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Last week, Statistics New Zealand reported that GDP edged down by 0.1 percent for the March quarter, following a 0.7 percent decline in the previous December quarter. On an annual basis, the economy was 2.9 percent larger than a year ago and is 6.7 percent bigger than before the start of the pandemic, ahead of most of the countries with which we compare ourselves. We know that 2023 is a challenging year for the New Zealand economy and New Zealand households as global growth slows and the North Island weather events disrupt households and businesses. The decline in growth over the last two quarters is characterised as a technical recession. It does need to be viewed in the context of a record number of New Zealanders in work and wages rising at a faster pace than inflation, which is not typical of recession conditions. We are well positioned to support New Zealanders through this tough time, with cost of living support and dealing with the impacts of weather events. Unemployment, however, does remain low, there has been a rebound in tourism and international students, and public debt levels are among the lowest in the OECD.
Ingrid Leary: What was the impact of the North Island weather events on the GDP numbers in the March quarter?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The impact of the Auckland floods and Cyclone Gabrielle saw declines in primary production, manufacturing and transport, postal, and warehousing activity. New Zealand’s economists have said that headline growth would likely have been positive in the March quarter if it wasn’t for the cyclone. They said that the rise in immigration and fiscal support could support momentum and growth in the economy over the second half of the year. Westpac’s economists said the results show that the economy “is in a transition phase rather than in outright recession.”
Ingrid Leary: How will the Government manage the response to the economic outlook?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Economic activity has been affected by the North Island weather events. Looking ahead, the Reserve Bank is forecasting that the recovery and rebuild from these events will add about 1.5 percent to GDP spread over a number of years. The Government will have a part to play in the recovery, as New Zealanders would expect us to. The cost of asset damage from the weather events is estimated at between $9 billion and $14.5 billion, with half of that related to infrastructure owned by central government or local government, such as roads. We are committed to supporting New Zealanders with the cost of living pressures and to investing in essential public services, as well as the work we need to do to help these regions recover and rebuild.
Ingrid Leary: What other reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We do see reports that show the resilience of the New Zealand economy. This week, it was the BNZ-Business New Zealand Performance of Services Index, or the PSI, with a reading of 53.1 in May, close to the long-term average for the survey. A reading above 50 indicates that the sector is generally expanding, while below 50 indicates that it is declining. Sales, new orders, and employment all expanded. BNZ’s economists said the result indicated that the economy would grow modestly in the June quarter. As I’ve said previously, this is a tough period for New Zealanders, but our economy is resilient and we are building for the long term to deliver higher-wage jobs and lower emissions.
Question No. 4—Finance
4. NICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Finance: What advice, if any, has he sought from Treasury in the past six months on specific matters relating to New Zealand’s current tax settings, and what specific tax changes, if any, were considered as part of the Budget process?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): The Government seeks and receives a range of tax policy advice during the parliamentary term, including in the past six months on New Zealand’s current tax settings. That advice varies from agency to agency and is reflected, for example, in the decision in the Budget to lift the trustee tax rate. In answer to the second part of the question, the Budget process for 2023 began around August of last year, and, as at all Budgets, it considered whether specific tax changes were appropriate. That was the subject of Cabinet discussion. Cabinet discussions are confidential until such time as announcements are made.
Nicola Willis: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The second part of the question was very specific: what specific tax changes, if any, were considered as part of the Budget process? I don’t believe the Minister has addressed that part of the question.
SPEAKER: No, I think he has.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Perhaps I can help here—speaking to that point, Mr Speaker.
SPEAKER: Well, how can you? I’ve already made a ruling.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Well, the issue is a question of Cabinet. The Minister is using Cabinet confidentiality to not address the second part of the question, but the question does not refer to Cabinet.
SPEAKER: That’s the point of having further supplementaries—you can explore that.
David Seymour: Mr Speaker, can I speak to that?
SPEAKER: No. As I said, I’ve already ruled on it. Go back and read Hansard, read the question, and listen to the answer. It’s been addressed.
David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker.
SPEAKER: A new point of order?
David Seymour: Yes, Mr Speaker. I think it is something that bears some consideration. You’ve often said that the member has more supplementaries to further explore the answer.
SPEAKER: Order! You’re now disputing my ruling—
David Seymour: No, I’m not; I’m just trying to be helpful.
SPEAKER: —and interjecting while I’m on my feet. I mean, one person has been elected to be the judge of what happens in here. Either you’re going to allow me to do that under the rules, or not.
Nicola Willis: Has he used his public office to obtain advice on possible changes to the tax system that have not yet been made public?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I refer the member to my primary answer. I did note in my primary answer that at this Budget, as at all Budgets, consideration has been given to specific tax changes. Those are the subject of Cabinet’s discussions. They are confidential until such time as announcements are made.
Nicola Willis: Why doesn’t the public have a right to know what policies his Government is considering on tax?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I have answered a number of times in this House that the extent of the Government’s work on tax was outlined after the 2020 election. That has been the work programme for tax. In respect of the Budget, we had the announcement on the trustee tax rate. In respect of this Government, those are the actions on tax that we are taking.
Nicola Willis: Can he can he rule out the possibility that tax changes rejected by Cabinet will re-emerge in the Labour Party manifesto?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, the Labour Party manifesto is not my ministerial responsibility, but I can indicate to the member that it has not yet been finalised.
Nicola Willis: Has the finance Minister, or has he not, sought and received advice on possible options for reducing or increasing income tax? If he won’t answer that question, why doesn’t he believe the public have a right to know?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I have answered that question, and that’s exactly what my primary answer suggested. I would refer the member, if she wants further advice on this, to an answer given by Bill English on 5 June 2015 with respect to questions about support for children in hardship, where he acknowledged that Treasury had given him a range of advice and said that that advice would be released as part of Treasury’s Budget 2015 proactive release in early July.
Nicola Willis: Point of order, Mr Speaker. This line of questioning is one that I have now attempted via written question and via the Finance and Expenditure Committee process, and it relates to Ministers’ responsibility to the House to account for the advice that they receive. This has been a matter of many Speakers’ rulings throughout the years and I would direct you specifically to Speaker’s ruling 187/2, which notes that the Official Information Act does not exempt Ministers from their accountability to the House through question procedures, and I would simply ask that you direct the Minister that he cannot use the later release of information—the planned later release of information—as a reason to not fully address questions asked in parliamentary written or oral question form.
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker. I don’t want to prolong others because I have addressed the question. I don’t want to comment on your rulings, but that is what you ruled. In my last answer, I was simply referring to a practice that has occurred in the past as far back as 2015, but I believe I have addressed all the questions I have been asked today.
SPEAKER: So the Minister must answer, if they can, consistently with public interest, but it’s up to the Minister to judge that. So you can ask further questions, if you wish.
Nicola Willis: Mr Speaker, is there any chance I could have an extra supplementary to do so?
SPEAKER: I can’t grant you one, but you can—
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I would just make the point that the answers given by the Minister of Finance did not refuse to provide information in the public interest. He refused to provide it because it would be later available, and, as Nicola Willis has pointed out, Speaker’s ruling 187/2 is very clear that that’s not an appropriate answer.
SPEAKER: Well, I’ll invite all members to do what I will do and go back and look at the Hansard about exactly what has been said, and check whether or not my rulings are correct. If it’s not, I’ll come back and correct it.
Nicola Willis: Point of order, Mr Speaker.
SPEAKER: A new point of order?
Nicola Willis: Yes. I just seek leave to table a document. The document is the letter I have received from you, Mr Speaker, on 20 June, which sets out your concerns that you have written to the Minister of Finance on the matter discussed in the letter, advising him he should not be using the Official Information Act to consider whether to release information requested in the written question. You have—
SPEAKER: Leave has been sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none. It may be tabled.
Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
Question No. 5—Energy and Resources
5. NAISI CHEN (Labour) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: What actions is the Government taking to drive the uptake of hydrogen?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources): In Budget 2023, our Government introduced a $100 million contract for difference to stimulate the production of hydrogen at point of consumption. This will allow the growth of a hydrogen industry in New Zealand.
Naisi Chen: How will the $100 million hydrogen rebate support the uptake of green hydrogen?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The Government’s green hydrogen consumption rebate will bridge the price gap between fossil fuels and green hydrogen to support the early adopters to reduce their emissions by 150,000 tonnes of carbon, equivalent to cancelling out the emissions of hundreds of trucks. This initiative will help make green hydrogen a financially viable option as the industry develops and drives down emissions in our hard-to-abate sectors as part of the Government’s broader plan to decarbonise the New Zealand economy.
Naisi Chen: How will the Government’s hydrogen rebate support New Zealand’s just transition regions?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Our just transitions regions, Southland and Taranaki, will directly benefit from the Government’s hydrogen rebate. Hydrogen businesses will be required to build partnerships in these regions to create good jobs, build skills, and develop local supply chains. This will support regional resilience. It will also enable decarbonisation in hard-to-abate sectors and the development of new renewable generation, supporting a just transition.
Naisi Chen: How else is the Government driving the uptake of green hydrogen?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The Government is committed to working closely with innovative New Zealand businesses to test, trial, and build out the kit needed for a hydrogen economy. Examples of these partnerships include working with HW Richardson to convert six trucks to dual-fuel hydrogen vehicles and supporting Hiringa Energy to develop a hydrogen refuelling network covering the routes taken by 80 percent of freight volume.
Question No. 6—Health
6. BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Deputy Leader—ACT) to the Minister of Health: What are the subspecialties to which the wait-list equity adjuster was being rolled out in the wider northern region, and how, if at all, is ethnicity being used as a factor in prioritising access to health treatment outside of the equity adjuster tool?
Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Minister of Health): In answer to the first part of the question, aside from the Auckland District defined by the former district health board (DHB) boundary, I am advised that Te Tai Tokerau District has implemented the tool for urology and orthopaedic wait-lists, and Waitematā has recently implemented the tool in gynaecology. I am advised that the equity adjuster is not used for acute care or cancer treatment. The equity adjuster is applied to planned care, previously referred to as elective care. In answer to the second part of the question, I am advised that Te Whatu Ora considers all factors when assessing people’s needs for care. Most importantly, this is primarily based on clinical need, as determined by the clinicians involved, but other factors are taken into account, including ethnicity from time to time.
Brooke van Velden: Is she aware that in November 2020, cancer and blood services at Auckland DHB had a policy to “reduce inequity for Māori and Pacific peoples by putting them at the front of the prioritisation queue”, and can she give a guarantee that ethnicity is not being used to prioritise the queue for cancer services in any Auckland hospitals?
Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: I thank the member for that question. The document that that member is referring to incorrectly said that that programme of work has started; it in fact never occurred.
Brooke van Velden: What, then, does she say to the medical professionals confidentially telling ACT that the practice is still going on, and staff know about it?
Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: Well, those medical professionals have avenues for raising their concerns, if any, within Te Whatu Ora, and I note that a number of health leaders, including the Royal College of Surgeons, have come out in support of the equity adjuster as applied to planned care.
Brooke van Velden: Is the Minister aware that medical practitioners are afraid of speaking up on this issue, such as the surgeon who texted to say, “My concern is the lack of consultation from Te Whatu Ora, and we are unable to express our concerns to the powers. Many of us feel this is wrong, but there is no avenue to express it, let alone change it.”? However, this person refuses to be identified for fear of retribution.
Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: I have worked with surgeons for multiple years of my professional life, and the courage it takes to be a surgeon is the courage to stand up for your conviction. So I encourage that person if they’ve got an issue to bring it forward, and to take it up also with the professional leaders who have come out in support of that process for planned care.
Teanau Tuiono: What advice has she received on the most effective ways to improve Māori and Pasifika life expectancy so that it is in line with the Pākehā life expectancy, and is she committed to action on the best evidence available to address health inequities?
Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: Yes, I am committed to evidence-based action to address health inequalities, and the advice that I have received is that the strongest thing we could do to address health inequities—the seven-year life expectancy gap between Māori and Pasifika—was to vote for the smoke-free legislation, something the other side of the House showed a remarkable lack of moral courage to do so.
Brooke van Velden: Is she aware that in February 2022 Auckland DHB said, “Our focus for planned care is prioritisation of long-waiting patients over 200 days, and long-waiting Māori and Pacific patients over 120 days”, or did this also not happen?
Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: At Auckland Hospital, that approach would have been replaced with the equity adjuster.
Question No. 7—Health
7. Dr SHANE RETI (National) to the Minister of Health: How many people on surgical waiting lists have had the equity adjuster applied, and how many received an improved prioritisation with a contribution from the ethnicity component?
Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Minister of Health): I am advised that all specialities in the Auckland district have been using the algorithm tool since February 2023 for treatments. It is estimated that over 10,000 patients will have had the equity adjuster applied. I am also advised that due to the complexity of the algorithm being made up of clinical priority and time spent on the wait-list, rurality, ethnicity, and deprivation level, Te Whatu Ora is unable to estimate how many patients have received an improved prioritisation just due to the ethnicity component alone. However, it is important to note, as we canvassed in the House yesterday, that the most influential factor on how a patient is scheduled is how sick they are, as determined by their doctor, and clinical priority remains a primary element.
Dr Shane Reti: Have clinicians discriminated against Māori and Pasifika on surgical waiting lists, given the Prime Minister’s assertions that for the same clinical need, Māori and Pasifika have waited longer and “that is discrimination”?
Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: I refer that member to the press release put out yesterday by the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons, who are, obviously, intimately involved in this area, and it does mention that unconscious bias can affect how patients are assessed and how long they spend on the wait-list.
Dr Shane Reti: Are wait times, deprivation levels, and rurality collectively better measures of inequity than ethnicity; if not, why not?
Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: I believe there is decades of evidence that shows that ethnicity is an independent predictor of health outcome in New Zealand.
Dr Shane Reti: What factors will she take into account to determine if the equity adjuster is creating new discrimination, as requested of her by the Prime Minister?
Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: I have asked officials to prepare a plan for how that evaluation will be undertaken.
Hon Kelvin Davis: Does she agree with the statement that “to the entitled, equity looks like discrimination”?
Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: It is clear to me that, for decades, we have had inequitable healthcare in this country and that we have been working on this problem for decades. In fact, multiple Governments have been working on this problem, and yet we have not been able to fix the issue and more needs to be done.
Hon Marama Davidson: What is the Minister’s response to a quote from a health expert who says, “But more to the point, some of the health gaps are not explained by socio-economic status or any other factor other than ethnicity. Māori experience systematic health disadvantage because of their ethnicity.”?
Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: That is also my understanding of the evidence, and that is what I mean by my response to the previous question—that ethnicity is an independent and strong predictor of your outcome in the New Zealand health system.
Question No. 8—Defence
8. VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour) to the Minister of Defence: What recent defence arrangements has New Zealand made with Fiji?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Defence): Bula vinaka, Mr Speaker. New Zealand and Fiji are close friends and military partners, and we share a view that it is for the Pacific Island countries to determine the security arrangements for our own region. The New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) and the Republic of Fiji Military Forces—or RFMF—have a long history of exercising together and partnering on regional security, climate response, and humanitarian challenges. This recently included Fiji’s vital assistance to us following Cyclone Gabrielle. Last week in Suva, I joined with Fiji’s Minister of Home Affairs and Immigration, Pio Tikoduadua, to sign two arrangements: a Status of Forces Agreement—or SOFA—which sets out the legal framework for closer military cooperation within our respective territories; and, secondly, a statement of intent to outline priorities for closer defence cooperation. These two arrangements complement the strength and spirit of New Zealand and Fiji’s broad relationship as outlined in the Duavata Relationship Statement of Partnership.
Vanushi Walters: Minister, what are the areas for closer cooperation set out in the statement of intent?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The statement of intent reaffirms New Zealand and Fiji’s joint commitment as security partners in our region, based on a shared vision for a secure, stable, and resilient Pacific for current and future generations. It’s been agreed that between 2022 and 2025, we will include a joint focus on training, maritime security, and coordination of disaster and humanitarian responses. It also includes specific initiatives such as boosting personnel exchanges and secondments, more formalised dialogue between our civilian agencies—such as the Ministry of Defence and Manatū Kaupapa Waonga—and between Ministers bilaterally and multilaterally within our region.
Vanushi Walters: What’s the purpose of the Status of Forces Agreement?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The Status of Forces Agreement provides a clear legal framework for cooperation between our two militaries in accordance with our respective laws and regulations. It will strengthen cooperation and good conduct of joint or unilateral visits; exchanges; maritime, air, and land-based exercises; and other activities between the NZDF and the RFMF. Because we know that climate change is the most pressing security threat for island countries, the agreement also commits both parties to minimise adverse effects of activities on the environment.
Vanushi Walters: Is this the first Status of Forces Agreement we’ve entered into with a Pacific country?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: No, we have a range of agreements to strengthen our partnerships with Pacific countries. This includes Status of Forces Agreements with the Cook Islands, Timor-Leste, Tuvalu, Tonga, Australia, and France. It’s a positive development for New Zealand and the region to now have agreed a SOFA with Fiji.
Vanushi Walters: How do these defence arrangements contribute to the overall relationship between New Zealand and Fiji?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: As the Prime Minister said earlier this month, our countries—Fiji and New Zealand—“are connected by a kinship forged in Pacific culture, identity, and interests founded on our long history, friendship, and mutual respect.” Building on our longstanding military cooperation reaffirms the strength and spirit of New Zealand and Fiji’s relationship, as outlined in the Duavata Relationship Statement of Partnership and the 2050 Strategy for the Blue Pacific Continent. It sits alongside other contributions this Government has recently announced, such as the $11.1 million of climate change support for Fiji to respond to the impacts of climate change.
Question No. 9—Police
9. Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa) to the Minister of Police: Does she stand by her statement, “It is my view that New Zealanders feel safer”; if so, why?
Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Minister of Police): I stand by my full statement at the time it was given: “It is my view that New Zealanders feel safer with a Government on track to deliver 1,800 extra Police.” This includes approximately 270 authorised officers who work in specialist areas tackling crime. Authorised officers have been counted in constabulary numbers since the introduction of a Policing Act in 2008. The inclusion of authorised officers in the 1,800 was made by the police Minister at the time of the announcement and was included in the proactively released Cabinet paper. To the second part of the member’s question, I quote the National Party: “Authorised officers in the right areas will speed up and make our criminal justice system more effective, efficient, and put the right resources in the right places at the right time.”
Hon Mark Mitchell: So in light of that answer, does the Minister now want to correct her answer to the House that there were 1,800 new front-line beat officers?
Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: I refer the member to my primary question.
SPEAKER: Do you want to correct that?
Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: Sorry. I refer the member to my primary answer.
Hon Mark Mitchell: How does the Minister define a “beat officer”?
Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: The front line of crime has changed over time, and I consider chasing the money, taking assets off criminals, and crippling criminal networks to be an effective tool; and that is exactly what these authorised officers are able to do. I’m sure it’s for this reason that National propose to expand and increase the use of authorised officers in this document [Holds up document].
Hon Mark Mitchell: Can the Minister tell us where she found the definition of a beat officer, or is it her own definition?
Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: If the member would like to refer to the Policing Act, where constabulary numbers were defined and counted for the nine years that member was in Government, under the same definition.
Question No. 10—Forestry
10. ANGELA ROBERTS (Labour) to the Minister of Forestry: How is the Government empowering communities when it comes to the planting of forests?
Hon PEENI HENARE (Minister of Forestry): Last week, this Government delivered on its 2020 election commitment to tighten up rules on farm to forestry conversions by giving communities greater control over the planting of forests. We are empowering local councils, who will work alongside their community to decide which land can be used for plantation forests, which are forests that are intended to be harvested, or carbon forests, which are forests that the landowner intends to farm for carbon. This moves away from a system where councils and communities had limited tools to deal with farms being purchased explicitly for conversion into forestry. I believe forestry has a role in our economy and environmental measures to address climate change, and this announcement ensures that the forestry sector maintains its social licence working alongside our communities.
Angela Roberts: What’s the significance of this announcement for rural communities?
Hon PEENI HENARE: The devastation that unfolded at Te Tairāwhiti and Hawke’s Bay during Cyclone Gabrielle was a stark reminder of what can happen if we get land-use settings wrong. Today’s changes help us towards addressing the findings and recommendations of the recent ministerial inquiry into land use, and these changes are about getting the right tree in the right place for the right reason. I have seen fewer pine forests planted on high-productivity farmland and more pine forests being planted on less productive land. It is the view of this Government that we have got the balance right. This Government acknowledges that both farming and forestry have a bright future under this Government.
Angela Roberts: How will this change benefit the environment?
Hon PEENI HENARE: Climate change is here. Amendments to the National Environmental Standards for Plantation Forestry, otherwise known as the NES-PF, will see the environmental effects of carbon forests being managed the same way as plantation forests. This means many standards, such as ensuring rules around riparian planting, will now be required for any new forestry conversions, which will include carbon forests. We have heard and acted on the real concerns, especially from regions such as Te Tairāwhiti, Wairoa, and the Tararua district, about the scale of exotic carbon forestry happening and the potential impact to the environment and on rural communities.
Angela Roberts: How is this announcement being received around the country?
Hon PEENI HENARE: On Wednesday last week, I attended Fieldays 2023 at Mystery Creek, where the general response to the announcement was very positive. In fact, in their words, we took the wind out of National’s sails, and they’re looking forward to National revisiting their policy on forestry—
SPEAKER: Order! Order! The Minister ought to know that he can’t use supplementaries to criticise the Opposition.
Question No. 11—Education
11. PENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill) to the Associate Minister of Education: Is she confident that the Government’s early childhood education announcement on Monday has adequately responded to the concerns of the sector, who had previously described it as “unworkable”, and, if so, why?
Hon JO LUXTON (Associate Minister of Education): Yes. I have met with sector representatives three times since Budget day. They made clear that the funding condition of particular concern was the requirement for services to allow enrolment for only 20 early childhood hours if parents requested this. This has now been removed.
Penny Simmonds: Is Early Childhood NZ chief executive Kathy Wolfe correct when she said of the Government’s alleged solution on Monday that “their solution is partial and clear as mud.”, and the sector needs “certainty not vagueness,”; if not, why is Ms Wolfe incorrect?
Hon JO LUXTON: As I said in my answer to the first question, I have met with sector representatives three times since Budget day. At the second meeting, I asked them to clarify to me what the particular sticky issue for them was, and it was the requirement to enrol for 20 hours if requested by parents. They said that some of them already do publicly provide their fees, and they were willing to work with the ministry to allow greater transparency around that. So it was purely the 20 hours that was the main sticking point for them, and they confirmed this to me at the second meeting I attended.
Penny Simmonds: Does the Minister understand that the 20 hours free policy has never worked for home-based early childhood education (ECE) providers, as it directly contradicts the role of an educator as a self-employed contractor and it leaves their income level not viable without optional charges?
Hon JO LUXTON: I’ve also met with the home-based sector, who shared their concerns with me, and have asked officials to go away and do some work on that, which the Minister and I will be taking into consideration.
Penny Simmonds: Why is the Minister ploughing on, imposing this ill-thought-through policy that 90 percent of the ECE sector opposes, at a time the sector is chronically short-staffed, thousands of children are stuck on wait-lists, and many ECE providers are on the brink of closure?
Hon JO LUXTON: This Government is committed to reducing financial pressures on families during this tough economic time, and the way to do that was to reduce fees in the early childhood sector and reduce barriers to early childhood education.
Question No. 12—Digital Economy and Communications
12. GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth) to the Minister for the Digital Economy and Communications: What progress has been made on the Game Development Sector Rebate?
Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Minister for the Digital Economy and Communications): This Government and the game development sector are gearing up to roll out the support of the announcement from Budget 2023. The Government is providing certainty to the growing and important game development sector with a $40 million per annum funding boost through the Budget. We’re now shifting focus into delivering that scheme. Consultation on the scheme’s design opened last week and closes on 6 July, with the scheme’s outline expected to be announced by October and successful applicants receiving year 1 funding in mid-2024. I’ve also announced that NZ On Air has been selected to administer the scheme. It has considerable experience in administering contestable funds and has developed a good relationship with the game development sector.
Glen Bennett: What support will the rebate provide the game development sector?
Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: There will be good support in place for the gaming development sector. The scheme will provide a 20 percent rebate that is designed to help grow and retain game studios here in New Zealand, up to $40 million a year across the industry. Studios that meet that threshold will be able to receive up to $3 million a year in rebate funding. The scheme will be backdated to 1 April of this year, meaning that businesses will already be able to receive support. It will offer huge potential for our young people entering into the sector. I’ve been thrilled to see the strong responses from the game development sector to this investment and hear that this will enable them to grow further and contribute to our economy.
Glen Bennett: What are the main design features in the consultation document?
Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: The Government is proposing the rebate will apply to eligible expenditure on digital games that are intended for public release for entertainment or educational purposes. Eligible expenditure would include expenditure related to developing and commercialising digital games, research, and game design, including adaptation to new platforms. Over the past few years, the Government has been working very closely alongside the gaming development sector as one of the key focus areas in the digital industry transformation plan. This consultation is yet another step in this process and I want to get good feedback from the sector on the detailed design of the new scheme so it sets us up for success.
Glen Bennett: How important is the game development sector to New Zealand’s economy?
Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: Really important. New Zealand’s game development sector is a small but fast-growing part of our tech sector, bringing in $400 million in revenue in 2022. Our firms enjoy international success—around 96 percent of the sector’s output is exported. The digital economy and the digital technology sector contributed $7 billion in GDP in 2021 and since 2016 it has grown at twice the annual rate of the economy. As a Government, we are committed to making the best investments for the future of the economy, and the game development sector rebate will help build the New Zealand we want for the future. That’s a high wage, low emissions economy and one that has high skills, innovation, resilience, and sustainability. I’m looking forward to seeing the scheme progress and achieve the Government’s ambitions of a promising new sector.
Urgent Debates
Oranga Tamariki—Allegations of Inappropriate Sexual Behaviour by Staff in Oranga Tamariki Residences
SPEAKER: I have received letters from Karen Chhour and Jan Logie seeking to debate, under Standing Order 399, the Government’s response to allegations of inappropriate sexual behaviour by staff towards young people in Oranga Tamariki residences. This is a particular case of recent occurrence for which there is ministerial responsibility. Children in Oranga Tamariki residences are in a vulnerable position, and the State has a duty of care towards them. A potential failure of that duty, and the Government’s response to it, warrants the attention of the House.
Urgent Debates Declined
Hon Michael Wood—Resignation
SPEAKER: I have also received letters from David Seymour and Christopher Luxon on the resignation of the Hon Michael Wood as a Minister. This is also a particular case of recent occurrence for which there is ministerial responsibility. As Speaker, I have to decide which is the most urgent of the two requests, and I have considered that the Oranga Tamariki matter meets those criteria. However, I am prepared to consider the Wood resignation applications again tomorrow if parties would like me to do so.
Urgent Debates
Oranga Tamariki—Allegations of Inappropriate Sexual Behaviour by Staff in Oranga Tamariki Residences
SPEAKER: Karen Chhour’s letter was received first; therefore, I call on her to move that the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance.
KAREN CHHOUR (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I move, That the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance.
At 11 a.m., we were shocked with an emergency media stand-up from Oranga Tamariki to talk about an issue that has arisen. There were allegations of inappropriate sexual behaviour from two staff members of Oranga Tamariki—this is just coming to light. These are two separate facilities, one facility is where children who have committed crimes are in a facility that should be protecting them from harming themselves or harming anybody else who is not safe, and then the other facility is a care and protection facility. The words “care” and “protection” become a bit of a joke when they are not being protected within that very facility.
We have had so many incidences, since I’ve become an MP in this House, where Oranga Tamariki has come into a bad light with the way that they are running the organisation. We had humongous debates around watering down the oversight of Oranga Tamariki last year, and in September last year I stood up and I even had a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) for this very issue with youth justice facilities and facilities run by Oranga Tamariki. I had an SOP that I put forward and I asked for the Labour Government to accept that SOP that would allow somebody to go unannounced into a youth justice facility, or any organisation that was run by Oranga Tamariki, if a child felt they were not safe within that organisation and needed somebody there to represent them—and that SOP was shot down.
We had two young people that sat and spilled their guts on national TV, begging this Government to make sure their children within youth justice facilities and Oranga Tamariki - run facilities were kept safe and had advocates that could come in and advocate for them. But we watered down that Oranga Tamariki oversight. We split it into three separate organisations and we said children would fall between these cracks, young people would fall between these cracks, and we’re seeing it happen already. Where were the people that were supposed to protect these young people? Five young people so far have come forward to say that they have been inappropriately touched and inappropriate sexual behaviour has happened within these facilities—from what I can tell. You know, there’s not much information right now, but this is a sign that Oranga Tamariki is not fit to run these facilities. They’re even having to hand it over to somebody else now, because they’re not fit to run these facilities.
How can we call them “care and protection facilities” when we’re not protecting these kids. They’ve been traumatised most of their life, probably; they’ve been put in a facility where we’re meant to take care of them and provide them with the services and what they need, and we’re traumatising them all over again. We had this argument last year—that children were not being listened to, children were not being heard, and children were being sent into places where they were not safe. They felt like they were not being heard, and now it’s come to fruition. It’s not that long ago that we were having this discussion, and nobody over in the Labour corner would listen to these young people. Nobody would listen to every other party in this House that said we’re getting this wrong.
And now we’ve got five children—that we know of—that have been harmed and hurt. I am so angry on behalf of these kids. We cannot take that harm back. We cannot fix this problem. We already had just finished an inquiry of abuse in care. We’ve pushed that inquiry report-back to next year. We haven’t even finished apologising for past abuse, and the abuse is still happening. Apologies mean nothing if it is still happening. And nobody wants to stand up and actually take responsibility for this. These are children that rely on us. These are children that rely on us to protect them, and we are not doing it. Where were the people that were meant to be there for these kids, to say, “Hey, something’s not right.” Where were the social workers? Where were the counsellors? Where were the staff that were meant to protect these kids? If these facilities are overcrowded, if they are understaffed, why hasn’t something been put in place to make sure that these kids are protected? These facilities are lock-up facilities with CCTV cameras. How is this happening? Why is nobody speaking up? And why has it taken so long for this to come out and for us to actually be able to debate this?
We can’t keep doing this. And I’ve stood in this House and said this on my very first day. I know I’ll have to have these uncomfortable conversations, but I keep having these uncomfortable conversations—and it shouldn’t be the case. We should be getting it right by now. How many millions of dollars have we spent on an inquiry into past abuse; have we not learnt? Have we not put processes in place to make sure this doesn’t keep happening? To stand up and say, “This is not good enough, it shouldn’t have happened. We’re going to have another inquiry.” I’m sick of reading inquiries. They say the same thing over and over again for years, and nothing’s changed. It’s another generation that’s so broken they can’t be fixed. Where is the outrage for these kids? Where are the people that are standing up and saying, “This is not OK”? Because these kids need a voice and they need to be heard. I don’t want to have to stand up here again and be apologising next year for the next five kids that haven’t been protected—what are we doing?
We need to get this right. We need to take the politics out of this and put the kids at the front, to work together—all parties—to make sure that we’re not standing here in 20 years’ time apologising for another 20 years of abuse in care, because I am not going to take responsibility for that. But this Government needs to take some responsibility for lightening the oversight of Oranga Tamariki a year ago and not taking it seriously enough. And now we’re finding that the advocacy for these young people was not there. That’s not their fault; it is partly the Government’s fault for taking away that advocacy. It’s OK to admit when you’re wrong; what’s not OK is to keep making excuses. I’ll keep standing here if I have to and yelling from the rooftops until not one more child is let down by an organisation that’s meant to protect them. Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister for Children): First of all, I’d like to say that nobody is making excuses. I found out on 8 June about the first instance of alleged inappropriate behaviour, Oranga Tamariki (OT) did address it, and then, just last Friday, I heard of the second instance. So Oranga Tamariki has said that the second instance shows a bit of a pattern and that we need to get to the bottom of this, and so the Chief Executive of Oranga Tamariki has appointed Mike Bush, a former Commissioner of Police, to act as deputy chief executive and to have authority over the Oranga Tamariki residences. This decision has been made in response to these serious allegations involving young people.
Now, while the news of the allegations today is incredibly disappointing, appointing Mike to get to the bottom of these issues and ensure residences and community homes are safe is the right thing to do. It is the Government’s expectation that children should feel safe and supported while in these facilities—no ifs or buts—and the Minister for Children has made that clear to Oranga Tamariki. Most staff are committed to just that, and it is frustrating and disappointing that a small number of individuals have overshadowed the work that Oranga Tamariki has done. But the safety of young people must always come first, and this move will ensure that.
The two staff have been stood down immediately. As I said, the first instance I heard of on 8 June—that staff member was stood down immediately then, so I can’t go any more into that because there is a police investigation. Mike Bush’s first task will lead an independent rapid assessment across residences. This will then widen to all care and protection in community homes, as there are also wider issues including facility security and staff retention to consider. This will take four weeks.
Focus will then shift to Mike Bush implementing a new operating model, building off work already under way. Shannon Pakura, a member of the Minister’s advisory board and former chief social worker, will work alongside Mike Bush. All residence staff will be re-vetted during this process. This is common practice in New Zealand Police and the Department of Corrections, but does not happen currently in Oranga Tamariki residences.
These actions are the right thing to do, and the safety of the children must come first. The absolute priority is the safety and wellbeing of these tamariki. Oranga Tamariki residences should be safe, should be supportive, and should be rehabilitative places for some of New Zealand’s most vulnerable young people. We are working hard to ensure the whānau of the young people at the centre of this are kept informed and included as we support police to complete their investigations.
It is no secret that Oranga Tamariki residences have their problems. We know that there is a need for significant improvement, and that improvement needs to be led by someone who is coming in fresh but with significant experience, which is why Mike Bush has been appointed. Mike is here to make sure that all our residences are operating safely and that they are fit for purpose. We have legal obligations to maintain residences for young people who commit crimes. We are already working towards moving away from care and protection residences towards community-based care. The Government’s expectation is that these places are safe, supportive, and rehabilitative, and we need to understand the full picture to understand what work is needed.
As I’ve said, the allegations raised today are very concerning, and I am pleased that OT has acted swiftly to address them. There is significant work under way to transform Oranga Tamariki. It knows it has work to do, and myself, as the Minister for Children, I have made my expectations clear. We are starting to see the results, but it’s not a fast or easy road, and we know children must come first. There will never ever be an urgent debate asked for to discuss the tens of thousands of children that Oranga Tamariki helps every single year to stay out of care.
One area of change has been to start transferring decision making to communities. We know communities have the solutions. A key part of the change under way at Oranga Tamariki is to enable communities to support tamariki and rangatahi to stay with family wherever possible. Oranga Tamariki continues to make fundamental changes in its approach to practice to better meet the needs of children and families, and to allow social workers to work in complementary ways to iwi-, Māori-, and community-led approaches. Trials under way across the country to test out a new practice framework have been met with positive results and feedback from social workers, and there are early reports of whānau and communities noticing changes in the way social workers are working with them.
Funding shifts have also begun to reflect this approach. Iwi and Māori organisations received $155 million last year, up from $55 million in 2017. Funding from recent Budgets has allowed Oranga Tamariki to be flexible and innovative in the partnerships space, setting up the foundations for transformational change. So far, nine prototypes across Waikato, Taumarunui, Ōtautahi, Te Tai Tokerau, and Heretaunga are participating in the Enabling Communities initiative. They are developing, planning, and leading their own prevention and early support prototype, rather than Oranga Tamariki making the decisions. Of the nine prototypes, six are at the stage where they are actively undertaking service design.
Te Ara Mātua was launched in Hawke’s Bay in April and is a Ngāti Kahungunu-led approach to provide support and care for tamariki and their whānau living in Te Matau-a-Māui. It is about putting resources and decision making at the hands of communities so they can lead the solutions for their tamariki and whānau. An example of this transformation is the prototype of the Enabling Communities work within Hawke’s Bay. Te Ara Mātua aims to provide services and support to keep tamariki and their whānau out of the Oranga Tamariki system and to return those tamariki currently in the system to the protection of the whānau, hapū, and iwi. Under the korowai of Ngāti Kahungunu, whānau with lived experience of Oranga Tamariki continue to guide the design and the development of the model.
OT is also working closely with other agencies, and we’re making changes in the youth offending space. Late last year, the Government announced the “circuit-breaker” response to address serious repeat offending by a small group of children aged 10 to 13. The fast-tracked intervention means that when police apprehend a child, information must be shared with Oranga Tamariki within 24 hours and a plan for the child confirmed in 48 hours. Hopefully, this will keep those young people out of residences.
The fast track involves establishing local coordination teams working across Government, community organisations, and iwi, which take over receiving police referrals once set up. The response was launched in West Auckland and South Auckland, with an expansion to central Auckland, Hamilton, and Christchurch announced as part of this year’s Budget. This evidence-based approach works. In South Auckland and West Auckland, only 26 percent of children have been re-referred by police.
It is initiatives like this that will help transform the way we care for our children in need across the country. The Government is committed to ensuring the safety and wellbeing of tamariki across the country, both in and out of Oranga Tamariki residences. The decision Chappie Te Kani has made to appoint Mike Bush and get to the bottom of what’s going on was the right one, but there is no quick fix.
In 2022-23, Oranga Tamariki responded to over 50,000 reports of concern. Between the 2018 financial year and the 2022 financial year, the number of children in care reduced by 25 percent, from 6,316 to 4,722. We now have the lowest number of children and young people entering care since 2004—the lowest since the inception of Oranga Tamariki. In the last four years, the number of tamariki in care, as I’ve said, has reduced by over 25 percent. Between the 2018 financial year and the 2022 financial year, the number of uplifts has reduced by 73 percent, from 1,473 to 402. In the last five years, the total funding given to Māori providers increased by 168 percent, from $54.5 million to $146.1 million. [Interruption]
They’re asking what we have done. We have found out about the allegations. We have appointed Mike Bush to get to the bottom of these things. Now, they’d be sitting there screaming if nothing was done; the fact that something has been done immediately—
Matt Doocey: Well, you haven’t told us what you’ve done.
Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Well, you didn’t listen to the first half of the speech, and that’s your problem.
The National and the ACT Government established Oranga Tamariki, and it was failing right from the outset. It has taken me, as Minister, to actually start making the changes. It’s taken me, as Minister, to start handing over resources and decision making to communities. Every single day—every single day—we were hearing complaints about Oranga Tamariki, and now that’s dried up. That was dried up carefully, but there will be every now and then something like this, where a staff member lets the rest of the team down. But that party over there had no answers when they were in Government—absolutely no answers. They changed the system, but it failed.
Christopher Luxon: Going political on a day like today? No, not good enough.
Hon KELVIN DAVIS: “Mr Tesla” there—“Mr Tesla” is pointing the finger—
SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! Yeah, I’m going to make a ruling. When you’re referring to another member in the House, you need to refer to them in their correct name. You can’t have nicknames.
Hon KELVIN DAVIS: I withdraw and apologise. This Government has been turning around what was a disgrace set up by the National Government in 2017. This Government—this Government—has reduced the numbers—
Nicola Willis: On your watch—six years.
Hon KELVIN DAVIS: —of offences. She can sit there screaming as much as she wants at me, but the reality is that Oranga Tamariki is a better organisation than it was under the National Government when they established it. The numbers I’ve just said about the reduced numbers of children entering care—that’s evidence.
Matt Doocey: This isn’t about that. It’s about when they are in care, how you keep them safe.
Hon KELVIN DAVIS: That is evidence—yeah, but the best way to care for children in residences is to make sure they don’t get to the residences in the first place. But you are the Government that wants to arrest more and throw more people into residences, into prison. That’s the problem—that is the problem. The more children you put in there, the worse things are going to be, not just now but into the future. It is a disgrace that the National Party is sitting there and they are saying that they can do things better when their history is about failing children—
Nicola Willis: You failed them.
Hon KELVIN DAVIS: —failing young people. Nicola Willis’ party is the party that failed young people, and this is the party that is making the improvements to Oranga Tamariki. They can say what they want as much as they want. The reality is that their track record has been a record of failure in terms of protecting children.
One final point I’d like to make: there has been a reference to the royal commission of inquiry and saying that we are repeating the things that have happened in the royal commission of inquiry. What happened over the 50 years of the royal commission of inquiry was systemic and it was enduring. This shows, because the incidents happened very recently, Oranga Tamariki has acted immediately. It shows that this is not systemic, this is not enduring, and this is not long-going.
Oranga Tamariki has taken steps to get to the bottom of this problem, and that’s what Mike Bush will do. I commend the Chief Executive of Oranga Tamariki, Chappie Te Kani, for acting quickly, for acting swiftly to make sure that we get to the bottom of it and that these sorts of things do not happen again.
Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): I am sure that every member in this House when the news broke this morning of five children in the care of the State being taken advantage of and sexually abused—your heart drops to the floor. But having been in the House and listened to the Minister responsible, I feel as if my heart has been ripped out, squashed, and torn apart, because not once did that Minister take responsibility. Not once. And not once did he apologise or show any inclination of the care and protection and the duty he has to every single child in a youth justice facility or in State care. Not once—not once. Instead, he turns around and makes the lowest form of defensive attack. And that’s exactly what we saw. Instead, what we should have is humanity for those five children, and I am deeply concerned that there are others to come.
And I want to say why I’m even more concerned about it—because the first thing the Minister said was he knew about it on 8 June. What’s the date today? It’s the 21st. How many sleeps have children in care been at risk because the Minister waited until the spin was lined up before being willing to be held accountable for his job, which is to protect—to protect—the children in State care? Now, I want to acknowledge my colleague Karen Chhour for her address to this House, because she more than anyone in this Chamber knows exactly what she is talking about, and for every child that has been in or is in State care, Oranga Tamariki has one job—one job—and that is to keep them safe from harm.
Let’s just for a moment have a think about those children. The Minister wants to crow about numbers. He wants to crow about the fact that there are fewer children in State care than there were when Labour came in. Actually, I don’t care about the numbers. I care about those children being safe. So is it that they are safer because they have been taken into State care, or is it that they are being safe while they are in State care? Both of those things matter—the numbers don’t. The primary purpose has to be for Oranga Tamariki children’s safety and their safety from harm. So it’s about care and protection. It is crazy—the words “care and protection” is what the care and protection units are. I know there will be many New Zealanders who, like many on the side, feel absolutely crushed right now to know that we have a Minister for Children who doesn’t see his top priority as the safety of children. And I want to reflect back on the work that Paula Bennett did. I went to multiple public meetings with the green paper, with the white paper. Some of my colleagues who were in Parliament at that time remembered how harrowing—how harrowing—those discussions were. That’s what led to the creation of the Ministry for Vulnerable Children.
So these five children are the most vulnerable. And a child in State care, any child in a youth justice facility, has a level of vulnerability that most of us cannot even imagine. And we know that there is a Minister who is responsible who spent most of his 15 minutes—well, a big chunk of it; the last five—attacking this side of the House—bizarre—and the majority of the rest of it talking about process and systems. No, Minister, we want to know and New Zealand wants to know that you have a heart, that you have a commitment, and that you take responsibility for the children who are in State care.
But, unfortunately, some of this could have been predicted. When every party in Parliament other than Labour vehemently opposed changes to the oversight of Oranga Tamariki, unfortunately the writing was on the wall. But you do hope. You do hope that what you are most afraid of isn’t realised. But that’s what’s happened. That’s what happened on 8 June, when the Minister was first alerted. But no, we wait until the 21st, because then they’ve got their ducks lined up and they’ve got someone investigating and it makes it look as if they’ve got it under control. Well, guess what! They haven’t got it under control. I have not heard that we have a Minister who is taking the care and protection of those children seriously, and I think that should be deeply, deeply alarming to New Zealanders.
I want to reflect back on the oversight of Oranga Tamariki legislation. One of the organisations that was set up in Paula Bennett’s time and then transferred to Anne Tolley was VOYCE - Whakarongo Mai, to make sure that those children and young people who were care-experienced had a voice and that we made sure that they were at the heart of any changes to the system. Well, guess what! When the oversight of the Oranga Tamariki system legislation was before Parliament, they were ignored. And so, unfortunately, what we have now seen is more harm to a group of children who are already incredibly vulnerable and who have experienced more in their short lifetimes than most of us will ever experience in our entire lifetimes.
We have a duty of care of the highest level to those children, and so it is frustrating to be in the House today and to have heard completely and utterly empty words from the Minister. Not once did I get a glimpse of his heart and his care, and I want to just actually point out that the values of Oranga Tamariki are “We put tamariki first.” I didn’t hear that today. I didn’t hear that in 15 minutes. Not once. So where are the priorities? The Minister for Children should focus on care and protection, and the first job—the first job—of the Minister for Children is to do no harm to the children in his care. I’ll say that again. They are in his care. And whether there’s 1,000 or 5,000 is irrelevant. Every single child counts and is owed a duty of care, from the Minister to the chief executive to every single staff member. And when there is an issue, the expectation of those young people, of their families, of our communities, of our country is it will be dealt with urgency, not however many days later.
And for those who have heard some of stories from the royal commission into the abuse in State care, they are harrowing. They are absolutely harrowing, and it is unacceptable to the public of New Zealand that harm continues to exist. So here we go again. Here we go again. We are focused on the children, but instead what happens? The Government uses it as an opportunity to attack. Not once did the Minister say sorry. Not once.
The priority should be on each and every one of those children in State care, and whether they are in the care and protection units or whether they are in a youth justice facility is irrelevant. They deserve the highest level of care and protection. And under this Government yet again, it is an area Labour has failed to deliver to our most vulnerable. It is appalling and a disgrace.
JAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m finding this debate actually quite difficult to listen to, to be honest. I genuinely believe that this has been distressing news for everybody in this House. I recognise that it’s unacceptable and a breach of the Crown’s responsibilities to young people in our care and protection system, which includes youth justice, and that, actually, we all have a role in terms of that oversight. I want to be very clear that a harm to those children and to their whānau is a harm to all of us, and I want to communicate that to the people who caused this harm that we are standing with those children while due process, of course, is followed.
I really just want to say my love to those kids and their families, because this is a really, really hard time. I also want to acknowledge that this will be a really triggering event for people who have been submitting to the royal commission, who have been telling us really clearly that they are standing up and sharing their stories to prevent this happening to any more kids. Our words in this discussion matter in terms of the message that we are sending to everybody who is being impacted right now and historically.
I just wish we could ensure that our kids were safe. It’s our job to do that, right? When they’ve been removed from unsafe environments into our care, it’s our job to make sure that they are safe. And this isn’t the first time—I want to acknowledge Karen Chhour and her impassioned speech and acknowledging that we’ve all been part of this debate more than once. I have been part of this debate with different parties in Government.
This is not the first time, but every time I want it to be the last time, because I do not want our kids to have to keep experiencing this. And while one case of violence in a residence is too many, there has been a pattern of abuse in youth justice residences. And, you know, today, we’re finding out about five children who’ve been abused by Oranga Tamariki staff working in youth justice and care protection residences at two different residences within the last year. That is my understanding of what we know at the moment.
In 2021, we found out that staff were using excessive force and assaulting children at Te Oranga in Christchurch, which resulted in Sir Wira Gardiner, who was head of Oranga Tamariki at that time, closing the facility down, and details from an Office of the Children’s Commissioner report into Palmerston North youth justice home Te Au rere a te Tonga showed young residents had made serious allegations and complaints about staff there, too, including disproportionate excessive force during restraints; inciting young people to fight with staff members; bullying, swearing, humiliating, and yelling at young people; hitting them in secure units and their bedrooms.
So this is all within recent times. We know that part of the problem is the set-up of these institutions that are legacy institutions and that the incredibly vulnerable young people, and they may be young people who have been removed from homes for their safety or from young people—who we so often hear vilified in this House as being a risk to others; usually there is significant overlap of those young offenders who go into youth justice residences almost always have histories of abuse where they have been taught their violence as an essential way of trying to survive in a very violent world—that we also have responsibility for.
And you put those young people into residences, away from connection and community and external eyes. We know from international evidence that there is a higher risk of people going to work in those places, actually; without really strong protections in place, there is a higher potential for abuse of power and for violence being done to those children.
It was pleasing to hear that we were going to be closing these residences. I do have questions that I do need answered at some point because, you know, almost—in 2021, I had a conversation with the Minister about the closing of those residencies and the time frame for that and an acknowledgment that those residencies are really badly designed and problematic and a safety risk in themselves.
We are seeing that that work—I really want to know what actions have been taken to provide more supervision, oversight, and support for staff working in those residences and what investment, if any, has been made into those youth justice residences to make them safer and to enhance the wellbeing of children there.
Because the reports from Treasury last year indicated that there was an under spend of 43 percent of Budget 2019 funding for youth justice resilience upgrades. It may seem like I’m talking about something other than the immediate safety of those children, but the design of those buildings actually can enable abuse or they can protect against it. So those upgrades are an important part of this conversation and there does need to be direct accountability for that as there is accountability in terms of investigating these.
We’ve also heard that Judge Eivers, the Children’s Commissioner, said that events under investigation came to light from an unannounced visit to her office. I really want to know if this is true, and, if yes, what does this say about our system of protection for young people that they have to go to the Office of the Children’s Commissioner to report rather than other members of or managers in those residences? Because when I think on that too much, it just really, honestly, disturbs me that these kids who were experiencing this harm did not feel that anybody in those residences would protect them. That is disturbing to me, and I hope that that is a part of the investigation about actually what do we need to do to ensure that all of those people are seen as safe people for our young people if something happens.
It also speaks to an issue that has been raised about the opposition to the Oranga Tamariki oversight bill and that splintering of oversight and the removal of the multiple roles of protection from the Office of the Children’s Commissioner.
I think the fact that these young people went to the Children’s Commissioner is another evidence to me of why we were opposing that bill, because, actually, the Children’s Commissioner, again and again, we’ve been told is trusted by whānau and our kids. We’ve seen here, if we are to ensure that there’s a protection and a backup and that we do not ever get into a situation where the royal commission is examining at the moment of the failure to protect and take action when harm has been done, we need trusted people and we need our system to be set up around the people that our children tell us they trust, that our whānau tell us they trust. And so this feels to me as if it is more evidence about us needing to relook at that policy.
I also want to know whether the claims of sexual violence experienced by young people within residences are filtering up through the system and what the process for that is and where in the Oranga Tamariki future direction planned actions which will prevent and eliminate sexual violence and physical violence within the residences—because we need it. And I don’t accept that this should continue. I do not accept, either, that the Government is showing they don’t care, because there actually was a response, and I do want to acknowledge that—the royal commission told us that that hasn’t been happening. We need it, but we need all of the questions to be answered and for all of us to be accountable.
ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. It gives me no pleasure to stand today to talk on this matter. I want to first of all acknowledge Karen Chhour for the mamae that she has brought to this House today, for the pain and the distress that I heard in her voice, and also for all of us here who are experiencing that because no one—let me be 100 percent clear—ever wants a child to be harmed. No one ever, ever wants a child to be harmed.
I want to also acknowledge Jan Logie for her speech as well. I think it was reasoned and I think it brought some more decorum to the House at a time that I think we need to not play politics. This is a serious matter—five children—and we need to, quite simply, acknowledge that this has happened, to ensure that it never happens again, and in that circumstance what I have to say is that I am very pleased that Mike Bush has been appointed and will be working through this process. There is a process to be worked through. It is serious.
I understand the children, the young people at the heart of this, have been given support to deal with this matter—something they should never have had to deal with, but I understand there has been wraparound support services for those children. I also understand that Mike Bush is doing a wide-ranging inquiry into this matter. I also understand, and my apologies, I was not aware of the circumstance until the debate was called, so my understanding is that it was actually two staff members who whistle-blew this matter, who actually raised issues and concerns about their work colleagues, and that was how this matter was raised and identified.
We all want to ensure the safety of children. We all want to make sure that children are safe and, as boring and unfortunate as it sounds, there must be policies, procedures, and processes that are set in place in these organisations that ensure our children are safe. I can’t say it any more plainly than that. There must be systems in place, and I have to say that in this instance it appears very much that there were not, and I am incredibly sorry for that. And I know that we all are incredibly sorry for that.
I want to also just acknowledge that these places that we put these young people are not places that we would want any of our children to go. These are not the places that we should aspire for our children to end up. The Minister spoke today about the things that we are doing with Oranga Tamariki, the community response that we are having. It is my hope, in the future, that we don’t have youth justice facilities for our young people and that we don’t have these facilities where these young people are put. But it is community that uplifts and wraps around our children and protects them, and it is a community response that we have as opposed to the State needing to intervene.
And so I do say that I am so very sorry that I am here, as the member Jan Logie said, speaking again on a matter of this nature, but I think that we need quite simply to do better and that we should do better. There is nothing more to say, quite frankly, except that this House, and I believe I speak on behalf of all members of this House, are incredibly sorry that this has happened to these children, to their whānau, and to our community, and I ask that we, each and every one of us, respond in a way that is fitting for the House at a time when this awful event has occurred.
HARETE HIPANGO (National): First of all, Mr Speaker, I acknowledge you for allowing the House to address this under urgent debate, recognising the importance of this and the priority that not just this House but New Zealand and New Zealanders must give to the importance of the care and protection of all of our children—but most especially our children who are the most vulnerable, who have been abused, traumatised, damaged, institutionalised and put into the care of the State. We’ve heard today that the State has failed in its duty of care to five vulnerable, abused, traumatised, and damaged children. They aren’t the first—the question is, will they be the last? Mr Speaker, I acknowledge you for the dignity that you have allowed the importance of this debate to be addressed and raised in the House under urgency.
Like the former speaker Angie Warren-Clark, I heard of this news belatedly. A number of us have been in the Social Services and Community Committee since early this morning, and it was on leaving that that news broke and we became aware of this event, and that these allegations that the Minister for Children disclosed in the House today came to his knowledge on 8 June: this month; this year. According to the news media reports, Chappie Te Kani, the chief executive of Oranga Tamariki, has said that on Wednesday, two staff members have been removed in relation to the alleged inappropriate sexual behaviour, and it’s reported that he said he was informed of the allegations in the past week—in the past week—yet we have a Minister for Children disclosing in the House that he became aware of these allegations on 8 June 2023; today is 21 June 2023. I pose the question: will this be the last time that our most vulnerable, who are placed into the care and protection of the State to care and protect them—will this be the last time?
On 30 June 2021, the then chief executive, Sir Wira Gardiner, commenced an investigation into excessive force in youth justice residences, and here we are, two years later, almost to the day—there are further victims of abuse in our State agency. I’m particularly perturbed—it’s not just significantly important and it’s not just five children who have been subjected to further abuse. I know, and a number of us know, that these kids go into these institutions because they have been damaged. Having been a youth advocate, going into those institutions and working alongside our children, I know the trauma that many of them have suffered before going into the very place that should provide that blanket of protection for them. But I am seriously concerned and perturbed that we have a Minister for Children standing in this House, devoid of compassion for those children, pointing the finger across the House, playing the politics. The politics must be taken out of this, and the priority has to be about how we collectively—not just as a Parliament, but as a society, as New Zealanders—put the priority and shift the culture of our country to cherish our children; tiaki our tamariki. They are taonga; why are they continually subjected to this ongoing culture of being treated as second- and third- class citizens?
Mr Speaker, thank you for allowing and indulging us the opportunity to raise and to lift the importance of this issue under this debate of urgency. Distressing; appalling; repugnant; repulsive; abusive; despicable. And I speak not just as a member of Parliament, I speak not just as a former youth justice advocate; I speak as a mother, and if that was one of my children—but they are the children of five whānau, of a community; they are children that were in the State care and protection, and this continues to happen.
Had it not been for the Children’s Commissioner having the power and authority to visit unannounced into a youth justice residence—or residences; it’s not known how many; it is known that there are five children where allegations have been made and disclosed as a result of the Children’s Commission Office going in unannounced, conducting inquiries and investigations. I look over and I see my colleague Matt Doocey, spokesperson for mental health. I know as a former district inspector of mental health, having the power and the authority to go into these institutions unannounced, to conduct investigations and inquiries is so very important to keep the balance of power there, because we have people, we have children in these institutions where they are powerless. They are in the protection, supposedly, of the State, of the authority—all the more reason that the Minister for Children should be acting with a measure of compassion, a measure of care, a measure of articulating that the State has a responsibility and duty of care and a legal responsibility to ensure our children are protected. Instead, I bore witness—along with everybody else in this House and those who are watching from the TV world—to a Minister who stood there and pointed the finger across the House. Where is the compassion in that? Where is the accountability? Where is the acceptance of responsibility? A Minister is in that position, irrespective of which Government or which party. Let’s take the politics out of this and position and put our children at the forefront.
We had legislation in this House earlier this year and last year, called the Oversight of the Oranga Tamariki System—Act, it now is. This Government has failed to act in putting the priority, in putting the best interests and welfare of our children at the front, first, and foremost. And I continue to advocate in this House, as I’ve always done, on child welfare legislation or bills proposed in this House that the Government has overlooked. It has had oversight and put its politics before the welfare, the best interests, the paramountcy of those principles and legal responsibilities for our children. What must come out of this is accountability, and for this Government—for the Minister for Children—to stop standing there pointing the finger and remonstrating and saying “we need to look inwards; we need to make things better.”
In closing, Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to debate this, because it is urgent. It is a priority, and we collectively, as parliamentarians, must ensure that the welfare, best interests, care, and protection of all children but especially those who are in the State institutions of care are, first, front, and foremost, protected and cared for.
SHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can I open, this afternoon, by acknowledging the situation that has happened. It is a national travesty when our tamariki aren’t protected within a system that we all collectively in this House are trying to improve.
I reflect on the debate this afternoon and, while I think you do a wonderful job in this House, it must be a difficult decision at times whether a debate in this House on such a topic, one that is so sensitive, is the best way to air the challenges and issues at hand. I reflect—
SPEAKER: You shouldn’t bring me into the debate.
SHANAN HALBERT: And I reflect on the contributions in this House today and ask ourselves: is this the best contribution that we can make as politicians when we think about the future of our tamariki, when we think about the future of Oranga Tamariki, and an issue that over generations and decades this country has tried to resolve?
I’ve listened to the contributions from across the room this afternoon, and I ask every politician in this House to take a step back, to humble ourselves for just a moment, albeit the political excitement of the day. I hear from across the House calling out a Minister for pointing his finger. Yet, at that part of his speech, 11 minutes into it—11 minutes—the Opposition had shouted over him; had shouted over him, acknowledging the issue, talking about what action had been taken by Oranga Tamariki on a very, very serious allegation.
Politicians in this House did not listen, and I am going to hold you to account for that. If you want to hear an answer, if you want to hear an explanation, then as politicians we have to listen in this House. We must listen, because, on such national travesty in this country, collectively we’ve got to work together to address it. I hold the Opposition to account when they were the Government. They didn’t deliver for these tamariki—they did not deliver for these tamariki. And, no, we haven’t got everything right, but the steps that we have made while in Government are progressive.
When I went to visit a youth justice home, just last week, in my electorate, I met with young people, met with people who are doing work to get our rangatahi on the right pathway—people that see them as Māori, people that see them as Pasifika, people that see them for who they are, not people that the Opposition is encouraging to be colour-blind. We want our tamariki to be who they are, but, most of all, we want them to be protected.
I just want to take a moment to acknowledge all the staff that are working at Oranga Tamariki—that, collectively, take ownership of protecting our tamariki in their care—every person that works with young people in this country, in our youth justice system, that works and strives and slogs their guts out to protect every young person that is in State care. And absolutely there is more work to do, but anyone in this House that thinks this is easy or wants to run down the staff of Oranga Tamariki is inappropriate. Harete Hipango, you need to listen to people’s speeches, because the Opposition ran down staff. I want to acknowledge every staff member that supports children and rangatahi in State care, because they are the people that matter. Our young people and our children rely on them. Let’s work together. Let’s humble ourselves.
MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Thank you very much Mr Speaker. I have a lot of respect for Shanan Halbert—
Harete Hipango: Shanan, me whakamā koe [you should be ashamed].
Shanan Halbert: Kei a koe. Kei a koe. Whakarongo ki te kōrero. [That’s up to you. That’s up to you. Listen to the statement.]
SPEAKER: Order! Sorry to interrupt. This is not question time, OK. Members who have spoken in this debate about the volume and the type of interjections and then participate in it should think again about it.
MATT DOOCEY: Thank you very much Mr Speaker. I have a lot of respect for Shanan Halbert, but I must say he is better than that, and he will regret that speech on the Hansard. That was absolutely appalling, and a common theme of the Government speakers in this urgent debate this afternoon.
I’d like to start by acknowledging Karen Chhour for bringing this urgent debate to the House. What is more important of Parliament’s time than to be highlighting an issue that we learnt about today? Because the reality is these young people are our young people. As a parent, we do not know what’s ahead of us in our lives. Any of our young people through unfortunate life experiences can end up in State care, and it’s paramount that Parliament, and that the Government, and that State make sure that their best interests are at heart. And that’s why it’s important today that we have this urgent debate. Because in my view the importance of an urgent debate is to ensure New Zealanders that this issue is being taken seriously—there is accountability, there is responsibility, that we give this country confidence that issues like this are being addressed, and we work hard to ensure that they’re prevented from happening again.
So here we had the Minister responsible—and let’s be very clear because it will be recorded on the Hansard—that during a time that he was there to assure the public, to give them confidence that he understood the issues that we are debating today, and he was taking action and being accountable and responsible, he took the opportunity to take political hotshots—wanted to raise the political issue of maybe the Leader of the Opposition potentially buying a Tesla under the Clean Car Discount.
Harete Hipango: Despicable.
MATT DOOCEY: Disgusting. Indefensible that the Minister responsible took the opportunity to take the time, off the eye off the ball of this debate, to get into the weeds, and get into the gutter of political potshots. Because what this urgent debate has shown today is that Minister has absolutely failed in his ministerial role. He gives the young people in Oranga Tamariki care—he gives, actually, the staff in Oranga Tamariki care absolutely no confidence in his ministerial responsibility and accountability. It was his time as a Minister to step up and let people of New Zealand know that he understood the issues.
Go back to that speech and tell me: where was the compassion? Where was the understanding? Where did he demonstrate that he knew what was happening on the ground for those young people? Where did the Minister articulate the actions that he had taken? He was very quick to talk about expectations but didn’t outline what expectations he has. When did he talk about what instructions he had given the chief executive of Oranga Tamariki? Nothing. Where was the plan going forward?
This is the role of an urgent debate, to highlight an issue—for the people responsible to step up, be held to account, and give New Zealanders confidence that this is being prevented from happening in the future. Because there is real concern here today. We learn of inappropriate sexual behaviour for two young people, but we find out over the year: five young people. This is concerning, yet we had a Minister get up, show no real compassion to the issue, and then read a script out from the bureaucrats. Mr Speaker, those young people deserve better.
ANAHILA KANONGATA‘A (Labour): It is everybody’s expectation that every child and young person in the care of Oranga Tamariki should be safe, should feel safe, and be supported. I want to acknowledge Karen Chhour, who brought this urgent debate to the House, but I want to take this opportunity to cover three things. One, I will talk about the people that are involved; secondly, the steps that have taken place; and, third, learn from these experiences.
I have worked in Oranga Tamariki for quite some time—30 years—as a social worker, as a supervisor of social workers, as a youth justice manager, as an adviser, and I found myself here in 2017. The process, the people involved—so I want to acknowledge the young people and their families who are involved. I want to acknowledge the staff who saw that something wasn’t quite right and reported it.
Incidents that happen like this involve interviewing the young people along with the police, because it then becomes an evidential police interview. So I want to acknowledge everyone that is involved—the staff, the social workers that have to inform the parents that this has happened. I want to acknowledge all the residents. Even though five young people have been identified as being affected, even though there were five, two staff members, the whole residents, the whole community are affected. Every one of those people who started work last week, today, last month, last year has the same expectation as we all have: that every child and young person in their care should feel safe, be safe, and be supported.
I want to acknowledge the leadership that has taken the steps that have been taken so far. The former commissioner, Mike Bush, I met him when he was leading the Prevention First programme in South Auckland, which led to the whole of the changes in the Police. I want to acknowledge the leadership that have chosen the right people to look at this because, as I mentioned before, police and Oranga Tamariki have to work together and have been working together.
I want to acknowledge the former chief social worker, Shannon Pakura, who is working alongside Mike Bush to get to a place that we can identify without all these emotions that we hear in the House, who can actually take a clear head and come back to the fact that children should be safe and should feel safe when in the care of the State.
We’ve listened to all the experiences in this House and from the member herself, Karen Chhour, and to former lawyers. We’ve listened to everybody’s contribution in this House. But we will take comfort that the people who are now in charge of reviewing the residences have been given a time frame of four to six weeks to begin implementing any outcomes they get from this review. I want to acknowledge that I take peace from that. But I go back to the first part of my contribution about the young people, about the people involved in the residences, the young people that will be interviewed by more than one person, will be interviewed by an evidential video interviewer. Well, that’s what happened when I was last in Oranga Tamariki in 2017.
I want to acknowledge the families who received the news that this has happened to their young people, because they, just like us, expect their children to be safe. I want to acknowledge the staff who are involved in this, their supervisors. I pray that they have the right guidance to be able to support their staff so that they’re able to serve the children and young people in their care.
Social work is a calling and those in this profession do not for one minute start the day thinking that they would be harming children. In the rare moments that—we are now receiving—this has happened, I just want to acknowledge the spirit that these staff are in when they attend work, that they go to work and that they’re fully supported. For our children and young people to feel safe and be safe in the care of Oranga Tamariki, we must also make sure that the staff providing the services feel safe and are supported.
What I’ve seen today from the chief social worker, Chappie Te Kani, the steps that he has taken, he has chosen the right people to lead this—Mike Bush, Shannon Pakura—and they have made every intention in what we’ve read in the media that they’re going to consult everybody who needs to be consulted.
I want to end my speech saying that I’m comforted in reading what the chief executive had said, that he has provided the support to ensure that the young people in care feel safe and are being provided with the right support. Again, I want to acknowledge and thank Karen Chhour for bringing this matter for urgent debate in the House, and acknowledge every young person, child and young person that’s been taken into care, has been removed from their family. I, as a person who has never had to be removed from my family, will never understand that. I want to say that I will never understand it, but we will try our best to do that.
As I started my speech, like everybody in this House and like all of New Zealand, we expect our children, young people who are in the care of the State, Oranga Tamariki, to feel safe and be safe and be supported. I look forward to the review by Mike Bush and supported by Shannon Pakura. Mālō ‘aupito.
The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.
Business of the House
Business of the House
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Leader of the House): Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave for the House to now move to Government order of the day No. 1, the Ngāti Paoa Claims Settlement Bill, and that this be followed by the general debate, and for the House to then return to Government orders of the day as listed on the Order Paper.
SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.
Bills
Ngāti Paoa Claims Settlement Bill
First Reading
Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I present a legislative statement on the Ngāti Paoa 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 Paoa Claims Settlement Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Māori Affairs Committee to consider the bill.
Tākiri mai ana te ata ki runga o ngākau mārohirohi, kōrihi ana te manu kaupapa, ka ao, ka ao, ka awatea. Tihei mauri ora. E mihi ana ki a koutou kua tau mai nei i runga i te karanga o te kaupapa o te rā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. E mihi ana ki te hunga mate, haere, haere, haere atu rā. Ki a tātou te hunga ora, tēnā tatou.
Tēnei au, tēnei mātou te Kāwanatanga e mihi ana ki te kaupapa o te wā. Ngāti Paoa, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.
[Dawn breaks upon a resolute heart, the bird chorus of this issue now sings, a new dawn leads to the full light of day. Vitality and health to all.
Thanks and greetings to you all who have responded to the call of this issue to be here today. I acknowledge those who have passed, may you rest in peace. And to us who remain, welcome one and all. I, indeed we the Government, acknowledge the present issue. Ngāti Paoa, greetings and thanks to you, indeed to us all.]
It was just over two years ago that I was welcomed on to Wharekawa Marae in Kaiaua to sign the Ngāti Paoa deed of settlement. I’m very pleased that this settlement is now making progress through the House and that I’m able to speak in support of this bill today at its first reading. I’d like to welcome members of Ngāti Paoa, who have travelled to be present at Parliament for this occasion of the first reading of their bill—it has been my great pleasure to host you here today.
I’d like to begin by acknowledging and paying tribute to the generations of Ngāti Paoa who have sought justice for their people, and the many members of Ngāti Paoa who have passed away and could not witness today’s event. In particular, I pay tribute to Morehu Wilson, a negotiator from Ngāti Paoa who, alongside his close friend and whanaunga, Hauāuru Eugene Rawiri, led this settlement until he sadly passed away after deed signing. I acknowledge Morehu’s whānau, in particular his wife Louise and sons Caleb and Josh. Moe mai rā, e te rangatira. [Rest in peace, noble leader.]
I also want to acknowledge the Ngāti Paoa Iwi Trust as the post-settlement governance entity for Ngāti Paoa, who have been entrusted with taking this settlement forward on behalf of the iwi to realise their aspirations for the future.
On the Crown’s side, I acknowledge the leadership of the chief Crown negotiators, Michael Dreaver and the Hon Rick Barker. I acknowledge my predecessor, the Hon Chris Finlayson, for his significant contribution to the Ngāti Paoa Treaty settlement. I also want to thank my ministerial colleagues, Crown agencies, and local authorities for the support that they have given to this agreement, to this settlement, and, indeed, to this day.
Negotiations with Ngāti Paoa began in 2011, when iwi members gave a mandate to negotiators to progress a comprehensive historical Treaty of Waitangi settlement with the Crown on behalf of Ngāti Paoa. An agreement in principle was reached in July 2011. Following approval by Ngāti Paoa iwi members, the Ngāti Paoa deed of settlement was signed in March 2021. Reaching this milestone hasn’t been without its many challenges. Ngāti Paoa, you have demonstrated perseverance and much patience on this difficult journey.
In 1840, Ngāti Paoa rangatira signed Te Tiriti o Waitangi—the Treaty of Waitangi—in Tāmaki-makau-rau and Coromandel. In those years, Ngāti Paoa saw opportunities to trade with Pākehā, and, after Auckland was established as the capital in 1841, Ngāti Paoa supplied that settlement with produce. However, the Crown didn’t live up to its obligations under the Treaty nor the promises of that sacred document. From as early as 1841, the Crown acquired Ngāti Paoa land without payment, did not set aside reserves for Ngāti Paoa to live on, and did not fulfil promises to set aside lands for schools and hospitals.
During the wars of the 1860s, the Crown invaded Ngāti Paoa lands. In 1863, the Crown caused the death of Ngāti Paoa people when the HMS Miranda shelled the village of Pūkorokoro and Crown forces attacked a number of Ngāti Paoa people without warning. Following the conflict, the Crown confiscated lands in which Ngāti Paoa had interests; in the Waikato, east Wairoa, and the Tauranga confiscation district. Subsequent Crown land acquisition, the operation and effects of the native land laws, and public works takings led to the alienation of much of Ngāti Paoa’s remaining land, maunga, and awa, and the destruction of pā and wāhi tapu. Crown actions severed connections with ancestral whenua and left Ngāti Paoa virtually landless. A decline of Ngāti Paoa tribal structures and the loss of te reo Māori contributed to a loss of Ngāti Paoa mātauranga.
Responsibility for those things sits at the feet of the Crown. This settlement is grounded in the Crown’s acknowledgment of this history and the Crown’s apology for its breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi. The Ngāti Paoa Claims Settlement Bill will give effect to the Ngāti Paoa settlement package. This settlement includes total financial and commercial redress of $23.5 million; cultural redress, including the return of 12 sites of traditional, historical, and cultural significance to Ngāti Paoa; an overlay classification which acknowledges the traditional, cultural, spiritual, and historical association of Ngāti Paoa with certain sites of significance; agreements with a number of Crown agencies; and statements of association acknowledging Ngāti Paoa’s association with and asserting spiritual, cultural, historical, and traditional values in relation to 13 areas of significance to Ngāti Paoa.
While no settlement can ever fully compensate for the injustices Ngāti Paoa has experienced, today marks a new beginning in the restoration of the relationship between Ngāti Paoa and the Crown based on mutual trust, cooperation, and partnership. I sincerely hope that this settlement will support a prosperous future for Ngāti Paoa for many generations to come. I propose the bill should proceed without delay to the Māori Affairs Committee. I commend this bill to the House. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.
JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. It is a pleasure to rise as the Opposition’s spokesperson for Treaty negotiations to speak on this bill. My apologies to those in the gallery that I wasn’t able to meet earlier; there was fog in the South Island, which delayed me getting here until a very short time ago, but I’m pleased that I’m able to be here now for this auspicious occasion.
The Ngāti Paoa Claims Settlement Bill is intended to be the final settlement of all historical Treaty claims of Ngāti Paoa resulting from acts or omissions by the Crown prior to 21 September 1992, and is made up of a package that includes an agreed historical account and Crown acknowledgments which form the basis of a Crown apology to Ngāti Paoa; cultural redress, including the vesting of 12 sites in the Ngāti Paoa area of interest; financial redress of a total of $23.5 million; and a commercial redress involving the purchase of some Crown properties.
Ngāti Paoa are a maritime people who trace their origins to the Te Arawa and Tainui waka. Their area of interest includes Mahurangi, Tāmaki-makau-rau, the Hauraki Plains and Gulf Islands, and parts of the Waikato. The 2018 census estimated that Ngāti Paoa had 4,800 members.
Back in 2009, the Crown proposed a regional approach to four Treaty settlements to iwi and hapū, including Ngāti Paoa, with interests in the Kaipara, Tāmaki-makau-rau, and Hauraki regions. I want to acknowledge the work done, as did the Minister before me, of the Hon Christopher Finlayson—the work that was done previously, over different terms of Government, to come to this moment we are at here today. I also want to take the opportunity to acknowledge the Minister Andrew Little, who has also done a lot of work to get this bill to where it is today, and the officials, Crown agencies, local authorities, and of course Ngāti Paoa—all the members. It is a big moment for them today.
Between 2009 and May 2010, the Ngāti Paoa claimants elected two interim negotiators to enter into Treaty settlement negotiations on their behalf. In 2011, the Crown recognised the mandate of the Ngāti Paoa Trust Board to negotiate the settlement of the historical Treaty of Waitangi claims of Ngāti Paoa. The Tāmaki and Hauraki collectives were established with the purpose of negotiating collective redress for shared interests in Tāmaki-makau-rau and the Hauraki regions, respectively. The third collective, the Marutūāhu collective, was also established to negotiate collective redress in Tāmaki-makau-rau for the shared interests of five of the 12 iwi of Hauraki.
In 2012, the Crown and the Tāmaki collective signed the Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau Collective Redress Deed, and in 2018, the Crown and four of the five Marutūāhu iwi initialled the Marutūāhu Iwi Collective Redress Deed. The purpose of this bill is to recognise that in 1840 a number of rangatira of Ngāti Paoa signed Te Tiriti o Waitangi, the Treaty of Waitangi, in Tāmaki-makau-rau and the Coromandel. After Auckland was established as the capital in 1841, Ngāti Paoa supplied that settlement with produce. In 1841, the Crown purchased 6,000 acres at Kohimārama and 220,000 acres at Mahurangi and Omaha from Ngāti Paoa and other iwi. No reserves were made in those lands. In the 1840s and 1850s, the Crown retained approximately 90,000 acres of land in which Ngāti Paoa had interests as surplus from pre-Treaty transactions and pre-emption waiver transactions. This included approximately 78,000 acres in south Tāmaki, which had been purchased by a missionary in 1836 and 1837.
In July 1863, the Crown invaded the Waikato when its forces crossed the Mangatāwhiri. Some Ngāti Paoa rangatira expressed their loyalty to the Crown, and other Ngāti Paoa resisted the occupation of their lands. In October 1863, the HMS Miranda shelled the Ngāti Paoa village Pūkorokoro, and in December, a Crown militia made a surprise attack on a group of 40 to 50 Māori, including some Ngāti Paoa, near Paparata in East Wairoa. In December 1864, the Crown proclaimed confiscation blocks in Waikato and Pokeno, and in East Wairoa in January 1865. Ngāti Paoa had interests in the 51,000-acre East Wairoa confiscation block and in the Central Waikato confiscation district which included Maramarua and Pūkorokoro. The confiscated lands included Kohukohunui and Rataroa, Ngāti Paoa’s sacred maunga. No land was returned to Ngāti Paoa in that confiscation block. Between April and June 1864, the Crown conducted military operations against Māori in Tauranga Moana. After the conflict ended, the Crown proclaimed a confiscation district of 214,000 acres, and in 1868, a further 76,000 acres were added to that district. Ngāti Paoa had interests in lands which were included in the confiscation district.
In 1865, the Crown promoted legislation which introduced the native land laws, under which title much Māori land was individualised. The individualisation of title made Ngāti Paoa lands more susceptible to alienation. Much of their land on Waiheke and on the Wharekawa Coast was sold to private purchasers in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Crown purchasing activity from the 1870s also led to the alienation of much of Ngāti Paoa’s land, including 45,000 acres at Piako.
Over the course of the 20th century, almost all of Ngāti Paoa’s remaining land was alienated to private purchasers and the Crown. Some land was taken under the Public Works Act. Those public work takings sometimes resulted in the destruction of pā and wāhi tapu. In 1908, the Crown authorised a project to drain and develop the Hauraki wetlands. Over the following decades, the Crown altered the waterways, drowned the wetlands, and changed the course of the Waihou and Piako rivers.
By the end of the 20th century, only 27 percent of Ngāti Paoa spoke te reo Māori. The decline of Ngāti Paoa tribal structures and the loss of te reo Māori contributed to a loss of Ngāti Paoa mātauranga Māori. In the 20th and 21st centuries, Ngāti Paoa generally experienced poorer health, including lower life expectancy and higher infant mortality. Ngāti Paoa also experienced higher unemployment than the general population, and a lower median annual income.
This bill cannot solve all of those things that have happened in the past. What it can do, though, is return to Ngāti Paoa the relationship between Ngāti Paoa and the Crown, which is incredibly important; return to them the acknowledgment of their mana; and return a future for their children and those who come after, who we all want to have a better life.
I do acknowledge there have been some who have contacted me, and others, with some concerns about this bill. They will have an opportunity at the select committee hearing to voice those concerns and they will be given a fair hearing at that point. So with that, I support this bill at this first reading, and I commend the bill to the House.
ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Tuia ki te rangi, tuia ki te papa, tuia te ira atua, te ira tangata. Ka rongo te pō, ka rongo te ao, Paoa ki uta, Paoa ki tai. Kia pono, kia tika, kia aroha, kia tau iho mai ngā manaakitanga ki runga i a tātou. Haumi e, hui e, tāiki e. Tēnā koutou katoa. Ngā mihi mahana ki a koutou, ngā uri o Ngāti Paoa i te Whare, te Whare o tātou.
[Bind the heavens and the earth, bind divinity and humanity. It is heard by night and by day, Paoa on the land, Paoa at sea. Be honest, be fair, be compassionate, so that we are safe and protected. It coalesces, it comes together, it is done. Greetings to all of you. Warm regard to you, the descendants of Ngāti Paoa in the House, this House of ours.]
It is my privilege to stand and to mihi to Ngāti Paoa, who are in the gallery today, as the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee. It is that committee that will begin this important process of examining this bill, of hearing from submitters about their concerns around it and about the specific parts of it which give effect to the Ngāti Paoa settlement deed, but most of all—and the privilege of being a member of that committee—hearing about the aspirations and the hopes of generations to come of Ngāti Paoa who will benefit from this settlement.
I began with that takutaku, which acknowledges first the canoe of Ngāti Paoa, Te Kotūiti. It provides the conceptual framework for the deed of settlement which this legislation gives effect to, and it’s been a long time coming. These negotiations have been going on for many, many years, and before that they have a complex history, which always should have been acknowledged.
As an Aucklander, may I say that I am glad that we have a piece of legislation here which acknowledges the complexity, the overlapping interests, and the depth of history in Tāmaki-makau-rau and those other regions that Ngāti Paoa has an interest in. I look forward to examining those interests in the committee, as my colleague Joseph Mooney across the House has alluded to. But for today, can we say that those interests that Ngāti Paoa has in Tāmaki-makau-rau needed always to be acknowledged by the Crown, and in this piece of legislation they are given their mana and they are given acknowledgment, and in the shared history that will become law, may we acknowledge those associations that your tūpuna have had with our whenua.
I want to acknowledge some of the people who have been involved in this. The Minister was right to first acknowledge Morehu Wilson, the negotiator who, very sadly, we lost before the passing of this legislation. Can I also acknowledge others who have contributed much to this work, including Hauaru Rawiri—thank you for your contribution. It is a contribution that will be felt by generations of not only your uri but those who live in Auckland, in Tauranga, and in the islands who will benefit from the contribution to public life that Ngāti Paoa has to give.
Can I also acknowledge the newly elected trustees since September 2022, and I will name you: chair Herearoha Francis Skipper, deputy chair Mihingarangi Forbes—kia ora kōrua—and councillors Kerrin Leone, James Ratahi, Tania Tarawa, Tui Tawera, and Mystique Townsend. What an all-star cast of governors who have been elected to the trust board, and can I say that I look forward to watching Ngāti Paoa’s developments that come from the ability, with this settlement legislation, to develop those regional relationships that you need to advance the interests of the iwi within the North Island.
May I also offer congratulations for the developments and the new office in Panmure ō Mokoia, where on that whenua, in 1780, the chiefs Te Putu, Ngaro ki te Uru, Rongomaurikura, and Nohowaka established themselves on the Tāmaki River. Those are important sites for all Aucklanders, but it seems just and right to me that Ngāti Paoa should have a base there in which to conduct its operations in Auckland. All Aucklanders can be proud of that and proud of the achievements that are to come from the office.
I wanted also to touch on, for the House’s interest, the settlement negotiation history that it has taken to come to this point. My colleague Joseph Mooney began by talking about June 2009, when the Crown proposed a regional approach to Treaty settlements in Tāmaki-makau-rau, but, as you all know, the work has gone on for much longer than that. When we look back on the recent history of Treaty settlement development and Treaty jurisprudence, Ngāti Paoa has had a huge role in developing our law and the way that the Crown should progress Treaty settlements as a good and honest partner. In 2009, that agreement by the Crown to progress a collective settlement came out of many years of Marutūāhu, of nga iwi o Hauraki, and many others who have an interest in Tāmaki-makau-rau, coming together and asking the Crown to consider how it dealt with whenua and not just commercial redress but cultural redress that goes along with it when many iwi have an interest.
Tāmaki-makau-rau has always been the precious jewel in Aotearoa. As a proud South Aucklander, I can say it is the best whenua. It is the whenua that our tūpuna wanted us to occupy, and yours did, around many different places around the rohe, as did many other iwi and tūpuna who have been recognised there for many, many years.
It’s important to acknowledge that when the Crown approached those settlements that it was considering in the early 2000s, it had a very different approach to how it would do collective redress, how it would do negotiations with smaller iwi, and how it would get those voices of the people who would largely benefit from the settlements to the table. The Minister reflected upon this very recently in his Estimates hearings, which my colleagues on the Māori Affairs Committee were privileged to be a part of. He said that he was the beneficiary of many years of jurisprudence that has led a different way of Crown engagement, and that that Tāmaki collective redress process, which at the time drove division within iwi, has contributed to a different kind of approach from Te Arawhiti. The approach now that we see is a crossing of the bridge between the Crown and Māori. I am proud of the work that Te Arawhiti does today, and much of that is informed by the way that in those years iwi like Ngāti Paoa came to the table and said that it’s not good enough to advance only an outcome, but we have to do the process right. So thank you for the contribution that Ngāti Paoa has made to that.
I want to finish by saying there are many, many parts of this settlement which are important to the House, but I will pick just one. In the 1920s, Awataha urupā was occupied by a small number of Ngāti Paoa members—that’s on the North Shore of Auckland—and it was a place that the Crown saw as suitable for an arrangement with the Roman Catholic Church for education purposes. In 1924, a dispute arose over the land and in March 1925, seven members of the iwi were arrested and imprisoned in Mt Eden jail. Later, the Crown decided to acquire a section of that land for an oil storage facility, and the poet Hone Tuwhare—who was a good friend of my father—wrote this poem to acknowledge the disgust and the hurt that he felt in seeing the disinterment of that urupā and the removal of the bodies to make way for development by the Crown, in his lifetime. He wrote,
In a splendid sheath
of polished wood and glass
with shiny appurtenances
lay he fitly blue-knuckled and serene:
hurry rain and trail him
to the bottom of the grave
Flowers beyond budding
will not soften the gravel’s beat
of solemn words
and hard sod thudding:
hurry rain and trail him
to the bottom of the grave
Through a broken window
inanely looks he up;
his face glass-gouged and bloodless
his mouth engorging clay
for all the world uncaring
Cover him quickly, earth!
Let the inexorable seep of rain
finger his greening bones, deftly.
Those moments in our history where we acknowledge that the Crown has done wrong are important in our history as New Zealanders, as we understand the way that we can do better now. That was a poem from 1960. These things aren’t ancient history for us, and it’s important for this House, when we acknowledge the hara, the mamae, that people of Ngāti Paoa today still feel and the atonement that we can all make for those, that they are real and present in people’s minds, just like that poem. Tēnā tatou.
Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you, Mr Speaker. What a pleasure and a privilege it is to welcome representatives of Ngāti Paoa, who have travelled a long distance here to the Parliament to experience and witness the first reading of this special piece of legislation that has been so long in getting to this place. I want to set the record straight at the outset; usually, when we have Treaty settlement debates, there is consensus across the House, but the last speaker, Arena Williams, got it wrong—she got it very wrong, and as the member of Parliament for Coromandel I need to say that the very best part of the Ngāti Paoa rohe is actually on the Firth of Thames, in the fine part of the Coromandel electorate. So, wearing that hat as the member of Parliament for Coromandel, I welcome you once, twice, thrice to this place. It’s an important and historic day for you all no matter which part of the rohe you consider to be the best part of the rohe.
This has been a long journey, and I regret to advise there are actually still several steps yet to go. But the first reading of a Treaty bill is an important marker, because it brings to this House, the House that represents the Crown as Treaty partner, a process that will now go to the Māori Affairs Committee, and you’ve just heard from the select committee chair. So the issues, the history, the mana, and the drama that is both historic, current, and aspirational for the future will be debated and discussed in detail by the members of that committee, and that’s a good and appropriate process. It’s a slower process than I think any of us would want, but it’s an important part of the process because that’s where we get to open up to the issues that still confront some members of the Ngāti Paoa whānau that still are unresolved, that still are the cause of some angst and do need further discussion and further resolution. So I know that my colleagues who sit on that select committee will be listening carefully and will be wanting to hear debate, discussion, and history about what has happened and how it’s happened and where it’s gone and, what’s more important, where it is going.
Even as recently as today, I’ve received correspondence—as my colleague Joseph Mooney has indicated—from people wanting to litigate and to discuss and to debate the issues that are outstanding. Well, those issues will be debated and discussed and they will be, I hope, resolved satisfactorily, because it’s important that after so long and after such a long journey that this piece of legislation gets passed by this House and, I would hope, sooner rather than later.
I well recall as a relatively new MP visiting the Mangatarata volunteer fire brigade. It wasn’t the fire brigade, it was just a public meeting that happened to be held in the fire brigade building, so what I’m about to say was not reflective of the fire brigade, let me assure you of that; those volunteers do a particularly good job for our community. But there was a public meeting in the brigade station house and there was public concern that I needed to hear because I had been invited as the member of Parliament because there had been a decision by, I think, the Geographic Board to allow the name Pūkorokoro to be used instead of Miranda.
There were some people in the local community who were upset by that decision and said, “Why is that so? It’s always been called Miranda. Why can’t we keep calling it Miranda?”, and it wasn’t until I was able to describe to some of those people present who felt somehow uncomfortable and awkward about the use of the term and the name Pūkorokoro rather than Miranda, and to explain the history of that and to explain the history of the terrible act that was inflicted upon Ngāti Paoa people at Pūkorokoro, at the pā, at the marae, by HMS Miranda, where a vessel of the Crown, of the Royal Navy, came into the Firth of Thames and then fired cannon into the marae and into the pā. There was death, there was desecration, and there was harm and damage that was done, and then they had the audacity to sail away having inflicted that terrible crime, to sail away then and rename that area Miranda in the name of that vessel. That was wrong.
So today I often, and whenever I can, proudly use the term Pūkorokoro, because those of us that know that history and who did not know that history until relatively recent times need to understand that that is just one—just one of the issues that can’t be put right completely, but through a process of a Treaty settlement, legislative action will, I hope, bring at least some cause for reflection and some cause for an ability to move on.
So acknowledging that there are still some unresolved issues, but acknowledging also that this has been a long journey, not today just physically but it’s been a long journey emotionally and it’s been a long journey historically. Some of those people that embarked on that journey so long ago are no longer with us, and as other speakers and colleagues around the House have acknowledged, I wish also to acknowledge their passing and their contribution to getting us to where we are today. But there’s still more work to do. We still have some way to go. There are still steps to be taken, and I know that today marks an important and historic step along that pathway.
So it’s with very great pleasure that as the member of Parliament for the best part of the rohe of Ngāti Paoa, I welcome representatives here today, wish you well, safe travels home, but be very proud of the fact that you are here for this auspicious, historic, momentous proceeding in this Parliament. Kia ora.
Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister for Māori Development): Thank you, Mr Simpson, for that great speech. Maybe now you can support the bilingual signs strategy that we all talked about and that you forgot about two weeks ago—engari, that’s probably not in the spirit of the occasion. But I probably could go on about your nonsense in terms of health also, but I might leave that for my mate Rawiri Waititi over there.
Engari e mihi ana ki a koutou, Ngāti Paoa, i tae mai nei ki te whakarangatira i a mātou i tēnei wā. Rawe! Rawe ki te kite i a koutou. Mihi nui ki a koutou.
[But I acknowledge you, Ngāti Paoa, who have arrived here to honour us at this time. Awesome! Awesome to see you. Many thanks to you.]
Lovely to have you all here today, and my apologies for missing the pō’hiri and the whakatau. You’ve already heard some of the statistics and some of the background. I only want to take a short call, because I’ll talk more in the second and third readings, but I do want to acknowledge some of the kōrero that apparently was put out earlier.
Apparently, one of the koroua said that this is only peanuts in terms of a settlement. That will be true—that will be true—and the reality is, and I talk about this quite often, our people are put into a real bind during the Treaty settlement process. When it was first put in place, as we will remember, back around 1995, I recall our mate Tāme Iti and the protests that were going on with regards to whether the settlements really reflected a justice in terms of the loss in terms of Māori. As we all knew then, we were clear that the settlements would not be, because $1 billion was the figure put on the table, and we knew that could never reflect the loss. So, to our koroua who said it’s about peanuts, that would be true.
But, despite that, we had learned koroua like Tā Tipene and Tā Robert Mahuta, who knew there wasn’t much choice—you know, you either take the deal or you get nothing. If you look back at where they were at, it was $170 million on the table even though the loss was $15 billion to $18 billion in terms of Tainui and Ngāi Tahu. That was the actual loss—$15 billion to $18 billion. Those rangatira, I think, as we all know, thought, “Well, you take the money or you get nothing.” They took the money, and look where those two tribes are today.
So it’s a bind for us as a people, because the Crown comes to the table with all the negotiating power and our people are in a bind. We’ve got our whānau—my own whānau—who said, “No, no, no, you don’t settle.” Then you get our pragmatists and our other rangatira, like Tā Robert and Tā Tipene, who said, “No, we have to get on with this. We have to make a start.”, and look where Tainui and Ngāi Tahu are today.
So, yeah, no, Māoridom is used to settling on peanuts—that’s the reality. That’s how those tribes became so fantastic today. That’s why kōhanga reo is strong. That’s why iwi radio is strong. That’s why Whakaata Māori is strong. It’s just the reality—
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, Mr Jackson, if you could now be strong on the bill, please.
Hon WILLIE JACKSON: That’s all part of the bill, Mr Speaker—that’s all part of the bill—and what I am trying to say to our people up here is learn the lessons of what happened in the past.
Let’s come to the bill, and let’s also realise the amount of problems that the tribe had to go through, with Ngāti Whātua opposing this tribe, to start off with. I remember well Rēnata Blair opposing this—Ngāti Whātua have got to have everything, you know, and it was good that things were worked out. Things all worked out, because other people have interests, as this group do, and in the end we saw those two groups coming together and forging a strategy going forward. So I am pleased that that was worked out with Ngāti Whātua.
So that’s opposing groups, and then, of course, we have to deal with our whanaunga within the tribe, which I think is going on now. Again, that’s the flaw with our Treaty settlement process, but until we have something else, we have to forge on with what we’ve got.
So I mihi to all the whanaunga who have come here today to tautoko this kaupapa, even though they might not be ecstatic about it. It’s $23 million, and I’m sure that they can build on that but—even more importantly—work with their own to find a way and find a rautaki, find a strategy, where people can work out where they’re going, how they can contribute, and how everybody can be part of the settlement going forward.
Those are a lot of challenges in front of our group today, and I’m looking forward to following up on this and to seeing whether we’re being fair as a partner, in terms of this kaupapa. I want to work alongside Andrew Little to make sure that we fulfil some of our obligations. So mihi nui ki a koutou. Good to see you all here today. Tēnā anō tātou katoa.
NICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I stand on behalf of the ACT Party to speak to the Ngāti Paoa Claims Settlement Bill, standing in support of the deed of settlement reached on 20 March 2021 between Ngāti Paoa and the Crown.
I’d like to acknowledge at the beginning of my speech the Ngāti Paoa Treaty settlement negotiators Morehu Wilson, who I understand tragically passed away two years ago; his wife, Louise Wilson, who is in the gallery representing him and the whānau; Te Hauaru Rawiri, who may also be in the gallery today; and the current Ngāti Paoa Iwi Trust chair, Herearoha Francis Skipper, and deputy chair Mihingarangi Forbes. I also acknowledge the representative body for Ngāti Paoa in the Ngāti Paoa Iwi Trust, who are here today in Parliament.
Ngāti Paoa are a maritime people, a waka people, whose customary territory is connected more by water than by land. Their rohe runs from Te Hoe o Tainui near the Piako River, as it runs northwards through the Hauraki Plains to Wharekawa and Kaiaua on the western firth of the Thames to Kawakawa Bay, north of the Hunua Ranges and the nearby Waiheke and Ponui islands. Ngāti Paoa occupied the lands around the Tāmaki estuary and Auckland; in particular, an area from Panmure to Kōhimarama. They also had lands on the North Shore and up the Mahurangi Coast, including at Tiritiri Mātangi Island, all connected by water.
Ngāti Paoa chiefs signed the Treaty of Waitangi on 4 March 1840. Immediately afterwards, Ngāti Paoa engaged closely with the new Government, which was established in Auckland in 1841. Like other Auckland iwi such as Ngāti Whātua, Ngāti Paoa transacted lands which allowed for European settlement and ultimately the growth of Auckland as a city. However, the Crown failed to set aside sufficient reserves for Ngāti Paoa, which in time made it very difficult for iwi to maintain a physical presence in the growing city. Later, during the New Zealand Wars of the 1860s, Ngāti Paoa had lands confiscated both in the Hunua Ranges and as part of the Waikato confiscation. One notable event during the war was the naval bombardment and attack on a Ngāti Paoa village at Pūkorokoro, situated at the south-west coast of the Firth of Thames. After they landed, colonial forces built a redoubt there and named it Miranda after the naval vessel. In time, the name Miranda stuck. It is certainly fitting that in 2015 the New Zealand Geographic Board recommended a change to dualise the name to Pūkorokoro/Miranda.
All Treaty settlements do have a unique aspect to them, reflecting the negotiation priorities of the iwi, the specific nature of the grievances, and what the Crown is able to offer. For Ngāti Paoa, I’m told that the standout feature of the settlement is the provision of cultural redress of land for a marae and papa kāinga at Point England on the Tāmaki River.
As I said, Ngāti Paoa transacted lands with the Crown after signing the Treaty in 1841, but no reserves were created for them and their physical presence as part of the growing city of Auckland was largely denied. This redress allows Ngāti Paoa to re-establish themselves as an active part of the Auckland community today, and there will also be a benefit of increased housing supply, which we all know is much needed. The settlement includes other cultural redress that helps reconnect Ngāti Paoa with their wider customary territory, including the transfer of lands at Kaiaua, Waiheke Island, and Tiritiri Mātangi Island.
Importantly, the settlement includes an apology from the Crown for its failure to protect Ngāti Paoa from the rapid alienation from their land in the decades following the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi—an apology for the loss of life and the devastation that was caused by hostilities.
Commercial aspects of the settlement should provide opportunities for Ngāti Paoa to grow their financial position. They will have returned to them 12 culturally significant sites, along with financial and commercial redress valued at $23.5 million. There will also be a wide range of other commercial, cultural, and relationship items making up the redress package.
I understand that 90 percent of those who voted for this deed of settlement from Ngāti Paoa voted in support. They may still be some issues. ACT’s hope is that any unresolved issues are addressed during the select committee process, which will begin after this first reading is completed. And with that in mind, ACT supports the first reading of the Ngāti Paoa Claims Settlement bill and wish our whānau all the best in getting this redress sorted. Kia ora.
TEANAU TUIONO (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I begin by also correcting the record, like many MPs around the House. Yes, Coromandel is beautiful and there are beautiful places in Tāmaki-makau-rau—but Chlöe Swarbrick assures me that the most beautiful place within the Ngāti Paoa rohe is the mighty Waiheke Island. I just wanted to place that on the record.
Ngāti Paoa ki uta, Ngāti Paoa ki tai, nau mai, haere mai. Nau mai, haere mai ki tēnei o ngā Whare. Tāku nei he tāpiri atu ki ngā whakatau o te mana whenua i whakatau i a koutou i tēnei rā. Nau mai me ō wawata, nau mai me ō kōrero ki tēnei o ngā Whare Pāremata. Ko au anō tēnei e tū ana me te kōrero mō te Pāti Kākāriki. He mema hoki au nō te Komiti Whiringa Take Māori. Nō reira ā tōna wā ka haere mai koutou ki waenganui i a mātou ki te kōrero, ki te tuku i ngā kōrero hītori, ngā kōrero whakawhanake i ā koutou nā kaupapa. Nō reira e mihi ana.
E mihi ana ki a rātou mā kua roa te wā i pīkauhia tēnei kaupapa. Nō reira e tautoko katoa i ngā mihi ki a Morehu Wilson, otirā ki tōna whānau ki konei. Tēnā koutou katoa.
Rātou ki a rātou, otirā koutou anō i whakakanohi i ō rātou nei manako i tēnei rā, ka mihi.
E mihi atu hoki ki ngā tiamana hou o poari: Herearoha, Mihingārangi, tō tiamana tuarua. E mihi ana ki tō koutou nei ngākau mō te whakawhanake i tō iwi, otirā ngā āhuatanga i hāpaitia, ngā āhuatanga o te taiao.
Me mihi au ki ngā hononga huhua o Ngāti Paoa, ngā piringa ki a Marutuahu, ngā piringa ki a te Arawa waka, otirā ki a koutou e whakapapa ana ki te pū o Waikato, ki a Tainui. E te Pīka, i te wā o te whakatau i haere mai tō rātou nei kaikōrero me te mea atu he tuakana-teina a Paoa me Mahuta. Heoi, tēnā pea he whakaaro anō tō Minita Nanaia Mahuta, heoi anō nā koutou anō tēnei pire nō reira mātou ngā Kākāriki e mihi tuakana atu ki a koutou i tēnei rā.
Ko tō rātou nei whakapapa kei waenganui i ngā rohe o Waikato, Tīkapa Moana, ngā whenua whakatipu o te iwi e torotoro atu ai i te pito uru o ngā mānia o Hauraki, tae atu ki Tāmaki-makau-rau. I nōhia anō e Ngāti Paoa ētahi o ngā moutere o Tīkapa pēnei i a Waiheke.
I a au e pānui ana i te pire, i kite au i te maha hoki o ngā raru, ngā ngau kino nā te raupatu o te whenua, te haere o ngā pū, ngā hōia o ngā Pākehā i tērā atu nā rautau. Kua raupapahia te katoa.
I te tau o te hainatanga o te Tiriti o Waitangi, ko ētahi o ngā rangatira o Ngāti Paoa i haere ki Tāmaki ki te haina i te Tiriti. E ai ki te kōrero, he iwi whakarite māra, he iwi tauhokohoko, āhei rātou ki te hari i ō rātou nei umanga ki te tāone ki te hoko atu i ā rātou nei huawhenua ki ngā Pākehā ki Tāmaki. Nō reira e mihi ana ki tērā o ngā āhuatanga.
Heoi anō kua kaha tau te kino ki runga i a rātou nā ngā pakanga whenua, nō reira e mihi ana ki ngā āhuatanga, ngā kōrero i tukuna mai, ngā pōuri, ngā ngau kino ki Pūkorokoro. Kāore au i te mōhio kei reira tonu taua ingoa, ko te Miranda, nā tana hara atu ki a koutou, heoi anō me mihi atu ki tērā o ngā hītori hei oranga anō o te katoa, ā tātou tamariki mokopuna, otirā mō te katoa e noho ana ki Aotearoa nei.
Ki roto i ngā āhuatanga anō, i tāhae whenua anō ki Pōkeno me te rāwhiti o Wairoa i ērā atu o ngā wā. I whai pānga a Ngāti Paoa ki te poraka raupatu i te rāwhiti o Wairoa. E ai ki te kōrero, nui atu i te 50,000 eka te rahi, me te rohe raupatu ki te pokapū o Waikato. Kei roto hoki a Maramarua me Pūkorokoro. Ēnei whenua raupatu a Kohukohunui me Rataroa, ngā maunga tapu o Ngāti Paoa.
Haere te wā, i pānuihia ētahi o ngā āhuatanga o te Karauna anō, i te mea i tae ngā pakanga ki roto o Tauranga Moana. He wāhi anō tō Ngāti Paoa ki roto i Tauranga Moana, nō reira kei reira anō tētahi mea e ngau kino ana te iwi.
I te roanga atu o te rautau 20 i hokona atu tata ki te katoa o ngā whenua e toe ana ki a Ngāti Paoa ki ngā kaihoko tauiwi, ki ngā kaikaunihera ā-rohe me te Karauna i raro i te Ture Mahi Tūmatanui, e kīia nei e te Pākehā ko te Public Works Act. Ia te wā i haere au ki te tū mō te kōrero mō ēnei momo pire, ka kaha puta mai tērā ture, te Public Works Act. Ētahi wā i haramai te Karauna me te tāhae me ā rātou nei pū i te whenua o te Māori, ā, ētahi wā i haere mai me te ture, ngā ture pērā i te Public Works Act. Nō reira me mōhio mai tātou ko tērā ngā āhuatanga i tau ki a Ngāti Paoa anō hoki.
Ki roto i te pire ko ētahi o ngā kōrero i rangona ki roto o ētahi atu o ngā whakatau kerēme, ko te ngaro haere o te reo, te ngaro haere o ngā mātauranga Māori, me te whakaaro ake anō hoki me kaha tātou ki te whakarauora i te reo, me kaha tātou ki te whakarauora i tō tātou nei mātauranga Māori i te mea kei te noho tātou, mō tātou ngā Kākāriki, ki roto i te horopaki o ngā pōraru o te āhuarangi, ngā pōraru o te matemate haere o ngā tini koiora o te moana, nō reira me kaha tātou katoa ki te hoki anō ki te whakatō anō i tērā mātauranga, ā-reo mai, ā-mātauranga mai. Nō reira ka mihi atu au ki tērā wāhanga ki roto ki tēnei o ngā pire.
Ki tō mātou nei, Kākāriki, tēnei mea te Tiriti o Waitangi ehara i te kirimana. Ehara i te kirimana, ehara i te kirimana noa, he kawenata. He kawenata i tūāpapa kia āhei te katoa e noho ana ki runga i te pae ki te ora ki Aotearoa nei. Nō reira tē taea te kī atu kua settled kē tēnei, te Tiriti noa. He wāhanga anō ka taea e tātou te wānanga i ngā kōrero, ki te matapaki i ngā kōrero. Nō reira ahakoa ngā aupiki me ngā auheke, i a au e pānui ana i tēnei pire, he maha hoki ngā auheke, ā, ko tētahi mea i kite au ki roto i ngā tukanga whakatau kerēme ko ngā hītori, ko ngā kōrero e āhei ana ki te tuku iho ki ā tātou nei tamariki, ki ā tātou nei mokopuna. Ētahi wā ka tae tērā kōrero tuku iho ki te Pākehā, nō reira e mihi atu ki a koe, me te whakaaro atu i pupū ake te māramatanga ki ngā āhuatanga ki Pūkorokoro. He aha te take i tapaina ai tērā ingoa, Miranda, ki runga i tērā whenua? He oranga tērā mō tātou katoa, tēnei mea te mōhio.
Ki a mātou nei, ki a mātou ngā Kākāriki, he pai tēnei mea te wānanga, he pai tēnei mea te matapaki kōrero. He pai anō tēnei mea te taupatupatu kōrero. Mōhio tātou te Māori, ko tērā te āhua o tō tātou nei marae.
Ki roto i ngā āhuatanga o ngā Whiringa Take Māori, haere mai. Nau mai, haere mai me ō koutou nei kōrero. Nā, mātou ngā mema o tērā komiti, tā mātou mahi ko te areare o ngā taringa ki te whakarongo, me pēhea kia paku nuku, neke ngā waeture, ngā ture, he aha rānei ki roto i te pire kia tau ngā āhuatanga katoa.
Kāre e kore he nui ngā kōrero nā reira ka tāpui a Chlöe ētahi wā, ka haere mai ētahi o koutou nō Waiheke. Tēnā pea ko ia tō mātou nei kanohi o ērā nā wāhanga o te Komiti Whiringa Take Māori.
Heoi anō, koia anō mātou ngā Kākāriki, e haere mai ana i runga i te tautoko, i runga i te whakarongo ki ngā kōrero, nō reira tēnā koe, otirā Ngāti Paoa. Tēnā koutou, otirā tō tātou nei Whare. Tēnā tātou katoa.
[Ngāti inland, Ngāti Paoa to sea, welcome, welcome. Welcome to this one of our Houses. I’d like to add the welcome of the people of this land who welcomed you today. Welcome with your aspirations, welcome with your comments to this House of Parliament. I stand here again to speak on behalf of the Green Party. I am also a member of the Māori Affairs Committee. So at a future time you will come among us to speak, to share your historical narratives, your stories of development of your own initiatives. So I acknowledge you.
I acknowledge those who have long carried this enterprise. So I absolutely support the acknowledgements of Morehu Wilson—indeed, his family that are here. Greetings to all of you.
May they rest in peace, indeed you who represent their hopes today, greetings.
I acknowledge the new chairpersons of the board: Herearoha, Mihingārangi, your deputy chair. I acknowledge your heart for developing your people, indeed that aspects that were promoted, the aspects of the environment.
The many connections of Ngāti Paoa should be acknowledged, the relationship with Marutuahu, the relationships with the Arawa canoe, indeed you who have genealogical ties to the centre of Waikato, to Tainui. Mr Speaker, at the time of settlement their representative came and said that Paoa and Mahuta are senior and junior siblings. However, perhaps Minister Nanaia Mahuta has a different opinion, but this is your bill, so we, the Greens, greet you as the senior sibling today.
Their genealogical ties within the regions of Waikato, Hauraki Gulf, and the lands where they are raised, stretch from the western end of the Hauraki plains, all the way to Auckland. Some of the islands in Hauraki Gulf were also settled by Ngāti Paoa, including Waiheke.
As I read the bill, I saw the magnitude of issues, the anguish caused by the confiscation of the land, the expeditions of the guns, the soldiers of the British settlers during that century. It has all been documented.
In the year that the Treaty of Waitangi was signed, some of the leaders of Ngāti Paoa went to Auckland to sign the Treaty. According to the narrative, they were a gardening people, a commercial iwi, they were able to take their businesses into town to sell their produce to the settlers in Auckland. So I acknowledge that feature.
However much wrong doing was done to them due to the land wars, so I acknowledge that phenomenon, the narratives that were given, the sadness, the anguish at Pūkorokoro. I don’t know why that name is still there, Miranda, because of his sin to you, however it is appropriate to acknowledge that part of the histories for the benefit of everyone, our children and grandchildren, indeed for everyone who lives here in New Zealand.
Within these circumstances, more land was taken at Pōkeno and the east of Wairoa at that time. Ngāti Paoa had interests in the confiscation block in the east of Wairoa. According to the narrative, it was more than 50,000 acres in size, as well as the confiscation block in central Waikato. This also includes Maramarua and Pūkorokoro. These confiscation lands of Kohukohunui and Rataroa, the sacred mountains of Ngāti Paoa.
Over time, I read of some of the characteristics of the Crown, because war came into Tauranga Moana. Ngāti Paoa also have places within Tauranga Moana, so that is another source of anguish for the people.
For the duration of the 20th century, almost all of the lands that remained to Ngāti Paoa were sold to foreign buyers, to regional councillors and the Crown under the Ture Mahi Tūmatanui, known by Pākehā as the Public Works Act. Every time I went to stand and speak about this kind of bill, that legislation features, the Public Works Act. Sometimes the Crown came with their firearms to take the land of the Māori people, and sometimes it came with legislation, laws such as the Public Works Act. So we need to be aware of that phenomenon that befell Ngāti Paoa too.
In the bill are some statements that are heard within other claims settlements, the loss of the language, the loss of traditional Māori knowledge, and the idea that we should work hard to revitalise the language, we should work hard to revitalise our traditional Māori knowledge because we are situated, we the Greens, within the context of climate issues, and issues with the loss of biodiversity in the ocean, and so we should all return to planting that knowledge, both linguistic and academic. So I acknowledge that section within this bill.
To us, the Greens, the Treaty of Waitangi is not a contract. It is not a contract. It is not just a contract; it is a covenant. It is a covenant that is a foundation that enables everyone sitting on the land to live here in New Zealand. So it cannot be said that this is settled, the Treaty alone. That is something that we can all consider the information in, to deliberate on the information. So despite the ups and downs—as I was reading this bill there were a lot of downs, and one thing that I saw during the claims settlement process was the histories, the narratives that can be passed down to our children, and to our grandchildren. Sometimes those narratives are passed on to Pākehā, so I acknowledge you, and the idea that the understanding bubbled up concerning the situation at Pūkorokoro. What was that name, Miranda, given to that land? That is of benefit to all of this, this thing we call understanding.
To us, to us the Greens, consideration is a good thing, discussion is a good thing. Debating is also a good thing. We know, the Māori people, that is how things go on our marae.
Within the sphere of Māori Affairs, welcome. Welcome, welcome with your narratives. Now, we are the members of that committee; our job is to open our ears to listen how the regulations, the legislation, and whatever else can be moved and shifted so that all things can be settled.
Without doubt there are many narratives, so Chlöe will book in some time, and some of you from Waiheke will come. Perhaps she will be our representative on some of those matters of the Māori Affairs Committee.
However, we the Greens come in support, and to listen to the perspectives, so thank you, indeed, Ngāti Paoa. Thank you, indeed, our House. Thanks to all of us.]
TĀMATI COFFEY (Labour): Tēnā koe e te Pīka o tēnei Whare. Tūtawa mai i runga, tūtawa mai i raro, tūtawa mai i roto, tūtawa mai i waho kia tau ai te mauri tū, te mauri ora ki te katoa. Haumi e, hui e, tāiki e.
He mihi tēnei ki a koutou o Ngāti Paoa kua huihui mai nei i tēnei rā ki te hāpai i tēnei kaupapa, i tā koutou kaupapa. Anei tētehi uri o Te Ātiawa, o te Arawa waka, o Te Aitanga a Hauiti e mihi atu nei ki a koutou. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, mauri ora ki a tātou katoa.
[My thanks to the Speaker of this House. Materialise from above, from below, from within, and from the environment so that vitality and wellbeing settle upon everyone. Unified, connected, and bound together.
This is an acknowledgment of you from Ngāti Paoa who have assembled here today to support this initiative, your initiative. Here is a descendant of Te Ātiawa, the Arawa canoe, and of Te Aitanga a Hauiti that greets you. Thanks, greetings, and wellbeing to all of us.]
I’ve been thinking a lot, and things change in this House like you wouldn’t believe. I’ve been thinking a lot this week about the subject of race and the subject of ethnicity. It’s been a hot topic. We have talked yesterday quite a bit in the media, and in our own conversations. Maybe some of our whānau at home have been talking about the plight of Māori, actually, and whether or not the bad health statistics that we have are a result of us drinking too much, too much KFC, that kind of stuff. There is actually a demographic of the population out there that believe that it’s true. They don’t like hearing the uncomfortable truth about the history of Aotearoa—the really uncomfortable truth that the Crown set up systems and structures and courts and laws to completely marginalise Māori.
For that reason, it’s really sad, because there’s a whole demographic of New Zealanders out there that believe that Māori get too much. They think that Māori shouldn’t be put to the front of the queue to be able to deal with health inequities. They believe that Māori should jump in the line when it comes to housing and all those things that Government here attempt to try and do for Māori. But, unfortunately, sometimes in this House, especially, things get politicised and it’s kind of gross. It’s kind of gross, because, actually, what happens is that these kinds of conversations end up being like political footballs. They get kicked around, and especially in these years, like election years.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Can we come back to the bill.
TĀMATI COFFEY: Madam Speaker, I am talking about the bill. I want to refer to page 11, actually, of the bill, which talks to Ngāti Paoa’s plight. It says, in clause 8(8), “By the end of the twentieth century, only 27% of Ngāti Paoa spoke te reo Māori. The decline of Ngāti Paoa tribal structures and the loss of te reo Māori contributed to a loss of Ngāti Paoa mātauranga Māori. In the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, Ngāti Paoa, like other Hauraki Māori, generally experienced poorer health, including lower life expectancy … higher infant mortality, than Pākehā [as well]. Ngāti Paoa also experienced higher unemployment than the general population, and a lower median annual income.”
It’s really the point of all of this, because we heard in the whaikōrero earlier from the koroua from Ngāti Paoa who got up and addressed the room, and he spoke of the fact that what we’re talking about in terms of redress on this settlement is very, very small. Heck, there are houses in the plush parts of South Auckland and the Coromandel that cost as much as the settlement that you’re going to get as a result of the Crown trying to address this past wrong—there are. You know, again, it’s an absolutely uncomfortable truth, but I want to acknowledge you for still, despite that, despite the history, despite the historical account that my colleague Joseph Mooney read out before, despite all of that, despite the Crown taking your land, you’re still willing to go through this. You’re still willing to go through this, because there’s a sense of social justice that needs to take place in this.
The Crown, as represented by those of us in this House right now, we need to hear your story. It’s lovely that it’s written down here, and we need to talk about it a bit more, and we need New Zealanders to talk about it too, so that they have a deeper understanding of exactly what happened to Ngāti Paoa in the story of the history of Aotearoa.
I often say that, in this place, Treaty settlements are one thing, and when we finally get this out of the House and enable you to go on and start your journey post-settlement, I often ask myself, “What more can we do? What more can we do over and above the quantum? Over and above that, what more can we do to be able to help iwi such as Ngāti Paoa to be able to achieve their tino rangatiratanga?” To some of us, especially on this side, we believe that there are lots of opportunities, whether it’s in housing or health or co-governance opportunities, that the Opposition get really freaked out about. But there are opportunities in that, none the less, and I hope that through that—
Hon Willie Jackson: Disgraceful, really.
TĀMATI COFFEY: —over and above—my colleague down here, you just can’t turn him off. But there are opportunities. There are opportunities that are coming up. As long as I’m a Labour member, which isn’t for that much longer, but as long as I’m a member of the New Zealand Labour Party, actually I’ll continue to ask that question: what more can we do post-settlement for our iwi to be able to achieve their own tino rangatiratanga?
So I leave that today. I look forward to listening to some of the kōrero. I too sit on the Māori Affairs Committee, at least for the next three months. Then I look forward to watching one day, maybe from home with my little boy and my little girl in my arms, watching the third reading of your bill through this House, turning it into an Act and allowing you to move forward so that you can create a better future for Ngāti Paoa tamariki mokopuna kei te heke mai. [the children and grandchildren of Ngāti Paoa of the future.] Nō reira ki a koutou ngā rangatira, ngā kuia, ngā kaumātua kua huihui mai nei, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.
[So to you the leaders, the matriarchs, the patriarchs who have assembled here, my thanks and greetings to all of us.]
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Tama Potaka—a five-minute call.
TAMA POTAKA (National—Hamilton West): Nau mai Pūanga, nau mai Matariki. Paoa ki uta Paoa ki tai ki Mahurangi ki Ōmaha. Ki te Waitematā ki te Tōangaroa ki Waiōtāiki ki Te Pane o Horoiwi ki Taurere ki Tāoma ki Mauinaina ki Mokoia ki te puna o Mokoikahikuwaru ki te waipuna Rangiātea ki Ngā Pōito o te Kūpena a Taramainuku, hāunga ko Motutapu tēnā pea ka whakaiti a James Brown i ahau, kia āta haere. Heoi anō ki Te Ārai Roa ki te Waiheke a Kahumatamomoe ki Rātāroa ki Te Pounui a Peretū ki Pākihi ki Kāramuramu ki Kawakawa. Tatū atu rā ki Tāwhitokino ki Ōrere ki Pūkorokoro ki Wharekawa te Tara o te Ika tatū atu rā ki Waitī, Te Hoe o Tainui mai i Mahurangi ki te Hoe o Tainui, mai te Tōanga roa ki Moehau tēnā koutou. Nau mai ki tō koutou Whare Mīere.
E huri te kei o te waka ki ō koutou mate e kawe nei tō koutou kākākura Mōrehu, te kaupoi rā a Tīpene Kura me ō koutou ake ruakōiwi i hainatia mai Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Ko Te Hīnaki ko Hoete ko Hori Pōkai Te Ruinga me ērā o ngā kātū rangatira o tuawhakarere o tuamanomano. Koutou i kawe mai i tērā kawenata tapu ki Waiārohe ki tēnei Whare me tō koutou nawe ā tōna wā ka tau te kōrero. Kei ōku pikikotuku ōku pikiamokura, Herearoha koutou ko ngā māreikura me ngā kaupoi rā, Koro, Harley, a Jimjim. Hoki mai anō ki tēnei Whare. Tō koutou whare tōrangapū. Ehara nōku, ehara nō ēnei tāngata, nō koutou.
Huri atu te kanohi ora. Hauāuru taku tino, e mihi ana ki a koe me tō kāhui i kawe mai i tēnei kaupapa ki tua o tōna toka tū moana ki tua o tōna tihi maunga. Tokotoru aku tino o Ngāti Paoa waka o Te Kōtuiti Tuarua. Tuatahi, taku tino a Alistair Toto. Tērā kaiwaiata, kaiwhakahaere waiata. Tuarua, Hēmi Parāone. Rima tekau ōrau he Ngāi Tai, rima tekau ōrau he Ngāti Porou, rima tekau ōrau he Ngāti Paoa. Tuatoru Mahuika Rāwiri, e whakatū poutūārongo nei i a Tāmaki ki te tonga i tōna tuakiritanga i tō tātou tuakiritanga.
Tēnei te pānuitanga tuatahi mō tō koutou pire, e tautoko ana te rōpū Nāhinara tēnei pāti kahurangi i tōna whakataunga. Ēnei āhuatanga te whakaaetanga whakatau o ngā kerēme Tiriti i whakamāunu mai ai i te rōpū Nāhinara, na Chris Finlayson mā tō koutou kaupapa i whakaputa ki waho moana ēngari e mihi ana ki a Ānaru Paku māna anō e whakahoki ki uta. Ērā tāngata a Mike Dreaver mā a Rick Barker mā me ērā o ngā tautohetohe i waenganui i a rātou me koutou kāore e roa kua tau te pūehu.
Kei te hoki aku mahara i te wā i te mahi au mō te Tahua Kaumātua Penihana o Aotearoa, mahi tahi māua ko tō koutou hāpai ō a Daniel Karehana. E mihi ana ki a ia, me tana ngana hiakai hoki ki te whakatakoto i tētahi huarahi whai rawa tētahi huarahi whai pūtea i waenganui i a koutou o Ngāti Paoa tatū atu rā ki ngā iwi katoa. Marutuahu, Tāmaki-makau-rau, Ngā tini o Toi, ngā ika katoa o Tīkapa moana, tērā pātaka kai tō tātou pātaka kai. E mihi ana ki a ia.
Me ēnei āhuatanga kua māturuturu mai i te pene whakaaaro i te pene kōrero e pā ana ki te moni ka pai. Te whakahoki o ngā whenua, tino pai, me te whai wāhi hoki i ngā moni ā tau pērā me te hoko mai o ngā kura. Hei moni ā-tau ia tau ia tau. Whai hoki tērā tauira ki Macleans College ka rawe hoki.
Ka rawe hoki te rongo ki ērā momo kōrero. Tō koutou iwi kanohi hōmiromiro, ika pae wai, kākākura he iwi auaha he iwi māia he iwi manawanui. I au i tae atu rā i rongo au ki ngā kōrero e pā ana ki a Mahurangi, ki a Kohimārama me tērā whenua ki Tāmaki ki te tonga nā Fairburn i whakarite ki te hokona. Tō koutou whakanunui me Waikato, i tēnei wā kei te huri te kei o te waka kia tupu matomato ai kia tupu ora ai kia tupu ōhanga mai koutou. Tēnā koutou katoa.
[Welcome Pūanga, welcome Matariki. Paoa inland, Paoa on the coast at Mahurangi at Ōmaha. From there honour to Waitematā to Tōanga roa to Waiōtāiki to Te Pane o Horoiwi to Taurere to Tāoma to Mauinaina to Mokoia to the pool of Mokoikahikuwaru to the sacred waters Rangiātea to Ngā Pōito o te kūpenga a Taramainuku, put aside Motutapu lest I be belittled by James Brown. I’ll tread slowly. Carrying on, honour to Te Ārai Roa to Waiheke a Kahumatamomoe to Rātāroa to Te Pounui a Peretū to Pākihi to Kāramuramu to Kawakawa. Further out towards Tāwhitokino to Ōrere to Pūkorokoro to Wharekawa te Tara o te Ika, over towards Waitī, Te Hoe o Tainui from Mahurangi to the Hoe o Tainui. From Tōanga roa to Moehau, greetings to you all. Welcome to your Beehive.
Turn the stern towards your deceased that you carry with you, to your honourable Morehu, that cowboy from St Stephen’s School and all your ancestors who signed Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Te Hīnaki, Hoete, Hori Pōkai Te Reinga, and all the other nobles from the ancient times. The ones who brought that sacred agreement to Waiārohe to this House and your issues that will eventually be settled. To my aristocratic leaders, Herearoha and your elites and also those cowboys, Koro, Harley and Jimjim. Come back to the House. Your parliamentary House. It’s not mine, it doesn’t belong to these people; it’s yours.
Turn oh the living and breathing. Hauāuru my favourite, I acknowledge you and your assembly who brought this discussion beyond your ranks beyond your base. I have three favourites from the Ngāti Paoa waka Te Kōtuiti Tuarua. Firstly, my favourite is Alistair Toto. That singer, that composer. Secondly, James Brown. Fifty percent is Ngāi Tai, 50 percent is Ngāti Porou and the other 50 percent is Ngāti Pāoa. Thirdly, Mahuika Rāwiri, becoming influential in the south of Auckland with his hard work and with our hard work.
This is the first reading of your bill, this is supported by the National Party, this blue party supports the settlement. These initiatives to agree to the settlement of the claims according to the Treaty which was brought here before us the National Party by Chris Finlayson, who took it out to the sea, but I’d also like to acknowledge Andrew Little, who will bring it back to the shores. Those others as well, Mike Dreaver and Rick Barker, the debates between them and yourselves in which the dust will soon be settled.
My memories go back to when I use to work for the New Zealand Superannuation Fund. I worked alongside your very own Daniel Karehana. I acknowledge him and his hard work to set up wealth and financial security for you Ngāti Paoa and the many iwi. Marutuahu, Tāmaki-makau-rau, Ngā tini o Toi, and all the fish of Tīkapa ocean, that food storage of yours and all of ours. I acknowledge him and his efforts that have come to fruition through his knowledge about finance.
The return of land is excellent, and the annual returns as well is excellent the annual finances used by schools. Annual income every single year. The example that happened with Macleans College as well is awesome.
I thoroughly enjoy hearing those stories. Your diligent and careful nation, a creative people, a strong people, and a brave nation. When I went to hear the discussions about Mahurangi, Kohimārama and those other lands around South Auckland that Fairburn had set up to buy. Your relationship with Waikato, right now the stern of the canoe will turn and see you flourish, see you thrive, and see you succeed. Thank you all very much.]
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Rawiri Waititi—a five minute call.
RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori): E te Pīka, tēnā koe. Tēnā tatou, tēnā tatou e te Whare. Otirā tēnā koutou, e hika mā. Tēnā koutou Ngāti Paoa. Haere mai nei, whakapiri mai nei ki roto i tēnei Whare. Āe, he tika tonu ngā kōrero a taku hoa, a te rangatira nei, a Tama, nā koutou tēnei Whare, whakatau mai rā.
Tēnā te tira ka tū, ko te tira nā Tūrora, nā Rereahu, nā Kōrehe, nā Tūrongo. Tēnā te tira e oti ana, tira ka tū, tēnā toetoe nā Haka, nā Hauā, tira ka tū, tēnā oti.
Ko Kohukohunui te maunga, ko Piako te awa, ko Tīkapa te moana, ko Te Haupā te tangata, nei rā te mihi, nei rā te mihi.
Tēnā rawa atu koutou. Kua oti katoa te whakahuahua ingoa i tēnei rā. Tēnei ka tautoko, tēnei ka tau. Tēnei rā anō hoki te mihi atu i runga i te āhuatanga o ō tātou mate. Tika tonu kia mihi rā ki a Mōrehu, te nui o ngā pakeke kua riro tītapu ki te pō. Kāre e kite i te whakatinanatanga o tēnei āhuatanga, engari mā rātou e kawe ngā kōrero ki ngā mātua tīpuna i te pō, kei konei tonu koutou e whawhai mō tō koutou mana motuhake me tō rangatiratanga.
Rātou i mate, i rere te toto ki runga i tō koutou whenua, hei aha? Hei oranga mō ngā whakatipuranga, mō ngā mokopuna e haere ake nei. Nō reira rātou ki a rātou.
Ka hoki mai rā ki a tātou, mōrehu tangata kua tae mai nei i tēnei rā, haramai, haramai, haramai. E kore e tarea tēnei tū āhuatanga te whakawātea i ngā mamaetanga, i ngā tāmitanga, i ngā patunga a te Karauna i a koutou, i a tātou. E kore rawa, e kore rawa. Engari me pēnei pea taku kōrero, kei te ngau tonu tērā āhuatanga, tērā taniwha i a tātou i tēnei rangi tonu. Kei te kite atu awahau i roto i te pepa nei, i te pire nei, kei te ngau tonu, kei te ngau tonu, kei te ngau tonu.
Arā i roto i ngā pakanga o te motu i roto i ngā tau 1860, arā i kitea ngā tāmitanga ki runga i tō koutou pā, ki Pūkorokoro. Hika, ka mau te wehi! Ka mau te wehi! Ka whakaingoatia tērā whenua ki te poti i pū i a koutou, ngā pūrepo, whakamutu atu! Whakamutu atu! I taraingia e rātou te tango i tō koutou mana, i tō koutou reo, i tō koutou mana motuhake, me tō koutou rangatiratanga, i tō koutou whakatangata i a koutou ki runga i tō koutou whenua, engari auare ake! Kei konei koutou i tēnei rā, kei te ora tonu. Kei te ora tonu. Kei te kite tēnei Whare i tō kanohi, kei te rongo i tō wairua, arā anō hoki kei te rongo i tō mauri.
E kore e tarea tēnei tū āhuatanga te whakatikatika i roto i te kotahi paihēneti o ngā moni ka riro i a koutou, kotahi paihēneti. Me waiho mā ā tātou tamariki mokopuna te iwa tekau mā iwa paihēneti e whawhai kei ngā rā e haere ake nei. Me pērā pea te kōrero. Nō reira kia kaha ki a tātou ki te whakatō i te kākano ki roto i ā tātou tamariki mokopuna he iwa tekau mā iwa paihēneti e toe ana mā rātou e whawhai. Mā rātou hei whawhai. Kaua e mea he “full and final settlement”, whakamutua atu tēnā kōrero.
Arā me te mea anō hoki, e hika mā, tēnei tū āhuatanga he mea whakawehewehe, whakawehewehe i a tātou i roto i a tātou. Whakawehewehe iwi i te iwi, hapū i te hapū, whānau i te whānau. Tēnei tū āhuatanga ehara nā tātou, nō reira e te Pīka, kua tonoa mai tētahi reta e tētahi ki au. Pīrangi au ki te whakawātea i te Whare kia whakatēpungia tēnei pepa i tēnei wā. Ki te kore, hika, e kore e tarea e tātou te whakatutuki i ngā mahi kei mua i a tātou.
Nō reira koia hoki tāku i tēnei wā. E hika mā, he rima miniti noa iho ki au, engari kei te mōhio au hāwhe pāhi i te rima karaka kei te wehe atu te nuinga o koutou. Nō reira, ā, kua mutu te wāhi ki a au, engari tēnei rā te mihi atu rā ki a koutou. Kia kaha koutou ki a koutou, kia kaha koutou anō hoki ki te whakawhirinaki ki ērā atu iwi e raruraru nei i roto i ngā whakahaere a tēnei Whare. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātou.
[Thank you. Greetings to all of us, greetings to all of us in this House. Indeed greetings to you, friends. Greetings, Ngāti Paoa. Welcome, welcome into this House. Yes, the statements of my colleague, the noble leader Tama, this House is yours, welcome.
That is the party that stands, the party belonging to Tūrora, Rereahu, Kōrehe, and Tūrongo. That is the party that concludes, the party that stands, the rushes belonging to Haka and Hauā, the party that stands, it is concluded.
Kohukohunui is the ancestral mountain, Piako is the ancestral river, Tīkapa is the ancestral sea, Te Haupā is the illustrious leader, I greet you, I acknowledge you.
Many greetings to you. The mentioning of names has absolutely been completed today. I support that, it is resolved. I would also like to make acknowledgments with respect to our deceased. It is appropriate to acknowledge Mōrehu, and the many elders who have passed into the night. They will not see the realisation of this phenomenon, but they will carry word of it to the forebears in the night, that you are here fighting for your autonomy and sovereignty.
Those who died, whose blood flowed on your land, for what? For the wellbeing of the generations, of the grandchildren that are to come. So they have joined their peers.
I return now to us, to the remnants that have arrived here today, welcome, welcome, welcome. This phenomenon is not able to relieve the anguish, the suppression, and the assaults of the Crown on you, on us. Never, not ever. But perhaps I should put it like this: that thing, that beast continues to bite us this very day. I see it in this paper, in this bill, it continues to bite, to chew, to lacerate.
In particular in the wars of the nation in the 1860s, the oppression of your fortified stronghold, Pūkorokoro, was seen. Golly, it’s unbelievable! It’s unbelievable! That land was named after the ship that fired on you, the cannons, cut it out! Stop it! They tried to take your authority, your language, your autonomy, and your sovereignty, your very ability to flourish on your own land, but no such luck! Here you are today, you yet live. You yet live. This House sees your face, feels your spirit, and also feels your power.
This phenomenon cannot be rectified with the 1 percent of the funding that you will receive, 1 percent. We should leave it up to our children and grandchildren to fight for the 99 percent in the coming days. Perhaps that is how it should be put. So let’s all be determined to plant the seed in our children and grandchildren that there is a remaining 99 percent for them to fight for. For them to fight for. Don’t call it a “full and final settlement”, stop it with that statement.
And furthermore, my friends, these proceedings are divisive, they alienate us from each other. Alienating tribe from tribe, subtribe from subtribe, family from family. This phenomenon is nothing of ours, so Madam Speaker, a letter has been sent by someone to me. I wish to seek the leave of the House to table this paper at this time. If not, golly, we will not be able to conclude the work that is before us.
So that’s all from me at this time. My friends, I only have five minutes, but I know that at half past five, the majority of you will depart. So, my contribution has ended, but I’d like to acknowledge you. Be strong among yourselves, and also be steadfast in relying on other iwi that are distressed by the proceedings of this House. Greetings, greetings and thanks to all.]
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Sorry, with apologies to the member, if the member who just spoke wished to table a document—
RAWIRI WAITITI: Oh, yes, sorry.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Would he like to take a point of order and seek leave to do that?
RAWIRI WAITITI: Aroha mai, e te Pīka. I did say it in Māori that I’d move a motion to take leave to table this document, so do I have to move a point of order?
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Yes.
RAWIRI WAITITI: Point of order, Madam Speaker. I’d like to take leave from the House to table this document.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Leave is requested for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none.
Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
HARETE HIPANGO (National): Ngāti Paoa, nau mai, haere mai i tēnei wā. E tū au, e karanga ki te pānuitanga tuatahi o te pire Ngāti Paoa Claims Settlement Bill.
[Ngāti Paoa, welcome, welcome at this time. I stand to take a call on the first reading of the Ngāti Paoa Claims Settlement Bill.]
I take a brief call, mindful that Ngāti Paoa will be taking flight very shortly, so we are on a limited time span for our kōrero, our karanga to all gathered here in the gallery. Importantly, this is an opportunity. Ngāti Paoa, this is the journey that your people have been on, but this is televised so it’s an opportunity for us in the Chamber to put out to Aotearoa New Zealand, for New Zealanders to join in part of what your journey and your story has been, which will be captured in this legislation.
In the short call that I take, Madam Speaker, and to New Zealanders who are listening in, the stories that many of us as Māori have traversed through the course of generations—a number of us in the Chamber here have sat where Ngāti Paoa are, with our people, our tribal peoples, with the passage of legislation through to the completion. My parliamentary colleague Rawiri Waititi, we share that journey when we sit on the Māori Affairs Committee with other members in this House. So, we know the mamae. We are aware of the grievance. We are aware also of the heaviness, but the hope, that comes with these settlements. There is contention about it being full and final, and that is korero that we are subject to and we listen to on the Māori Affairs Committee—always cognisant of this.
But what has been captured in the bill? And I will keep this brief. Importantly, my eye is drawn to clause 8, the summary of historical account, and I invite New Zealanders to go to this bill to read the story of Ngāti Paoa; clause 9, which is the acknowledgment from the Crown in terms of those transgressions and what the redress will be; and clause 10, the formal Crown apology. In this bill, what’s particularly noted is that it is captured in te reo Tauiwi, in te reo Māori, te reo o ngā mita o Ngāti Paoa [in the English language, in the Māori language, the language of the regional variations of Ngāti Paoa], and that is so important because this is the journey, the story, of Ngāti Paoa. And I invite New Zealanders to take the time to read this, to take the time to listen, to take the time to feel.
So we will have the opportunity and the privilege, sitting on the Māori Affairs Committee, to listen to the further submissions from the interested parties, the stakeholders, Ngāti Paoa. And it is our duty and responsibility of care to take cognisance of those concerns further to what has been inscribed here.
Also, my eye is drawn to the interpretation section, where there is an acknowledgment of those of you gathered here and those who have gone before—in terms of the hand, the imprint, and what will be inscribed and captured on parchment, in paper, for time to come. So it is with a sense of heaviness that many of us do stand here, but it is with a sense of hope in the journey moving forward. And I see our young ones, our future. Today is a present—it is a gift to the future, bearing in mind the journey that Ngāti Paoa have carried through the generations from the past to arrive here today. It is a privilege that I stand as the last speaker of the National Party to commend this bill to the House.
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Foreign Affairs): He ika ki te moana, ko au ki te whenua, Tīkapa oneone hokinga kāinga. Ko aku whatu e huri ana ki Te Kohukohunui, Te Kotūiti, ka tae mai koe ki te takoto o Te Whanganui-a-Tara. Turuki turuki, paneke paneke, haramai te toki, haumi e, hui e, tāiki e.
Kua hipa te wā. Kua hipa te wā nō reira tēnei te tautoko i ngā kōrero kua whārikihia ki mua i tō koutou nei aroaro, Ngāti Paoa. Tērā tangi apakura ki a Mōrehu, tatū atu rā ki a rātou katoa i ngā tau kua whai ake i tēnei o ngā kaupapa.
Nō reira koutou ngā mōrehu, ngā mahuetanga iho, Hauāuru, te pai o te kite i a koe, koutou katoa. Ka noho tūturu ngā kōrero i waihotia e koro ki waenganui i a mātou, ngā mema o tēnei Whare Pāremata, he tīmatatanga tēnei. He maha ngā piki me ngā heke engari he tīmata tēnei.
Ko tā rātou wero ki a tātou, te Pāremata, ahakoa ko wai e noho ki tēwhea o ngā tūru, he tīmatatanga tēnei. Me mahi ngātahi kia taea e Ngāti Paoa ki te tutuki i ā rātou nei wawata mō nāianei, mō ngā uri whakatupu.
Nō reira, Ngāti Paoa, kei a koutou tēnei wā, nō koutou te mana. Tēnā koutou.
[As fish in the sea, I am on the land, the sands of Tīkapa, the home I return to. My eyes turn to Te Kohukohunui, to Te Kotūiti, you arrive at the topography of Wellington. Advance, advance, progress, progress, take up the sceptre, it coalesces, it comes together, it is done.
The time has passed. The time has passed so I support the statements that have been laid before all of you, Ngāti Paoa. The song of grief for Mōrehu, and also to those who pursued this initiative over the years.
So to you, the survivors, the remnants, Hauāuru, it’s good to see you, all of you. The statements left by your grandsire among us, the members of this House of Parliament, this is a beginning. There are many ups and downs, but this is a beginning.
Their challenge to us, to Parliament, regardless of who is sitting in which seat, this is a beginning. We must work together so that Ngāti Paoa is able to accomplish the dreams for today, and for descendants to come.]
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a first time.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is, That the Ngāti Paoa Claims Settlement Bill be considered by the Māori Affairs Committee.
Motion agreed to.
Bill referred to the Māori Affairs Committee.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, I can tell the House that permission has been now granted for a waiata.
Pao
Waiata—Rimurimu
Karanga
General Debate
General Debate
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business.
When I arrived in Parliament 15 years ago, I arrived at the beginning of a National Government and I sat on the opposite side of the House from what I do now. And there were many occasions during those nine years where I was upset, frustrated, annoyed, and angry with the policy changes that I saw taking place. I obviously understood that it was part of the democratic process that Governments change from time to time and that things that I might have held very dear to me were no longer the priority of the Government of the day. I’m a passionate debater, as people know in this House, and I certainly made my points about that.
One thing I knew, however, during those nine years, was that when John Key was the Prime Minister, whatever I might have thought of what he was doing to the country and the policies that he was putting in place, the politics of race had been put on the back burner. Like many in this House, I vividly remember the period of time in the run up to the 2005 election where the politics of race took centre stage in New Zealand, under the leadership of a different leader of the National Party and under a different Government where Helen Clark was the Prime Minister.
That period of time where we saw that—and I acknowledge the likes of the Hon Chris Finlayson, who I think did an enormous amount, and we’ve just seen a Treaty settlement bill have its first reading in here, and I acknowledge the work that he did. I acknowledge the work that, as I say, the then Prime Minister did. To see the politics of race return in the way they are to our political discourse distresses me. Chris Hipkins, when he spoke at the Labour Party’s congress in May, used a line that I think is very important: “Only the weakest of leaders seek to use race relations as a wedge to stoke fear and division.” For me, I consider that to be a statement that I genuinely believe in. We can disagree on many topics in this House, and we do and it is healthy for democracy that we do, but when we find yet again that the politics of race have found their way to the top of the agenda, we as a Parliament are weaker and worse for that, and we as a country are far more divided from that than we should be.
The latest example of that over the course of the last week or two has been the question around the equity adjuster within the northern district health boards. It’s really interesting to me that there’s not been so much attention within that on the ridiculousness and the outrageousness that whether you live in a rural community is counted in an equity adjuster or whether your socio-economic status should be counted. We don’t hear that raised. We don’t hear that being a major concern. We just hear about issues of race.
I believe—and I know that the members’ opposite may not be enjoying this contribution, but I actually believe the vast majority of the members opposite are better than that. I actually do believe that, because I believe they are here for the reasons that brought them to politics, to put in place the things that they believed in, just as John Key and his Government did. And we will disagree on those things, but my personal view is that we diminish this House and we diminish the political debate by the focus and the division being stoked on the basis of race in New Zealand.
As a country, we have come so far, and yet we have so far to go. We celebrate moments like the one we just saw in the House now as a Parliament, and that is tremendous that we have the ability to do that, but we’ve got to look again at our politics. The kind of politics of division and fear that are stoked by those that put race at the top of the agenda and seek to divide us on that will only put people off engaging with us. So I want to commit again to the kind of leadership that I see coming from Chris Hipkins, which is that we are unifying our country, we are finding the ways that we can work together to move ahead as a country, and that we don’t fall into the trap of the lazy politics of division on the basis of race and stoking fear where that fear does not exist because, as we lift up the aspirations of Māori, of Pasifika, or of rural New Zealanders, as we lift up and remove the inequities that those groups face in our health system, our whole country is stronger and better. That should be our focus, not stoking fear and division.
CHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Grant Robertson says it’s a lazy form of politics to talk about race. The laziest form of politics is actually to accuse the other side of politics of racism, and that’s what Grant Robertson spent much of his speech doing. We have to be grown-ups in this country, and this is a grown-up House of Representatives. We need to be able to talk about issues of race in this Parliament. And, to paraphrase the Chief Justice of the United States, the way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race. So we are not going to apologise for having robust discussions in this Parliament and in wider society, and we would be doing a disservice to the people of this country if we did not raise legitimate issues about race-based funding and discrimination on the basis of race in this Parliament. But the real issue today is actually about the Government falling apart, because, in the last five months, five Ministers have shuffled off the political mortal coil: Stuart Nash, Michael Wood, Meka Whaitiri, and, I predict, soon Jan Tinetti, because Jan Tinetti, in some ways, has done worse than Michael Wood has done, and there will be more words to be said about that.
But let’s talk about Michael Wood, because Michael Wood today resigned as a Cabinet Minister, and it turns out Michael Wood should be a member of the National Party, because Michael Wood is the biggest capitalist socialist I’ve ever seen! Michael Wood, back when he was a young whippersnapper, coming up through the ranks of the Labour youth movement, decided, as a youngster, that he would participate in the privatisation of Contact Energy in the late 1990s, which was done by the National Government as a trade sale and a partial float. It was the forerunner to the mixed-ownership model of the John Key and Bill English Government, and Michael Wood, the cloth cap, hard-left unionist leader of the Labour left movement decided back then: “I’m actually going to put up some of my own capital. I’m going to buy a few shares.” Not only that—not only Contact Energy—but Auckland International Airport; another privatisation by the National Government back in 1999 to 2008. And it turns out, we learn today, he owns shares all over the sharemarket: National Australia Bank, Chorus—there’s a whole bunch of different shares. So it turns out that the cloth cap, hard-left unionist is actually a dirty little capitalist! And we welcome him to the cause of a shareholding democracy. We just wish he’d been slightly more upfront about the fact that he owned those shares for all those years.
And, after 12 times being told by the officials and his staff, “Hey, mate, you’d better sell these shares, because you’ve got to disclose them”, he didn’t do it. So Michael Wood has left the ministry. And, of course, we’ve had Stuart Nash in recent weeks as well, who thought it was OK to leak confidential information out of Cabinet to his political donors. Then, of course, we get to the awful saga of Jan Tinetti, who decided to not be upfront with the public and the Parliament about her dirty little deal to conspire with her officials to make sure that announcements about attendance data were released at the same time as the Government was making some PR puffery about announcements to take care of it. What we see is a Government in disarray, and what I’ve just talked about—Stuart Nash, Michael Wood, Kiri Allan—is characterised by three things. One is arrogance. Second is incompetence. And three is a lack of focus on what actually matters. Here we are, less than four months till the election, talking about everything other than the important issues: the 60 percent increase in spending in the last six years, for no outcomes; a health system falling apart; an education system falling apart; law and order in this country that is going from bad to worse. We’re not talking about those important issues; instead, we’re talking about this inept and tired and arrogant Government’s last few months in office, with Ministers leaving left, right, and centre. New Zealanders deserve better, and on 14 October they’ll get the chance to vote for it.
Hon JO LUXTON (Minister of Customs): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I stand as a proud wahine Māori from a rural electorate to take the third call in this general debate and lift this tone out of gutter politics and talk about some positivity. I would like to talk about the Fieldays. I had a great time at the Fieldays last week—it was really positive, spirits were high, the sun was shining, and we had the pleasure of hearing the announcement that the primary industries exports are set to hit a record high of $56.2 billion by 30 June 2023.
We are a proud primary-producing nation punching well above our weight, and I want to acknowledge our primary producers who have recently experienced really, really tough times with the weather events that we’ve seen—some last year, but mostly this year. I want to acknowledge all of them and everything that they have been going through. Our primary producers have carried us through for the last few years through tough times, and I want to acknowledge all of them and thank them for that.
I am proud of our primary industries and I want to congratulate them on this record achievement, which I note is set to move towards $62 billion by 2027. I am proud of the work that this Government is doing for our primary producers by opening doors for exports wherever we can, and build on the seven new or upgraded free-trade agreements secured since we’ve been in office.
The next really positive thing that I would like to talk about that this Government is doing is providing financial support for parents on paid parental leave. Those parents that take the full 26 weeks of paid parental leave are set to have an increase from $661.12 a week to $712.17. We know that the cost pressures of living are hitting our families hard at the moment, and anything that we can do as a Government to help support that is really important and valued.
When a couple are expecting their first, second, third, whatever baby it might be, it’s a time of joy. But it’s also a time of stress; it is a time of sleeplessness—I know members across the House will know what I am talking about there because we’ve had recent conversations—
Hon David Bennett: They’re very good.
Hon JO LUXTON: —Mr Bennett, about that. So anything that we can do to reduce the pressure and burden on parents is certainly helpful. From mid-2024, parents will also receive a 3 percent Government contribution to their KiwiSaver while on paid parental leave, so long as they also continue to contribute. Because we do know that when people are away on paid parental leave, traditionally there has been no money going to their KiwiSaver—so, therefore, depleting their wee nest egg going forward. So I think that that is a really great thing.
Another thing that I want to talk about is the simplified path to residency. When I’m out talking to people in my electorate, often we hear—particularly from our rural and primary producers—the difficulties that they face in getting skilled migrants, given the workforce shortages that we do experience. We are making changes to the Skilled Migrant Category Resident Visa as part of the immigration rebalance to help businesses be able to attract skilled migrants. We’re going to provide these highly skilled people with a faster route to residency, and that ensures that people in families migrating to New Zealand for work—it gives those families stability and certainty, knowing that they are going to be able to have a pathway to residency.
I want to finish up by talking about the milestone that we reached—and it was really good to reach this milestone yesterday, being World Refugee Day—where we celebrated the milestone of resettling 1,500 refugees this quota year. We have a really proud history, here in New Zealand, of helping people whose lives are at risk and are forced to flee their country. I am really proud that my electorate is one of the electorates where refugees can resettle—in Ashburton and Timaru—and we welcome these refugees to New Zealand knowing they make a fantastic contribution to our society. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Firstly, I want to acknowledge Karen Chhour and the urgent debate that she brought to this House today in relation to the abuse that was happening inside Oranga Tamariki. She spoke from the heart. She spoke from her own experiences. And as her tears fell on the floor in this House, I was expecting the Minister responsible for Oranga Tamariki to honour her and at least stand and make some sort of an effort to respond to what is an extremely serious situation. Instead, he chose to stand and make cheap political shots at the Opposition. Totally inappropriate and I thought much higher of Kelvin Davis and I expected much more from him.
I want to talk about the situation that we’ve had in Ōpōtiki recently with the Mongrel Mob deciding that they could come out in numbers and take over the town. I acknowledge the comments that were made by the mayor there, and I acknowledge the comments that were made by iwi leaders, but I personally believe that the people of Ōpōtiki don’t want to be known as a gang town. They don’t want to be known for gang violence. And by the way, we don’t have two standards of citizenship in this country where one group gets to blatantly break the laws of our country when law-abiding Kiwis have to keep adhering to those laws.
The police say that there was an adequate response. I completely, utterly reject that. When you have got gang members taking over public spaces and public roads, when you’ve got the police taking resources away from the communities that they should be protecting to do traffic control and closing roads that members of the public should have free access to, that is not a success. When you have the justice Minister standing up and saying that of the eight vehicles that were stopped—eight vehicles; there were hundreds of gang vehicles involved in this procession—five of them had firearms in them, that’s got to be a huge red flag. How many other firearms were actually part of that convoy? How many illegal firearms were still out in the public? There were two arrests.
If we have reached a point in this country where our police stand up and say that’s a great result, then we have plumbed the depths. Because in New Zealand we should put a line in the sand and we should be saying “Gangs, you don’t get to come out and take over public spaces. You don’t get to intimidate members of the public. You don’t get special rules.” No one else, when they’re mourning a loved one or having a wake or having a funeral—no other group in this country gets the sort of response that they get in terms of traffic control, roads closed, negotiation around behaviour, what they can do and what they can’t do. And by the way, half these negotiations that take place with the police and the gangs, they immediately go out and break the rules. So let’s not stand in here and pretend that what we’ve seen is acceptable and normalised and we should accept that as a country. It’s the complete opposite.
I was very pleased this week to see that we made a new announcement around aggravating factors for gang members. Let’s get this straight. If you’re a gang member, with the policy that we’ve put forward, if you commit a crime, then it’s going to be an aggravating factor. The current law is so weak that you have to prove that they’re part of a criminal group, and that’s why it’s not used.
Hon Willie Jackson: It’s already there, Mark—it’s already there.
Hon MARK MITCHELL: These guys don’t understand it—they don’t understand it. They say, “No, it’s already on the books.” It’s not on the books. If it was on the books, it’d be getting used. We’ve stated very clearly that if you’re a gang member now, if you’re a member of a gang, it doesn’t matter what crime you commit, whether it be some domestic violence, whether it be assaulting someone—if you’re a gang member it’s an aggravating factor. It’s a new piece of policy and it’s a good piece of policy, and it’ll continue to put pressure on gang members.
I’ll tell you why. We don’t want gang members in New Zealand. We want to get rid of gang members. Yes, I admit—I concede that they’ve been here for decades. Harry Tam—Harry Tam was on the TV this week. Harry Tam’s got some genuine leadership skills. He’s got some say inside the gangs. Why doesn’t he take a stand and say, “I want you to leave.”? If he comes and says to me, “We’ll have a meeting. Let’s sit down and talk.”, I’m happy to do that. But the conversation’s got to be this: how do we help, how do we work to allow your gang members to leave the gang and rejoin society? Because very sadly, Steven Taiatini, who was killed in Ōpōtiki—and it is a loss and I’m sorry to his family—his father was killed as well with gang violence. The question is this: do you want the sons or the sons after that to be killed because of gang violence? For me, no; it’s not acceptable and we have to do something about it. And we do have to work together to do that. So Harry Tam needs to step forward and say, “How do we stop this? How do we work with Government rather than getting up and criticising?”
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The member’s time has expired.
Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister for Broadcasting and Media): I think that member made a reasonable point at the end; I’m happy to concede that, having worked with gangs through my life and worked with someone like Harry Tam. So I would accept that, as a House, we do have a responsibility in working through what Mr Mitchell talks about.
I want to support our finance Minister. I think it’s a sad indictment on this House that the right have brought the race debate, in terms of health. The reality is, patients get a score of 100 to determine their surgery; being Māori or Pasifika adds one or two points to the equation—one or two points.
The way the right, particularly the National Party, have seized upon using ethnicity as a factor in deciding healthcare dollars and spun into a story of “reverse racism”—and that’s what they’re implying—and that is somehow equal to apartheid is disgusting. I agree with Grant Robertson, I believe that most of the National Party are better than that. I’m not sure about Mr Seymour, who seems to be using this all the time. Including ethnicity in health decisions has not been a racist policy; it’s an attempt to ensure that not just Māori but Pasifika, rural Kiwis, and Kiwis living in poverty who have waited on the waiting list for too long—and Māori—gain outcomes that are comparable to the majority experience and positive health outcomes.
Having small steps in ensuring a positive health outcome for Pasifika, rural Kiwis, and Māori is just the right way to go. It was sad listening to the Leader of the Opposition on National Radio this morning. His refusal to accept what most experts are saying—great doctors, like Dr Rawiri Jansen, Anthony Jordan, Mataroria Lyndon, Hinemoa Elder, Lily Freeman, Papaarangi Reid. These doctors have said for years—experts who the National Party have engaged—that clearly Māori have suffered under the health system.
The National Party of Bill English has acknowledged this. This is a disgrace what is happening in this House. It’s a disgrace that the National Party are going down a track that people before them would have rejected. We’re going back to the old Don Brash days, instead of acknowledging and working together. As our Minister of Finance said so eloquently today, let’s work towards reducing the problem, rather than using the race argument, as Mr Seymour is constantly and Mr Luxon is afraid to oppose, because he’s so worried now about the election coming a few months down the track. Despite all the facts that were given this morning on National Radio by the interviewer at the time, Mr Luxon refuses to accept that Māori and rural people and Pasifika have been hurt by the system.
It’s not something we should be worried about; we should show courage here. Why is the National Party showing no courage? That’s the big question. We know the ACT Party are just a group of opportunists. We know that that’s going to be used constantly until the election comes around, that the race card will be pulled on us. It’s sad, and it’s an indictment on the ACT Party that they keep utilising that strategy.
The realities are clear for everyone: Māori die earlier than our European brothers and sisters—seven years earlier. Pasifika die earlier. Poorer people die earlier. Why don’t you want to help them? Why do we have rural people die earlier? Why do we have to pull the race card? I’ll tell you why, Madam Speaker—you won’t be here, I don’t think; I think you’re moving on, which is a shame, because you’re one of the better members. But the reality is: it’s all about the votes. It’s all about their votes.
The National Party are too scared to say what the truth is, and the truth is that a number of people in this country are suffering under the current system and need support. So, well done to all our health professionals out there, all the doctors out there. Don’t listen to the rubbish that is coming from the ACT Party and the National Party, and keep at it. Our people—all people, right across the different communities—need our support. Kia ora tātou katoa.
VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Lovely to be the last speaker before the dinner break. I actually thought I might be helpful to my Opposition colleagues, as a start, just in terms of understanding the concepts of discrimination but also affirmative action. I think one might think that they thought it was a new and wild concept that had never been used before if you listened to some of their speeches. But the idea of first asking “Where are we now?” and looking at the inequities in society is actually something that’s quite embedded in much of our law. So just a helpful first suggestion: Opposition members might want to look at section 73 of the Human Rights Act, which allows affirmative action to achieve equity in the employment context.
The former Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner and, actually, former National Party member Jackie Blue’s view was that without that sort of affirmative action New Zealand’s progress towards gender equality in private sector leadership would remain abysmal. The concept of looking at where we are and looking at inequity is good governance. We do it through a lot of the areas of law. To say that affirmative action and looking at where we are now is a bad thing is horrifying. It is a failure to see who we all are to each other. So I would encourage the members just to do a little bit of homework in terms of understanding the history of that concept and its use in our law.
But I was really wanting to focus on what we are doing in terms of helping address the bread and butter issues that New Zealanders are facing at the moment. I was a child growing up in the 1980s and like many others in the room, I’m sure, I remember walking into a Big Fresh and seeing the giant fruit, bananas, and veges dancing around. I remember going to the Foodtown, the Right Price, the Price Chopper as a child, but then, of course, in the 1980s and 1990s we saw mergers and acquisitions which meant we, essentially, only had one major provider and that has led in many ways to the situation that we have now. It became so bad that you really had providers who were responsible for and owned the production of fish right through to when that fish was sold to you, which was why we didn’t end up seeing competition on our shelves.
We are addressing the real issues. We are working to ensure that there is more competition in the grocery sector, which is why we have introduced legislation to ban restrictive land covenants as well. And I invite members, if you haven’t been already, to come out to north-west Auckland where we do also have the likes of Costco, who are in the market and are absolutely making it more competitive with the supermarkets that are there as well.
When we say we are addressing the bread and butter issues, we mean it; the real bread and butter issues. What principals will tell me in the Upper Harbour electorate is that it is a game-changer that kids can turn up to school and have free lunches—it’s a game-changer, and this Budget is extending the provision of those free lunches in schools. They tell me the same thing about accessing free period products, where girls can come to school and not have to worry about bringing them from home.
On this side of the House, we are a leadership who are focused on women. We are focused on women being in leadership roles in the House as well as women being in leadership roles on public sector boards. If you look at the voting record of this side of the House, we have voted to decriminalise abortion and we have voted to ensure abortion safe areas. We are all about looking after women’s rights as well. If you look at what we’ve done through this Budget, we’ve made sure that young families can get back into the workforce, and that is largely women. After I had three kids who were all under about 5½ years old, the key discussion at every coffee group meeting was when is the tipping point? When can you go back to work? And for most people it was around the three-year mark. From here on in, those mums with under-three-year-olds will be able to re-enter the workforce.
We are focused on the issues that matter, but we are also focused on the values that sit behind those issues. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, the time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break, and the House will resume at 7.30 p.m.
Sitting suspended from 6.02 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Kia ora, members. When we went to the dinner break, we were still in the middle of the general debate. The next call is a National Party call.
MELISSA LEE (National): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. It’s rather an unusual day, when we are actually doing the general debate slightly differently. I was trying to keep track of what number we were up to, and it is my turn indeed.
I’d like to talk about an issue that has come up, which gave me grave concerns—and I’ve had many emails and, also, social media conversations on ethnic community sites, using WeChat and KakaoTalk, for example. The community is really, really angry at the report that says Auckland surgeons are now required to consider patients’ ethnicity to decide who gets an operation first. The Labour Government actually calls it the Equity Adjuster Score. I know that earlier, the Labour members actually talked about how, apparently, it is us on the opposite side of this Chamber who are bringing race into the issue, but it is in fact the Government that has actually made the race issue the prominent issue, where people are feeling that they don’t belong in this country. When you actually consider that the priority is to Māori and Pasifika patients, on the grounds that they’ve had unequal access to healthcare historically—they said they have really bad health outcomes and that is the reason why they should be given priority. I don’t have a problem with people being given priority when they have health issues—we should be achieving better health outcomes—but the thing is that need should be the decision maker. Need should be the criteria when people are attended to.
If the historical thing actually matters, should we be giving the New Zealand - born Chinese community a priority? The first Chinese arrived here in 1842, and they were the people who had to pay poll tax, which was massive—£100 poll tax—and the thing is they weren’t even made New Zealanders until the 1950s. The Helen Clark Government, at the time, actually apologised to the Chinese community for the way they were treated badly. They were called “the yellow peril”. If the ancient, historical issue matters, perhaps it is the Chinese people who should actually get priority, rather than some other people? But that is not what I’m actually calling for. What I’m actually saying is that, since the revelation, I sort of got to thinking about this. Three weeks ago, my son was involved in an accident. He was run over by a ute. He was dashed to the hospital, and I was in here, in Parliament, and I couldn’t actually get back home. The next day, when I flew up, he was in hospital in a lot of pain, but when I see stories where Auckland Hospital is apparently giving priority to Māori and Pasifika patients, does that mean that my son could have had more urgent treatment had he been Māori or Pasifika? Just because he is not, does that mean I have to wonder “Did he not get the urgency he actually needed?” That is the concern of a lot of migrant populations that I have actually had comments from. They are saying, “Do they need to leave this country to get fair treatment?”
When I was looking at the news about Michael Wood, I went back to his maiden speech. He actually said—and I quote—“Political trust in this country was badly corroded in the 1980s and 1990s by Governments of both stripes that, regardless of what you might think about the contents of their programmes, fundamentally broke faith with their electors.” He also goes on to say, “In my view, then, one of the core tasks of Government is to ensure that balance is maintained—a fair balance of interests, power, and resources, recognising that an imbalance in any of these areas privileges some and inhibits others from achieving their potential and that such injustice will hurt us all in the end. I believe in a balance between having a clear world view and striving to achieve it, and being open to the ideas of others.” I have to say that that speech probably made a lot of impact, but when you actually consider that, when people think about the race of a person instead of their need for service in our health system, it doesn’t actually provide that fairness, nor the justice that Michael Wood was talking about. I guess it symbolises, and it is actually quite typical of this Government, that what they talk about is not what they actually deliver, and, to me, in reality, it is symbolic of a Government that is a shambles.
ANGELA ROBERTS (Labour): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. I really want to take a moment to shout out to our primary industries. You know, we heard earlier tonight about a wonderful record on our primary exports. We know that, despite the significant headwinds that they are facing around, you know, those significant weather events, major international cost pressures, they still managed to crack—what was it, $56.2 billion, something like that—because of their resilience, their commitment, and their ambition. And we are proud as a Government to support them.
This Government proudly invests in our rural communities and our primary sector. We put our money where our mouth is. We know that they are worth investing in because we are the best in the world. I was at a sod-turning the other morning—State Highway 43, the forgotten highway, for some—with Minister Allan. It was a cold but beautiful morning under that mountain. Kahouri Stream Bridge project: $8 million to turn one little single lane on that State highway into a big two-lane bridge. Really great investment, a really great example of building resilience for our rural communities, making sure our school buses can get where they need to go, where our milk tankers and our logging trucks—and also the 13,000 additional tourists we’re going to have, as we tar-seal the Tangarakau Gorge and we get our travellers between Tongariro National Park to Papakura or Taranaki. Really, really great investment in resilience.
Another event, I was at a couple of weeks ago, another beautiful day in Taranaki—it always seems to happen. I was down at a local’s farm, Bushlies farm, where a whole pile of us turned up to plant 1,005 trees in one morning, in a couple of hours. It was quite boggy, but it was really great to be with my neighbours and being really excited about regenerative farming and restoring and protecting the biodiversity and our wetlands. Our farmers are doing magnificent things, and this Government is fronting up with the resources to support those communities. We are building the capacity and the capability of our people. We make sure that they have the ability to have local, nimble responses. They can identify their needs and they can respond to them.
This Government has provided more than $34 million for more than 200 catchment groups, 16 in Taranaki alone. You know, most of those groups started talking about the challenges they had around the water and water quality and soil erosion, and those sorts of things. But now, in Taranaki, we’ve got dung beetles. We’ve got some pretty good dung beetles having a go at fixing up our soil. And we’ve got some really great support going for those who are reaching out to diversify. Food and fibre: it’s not just about milk, any more, in Taranaki; we’ve got hops, we’ve got botanicals. It’s a really exciting place to be living, amongst a community that is so ambitious, and to be able to provide support to them.
The last event in the last few weeks that I had the great privilege of being involved in was Fieldays. Another fabulous week of fabulous weather up in the Waikato, and it was really great to see all of this investment that’s happening has built such momentum. The highlight, for me, was going up to the innovation hub and catching up with a couple of my neighbours from down in the southern end of Taranaki - King Country and some constituents from up in the King Country end. It was great to see one of the finalists in the Early-Stage category in the Innovation Awards. Good old Rewild, Nick Jones and his amazing team, who have created—you’re going to love this one, Minister, the “F-Bomb”.
Hon Peeni Henare: Hey!
ANGELA ROBERTS: All right! It is the most amazing innovation around trapping mustelids. It’s really exciting stuff. And—[Interruption] yeah—and the team at AgriAI were really excited about sharing their innovation around the machine vision-enabled automatic teat sprayer. Now, this might not sound like something that’s really exciting, but I tell you it is. And there were young, excited scientists in the middle of that.
This is because we are investing in our primary industries. We’re investing in our people. We’re investing in technology. We’re investing in everything that we need to build the momentum and make sure that we stay in that top spot. We are—did you know this?—the top of the Sustainable Trade Index. It considers environmental and social and economic pillars, so to speak, and it shows that we are working really hard and really effectively at getting to the top, the front of the pack, and making sure we do everything we need to stay there. And I’m really, really pleased to have been part of that.
RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you, Madam Speaker. You’ve got to be alert at this time of night, I guess, for the general debate, so if others aren’t interested in the opportunity, I will take the opportunity to take a call in this evening’s general debate, which is usually held in the afternoon. I want to focus my short contribution in the general debate this evening on some exciting things that happened in my wonderful electorate of Nelson last week. Alongside having an opportunity to attend Fieldays and join the thousands of people who had a useful shopping experience at the Swanndri shop, we had some exciting developments in Nelson that I do want to share with the House tonight.
The first was that we turned the sod—but with a digger—for the development at Port Nelson for our new slipway upgrade, which has been a project that has had a lot of planning involved in it and has been many years in the making; Port Nelson and Nelson City Council have been working on plans to upgrade the slipway for a very long time. People may not be aware of this, but Port Nelson is the largest seafood processing port in Australasia—it is a huge part of the Nelson economy, it creates thousands of jobs, and I’m really proud, as the granddaughter of a mariner, to be able to continue supporting the work that happens at Port Nelson. The Government has put nearly $10 million into the upgrade of the Nelson slipway, which will help to enable marine engineering jobs to be created and ensure that we can bring the right boats into the port for both processing of seafood but also for maintenance. This sits alongside other investment we’ve made recently that I’m really proud to have advocated for—$2.5 million to the wonderful SnapIT company who kicked off a lot of the work around cameras and boats in New Zealand and are doing amazing work on the world stage, alongside support for our new oceans and fisheries cluster, with a number of companies working together to grow jobs in the oceans and fisheries sector, so that was a wonderful occasion.
The following day, we had another wonderful occasion on an issue that is dear to my heart, and that is housing. It was an emotional day to attend and open 14 beautiful new homes that have been built through the Government’s Progressive Home Ownership Scheme, where we’ve put $3 million into this project. Of those homes, 12 will be what we call rent-to-buy homes, and being able to walk through the homes with the children, see the smiles on the faces of the families who painted the inside of the homes; to see the pride that they had in these homes that are theirs. There was one young woman who had been living in a damp, mouldy home with her young son with respiratory issues, and to see him knowing that he was going to have this beautiful, warm, sunny, dry home; it was one of the best days that I’ve had as the local MP.
We are doing a lot of work around social and community housing in Nelson. In the last week, Kāinga Ora have announced 49 homes to go into my community where I live—of Nelson South—alongside another 16 into Nelson City. On Friday, I’m looking forward to spending part of the day visiting a number of new projects run by the Nelson Tasman Housing Trust, some of which are being supported through Government funding as well. So, in total, there’s nearly 100 homes that have either just been completed, are currently being built, or are in the planning stage over the next couple of years in the social and community housing sector, and I just want to note that in Budget 2023, the Government committed to funding for another 3,000 public homes, so it is going to make a real difference to my community of Nelson.
I’m also looking forward to some changes coming to our public transport system on 1 August, which has been a shared project between Government and local government, where we’ll get more buses running more frequently and to more locations, and sitting alongside the Government’s commitment to make public transport free for under-13-year olds, and half-price for those under 25, this is going to make a huge difference to people’s ability to access alternative forms of transport. So it’s always a wonderful opportunity to take a short call and just celebrate the achievements of our Labour Government in my wonderful, sunny electorate of Nelson.
BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki-King Country): It’s a pleasure to take a call tonight in the general debate, and it’s a pleasure to take it this week, because we’ve just come off the wonderful event of Mystery Creek Fieldays. Being the local member of Parliament for Mystery Creek Fieldays, it was a pleasure to welcome many people here from various parties all the way across the House.
Being the conservation spokesperson, I took the opportunity this year to do some volunteering in the new sustainability hub, and it was really fascinating, as a volunteer, where you had to go around and we had to visit various sites looking at where their rubbish was able to go; where food waste was able to go, if there was food waste, if it was a site that produced food waste; or, if they had coffee machines, where the dregs from the coffee machines were going. Other volunteers were looking at who came in what sort of cars, and various things were happening—who came by bus, where they came from, just trying to work out the carbon footprint of Fieldays. So it was a pretty engaging experience, and one that I enjoyed. We had the summer Fieldays that rained every day and the winter Fieldays that was pretty fine most days, except for Saturday, so it was beautiful on the first three days.
But I wanted to make a point tonight about conservation, because without our industries, conservation wouldn’t exist, and nor would most of the things that we have today. So it really is time, in our society, to leave some of the idealism behind that we’ve been facing for the last period of time. Because everything that we have, that we own, that we look at, every room we go in—everything in the room that we either eat, wear, or outside that we drive, roads—is either grazed, it’s grown, or it’s extracted from beneath our ground. While climate change is extremely important, I wonder how many young climate protestors go along to these protests and have no idea that the bubbles for their drinks actually come from the gas plant in Kapuni in Taranaki. When we lost Marsden Point, we lost another source of that carbon dioxide.
So I think it’s worth knowing, when our children are in school and they’re studying these days—that’s when they are in school, and there have been a lot of strikes lately, and some of them haven’t been there a whole lot—that, actually, they need to understand where their food is made, where their drinks are made, how our renewable energy is made. All of the things that we have are made from something that comes from within, on top of, or below the ground.
It’s great to be working on things like predator-free, but we wouldn’t have a lot of what we have in predator-free and we wouldn’t have a lot of what we have in our conservation projects if we didn’t have these industries who are contributing. I spent a day with some of the mining industry on the West Coast of the South Island last week as well, just before I went to Fieldays. It’s quite amazing, actually, how they can actually restore the biodiversity. They can actually lift it up now. They can actually mine underneath it, put it back down, wet it, plant extra trees, and it grows again. Of course, they’re not doing that in national parks or where biodiversity is really affected; they’re actually picking pieces of land where they’re able to do it without too much disturbance, and they put it back better than they found it.
The conservation estate is 30 percent of our land, so it’s a large geography. It’s either farming, a lot of it is put into energy, and a lot of it is mining, and whether we’re in any of those industries, we all wear boots, and we all have to drive vehicles to get into those distant and far-flung places, but all of us are protecting biodiversity. It needs to be celebrated, because often these industries are pointed at, and farmers do jobs for nature every day, as do our mining industry and as do our infrastructure industry. A lot more offsetting is done out of generosity than many of us would ever, ever recognise. So I think there’s a point where we need to look at our industries and we need to say thank you, because if we drive all of our good industries out of business and we drive our economy of this country down, we will never be able to get to predator-free goals, and we will never have the conservation that we deserve in this country. So I want to shout out to all of our productive industries in New Zealand who do so much work for conservation for us all. Thank you.
NICOLE McKEE (ACT): Mālō e lelei, Madam Speaker. The full firearms registry takes effect from this Saturday, 24 June 2023—an absolute taxpayer-funded failure, to be sure. But let’s clear up some misinformation that has been broadcast around the registry.
We have a registry in place for pistols, restricted weapons, and collector items. It’s actually been there since the 1992 Arms Regulation changes. In the 1980s, a permit to procure process was in force—that’s where the firearm was registered, and not the person. It was a paper-based system that had a 66 percent error rate, so police asked for it to be scrapped.
We moved, then, to lifetime licences, which was looking at the person. In 1992, we had the Arms Regulations. That introduced the 10-year firearms licences and it also introduced endorsements. Endorsements have been in place, and have been registered, since this time—and they still are. Military-style semi-automatics, pistols, restricted weapons, and collector items have been registered since 1992, and still are registered today.
The current registration system is not paper-based; it’s data-driven, and still contains many errors within it. There are concerns around security of information, and rightly so. In December 2019, the police data from their confiscation regime was left open, with owners’ names, addresses, phone numbers, bank account details, and hand-in information accessed. Then there was the wheelie bin that was left behind at the old police station in Vincent Street, Auckland, with around 4,000 licensed firearm owner details inside it. Pages from that wheelie bin were found in the home of a criminal when a search was being undertaken. Many licensed firearm owners do not trust police with this information, and we do have to ask: why should they? Since the start of 2022, police themselves have lost six firearms—a Bushmaster and a Glock 17 are still unrecovered. That’s right: a prohibited firearm and a pistol are still unrecovered, and if in civilian ownership, these would have been registered already.
In question time yesterday, the Minister of Police made the statement that once the registry goes live, “It will be able to map, for the first time, where all firearms are in New Zealand. I believe that this is a good way to find out where the guns are and make sure they are out of the hands of those organised criminal groups who are a danger to our community.” What a load of crock. Mapping for the first time—this isn’t the first time; the first time failed. As for the statement “This is a good way to find out where the guns are”, well, the police already know where the licensed owners’ guns are. They’ve been in our homes, they’ve interviewed our families, and they’ve checked and approved our security. They know exactly where we are, who we are, and who we live with. What the police and its Minister don’t know—and won’t know, even with registration—is where all the illegally held guns are. We know that 95 percent of firearm charges are laid against people who are not licensed; people who would never use a register because they’re not meant to be in possession of a firearm in the first place.
The public are being told that licensed firearm owners are the ones that give gangs guns, and there is no evidence at all of this. Police refused an Official Information Act (OIA) request by saying they don’t capture data on the diversion between licensed and unlicensed people. Maybe some of that diversion came from the 29 gang members on the National Gang List that police did issue a firearms licence for.
Licensing in Canada was meant to cost $2 million; it quickly blew out to $2 billion before the full registry was scrapped. They found 87 percent of firearm homicides were committed with unregistered firearms. It was scrapped due to the extreme cost and lack of effect it was having on gun crime. Justice Thorp, who held an inquiry into firearms use here in New Zealand and who advocated for registration, said it won’t work unless there’s 90 percent compliance. Police answered an OIA admitting that 46 percent of seized firearms had no serial number recorded at all.
Registration will not keep our communities safer. It isn’t even an ambulance at the bottom of the hill; it’s a money pit that Labour are hell-bent on pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into. It doesn’t achieve the objectives of the Arms Legislation Act, which is to keep our community safe. Emphasis needs to be placed on the fit and proper person, and ACT has a bill that will do just that. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Hon PEENI HENARE (Minister for ACC): Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to correct some of what I’ve heard already this evening from the other side of the House. I want to be very clear with the member Melissa Lee’s contribution, who sadly talked about the fate that met one of her family members, and I hope her family member is receiving the care that they deserve. But I want to be very clear: what we are saying here on this side of the House is that we do take equity seriously in the health sector. What we are saying is clearly after COVID-19 there was a backlog in those who were waiting to receive surgery and it was important, in order to address inequities, we had to do something about that waiting list. There are a number of factors that are considered, but the first and primary point to be made is that we trust our doctors to make the right decision so that the person who needs help the most gets that particular service—those in acute need, those in emergency need. And we trust our doctors and back our doctors to be able to do that.
What we also know is, just this morning, that side of the House—Mr Luxon, in his interview on Radio New Zealand with Corin Dann, said, “he doesn’t believe the health system is currently designed in a way that discriminates against Māori and Pasifika.” Well, the first thing I’ll say to that is, actually, he’s right. That’s because this side of the House fixed the inequities in the health system through our health reform. That side of the House wants to get rid of Te Aka Whai Ora—the very system Mr Luxon this morning admits is designed not to discriminate against Māori. That man and that member and that side of the House might want to check their facts on this. I’m proud that on this side of the House we take equity seriously, whether you are Māori, whether you are rural—and in fact, you only need to ask the ACT Party about their overpriced stall at the Fieldays and their poor humour and sense of humour in using golf balls to try and make a point. Well, here’s something for them—fore!—because they’re way off the mark, they are so far off the mark. It is—
Damien Smith: Point of order, Madam Speaker. We did not use any golf balls, or any balls at all. They were actually promoted by Groundswell.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): It’s not actually a valid point of order—
Damien Smith: Well it is, I’m just making a point.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): —in terms of Speakers’ rulings.
Hon PEENI HENARE: Fore! That’s another miscued shot. I want to say that on this side of the House, in order to make sure we have equity in our system, we also are asking them to remember our rural community. This side of the House have heard the pleas from our communities in the rural sector who say, “We deserve better access to healthcare”, and this side is taking it seriously. If you live in poor socio-economic parts of our country—we know where these places are, from electorates in the deep South to the Far North, and we made it clear that we want to prioritise them; and also for our Pasifika community, the evidence is overwhelming, the research is overwhelming. I want to invite members on that side of the House—I can even tee it up for them if they would like; I can tee that golf ball up for them—to get along to a Māori health provider, spend the day with them, and make sure they truly understand the health needs of our people and our community.
I want to quote one of the great National Party Ministers in his time, the Hon Chris Finlayson, who said, “What is good for Māori is good for the rest of the country.” And if that side can’t see it, then they are the ones who are short-sighted and continue to use race as a political football in the upcoming election. And I’m not surprised by that—I’m not surprised by that because on that side of the House, all we hear are flip-flops, a backtrack on the policies that they announce, nothing more than rhetoric to appeal to fringe voters. On this side of the House, we are delivering for our country and we will continue to do that and we will be unapologetic about that. We will make sure that our people get what they deserve when they deserve it.
I’m proud to be surrounded by colleagues who are truly passionate about healthcare, they are passionate about our agricultural sector, they’re passionate about our primary sector. I reflect on National’s policy announcement the other week saying that it’s all going to be about farming and nothing about forestry. Well, forestry providers and forestry owners have already been in touch with me and said, “The other side got it wrong.” Well done to the Labour Government for making sure that their interests are carried into primary production in this country. I’m looking forward to joining the Prime Minister at the end of this week, alongside our colleague Naisi Chen—who I saw come into the House a little earlier—to go and make sure that New Zealand puts its best foot forward when we engage overseas, to make sure that we continue to look towards high export value, to make sure that our primary products continue to feature on the global market in a way that our people deserve.
On this side of the House, we’ve always been clear—we tackle the big challenges. We don’t hide from them, and we don’t hide behind rhetoric; nor do we not hide behind some of the cheap lines and cheap attacks coming from that side of the House. I can’t wait till election day, whānau, because it’s coming, and I’ll be there for the fight.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Order! The time for this debate has expired.
The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.
Bills
Grocery Industry Competition Bill
Third Reading
Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): I present a legislative statement on the Grocery Industry Competition Bill.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.
Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: I move, That the Grocery Industry Competition Bill be now read a third time.
What a great day it is for ordinary New Zealanders, because today this bill will pass into law. A bill which will clamp down on the excess profits that supermarkets have been making. I want to first of all want to recognise the work that my predecessor, Hon Dr David Clark, did getting this bill into the House and before the select committee. He has been a stalwart and done great work in respect of this bill. It is an absolutely momentous day as we proceed to the final vote, and to pass this important bill, to benefit New Zealand consumers—all New Zealanders—to put money back into their pockets by giving them a better deal at the checkout. This is a key step forward in addressing the cost of living.
I’ll say again that this bill is necessary because the Commerce Commission’s market study presented a clear finding: consumers aren’t getting fair deal at the checkout due to systemic competition issues. Consumers deserve a more competitive grocery industry, and this Government has taken action.
There are two clear signs that our grocery markets aren’t working as well as they should. First, excess profits. The profits being made by the big supermarkets, Foodstuffs and Woolworths—they’re taking home between them more than $1 million a day in excess profits, and that’s keeping grocery prices higher. And that’s money—that’s $1 million a day that could be, and should be staying in the pockets of ordinary New Zealanders to help relieve cost of living issues. Second, despite consumer demand for choice and ample room in the market for a third or fourth competitor, we have not seen a new entrant into the grocery market to compete at any scale for more than a decade. And only now that we are taking action are we seeing movement in the market as it becomes clear to prospective new entrants that the time is right, and the ground is fertile. So consumers do deserve a more competitive grocery industry.
This Government is advancing this Grocery Industry Competition Bill to give consumers a more competitive grocery industry. It signals how serious this Government is and how far we will go, as far is as necessary to ensure Kiwis can buy groceries at affordable prices, and can shop for the range of products that they demand. This bill will regulate the grocery industry to benefit consumers. It creates a Grocery Commissioner to monitor and regulate the industry and to keep the New Zealand public informed of what is happening.
It provides a platform for retailers to enter and expand in the grocery industry by imposing requirements on the duopoly to facilitate commercial arrangements for the wholesale supply of groceries, and there’s a flexible toolkit of backstop measures if it doesn’t work. So there’s more to be done. We will remain vigilant in this space. So this will allow the commission and the Government to impose additional regulation if necessary.
It also provides new protections for suppliers through introducing a grocery supply code to limit the ability of the duopoly to pressure suppliers into accepting contracts that are one-sided. The days of onerous contracts foisted on suppliers are gone. We recognise that a fair market for suppliers is a fair market for consumers, and we will look to ensure this.
This bill has real aims and real ambitions, and we are making progress. Success will exist when there are grocery retailers genuinely and vigorously competing against each other, and we are starting to see that happen, and we are seeing fairer prices already. Success is an innovative grocery industry that provides consumers with clever ways of shopping, saves time and effort. Success is that consumers have choice to do the full weekly shop at a single store beyond just those owned by both Foodstuffs and Woolworths, and paying a fair price at the checkout. Success is when small, locally owned suppliers have more options of grocery retailers that they can sell into for fair prices to get them to consumers. And success is when the excessive rise of grocery prices that we have seen, which have been rising faster than inflation, starts to level off—
Simon Court: Off you go then—off you go and take your inflation with you.
Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: —and that’s something that we are seeing now as well, Simon Court. Yes, that’s right. It’s working. We are making progress. We are a Government of change who sees a problem and addresses it. We are not a party that goes backwards and stands still like on the other side of the House. This is a problem that has been coming for a while and the other side of the House did nothing, has done nothing in the competition space because it likes to look after its mates. But we will not. We will take on the difficult problems of our economy, and we will use the Commerce Commission to do it.
Success looks like having a Grocery Commissioner in place, and I am very confident that it will be a highly competent Grocery Commissioner with a very specific set of skills, and a high degree of expertise in this sector, and also the passion, the desire, and the competence to make the change that is necessary. I want to say that, for suppliers, success looks like a grocery supply code that addresses the critical pain points they’re facing.
If you wanted to do something useful, Mr Court, go and look at the exposure draft of that code and have some input into how to make the rules fair for everyone. Not just for big business, but for small and medium sized business as well, so that the economy works well and at the checkout people are paying the right price for the best goods and the best service. That’s the main thing, though. This is a massive shift for all of consumers so that they will get the best price, the best quality, the best range. I do want to thank the National Party for seeing that this is a useful piece of legislation, for embarking on this in a constructive manner.
You know, so what we are seeing—we are already seeing early signs of success. Costco—admittedly a large multinational, but it’s seen that the time is right to compete in this market. We haven’t seen a new entrant to the grocery sector for decades. The Labour Government signals that it’s making change and we see a new entrant. What’s more, we see Supie, an online-only retailer doing something innovative and new. The time is right. The ground is fertile, we are having a competitive market.
There are at least six retailers who have signed wholesale supply agreements in with these large supermarket chains, because we are making them do it, we’re making the supermarkets sell their groceries to other retailers at fair prices. The Warehouse is investing in a grocery range. It has aggressively entered the market. You’ll have seen their products at lower prices to entice people into their stores. It’s working. What we are doing is boldly addressing what’s been a long-term structural issue throughout this sector. We are laying the foundations for much-needed change. And as more players enter the market over time as unit pricing comes in—another step—this will increasingly stimulate competition on value, and customers will have better access.
But look, this is an important step. I do want to thank the select committee under the leadership of Naisi Chen and, prior to her, Jamie Strange for the hard work, and the members on that committee. But most importantly members of the public who had a say and who moved to make improvements to this bill and who will hopefully see the benefits of it. So thank you to all the New Zealanders who have written to me and spoken about your experiences in supermarkets, and the fact that the cost of living is causing a strain. We’ve heard you. We’re making changes, and you will see a difference.
I’m delighted to tell you all that this Government will be passing a bill—this bill, which will have a real and positive impact on your lives every day, and on your weekly grocery shop. We can all look forward to the grocery shop being easier on the pockets with less of the hard-earned cash of everyday New Zealanders going to supermarkets. It will stay where it should: in your pockets. I commend this bill to the House.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the motion be agreed to.
ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is a pleasure to be talking on this third reading of the Grocery Industry Competition Bill. I think that the Minister, who, with all due respect, has been a Minister for a very short period of time, will come to regret some of the statements he made in that speech. I think it was over-exuberant, and I suspect he’s got carried away with officials telling him what a great job he’s doing. Actually, I think a much more pragmatic and business-like focus should be applied to this particular bill.
So on that note, we have supported this bill, and we have worked closely with the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee. And I’ve got to commend the chair and the members of the select committee on both sides of the House who worked proactively to try and improve this bill as much as possible. But I’m not going to stand here tonight and say this is the panacea for everyone who is suffering from a cost of living crisis. What we hope to achieve by this bill is some improvements in the grocery trade.
I just want to go through some of the big issues for us. The first one, and we have repeatedly asked the Minister about this, and the former Minister who was responsible for this bill—the first critical success factor for this bill is the appointment of someone with the requisite skills and expertise as the Grocery Commissioner. What we mean by that is we do not want to see necessarily someone who’s a lawyer or an economist who has a smattering of knowledge around the grocery trade. Actually, what we prefer is someone with bucket loads of information and experience and who has worked in the grocery trade, who may actually have those other skills, such as legal or economic skills.
If the Minister does not make that a proper appointment, that will be the first and major failing of this bill, and I will hold him to his words—what he has just spoken about and what he said last night in the committee of the whole House—that the appropriate person will be recruited. Because if they are not, then this whole bill faces the prospect of actually not getting off and actually leading to a better outcome.
The second thing is it is necessary that an appropriate grower supplier code is put in place and, of course, there’s a tension between growers and suppliers and supermarkets. So what I’d just say to everyone is that this is not simply about making sure that we’ve got a fair price. It is also about making sure that there are fair terms and conditions, and it’s actually around the terms and conditions of supply and how that’s arranged and the fees that go alongside it—that is where you need an experienced Grocery Commissioner to be able to see through what is really happening and the different mechanisms that could be possibly imposed in the future.
Our view is that that document should not lie in the hands of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE), and National’s fought hard to make sure that that document becomes a living, breathing document. And I’m glad that the select committee agreed that the initial draft should be done by MBIE, in the interests of time, but the responsibility for updating it and keeping that document live should rest with the Commerce Commission and particularly the Grocery Commissioner. Because that person will see firsthand what is happening and be able to react to it quickly.
The second thing is we were concerned about having an effective dispute mechanism. I’m glad again that the committee agreed to the change. We wanted to make sure that there was a quick process to resolve disputes, so not to rely on a court process, and, of course, that was what had been envisaged originally in the bill. There was some resistance. I’m glad now that we have an alternative dispute procedure for disputes under $5 million, because I think if there is a dispute between a supplier and the supermarket, having a quick resolution around that is absolutely crucial. And I think that is an improvement to the bill that we were happy to push through.
The next area is the role of the Commerce Commission in monitoring the activities of supermarkets. This has been widened, this monitoring role, not only in terms of overseeing the grocery aspects of the supermarkets, but also to deal with potential new markets or products or services they provide, such as the sale of TVs. Obviously, supermarkets do fuel sales, and we agree with the change which futureproofed the legislation by allowing the Commerce Commission to have regard for all products and services sold by the supermarkets.
Now, the next thing I want to turn to is the issue of wholesale supply. This is where I think the Minister, himself, got carried away in his speech because this is a significant issue. It was proposed that by the Commerce Commission that supermarkets should be required to offer wholesale pricing arrangements and supplier arrangements to competing companies that want to offer grocery around the country. This now enshrines the involvement in supermarkets and wholesale supply—so, obviously, it’s not arranging their own supply but offering it to third parties. This is the most contentious, in my view, and the most dangerous part of this bill, and we have some concerns about this particular aspect. Because if we get it wrong and we enshrine that right, and it ends up not delivering the outcomes for competitive suppliers, what this bill has done and what the whole intent of this is to actually legitimise a downstream movement by those supermarkets from the supplier right through to the end retail. And, of course, there’s the logistical aspect involved in the delivery of wholesale products.
Labour was very keen to support that. I think our support is much more reticent around that, and I think one of our major concerns about this is that it removes the opportunity for third party markets. If I give an example: for the supply of groceries or vegetables such as lettuces or whatever, traditionally they used to go to a market such as Turners and Growers in Auckland, and it was an open, transparent market. With these new wholesale arrangements, those suppliers will now have to bid into a Countdown or a Foodtown arrangement. They will know their personal bid and the volume they’re prepared to do, but only the supermarket will know what the result of the entire bid process is.
That means that there’s a potential that we’re going to lose the independents and the transparency of those important markets, such as the fresh vegetable market. Again, what this means is there’s an enshrinement of a further degree of control by the supermarkets. So I’d just say to the Minister, in his wonderful enthusiasm, that this is a key issue. And again, if the Grocery Commissioner does not have good oversight and does not ensure that this aspect of competition is protected and nurtured and continues, then we really have ended up in a poor situation in respect to these bill proposals.
The other side of this is that we were very keen that in terms of wholesale the definition included not just the supermarket itself in terms of its wholesale arrangements but any arrangements they may have either through subsidiaries, through partnerships, or any entities which they may control. That’s not necessarily an ownership issue. It might be through market control of that entity. And that was, again, a very specific change that National pushed for in the legislation.
But look, in the interests of time, I want to say that we are supporting the bill. It’s essential that we get the right person. We will monitor the wholesale aspect very, very closely. But the last thing is, if it fails, the Minister said we’re going to regulate more. That is not what National supports. This bill already has a significant amount of legislation. The prospect of just legislating more, in my view, will not work. We believe that there may be a need to look at restricting some activities of the supermarket, but if this does not work well in future, we’ll keep an open mind on that. However, only time will tell whether this will deliver discernible benefits for hard-pressed families in New Zealand.
NAISI CHEN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m incredibly proud today to be in the House to pass such an important bill. And I do congratulate the Minister, Hon Dr Duncan Webb, and the Hon Dr David Clark, as well, for shepherding through this bill, and incredibly proud to have been chairing the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee. As my colleague across the House has painstakingly gone over all of the details that our select committee has considered during the process, I won’t go over it again, but I do thank the National Party as well for their cooperation during the consideration of this bill.
I love supermarkets—I do have emotional connection to them. The only Pak ’N Save in North Shore was open in Albany, which used to be quite a far away place. But my piano teacher used to live in Albany, and so once a week I would go to my piano lesson and then after piano lesson our whole entire family—my parents and my grandparents—would come and pick me up and go to the supermarket in Albany. So it was always a great experience, and I would always get to pick up an ice-cream or something—a treat at the end to reward me for having practised my piano that week. And as we went into lockdown, the supermarket became the only place I could go to leave the house, really, and to have some sort of excitement in life.
But as we went through the market study for supermarkets, we saw, I guess, a more sinister side, a darker side to the supermarket industry—that $1 million of profit per day that the two supermarket chains are now harvesting. In a hard time like this, we have to do something about it.
As the Minister has mentioned, this is a bill to make sure that all New Zealand consumers are being given a fair deal at the checkout. But to me, also, this bill is about making sure we give our suppliers, our farmers, and our growers a fair deal as well. I can never forget the time when I went into one of my colleagues Ingrid Leary’s electorate and met with some of our farmers, and they said, “Well, milk prices haven’t grown and the prices are getting more expensive in the supermarket. Where has the money gone?” Well, here it is. We’re showing it. And this is also to our growers who are market gardeners. I come from a community full of market gardeners, and we have a proud tradition of feeding New Zealand in the Chinese community. So this is to our dairies, to our veggie shops, to everyone here in New Zealand, this is a great bill that will change New Zealanders’ lives, and I commend this bill to the House.
SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a good thing to be able to rise and talk on this bill, the Grocery Industry Competition Bill. I’ve listened to the Minister and the chair of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee and also our fantastic Andrew Bayly, talking on this so far. The sentiment in the House is that this is something we support, and I will reiterate that.
It is a true statement that people are paying far too much for their groceries at the moment. It is a really significant undertaking for families, and they go in there and they are coughing up. I looked at a block of cheese the other day. I was stupid enough to pick up the Tasty from Mainland, the 1-kilo block—it’s a great cheese; yes, it is—but the price of $20 really smacked me, and I thought “Crikey, that is an extremely expensive block of cheese.” I rightly put it back and went for the more budget block Colby version. I’m sure there are many families around the country who are doing exactly the same, or probably going even further and just leaving the cheese altogether. And it’s not just cheese; if we look across all grocery items, over the past 12 months, they are up over 12 percent. We are in a cost of living crisis—we really are. We look at fresh fruit and vegetables: up 22.5 percent over the past 12 months. That is significantly above the Consumers Price Index (CPI), which is running incredibly hot anyway, the hottest it’s been for 30 years—since I can remember anyway. Families out there are doing it really tough, so it is prudent upon this House that it does take some steps to make it a little bit easier.
New Zealand is quite unique in the situation that over 90 percent of our supermarkets come under a duopoly: Foodstuffs and Woollies. That does enable them to enter into arrangements, or whatever it may be, where prices are kept high and kept probably a little bit higher than where they need to be. At the moment, the sentiment coming back is that they are well above what families can tolerate. I mean, that is also just the net result of a cost of living crisis that has been largely fuelled by a reckless Government that has spent far too much money and fuelled inflation—reckless monetary policy that has pumped significant sums of money into the economy—and inevitably that has flowed into what is now persistently high inflation, and a lot higher than what our peers have, who have dropped away. We are still persistently high, and groceries are no exception; in fact, they are above the CPI, and they don’t really show any sign of abating. So, look, it is a good thing that we are here to encourage a bit more competition in what is a very stifled industry, and it is generally supply-side constraints that are leading to this.
I like the way that the Commerce Commission did stop covenants that prohibited the development of new supermarkets in certain areas. There needs to be developments of those new supermarkets. There are high entry barriers, so breaking them down is a positive thing. I recall my time living in Sydney. There were numerous supermarkets around. Down the road, there was a Woollies, and it had a fantastic cheese room, probably not one that you’d want to go into these days, although I do note that prices over there were significantly cheaper due to the competition. When I went back there earlier this year, I noted the same again. You walk into a New Zealand supermarket and you get a bit of a shock, which is what I try and do at least once a month. I get out there and take the shopping list off my wife and go out there and fill up the trolley. Not only is it an excellent way to get a bit of publicity with a National Party jacket on my back, looking like the everyday man, it gives my wife a break, and I get to understand what the current prices are.
One of the good things about living in Sydney was that there were numerous supermarkets. You had your Coles, you had your Woollies, you had your ALDIs—you also had Costco. One of my best mates over there was going out to Costco. He signed up and he got the card—and, TJ, if you’re watching this on the northern beaches, I’m sure you enjoy going there and stocking up your freezer full of meat, and he certainly did. But I was quite lucky where I lived, in Edgecliff. There was an ALDI and a Coles very close by. So I’d go into the ALDI occasionally and top up—
Simon Court: They’ll never come to New Zealand while the foreign direct investment rules sterilise them.
SAM UFFINDELL: And I like the point that’s come out of the ACT party. They occasionally pipe up with some good rhetoric, and that was good from Simon Court. There are challenging foreign direct investment rules, and there are challenging Resource Management Act (RMA) rules. The RMA is extremely prohibitive in New Zealand, and it really—
Hon Rachel Brooking: Let’s reform it.
SAM UFFINDELL: “Let’s reform it.”, we hear from the other side of the House. I agree; let’s reform it. Let’s just not reform it with what this Government is proposing. We will have the opportunity hopefully very soon. But the competition is as essential—it really is—and, without it, it’s extremely difficult for everyday Kiwis to get ahead. We saw on the news tonight they’re now paying over $600 a week in rent. It’s gone up about 10 percent in the last year. I mean, that’s a really, really tough environment for families. You’ve got core staples, accommodation, and food prices that keep going up.
I just want to note to a point that Andrew Bayly very sensibly raised when he spoke, and that’s about ensuring that the appointment of the commissioner is the correct appointment. I’ve mentioned in this House before my reservation and trepidation about the appointment of people on to the board of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand probably lacking the experience, the prudential understanding, to govern what is one of our most important institutions. If we can’t get it right there, I’m not necessarily filled to the brim with confidence that we can get it right in this instance. But I note the Minister—and also the Minister who I was chatting with in the gym a little bit earlier this evening. We were talking about this bill. I know the Minister will be very keen to see this succeed, as we all will be, to make sure that the right appointment is made into the role of the commissioner, because that is really important, to give confidence to the sector, to give confidence to the National Party, which is, in good faith, backing this bill, because we do want to see more competition. We do want to see the cost of living on staples come down—on everything but on things that are unavoidable: food, groceries being absolutely essential—and also to make sure that, when the commissioner does insert themselves into the market, they do so in the right manner.
Hopefully, we get the nod in a few months’ time and we can continue working with this commissioner. So let’s all work together on this and make sure that we get the right person in there for continuity’s sake and to ensure that the robustness of the system can continue. I support this bill. Thank you.
GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): Madam Speaker, I thank you for allowing me to take this call. It’s lovely, as the previous speaker Sam Uffindell, the everyday man, spoke about his Tasty cheese. I’m impressed he does go to the supermarket occasionally. I like to admit that I am the everyday man as well. Even though I am a member of Parliament now, I still shop the same way I’ve always shopped, and that is that bargain hunter that goes from supermarket to supermarket and from grocer to grocer to get that deal of that small block of cheese or that lettuce or that carrot.
So when I when I look around and do my shopping, it is always interesting to see what is around and what we have. Hence, this piece of legislation around the Grocery Industry Competition Bill is necessary, as I get around and look at the different suppliers and look at the different retailers.
I want to acknowledge Roebuck Farm, who is a local supplier. I know the piece of the legislation I want to mention briefly is around how this bill provides new protections to suppliers in terms of how the code is to limit the ability of the duopoly to pressure suppliers into accepting contracts that are wholly one-sided. In the small growers—the small makers—that is important and that is necessary.
I also want to acknowledge the Hon David Clark, who initially brought this to the House, and then the Hon Dr Duncan Webb. I believe this is his first piece of legislation as a Minister that will be becoming into law—so congratulations on that.
We in the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee worked hard on this. I was grateful that we were able to bring it back to the House in support, working together, which is something that generally happens—we get on most of the time. But I’m excited that the Grocery Industry Competition Bill will become legislation, and I commend this bill to the House.
DAMIEN SMITH (ACT): It is an honour tonight to be here for this bill and to have the two Ministers responsible for its passage through the House. The bill itself does claim to seek to improve competition and efficiencies in the grocery sector on behalf of the benefits of consumers, and it responds to some of the recommendations of the Commerce Commission’s market study into New Zealand retail grocery stores. I did invite Mr Webb to come to see Costco with me, but he never took me up on that, and I was just wondering, had he been there yet or not to finalise this?
Hon Dr Duncan Webb: If you yield—I’ll answer if you want.
DAMIEN SMITH: No, I asked you to come with me.
Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Do you want me to answer that question?
DAMIEN SMITH: No. You know, we’ll have ultimate confidence in this bill once Michael Wood buys shares in the Australian supermarket industry, so we can get some piece of the action here in New Zealand. So as a Labour Party broker—and, as David Seymour says, a broker could be his next profession. We believe that that would be a confidence measure of extreme standards.
Tex Edwards, from the consumer-busting-commerce organisation, said this is “fantasy legislation” written by lobbyists and would create a “Disneyland” department within the Commerce Commission. It represents what’s weak about public policy in New Zealand. And his view, and I tend to share this, is that instead of having bitty business models like Costco does—a certain type of structure—what the public is looking for is a like-for-like third party operator that comes to New Zealand to give consumers a better offer, and I don’t think this bill facilitates that.
Does the Minister believe that forcing supermarkets to act as wholesale suppliers to their competitors would discourage the international food retailers from entering the New Zealand market? I think it would, and I think if you look—it needs a complete repeal of the Resource Management Act. Nobody from the Overseas Investment Office was consulted about this bill, and, you know, we’d certainly like to see some work in the future to build on this document which would cover those areas.
Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Welcome to the 1970s!
DAMIEN SMITH: You’re the one that was talking about fixing profits for an organisation like a supermarket.
So the Minister doesn’t show any concern that all that requiring supermarkets to act as wholesale suppliers to their competitors would encourage existing new retailers to raise their prices to cover losses—this may occur as a result, but nobody’s done that analysis. In terms of international examples, nobody in the advisory panel has been able to show compulsory Government pricing isn’t effective to increasing competition. So, will this bill provide for greater incentives for international food retailers to come here; enter New Zealand? Well, if you don’t remove the overseas investment approval process for OECD countries—which my bill proposed, which was shot down by the Labour Party, or easing the consents process to build new supermarkets, what is the possibility over the next 10 years of new entrants coming here? And I don’t think the answer is rosy.
Does the Minister believe also that to increase new market entrants, the Government should have actually opened the door to embrace new business models? I’m a big fan of the Asian supermarket chains in this country; I think they could be expanded into something quite competitive, and I looked at their prices, and I’m sure Naisi Chen would support me on this: they are very competitive in terms of domestic produce. So there is something going on there which we don’t know about.
But a box is a box; and IT systems, fridges, a management system, and staff is what makes supermarkets in the right location work. So food price inflation comes from regulating farmers, it being too expensive to get water, local regulation bodies—and that’s why we’ve got food price inflation in this country. It isn’t that there isn’t enough supermarkets and where they’re situated; it’s the input side of the process. Local suppliers with big brands and lazy product development: are they going to provide price competition? Well, supermarkets is a good example where it’s the fast-moving consumer goods product marketers that said that and the margins are pretty standardised. So what you’re paying for is either a smaller impact now or a bigger price, which is set by the international conglomerates to profit from New Zealanders, not necessarily the supermarket chains.
In terms of where we go from here, we believe that over the next five years for new entrants, even if the Commerce Commission has recommended against designation, that would mean an entrant like ALDI could be compelled to supply all of its competitors with products from all these global supply chains at regulated prices. But if the Minister believes it to be in the public interest, does the Government believe that it should encourage potential entrants like ALDI—and why would ALDI even consider coming here with the kind of risks hanging over it to get a supermarket chain built? In terms of capital, you probably need $100 million just to buy sites in this country; trying to get through the regulatory process and local authority level is next to impossible. And, you know, some of those things are what is stopping people coming to this country, and that is stopping competition.
Just to talk about Land Information New Zealand, it reported no conversations as of October 2022—and I stand to be corrected on this by the Minister—with the Government about grocery entries. If more grocery retail entries is in the public interest, shouldn’t the Overseas Investment Office be directed to consider grocery retail entry as being the public interest? And isn’t that the role of the Minister to direct that organisation to facilitate new entrants to this market to fulfil the bill’s ambition, which is more consumer choice, more consumer confidence, and better prices? How does this Government believe that a regulator can set and enforce regulated prices across thousands of individual grocery products—many of which will be perishable and of varying quality? Mr Clark, when he gets his bike and goes cycling round Dunedin, and maybe he can put the white coat on in the afternoon and go and check the prices and report back through an algorithm about what is actually happening in the real world. Because I know Mr Webb goes to Moore Wilson’s and doesn’t see the harsh reality of life in New Zealand for the public.
So we will not be supporting this bill. The overview of industry competition is very simplistic, and we believe there’s still an iteration after this where the major entities—which are the supermarket chains—should be made to face up to a like-for-like third party operator who can give them a run for their money and who actually can bring real competition to the New Zealand market.
RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’d like to begin by—I won’t even try to begin my speech by having some anecdotal account of shopping at the supermarket, because the reality is, it’s not so much about our experience shopping that has led to this bill, the Grocery Industry Competition Bill, but many low-income communities who are struggling to put food on the table has created a conversation in Parliament and now legislative measures to ensure that there’s better competition in the supermarket industry.
We have supported this bill through the different stages of the House, and I acknowledge the collegial nature of the select committee process to have a bill that would create better regulation and oversight around the behaviour of supermarkets, also being able to have measures to address disputes where, for example, a grocery supplier or a wholesale consumer and a regular grocery retailer may be having issues. And all is well and fine, because it will, in the long term, ensure that the smaller players are able to—should capitalism work as intended—provide cheaper goods and services for people.
I know a lot of the conversation here has been around access to fresh kai, and I acknowledge that supermarkets also serve as a point of sale for other types of products. But focusing on the food and fresh produce more specifically, I do think that supermarkets, as a concept, where our communities access fresh food, a relatively new construct. I think it’s worth understanding that, actually, for many of our communities, you don’t have to go back that many generations ago to realise that the supply chains were not so controlled by a duopoly and one that, despite all of the attempted green-washing efforts to work with food-rescue operations and what not, ultimately is putting profit as paramount. That is what has led, in my view, beyond the inflationary pressures to supermarkets putting food prices up at the expense of people while people are facing a high cost of living.
This is why, particularly with this sort of profit-seeking behaviour at the expense of everything else, it is important that we do have things like regulatory backstop tools that can be applied to start looking breaking up some of those bigger players and ensuring that they don’t control such a big share of the market.
But beyond that, I think we need to ask—after the passage of this legislation—what comes next? Because it will take some time for the impacts of this bill to be seen in our communities, but we also need to—and I acknowledge that no one here has said that this bill be some sort of panacea or silver bullet, but we still, as a country, don’t have a long-term food strategy. We don’t have enough funding for even things like mahinga kai or urban food gardens or greater strategies around publicly-owned food markets, where growers can take their produce directly to consumers.
And so, I guess, in having support of the Government’s measures of this bill, I do want to leave my final contribution in this legislation as a point of encouragement for the Government to treat access to food as a fundamental human right and to invest in access to food beyond the control of supermarkets to ensure that this doesn’t happen again.
I guess I want to give a shout-out to, well, the previous Minister, but the current one, Duncan Webb, specifically, because I think we’re going to have a conversation that I think will, ultimately, be so related to this bill and Duncan Webb’s other member’s bill, Companies (Directors Duties) Amendment Bill, and I look forward to having the conversation about whether we can force to company directors to look at things beyond profit, because I think this will, actually, really marry up what we’re trying to do in this bill, to actually put forward those really, really important questions.
We support this bill, we look forward to improving the regulations set out here and, hopefully, continue receiving feedback from consumers and our communities around the impacts of this bill when it comes to access to affordable food.
INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): The problem that this bill solves or seeks to solve is that until now the supermarkets have been making in excess of $1 million profit per day. I think there’s agreement across the House that this is unacceptable. How to dismantle the duopoly is a much more difficult question, and this legislation seeks to do that.
The work of the select committee was to really ensure that the legislation was fit for purpose. I sat on that select committee—on the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee—and we looked particularly at the wholesale supply regime. I want to commend the collegiate work that happened, especially looking at the contractual arrangements and the complex business arrangements that major players in the market have done in order to be able to work around the rules.
Because, at the end of the day, we as politicians can stand here and say that it is unethical or immoral to get excess profits, but actually that’s how capitalism works. The rules have to be fair and they have to be proportionate. Clearly they haven’t been, and what this bill is seeking to do is to correct that. It’s a brave and a bold move, and something to be commended. I’m really excited to see what is going to happen over time to make grocery prices fairer for everyday New Zealanders as a result of this. I commend it to the House.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a split call. Five minutes—the Hon David Bennett.
Hon DAVID BENNETT (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The National Party is supporting this bill but personally I just struggle to see how it’s actually going to achieve its purpose. You know, everybody has a choice where they want to buy their fruit and vegetables. Nobody forces you to go to one of the two supermarket chains to get your fruit and vegetables, and you can actually get them cheaper if you go to the local greengrocer down the road. When you go to the supermarkets, you’ve got a choice. You can go to the very little ones where you’re paying more for convenience, or you can go for the bigger ones, and you can go for your shopping and decide to get that when it’s on special and that when it’s not. So nobody forces anybody to go to a supermarket; you’ve got that choice.
The reality is that a Labour Government getting involved in any business is bad news. I just can’t see it work when the Labour Government gets involved in any business; it’s just how they operate. There are two things that I think people should be aware of in regard to our fruit and vegetables at the moment. Fruit and veggies are probably the bit that we all expect New Zealand to be able to produce. The reality is that our fruit and veggie growers do not get a return on their investment. You look at kūmaras at the moment—completely destroyed because of the weather this year. Very expensive; going to be very expensive next year as well. Those growers don’t get the return to satisfy a business that’s got to continue long term. Let’s actually be real about it. If we want to do that kind of thing, we need to give the growers the return they need.
Secondly, if you look at what’s actually happening in the sector, especially in the fruit and veggie market, the supermarkets are becoming very dependent on one or two suppliers on purpose, because they can regulate control of price and of quality, and this bill actually accelerates that. It gives them the power to be the wholesaler to other players that come into the market. The very thing that they’ve done in the last decade in their market is actually what this bill actually accelerates. It helps them in their market plan.
So we are supporting it because we need to see something done in this area; there’s no doubt about it. I know that the Labour Party have got it wrong. They have got it wrong as normal. All they’re doing is actually helping the supermarkets make more money. They are actually accelerating the economic gain that they have undertaken in the last decade, and nobody is forced to go to a supermarket and buy their fruit and veggies. You have a choice. Exercise your choices, consumers. Be smart about your money, and you will actually be able to save. You do not need a Labour Government to make your savings on your daily spend.
STEPH LEWIS (Labour—Whanganui): On this side of the House, we are focused on the bread and butter issues that New Zealanders care about. Quite literally, this bill is aimed at reducing the cost of bread and butter for New Zealanders at the supermarket. That is why I am supporting this bill.
In all seriousness, as someone who grew up in a household who at times watched my parents have to decide whether it was pay for food for us kids or pay for petrol for dad to get to work—so as we had an income the next week—I am very proud that this Government is tackling another big issue head-on to try and reduce the cost of living pressures that Kiwis are facing. We’re doing that for groceries. We’re doing that for the fuel industry as well. So I have absolutely no hesitation in commending this bill to the House.
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Mr Speaker. This is a good day. I want to track back right to the beginning of this legislation and think about the market study that kicked us off: the market study that was supported by the Labour Government in order to really get to the bottom of competition issues in this country. I want to acknowledge the Commerce Commission for their work, Anna Rawlings, and our current Chair of the Commerce Commission, John Small, for the analysis that led to the actions that this Government is taking. They have made a real difference through their work under quite a lot of time pressure and through some robust conversations with the sector and some extraordinarily good analysis.
I want to also acknowledge the effect of the market studies on the actual behaviour of the sector. We saw, before this legislation went through, the acceptance of unit pricing, the acceptance of a Grocery Commissioner, and the acceptance of a grocery code. We saw price freezes in the sector, and we’ve seen what scrutiny in the sector can provide. I anticipate that that appointment of a Grocery Commissioner at the appropriate time will see future developments in the sector as the sector understands what it means to be watched, to be scrutinised, and to see real competition in the marketplace.
I want to congratulate the Hon Dr Duncan Webb and his team, and all of the excellent officials who have worked on this bill because they have done some superb work. Those officials—they were excellent. When I had the privilege of leading this bill to the House, they were superb, they were robust, and they were thoughtful. We disagreed on some things, but we worked hard to find solutions that would be in the interests of New Zealanders and we got there.
As a Government, we decided that we would accept the majority of the Commerce Commission’s findings. We disagreed with them on a couple. We think that a regulatory backstop is actually what’s needed to make the difference in the market, and we had acknowledgments from the sector subsequently that that actually is the thing that will make a difference. We also wanted to see more regular reporting through from the Grocery Commission, because we think New Zealanders deserve to know what’s going on in that sector and deserve to understand how competition is improving.
I want to then also just briefly acknowledge some of the people who worked very directly on this bill in its preparatory phases. I want to acknowledge Jonathan Gee, Sam Farrell and Melissa Turner in my office, who worked very long hours to make this the best bill it could be. I want to acknowledge Katherine Rich, Jon Duffy, and Tex Edwards. I actually want to acknowledge also the duopoly leaders, Chris Quin and Spencer Sonn, for the conversations—the grown-up conversations that we had to have along the way. The likes of Matt Lane as well, The Warehouse, Supie, Circle K—actually, everybody who contributed through the select committee process to make sure this is the best bill that it can be.
It is world-leading. It will ensure that New Zealanders pay a fair price at the supermarket, and I wish all of those who are involved now in implementing it the very best. This is a Government that is concerned about the bread and butter issues for New Zealanders, and I’m very proud to have played a part in developing this legislation.
SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): I must say, listening to that last contribution, I actually thought that we might have heard a retraction of a retirement speech come out there for the Hon David Clark, who I do respect because there’s a few spare seats on the bus opening up on that side of the House.
But let’s get into the Grocery Industry Competition Bill, third reading—a bill that National will be supporting this evening. As the Minister who was involved in the initial aspects of this bill has articulated, there are a number of components of this bill which will derive value in regards to the overall sector. National have outlined and continue to outline, through the passing of this bill, those aspects and comments.
I do want to, though, comment on a couple of elements that have been raised by other speakers this evening, in regards to the grocery sector, and a line that has often been used, particularly by that side of the House, in regards to the super profits, or the $1 million per day. I’d like to remind those that make those comments that the period in which those profits were derived were during the pandemic and during the period in which Auckland in particular was locked down for over 100 days. For those that don’t remember or who were outside of Wellington, or particularly living in the South Island, they might not appreciate what it was like living in Auckland. The only place you could buy your groceries in Auckland during that period was from the two major supermarket chains. You couldn’t buy it from your local butcher. You couldn’t go to the local greengrocer. Many of the small operators were closed and you were not able to shop.
So it doesn’t take a mathematician to work out that if you close down all the other competitive environment and the competitors, then the only place that you have to spend it is within the supermarket. So using this sort of super profits in a period of a pandemic where Auckland is locked down is a little bit rich, to say the least, and potentially not quite a reasonable basis in order to make those assumptions.
The other fact, just to remind people, is that actually, while we do have two significant players within the grocery sector, one of those players in particular is 100-percent Kiwi-owned. Foodstuffs South Island has 200 stores and employs over 14,000 Kiwis across their entities. Foodstuffs North Island—over 100 years old is that entity—100-percent Kiwi-owned, 330 stores across the country, employing over 24,000 New Zealanders. So when that side of the House attacks the grocery sector, when they attack those two entities in particular, they are by doing that attacking all of those hard-working Kiwis within our Four Squares, our New Worlds, our Pak ’N Save, our Countdowns, our FreshChoices, our Gilmours; those that at this hour of the night, no doubt, for those supermarkets that are starting to close, will be doing the night fill shift in terms of stocking those shelves, many of which aren’t on significant high salaries. That side of the House is attacking them and saying that they are all villains.
And that is the divisive nature of this Government’s policies. It is a great shame that they need to get into that space, particularly on a bill such as this, which, in essence, at a fundamental level, does have some positive comments. But when it starts to get into this conversation around attacking the profitability of entities, then they need to balance up that aspect.
The other aspect to raise is that food prices are and continue to increase in this country. But the food price element, running at around 12.1 percent annual inflation, is driven by a number of factors, and to take it that it is solely the supermarkets profiteering that is driving up that food price is simply not the reality. The cost of the inputs into those products is a significant driver, and, again, this Government’s regulation and legislation has in part led to significant increases in costs on businesses in this country. That is a factor of why consumers are paying higher prices when they go to the supermarket checkout and look to get their goods.
Lastly, I also want to acknowledge those working in our grocery sector across our country, and I think particularly of those in our urban centres when we see the impact of law and order and crime on our grocery sector and our grocery industry. I don’t see that there are any components of this grocery industry bill that actually deal with one of the most fundamental issues that are facing our grocery sector at the moment, and that is the out-of-control issues around law and order that are happening in the thing.
In my home electorate of the North Shore, at the local Countdown, about three times a week someone walks out of that store with a trolley full of groceries without paying. In my New World store in Shore City in Takapuna, a person, only in the last four months, walked out with a supermarket trolley full of food and actually physically assaulted and pushed over two members of the staff, one of which was hospitalised because of the injuries sustained from that assault from someone stealing a trolley full of groceries. And it is very common and people are seeing it weekly, and if not daily, in this country. Because of the lack of consequences, people are doing that within our grocery sector, and those staff members, as I have articulated before, are the ones that are at the front line dealing with that. This is a lost opportunity in terms of an opportunity, at least, that the Government could have used to implement some changes to strengthen up the issues that we have in that space.
But that’s all I want to cover on this bill in its third reading. National will be supporting this bill, and thank you very much.
Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a real pleasure to speak on the third and final reading of this bill, the Grocery Industry Competition Bill. And congratulations to Minister Duncan Webb and also former Minister David Clark for getting the bill to this point.
I didn’t sit on the select committee that heard the submissions on the bill, but in the context of the high cost of living—needing to make sure that nobody has to pay any more than they need to at the supermarket. And as we’ve heard tonight and previously when the Commerce Commission released its report last year, what it found was that that competition in the sector wasn’t working well for consumers. So thinking through with many families, particularly those on low incomes, they’re paying a huge proportion of their disposable income on the supermarket. I remember when my own sons were teenagers and just the huge amount of groceries we got through. So making sure that families don’t have to pay any more than they have to is really important.
So this is a really important bill that will help families and households with the high cost of living, and I’m happy to commend it to the House.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
House in Committee
House in Committee
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Deposit Takers Bill and the Fuel Industry Amendment Bill.
Bills
Deposit Takers Bill
In Committee
Part 1 Preliminary provisions
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Members, the House is in committee on the Deposit Takers Bill and the Fuel Industry Amendment Bill. We come first—
Andrew Bayly: On the what? I’m sure the finance Minister—
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Mr Bayly, be quiet please. We come to the Deposit Takers Bill. We begin with the debate on Part 1. This question is that Part 1 stand part. This is the debate on clauses 3 to 9 and Schedule 1, the “Preliminary provisions”.
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Mr Chair, thank you very much. I don’t intend to take a large number of calls in the committee stage because I think it’s a good opportunity for members to ask the questions they do want to ask. But I do want to talk briefly about Part 1, partly to thank the select committee for the excellent work that they have done on this bill, because in Part 1 there are a number of quite significant changes that the select committee made that I think do strengthen this bill. I particularly want to refer to the purposes clause and the principles clause.
In the “Purposes” clause, the essence of this bill is that it is designed to be able to “[protect and promote] the stability of New Zealand’s financial system.” Obviously, the bill does that through a range of means, from licensing and supervision through to the new depositor compensation scheme, which I will also speak about later in the debate. What the committee did was add into clause 3(2)(ba) a new paragraph to talk about the importance of accessibility of financial products and services provided by the deposit-taking sector. Now, it’s clear it’s a subordinate clause because it says “to the extent not inconsistent with” the first subsection that I mentioned before, but it is an important understanding that in addition to stability, which is clearly the goal of managing our financial system through this legislation, we do also want to have a sense that New Zealanders can access the kind of financial services that they need in order to go about their daily lives. So that addition by the select committee, I think, is an important one. I think it gives more clarity for the agencies and entities that will be in charge of administering this bill.
Secondly, under the principles clause, this is where the select committee again did some excellent work around the importance of proportionality. This features in a couple of other parts of the bill which I’ll come to later, but in this particular part of it the principles include the Reserve Bank needing to take into account “the desirability of—(i) taking a proportionate approach to regulation and supervision”. One of the issues raised by a lot of submitters when they came to the select committee and in the feedback we did in the earlier consultation on this was that for small deposit takers—those who aren’t the big banks; the credit unions and so on who are involved in looking after a lot of peoples’ money—they were concerned that the bill would give a disproportionate amount of regulation on them, make it difficult to do the work that they need to do. There is an important role here for the Reserve Bank to have the flexibility that it needs to do its job, but alongside that, making sure that they must take account of the principle of proportionality is critically important.
So that change, also to clause 4 here in Part 1, I thought was a very significant one. And I thought it was worth noting that Part 1 does give the overview of the bill, why we’re here, and I think gives a pretty good summary of that, but it has been added to by the committee’s work.
ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you, Mr Chair, and I just want to thank the Minister. I’m glad that there was agreement at the select committee process and, obviously, the Minister was very aware of the changes that the Finance and Expenditure Committee put forward.
This is really important, and it’s not contentious at all, but I’m glad the Minister stood up and made that clear. I think it’s really important because we have non-bank deposit takers who are very concerned about the proportionality of this. There’s not a lot of questions in this, but I think it’s important to canvass it so it’s on the public record that there is agreement by both—I think by all parties, I hope, but certainly from the National Party—that these two changes to clauses 3 and 4 are really important, and we want to make sure that the Minister certainly will ensure that the Reserve Bank does take a proportionate approach.
I think the other part of it—and this is one of the underlying themes of the smaller 13 non-bank deposit takers—is recognition that these smaller entities are of a different scale, have different or less access to resources, and their market share is quite different, and therefore it was important that the Reserve Bank understood, and we tried to make it clear, that they need to be treated differently and not as one seamless whole, as part of a group.
I think the other thing is that an important part of clause 4(b) is also to maintain competition—that’s a very important aspect—and paragraph (c) also draws on the need to restrict unnecessary compliance costs, which again can bury these small businesses. We’ve already heard from some of the large banks and, of course, we’ve seen the exit of the Hong Kong Shanghai bank from New Zealand, and one of the reasons quoted was the level of regulation that’s been imposed on the banking sector, and they perceived it to be a major restriction going forward.
The last bit, I think, when you look at paragraphs (d) through to (h)—I just, again, hope the Minister might just confirm this—but one of the other aspects that the sector talked about, the non-bank deposit taker sector, was the need for certainty. I think that was sort of infused; whilst it was not directly quoted, those last parts of it, if we look in a minute from another context, they’re about creating uncertainty and the select committee was keen to make sure that that certainty was not only captured in clause 4 but also in clause 71 and new clause 76A.
Again, I invite the Minister to maybe just to confirm, or otherwise, whether that’s his understanding, because I think there will be a lot of people listening to how both the major political parties regard this particular aspect.
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I can absolutely confirm to the member that that principle of certainty sits alongside the principle of proportionality. I think in clause 4, the amendments we’ve made were good. It’s also how it was initially drafted as well in order to make those points, and so I can absolutely confirm that for the member.
DAMIEN SMITH (ACT): For the Minister, the bill barely mentions efficiency. You’ve not mentioned it, and the bill sort of sidelines it. Do you not think that the Reserve Bank of New Zealand’s (RBNZ) undistracted focus should be on systemic risk and price stability in managing its affairs, and that the need to strengthen out from the RBNZ role makes it responsible for ensuring that the known collapse of any individual deposit takers or insurance companies is not really part of their core activities? I’d just like your views on that.
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): The Reserve Bank has had a range of roles for some time, and it has been added to iteratively over the years. Obviously, if we go back to 1989 and the very central and core focus on monetary policy alone, and, obviously, on price stability alone, but the role of the bank in the financial stability space has evolved over time, and so it does have that role as the prudential role, the supervisory role that it now has, and so we need legislation that governs that.
The bank, I think, has proved over a long period of time that it is capable of doing the many and different tasks that it is now asked to do. The whole purpose of the review that we did was to make sure that the bank itself was organised in such a way that it could fulfil those roles. So we had the three bits of legislation: one that dealt with monetary policy objectives; one that dealt with the institutional framework of the bank, the board, and so on; and one that deals with these specific tasks here that are mainly in the financial stability realm.
So it would be quite a significant and big change for the Reserve Bank not to be involved in those areas, and I think as long as we give them the right framework and the right tools to do the different parts of their job, I think we’re on the right track.
DAMIEN SMITH (ACT): Do you think that if, in a scenario where the Reserve Bank had to put someone under, that this would leave it with egg on its face?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Sorry, could you just repeat that, Mr Smith?
DAMIEN SMITH (ACT): Yeah. Do you think, Minister, if the Reserve Bank had to put somebody under, would this leave them with egg on their face as managers as well?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Well, it’s always very important to acknowledge that the Reserve Bank operates independently of the Government. We set the rules; we set the framework. For the most part, I think people would see the framework in which non-bank deposit takers operate in New Zealand is a strong framework, and I certainly know the member and others would have heard from constituents when we had the problems with banks in the United States earlier in the year—you know, “Could this happen in New Zealand?”
Actually, the whole process of establishing a bank or, indeed, a non-bank deposit taker in New Zealand is quite a rigorous and a strict one. So the rules that have been laid out here are absolutely, in many cases, worst-case scenario and are unlikely to come into force or be used very often, but I think it would be highly irresponsible not to have those, and so, no, I don’t agree with the member that it would be representative of them “having egg on their face”. Whenever there is a situation where a bank or a non-bank deposit taker might get in trouble, people will undoubtedly look and say “Was the bank doing its supervisory job?”, but they can’t be held responsible for every single thing that occurs and every element of the banking or non-bank deposit-taking sector.
We need good rules. They generally operate very well in my opinion, but from time to time things go wrong, and that’s why we have these frameworks.
SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much, Minister. My questions are in regards to, I guess, the context in which this bill has come about to this House, and in regards to the elements of the bill that deals with the risks of the stability—the financial system at a more macro level. The implementation of the depositor compensation provisions for the loss of deposits that people would have within a bank is, in reality, in circumstances that I think one would agree would be very rare. So the context in which potentially those that are watching this and trying to understand why have we got this bill in the reality of actually the challenges we face within our current banking sector. I think it probably might be helpful to provide context in that actually the reality is that the scenario in which would mean that this—some of the provisions of this bill would actually come into effect, would be reasonably catastrophic scenarios in the context of not only New Zealand but probably a broader Australasian implication and implications on our banking sector. So, interested from the Minister in terms of in that context, and in terms of the priorities that face us, what was the consideration around why the Minister has driven the implementation of this type of legislative change? Acknowledging that the circumstances in which it would be deployed would be very, very rare.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question that the Minister’s amendments to Part 1 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 361 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 109
New Zealand Labour 62; New Zealand National 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Te Paati Māori 2; Kerekere; Whaitiri.
Noes 10
ACT New Zealand 10.
Amendments agreed to.
Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Part 2 Licensing of deposit takers
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Members, we come now to Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 10 to 58, “Licensing of deposit takers”. The question is that Part 2 stand part.
ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you, Mr Chair. You’re very generous tonight.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): You’re very eager, Mr Bayly!
ANDREW BAYLY: Ha, ha! On Part 2, obviously, it really deals with the issue of issuing of licences and then an issue around validating and making sure that directors and senior officers are appropriate people.
The first thing I just want to ask—it’s just a technical point. Clause 20, just to help the Minister, “Consultation requirements”. I think it’s in relation to overseas people, applicants, because it all seems to be in that relation—clause 18 is all about overseas applicants. First question: is it written in relation to overseas—or whether it’s domestic applicants?
But the “Consultation requirements”: “The Bank must, before making a decision under section 17, consult—(a) the FMA; and (b) the applicant about the conditions and standards that the Bank proposes to impose in relation to the applicant (if the Bank issues a licence).”
Anyone in this sector is designated or regulated financial institutions, and of course, the Minister will know what that means, being a technical term. As regulated financial institutions, all everyone in this group who would be applying for a licence here would be under the jurisdiction and auspices of the Reserve Bank. So my specific question is: what would be the objective and requirements of consulting with the Financial Markets Authority (FMA)? What information would the bank be seeking from the FMA, in terms of this consultation?
So there’s two little parts to that, if that’s OK. The first one: is it domestic or is it just overseas? And then: what is the type of information that will be sought from the FMA, and why would they be making a recommendation?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): In answer to the first one, I think if the member looks, he’ll see that clause 20 refers to section 17. Section 17 is everyone; section 18 is the bit where we start talking about overseas people. So that’s the answer to that part of the member’s question.
In terms of why one would be talking to the Financial Markets Authority, well, the Financial Markets Authority are in charge of the conduct of financial services activity in the country. They are responsible for certain standards within the sector, and I imagine, in order to make a decision about the granting of licences, they would want to make sure that there was no reason within that kind of conduct area that they would want—but I’m happy to check with officials to see if there’s anything more they need, Mr Bayly.
ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you, but I think that’s a flying good leap of an answer. But if we’re talking about conduct, you’ve got Conduct of Financial Institutions (CoFI) and you’ve got the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act (CCCFA). As the Minister of Finance knows very well, CCCFA is administered by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment and the Commerce Commission, and then the CoFI is administered by the Financial Markets Authority (FMA). So both of them are conduct ones. I can understand if it’s in relation to CoFI, but that doesn’t then pick up why the CCCFA. And I’m not sure that’s a reason why they would be actually seeking advice from the FMA. I don’t know whether you’ve got an answer.
OK, well, I’ll just carry on with the second one while the Minister’s getting that answer. The second one is in Subpart 4, clause 26, “Licenced deposit taker must obtain Bank’s approval before new director or senior manager is appointed”. That’s all pretty clear, but what’s a senior manager? Is a senior manager a CEO, or does it go down a level? If we take a large bank, one of our top four, you know, senior management might be a head of institutional banking and there might be seven at that level—retail banking, whatever, if you look at a general banking structure. But in a non-bank deposit taker, you might find there’s a much more streamlined, simplified management structure. So just quite keen to understand: what is “senior manager”?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I’m pleased, Mr Bayly—you know, he’s worked on this bill for a while, but if he just takes a little time to go to page 29 of the reported-back bill, he’ll find quite an extensive definition of the term “senior manager” there. I don’t propose to respond to all of Mr Bayly’s questions about definitions that already exist in the bill, and I can confirm to him that the reason that the Financial Markets Authority is there is because the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act really doesn’t apply, so the Commerce Commission wouldn’t be interested in being there.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Minister’s amendment to Part 2 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 361 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 109
New Zealand Labour 62; New Zealand National 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Te Paati Māori 2; Kerekere; Whaitiri.
Noes 10
ACT New Zealand 10.
Amendment agreed to.
Part 2 as amended agreed to.
SHANAN HALBERT (Junior Whip—Labour): I seek leave for the remaining provisions to be taken as one question.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Part 3 Regulation of deposit takers
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Members, we come now to Part 3. This is the debate on clauses 59 to 94, “Regulation of deposit takers”. The question is that Part 3 stand part.
ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you, Mr Chair. Well, I think the first thing I want to talk about is the need for a current credit rating. So clause 59 states, “A licensed deposit taker must have a current credit rating that is given by an approved rating agency.” Now, of course, I think this links very closely to clause 71, which is about the ability for the Reserve Bank to grant an exemption from the requirements to get a credit rating.
This is, again, just highlighting the issue of non-bank deposit takers who are very concerned about this, because there was a great deal of consternation that the Reserve Bank seemed to want to apply these great big, costly imposts on a smaller, but important and viable, part of the banking sector.
So there are some exemptions there when considering it. It specifically notes that when considering the matters of an exemption, “the size and nature of the businesses” and “the extent to which the risks associated with not having a credit rating could be addressed or mitigated by terms or conditions.”
So that’s a big judgment call for the Reserve Bank. Again, it might be useful for the Minister just to highlight what are his expectations of that component part of clause 71. Because I think the committee, and certainly National, were of the view that this comes back to this issue of proportionality, which is covered later in this part, Part 3. But making sure that we don’t impose unnecessary compliance costs—and the most extensive of that, of course, is getting the requirement for a credit rating. So maybe the Minister can just sort of identify what he has in mind.
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I thank the member for that query. It really does go to the comments I made in my very first intervention, which is that this is the Reserve Bank’s role and they need to perform it in a way that is consistent and provide certainty—as the member himself has already indicated—that in their operations we need to give them the flexibility to be able to deal with the range of different institutions that are in front of them, and the different circumstances that might arise.
The member’s, really, in many ways, answered his own question, which is if there weren’t an exemption regime, we’d be having a very different conversation because that wouldn’t provide that ability to recognise that this is not a complete one-size-fits-all situation. It has to have some room—some wiggle room—so that’s what’s, effectively, created by that. Clause 70 provides that; clause 71 puts some limitations on the exemption power, and then—as the member himself has indicated—the committee did some really good work in the proportionality framework that comes in clause 76A within this part.
So I think, really, what that comes to is a balance of ensuring we get certainty, flexibility within the system, but ultimately the job is the stability of the financial system. We want to make sure that people who get licences are people who can actually run these institutions properly, but we also want to see that diversity within the market provided by some of the smaller ones. So the exemption criteria that’s in there, I think it’s a pretty good balance overall.
DAMIEN SMITH (ACT): On clause 74, Minister, of Part 3, I just wanted to ask you some advice on the example that’s contained within the bill that differing lending standards may apply to lending to customers in different geographical areas. What exactly does that means?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I will get some advice from officials just to make sure I do get this right, but I’m currently involved in an interesting situation around this, which is the impacts of Cyclone Gabrielle and the Auckland anniversary weekend floods. And from time to time, circumstances arise where you will see different treatment of different customers in different parts of the country, depending on what they’ve been going through. And that I can see right now as I’m working with banks and others around how we find our way to a position where we can support all of the rebuild and recovery that that would be an example, but I will check with officials just to confirm that is an example of what they meant.
SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thanks very much, Mr Chair. The questions that I have are in regards to clause 61 in Part 3. As my colleague Andrew Bayly was asking, a large portion of the select committee process in regards to those smaller entities were in relation to the concerns raised, where a very small number of people within those entities fulfil regulatory roles in comparison to the big four banks and, therefore, the capacity within those entities in order to meet the compliance obligations under the bill were seen to be at a higher level of burden than those that could be absorbed by having bigger teams and bigger capability in the major banks.
My question in regards to the Minister is in clause 61(2)(d) and (e). The conversation at the time at which the bill was going through was actually the same time in which the Silicon bank collapse was occurring in the US—and the fact that the rating agencies in the hours and days preceding the collapse of the bank had said that there was no issue with that bank. The committee also spent some time and asked officials around the considerations of what was seen in the UK around 2007, 2008, and 2009 in regard to banking collapses, and again where Standard & Poor’s and Moody’s in particular, both provided strong opinions in terms of the credibility of banks which subsequently suffered significant financial collapse.
And when one is in this legislation, looking at the consistency and comparability of these rating agencies, of which there isn’t particular competition in the market—and in the context of the fact that our major rating agencies that operate within this jurisdiction and in the global environment—from some perspectives one would say, “Well, you know, you haven’t done a very good job in regards to providing assessments in regards to financial institutions which have subsequently collapsed and led to significant financial loss for consumers.” Then, in reality, what is the point of having these type of clauses in place?
Because, you know, going back to my question that I asked right in the first part around the circumstances in which this type of legislation would actually crystallise is those that are pretty rare—so I’m interested in the Minister’s view around that, whether he has any concerns around that, acknowledging that there are major players, whether there is consideration around other options that could achieve a similar outcome or whether basically the Minister is comfortable to say, “Well, we’re going to look at the adequacy of these rating agencies, but we’re just going to sort of ignore the fact that they’ve missed some pretty significant aspects in regards to organisations which subsequently collapsed. And, you know, that’s just the nature of the business.”
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): With respect to Mr Watts’ intervention just now, I’ll certainly pass his concerns on to Standard & Poor’s and make sure they’re aware of that. Look, obviously, there are a lot of circumstances that sat behind the issues that the US system had at the beginning of the year. I’m not sure the role of the ratings agencies was quite the biggest of those, but the whole point of the clause that the member is pointing out is to make sure that we have quality ratings agencies active in New Zealand. So that’s the point of it.
If we didn’t have the clause and we could appoint ourselves as a rating agency or something like that, I think we’d have much worse—
Andrew Bayly: “Simon Watts and Associates”!
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Exactly. I’m not sure I’d go there, Mr Bayly, to that particular ratings agency, but I don’t think that’s quite what we would want in New Zealand. And so the clause is in fact designed to do exactly the thing that Mr Watts has raised.
I just wanted to come back to Damien Smith’s question that he asked—Mr Smith, the question that you asked around the different geographies. The officials have pointed out to me that that’s particularly in a case such as where there are different loan-to-value ratios (LVR) in different areas of New Zealand, for example. So you could have Auckland with a different LVR than another part of the country if the Reserve Bank was choosing to focus on a particular area. So that’s an example of how a different lending standard could be applied to.
DAMIEN SMITH (ACT): Minister, do you think it’s worth including that definition extension in the bill?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): No, I don’t.
ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): I just take the opportunity to invite members from the Labour Party to stand up, and particularly some of the members who contributed fulsomely during the select committee process. I’m looking at the Hon Phil Twyford and Ingrid Leary over there, and Mr Halbert over there wants to continuously close down this debate. I’m not sure what his problem is. He should leave if he’s in a hurry. But the issue I want to just raise with this—because I think it’s important, and, unfortunately, the member wasn’t a member of the Finance and Expenditure Committee for most of it, but he was for some of it, so maybe he could make a good contribution.
Simon Watts: A bit restless today.
ANDREW BAYLY: Yes, I noticed that; very restless. The issue I want to just talk about, which I seem to have lost, is the issue around the duties of directors. Of course, what I’m referring to is clause 92. As a select committee, we were concerned that directors couldn’t rely on professional managers. The reason why we were concerned was if you take very large organisations with many thousands of employees, it would be impossible to expect board members or even a CEO to have a really good, in-depth requirement to make sure that the entity was complying with the Reserve Bank requirements. There’s a duty of care which is set out in clause 92, and related to that is a due diligence requirement.
So I think the first thing I want to just note, and I hope the Minister is in agreement with this, but the committee removed the requirement for anti-money laundering requirements because with discussion with the officials, it was viewed that anti-money laundering has its own separate piece of legislation, and, for that reason, we did not need to capture it in this bill, and that is why it was removed.
But the issues in clause 93A about allowing directors and senior managers to have reliance—and, obviously, there is a requirement, certainly in clause 93A(3), that you not act in poor faith and have made proper inquiries, and have no knowledge that such reliance is unwarranted. But I think this is a very important part of this bill to make sure that in those large organisations there should be an ability to be able to rely on other members of the team and not necessarily require directors and CEOs to actually avail themselves of all and every piece of information that they would otherwise be required to.
The second thing is that we talked about making the rules about the guidelines—and there’s a requirement on the bank in clause 94 to prepare guidance on due diligence duties. One of the big things we talked about—and I know Ingrid Leary across the House here is deeply involved in this—is whether, in fact, the Institute of Directors (IOD) should be the party that provides that because, of course, they’re in the business of providing guidance and support to directors. We thought they were most likely to be the best entity to help the bank in preparing its guidelines. Where we’ve ended up is issuing guidance or training in relation to directors’ duties, but actually requiring the bank to go and consult with such entities. In fact, we’ve obliquely referred to the IOD by saying to those entities who are in the business of providing that type of guidance.
So, again, I suppose it’s a question of just putting this on record, but it is really important that we get adequate due diligence. I don’t know whether the Minister wants to make any comments around that, but I think the importance of—in some situations, it will be important for a CEO or whatever to have a very close understanding of this issue, but in much larger organisations that’s probably impractical and unwarranted. I think my view is that where we ended up is we struck a balance on that, but, again, of course, I’d welcome the input from the Minister, because he’s such a knowledgeable person about these aspects.
DAMIEN SMITH (ACT): I’d like to refer the Minister to clause 79, Part 3—the examples on convertible debt securities. I don’t want to read out the whole definition because it’s quite extensive, but in terms of that billion dollar figure, how is the maths done on that from a bail-in standard point of view?
SHANAN HALBERT (Junior Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.
Ayes 75
New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Te Paati Māori 2; Kerekere; Whaitiri.
Noes 44
New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.
Motion agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 3 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 361 be agreed to.
Amendments agreed to.
Part 3 as amended agreed to.
Part 4 Supervision of deposit takers
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Members, we come now to Part 4. This is the debate on clauses 98 to 146, “Supervision of deposit takers”. The question is that Part 4 stand part.
SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I’m interested in comments from the Minister in regards to a number of clauses: 100, 104, and 106—in particular, there, in regards to the offences, and the amounts liable on conviction both for the individual and in any other case, and the scale of the offences set there at the rate of $50,000 for an individual or, in any other case, a fine not exceeding $500,000. We talked previously around the proportionality considerations in regards to this legislation. Part 4 is in regards to the supervision of deposit takers and, in effect, the banks’ information-gathering requirements, but it would be fair to acknowledge that particularly for our larger banking organisations—particularly in the interests of what the Government has been commenting in the public domain in the last 24 hours—a fine of $500,000 is not going to be potentially driving outcomes. So I’m interested, Minister, in why that amount was set at that level and whether the Minister is comfortable that that will provide the appropriate degree of tension in order to drive the behavioural response around the provision of that information.
The other aspect and the other question area that I’ve got in regards to this section is around clauses 108 and 109. That is in regards to “Auditor to inform of intention to disclose” and the protection of auditor aspect. Obviously, there is agreement from this side in regards to the need to have that audit function, but the considerations around the ability for the auditor to be able to disclose information that potentially is gathered through that information-gathering process is an area that potentially would open up the auditor, in this instance, to potentially some questions around scope of audit and the ability for the auditor to actually have to disclose that information, which may or may not conflict with the terms of reference which the auditor would enter into in regards to the provision of those audit services. So I’m interested in whether the Minister would look to make any comments in regards to that and whether he believes that we’ve got that balance right in regards to that portion.
The other clause that I wanted to just have a couple of questions in regards to was, under Subpart 2, “On-site inspection”, clause 114, which is relating to the “Offence relating to [an] on-site inspection”. This clause deals with where the employee or a director or an agent for the deposit taker commits an offence when they fail to deal with the requirements of the clauses in regards to the provision of that information—again, in that respect, whether the threshold around refusing or failing to comply with the giving of information is an appropriate mechanism in regards to initiating an offence and whether the Minister is comfortable with clause 114(1)(b), which is “resist, obstruct, or delay the Bank in carrying out an on-site inspection”. It sounds a bit rougher than dealing with a ram-raider at the moment, Mr Bayly.
Tama Potaka: Not in Hamilton!
SIMON WATTS: Not in Hamilton says the member for Hamilton West, and rightly so. But anyway, Minister, that’ll do for this stage. I’m interested in your comments on those.
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): On the first and the last matters that the member raised, I am comfortable. The way that these Acts work, when it comes to fines, is that there is an exercise done to look across the board at the way fines work across legislation, and a proportionate approach is taken. And I’m sure that’s what has been done here. And, on the last point, I’m uncomfortable.
On his middle point, I would just refer the member to clause 107, which indicates the severity of the threshold for which an auditor would undertake the provision or the disclosure of information, and it is that the licensed deposit taker or associated person has contravened a prudential obligation or contravened various parts of other Acts that relate to their duties, or if they’re in serious financial difficulty or operating fraudulently or recklessly. So I think the threshold is particularly high here, and the bank itself obviously has its job when it’s working directly with the deposit taker, but this allows the opportunity for an auditor when a particularly high threshold of poor conduct has been achieved. So I am also comfortable with that.
ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you, and I’d like to thank the Minister for his contribution there. I want to turn to a related topic, which is clause 130. This deals with the issue of confidentiality orders. I must admit, I get worried when the Reserve Bank or any entity—in this case, it is the Reserve Bank—has written its own legislation and writes in a clause that says “(3) The Bank may make the order”—and that’s in respect of confidentiality orders—“on the terms and conditions (if any) that it thinks fit.” So this is a very significant power, and I can see the Hon Phil Twyford looking at me, saying, “Oh, I didn’t notice that one before.”
What I’d like to hear from the Minister is whether this is proportionate, particularly when I’m going to talk about fines in a second, but just bear in mind that the confidentiality orders, the bank may require that, which prohibits the publication or communication of any information that discloses or is reasonably likely to disclose the exercise of a power under this Act—oh, that’s a wide one—and secondly, that is provided or obtained in connection with any inquiry, investigation, or other proceedings of the bank under this Act. So the bank may make the order on its own initiative, so to what extent are these powers fettered? Can the Reserve Bank—it’s now divine God, I presume, and can make its own decisions and impose anything. Maybe the Minister can help me where the constraining elements of this power is under clause 130.
But the other reason I raise this issue, Mr Chair—because I know you’re very keenly following this debate—is the issue of the fines, which, of course, my good colleague Mr Simon Watts was talking about in his previous excellent contribution. In this case, there’s the same sort of level of fines. There’s total fines of $5 million for a corporate or an entity. In this case, if you happen to disclose the information that the divine right of the power of the Reserve Bank has deemed shouldn’t be disclosed, either you’ve done it in contravention or you’ve done it recklessly, which means—whether in fact that may mean you haven’t shown enough constraint over your PR person in your large PR team, as sometimes happens with Ministers when they press the wrong button and all their press releases go out to a member of the Opposition, which happens from time to time. Whether that might be deemed a reckless situation—and I hear Nicola Grigg laughing there in the background. It does happen, doesn’t it, Nicola Grigg, from Ministers. So would that be deemed reckless and therefore potentially someone would be, in the case—was it the poor PR person in the entity—
Nicola Grigg: Don’t blame the press secretary.
ANDREW BAYLY: The press secretary, or was it in fact the Minister? It might be Mr Grant Robertson—the Hon Grant Robertson—who’s reckless. In what situation is “reckless” defined?
But the big point about this is that: “I’ve got it wrong, I blew it—I’ve blew it.” That individual is now up for a fine of up to $100,000 or $2.5 million for the entity. Of course, I heard the Minister say this, and it’s always these soothing words: “Oh, that’s the maximum, but don’t worry, we’ll never go there.” It’s a bit like—I heard that earlier today at the Finance and Expenditure Committee when Minister Parker said, “We’re not going to use that really extensive power of inquiry because we’re never going to ask those questions.” But yes, we do.
So there seems to be a lack of proportionality in this in terms of the fines, but also there does not seem to be any fettering or control or restraint around these powers, and I would very much like to have a contribution from the Minister as to why he thinks this is absolutely essential in the form that it’s been presented in the bill.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The time has come for me to report progress on this bill.
Progress to be reported.
House resumed.
Report of Committee of the whole House
Report of Committee of the whole House
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Madam Speaker, the committee has considered the Deposit Takers Bill and reports progress. I move, That the report be adopted.
Motion agreed to.
Report adopted.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The Deposit Takers Bill and the Fuel Industry Amendment Bill are set down for further consideration in committee next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow. Pō mārie.
The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.