Tuesday, 7 May 2024

TUESDAY, 7 MAY 2024

TUESDAY, 7 MAY 2024

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Karakia/Prayers

Karakia/Prayers

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.

List Member Elected

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand—Francisco Bagkus Hernandez

SPEAKER: I have received from the Electoral Commission a return declaring Francisco Bagkus Hernandez to be elected a member of Parliament to fill the vacancy created by the resignation of James Shaw from his list seat. I understand that Francisco Hernandez is present and wishes to take the oath of allegiance.

Members Sworn

Members Sworn

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (Green): Ko ahau, ko Francisco Bagkus Hernandez, e oati ana ka noho pūmau taku pono ki a Kīngi Tiāre te Tuatoru me tōna kāhui whakaheke, e ai ki te ture. Ko te Atua nei hoki taku pou.

[I, Francisco Bagkus Hernandez, swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles III, His heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.]

Ako, si Francisco Bagkus Hernandez, ay sumusumpa na ako ay magiging tapat at mag-aalay ng tunay na katapatan sa Kanyang Kamahalan, kay King Charles III, sa Kanyang mga tagapagmana at kahalili, alinsunod sa batas. Tulungan nawa ako ng Diyos.

SPEAKER: Do you declare this oath to be binding upon you?

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ: I do.

Obituaries

Derek Alan Angus QSM

SPEAKER: I regret to inform the House of the death on 2 May 2024 of Derek Alan Angus QSM, who represented the electorate of Wallace between 1981 and 1990. During his membership of this House, he was a member of the Electorate Law Committee, the Petitions Committee, and the Statutes Revision Committee. I desire on behalf of the House to express our sense of loss and sympathy with the relatives of the late former member. I will now ask members to stand with me to observe a period of silence as a mark of respect in his memory.

Members stood as a mark of respect.

Privilege

Conduct of Member—Hon Julie Anne Genter

SPEAKER: As notified to the House last Thursday, I have received letters from the Hon Scott Simpson and Todd Stephenson raising a matter of privilege relating to the Julie Anne Genter conduct towards Matt Doocey during the committee stage of the Appropriation (2022/23 Confirmation and Validation) Bill on 1 May 2024. The conduct complained of could amount to threatening or intimidating a member acting in the discharge of their duty, or threatening a member on account of their conduct in Parliament—see Standing Orders 418(m) and (w), and McGee, section 59.9. The Speaker does not inquire into the veracity of the evidence presented or conduct an inquiry into the allegations. That’s the role of the Privileges Committee. The Speaker’s role in such matters is to determine whether the facts alleged could amount to a breach of privilege or a contempt of the House. Accordingly, I find that a question of privilege does arise, and that question stands referred to the Privileges Committee.

Urgent Debates Declined

Auditor-General’s Report—Review of University of Waikato’s Procurement Services from Joyce Advisory Services Ltd

SPEAKER: I received an urgent debate letter from the Hon Dr Deborah Russell seeking to debate, under Standing Order 399, the Auditor-General’s review of the University of Waikato’s procurement of services from Joyce Advisory Services Ltd. This is a particular case of recent occurrence. However, there is no ministerial responsibility for an Auditor-General’s report. The Auditor-General is an Officer of Parliament responsible to the Speaker—Speakers’ rulings 218/1 and 218/3. Urgent debates have been permitted when Governments have responded to an Officer of Parliament’s report. However, no response was disclosed in the member’s letter. The application is declined.

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

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

SPEAKER: We come now to petitions.

CLERK:

Petition of Miriam Woon requesting that the House change the school bus drop-off on State Highway 6 opposite Todd Bush Road

petition of Shary Bakker requesting that the House take immediate action to roll back the changes made to the purchasing guidelines outlined by Whaikaha Ministry of Disabled People and reinstate the guidelines that were in place immediately prior to 18 March 2024

petition of Shubham Sharma requesting that the House urge the Government to remove the existing ban on pet imports from India.

SPEAKER: Those petitions stand referred to the Petitions Committee. I present a report of the Controller and Auditor-General entitled General Election 2023: Independent review of counting errors. That paper stands published under the authority of the House. Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.

CLERK:

Report of the Governance and Administration Committee on the Emergency Management Bill

reports of the Petitions Committee on the petition of Kathryn Phillips and the petition of Kiwilaw Probate and Estates Ltd.

SPEAKER: The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of a bill.

CLERK: Public Works (Prohibition of Compulsory Acquisition of Māori Land) Amendment Bill, introduction.

SPEAKER: That bill is set down for first reading.

Points of Order

Urgent Debates—Application Process

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Is it your intention to respond to urgent debate applications before question time, moving forward? I just note that that has happened on occasion, but also they have been responded to after questions. I’m just trying to figure out how you’re going to approach this moving forward.

SPEAKER: A mix of both. Before we go on to oral questions, can I just—

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Responding to that point of order, I am unaware of instances previously where Speakers have responded to applications before question time. Usually—or in the past, certainly—they’ve been responded to after question time, and, if they have been accepted, a debate then happens at that point. If it is your intention to respond to applications before question time, obviously, that gives the House a lot more notice to prepare for what is an urgent debate.

SPEAKER: Or not. The Standing Orders were changed in 2023 to indicate that the Speaker can indicate whether a special debate has been granted at any time. I’m just sort of feeling my way to see how the House feels about that, and since we were doing a lot of other procedural things before we started question time, I thought why not get it out of the way. If that’s not something you’re happy with, then take it up with the Standing Orders Committee.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): No, I’m delighted; I just wanted to know what was going on.

SPEAKER: You’re delighted? You’re delighted not to get a debate—I’ll bear that in mind next time.

Speaker’s Rulings

Oral Questions—Supplementary Questions

SPEAKER: Can I just refer members to the particular Standing Order—which I don’t have in front of me; I did, but I haven’t got it with me at the moment—that makes it clear that it’s the Speaker’s discretion to grant supplementary questions and that, while we have a sort of roster, that roster falls within the discretion of the Speaker. I’m just told that it’s Standing Order 397. I just offer that because of the nature of some of the questions that I’ve spoken of before that are on the sheet today.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Environment

1. MARK CAMERON (ACT) to the Associate Minister for the Environment: What announcements has he made recently regarding reducing the regulatory burden on primary industries?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD (Associate Minister for the Environment): [Associate Minister Hoggard wearing an eye patch] Ahoy, Mr Speaker. [Interruption] Thank you, Mr Speaker. With my two-eyed colleagues, the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform, I announce that the Government will introduce legislation to remove the low-slope map from stock exclusion regulations, and repeal winter grazing regulations. These targeted changes are part of an important part of the coalition’s commitment to allow farmers to get back to farming without unnecessary red tape. We’re working hard on better ways for farmers to manage environmental impacts through freshwater farm plans.

Mark Cameron: How will these proposed changes help farmers?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: For stock exclusion, the existing rules have a map that identifies low-slope land where beef cattle and deer will have to be fenced off from water bodies. This low-slope map has proven problematic, creates a huge expense for some farmers with minimal practical or environmental benefits. This is why we are removing it. We’re also proposing to remove the conditions for winter grazing and regulation, while still requiring practical steps to be taken to minimise effects on fresh water. There has already been significant improvement in winter grazing and practice supported by sector groups and local councils.

Mark Cameron: What is the Minister working on to let farmers get back to farming productively and sustainably?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: As a priority, we’re working on improvements to freshwater farm plans to make them less costly and complex for farmers. We know farm plans are a good idea—they allow farmers to find the right solutions for their farm and their catchment—but they don’t need to be as onerous as the system that was introduced by the previous Government. That’s why we will shift to an approach that matches risk with cost.

Mark Cameron: How does this align with the proposed changes to stock exclusion and winter grazing?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: We are working on an enduring and robust farm plan system that councils and communities can rely on, where practical, on-farm solutions can stand as an alternative for a range of local rules and consents. This will help avoid the need for blunt, national regulations. I believe that good quality farm plans that don’t cost the earth can be a practical solution for identifying and managing a range of environmental impacts.

Hon Damien O’Connor: Has the Minister read the New Zealand-EU free-trade agreement (FTA) that includes legally binding provisions to “provide for a high-level of environmental protection and continue to improve environmental protections” and “not to weaken, reduce, waive, or otherwise derogate from environmental laws to encourage trade or investment”; if so, what does he think?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: Well, I have read the New Zealand-EU FTA, and what I would say is that I had a really great presentation last week showing the difference in water quality between New Zealand and the EU, which showed we are miles ahead of many areas in our water quality than the EU.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

2. Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all of his Government’s statements and actions?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes, I do, and especially our announcement of a $1.9 billion investment in Corrections in Budget 2024 so that we can keep New Zealanders safe and we can restore law and order. Budget 2024 will invest an 810-bed extension at Waikeria Prison, it’ll deliver 685 new front-line stuff, it will increase pay for staff, and it will extend rehabilitation programmes for prisoners. This comes alongside our wider plan to restore law and order, which is about backing police to go after criminal gangs, getting more officers on the beat, speeding up court processes, restoring three-strikes legislation, establishing youth military academies and a youth serious offender category, and capping sentence reductions. We are going to be restoring law and order, unlike this last Government, and we’re going to get New Zealand back on track.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Was he aware before his press conference yesterday that the $1.9 billion he was announcing for Waikeria Prison included both operational and capital spending; if so, why did he say at the press conference that it was all operating expenditure?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As I said to you, I’m very proud of the $1.9 billion investment we announced yesterday. As I said, we had a bit of a mix-up in communication yesterday—we clarified it very quickly and, importantly, we are adding another 810 beds to Waikeria Prison, we are making sure we have almost 700 new corrections front-line staff, they’ll be paid well, and we’re making sure that we can actually get tough on law and order.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: How much of the $1.9 billion announced yesterday is capital expenditure, and how much is operating expenditure?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, in that Budget, there is enough to be able to do capital expenditure for expanding the budget for the prison. Importantly, there is operating expenditure to make sure that we can pay our staff and hire more corrections officers.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was pretty straightforward: how much of it was capital spend and how much was operating expenditure? The Prime Minister indicated in his answer to the previous question that he did know the difference between the two and he did know what it was—I’m asking him what it was.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’ll just say to that member: he well knows it’s about Budget sensitivity. He’ll find out on 30 May.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Is the announcement that he made yesterday Budget sensitive; if so, why has he announced it?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: The other thing I would add to the member is that, as I said yesterday, there is commercial sensitivity about two elements of that budget. One is around Waikeria Prison and the build and construction costs, and the second piece is around the labour negotiations for staff pay increases.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: How is revealing the—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order, Mr Speaker. My former colleague Steve Maharey wrote a very good article the other day, and I suggest that we all read it again because I agree with him. My point is that when you’ve had your first five questions, it goes to the other side well before that. That was the old rule; it should be the rule now.

SPEAKER: Yeah, well, everything moves on—as you know.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: What is commercially sensitive about releasing the breakdown of capital and operating expenditure from yesterday’s announcement?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What I said to the member is what is commercially sensitive is the build and the extension of Waikeria Prison.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: No problem.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Prime Minister as to whether the new 800 extra prison beds announced yesterday means that the old fishing policy of “catch and release” is over?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, absolutely. What is over is actually a Government that has been soft on crime. We have a Government that is going to make sure we restore law and order.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Several things, Mr Speaker, but the first is the point of order that Winston Peters raised before was completely out of order—I’m surprised that you didn’t chastise him for that. But the second is that that question is also completely out of order—[Interruption] The question that he’s asked is also completely out of order. It certainly wouldn’t be able to be authenticated.

SPEAKER: Well, I’m surprised that you are surprised, and surprised further that you thought in even raising the surprise that you have was a point of order. But in the end, we do try to keep things flowing as much as we possibly can and I don’t want to do anything that disrupts from the members’ intense questioning of the Government.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: What will the annual operating cost of housing 810 additional prisoners be, and was that cost included in the $1.9 billion that he announced yesterday?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Look, I just think it’s quite outrageous this member is talking about law and order. Remember what happened in the last Government: 51 percent growth in gangs, 33 percent growth in violent crime, quadrupling of ram raids, doubling of retail crime. You had six years to fix it—you didn’t do a thing.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder whether you’ll allow me to repeat the question, seeing as I think the Prime Minister might have missed what the question actually was.

SPEAKER: Well, one of the interesting things I note is that when the person answering the question answers, it’s quite audible on the coverage that goes out. But it was not audible when the Prime Minister was answering because of the noise that was coming largely from the member’s colleagues. So, by all means, ask it again and we’ll hear the answer in silence.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: What will the additional annual operating cost of housing 810 additional prisoners be, and was that cost included in the $1.9 billion that he announced yesterday?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes, and what I’d say to you is we have a package to support Corrections to make sure that we restore law and order in this country. We are not going to tolerate rising crime like we saw under your previous administration.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does the Prime Minister agree with National Party leader Christopher Luxon, who during the 2023 election said that New Zealanders who take MDMA are not criminals?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, what I’d say to you: we are focused on making sure we restore law and order in this country. We have a series of policies to do that. We are making sure that we are going to get tough on law and order, we’ve got three-strikes legislation coming back, we’ve got gang law going through this House, we’re making sure that we’re going after serious young offending.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Point of order, Mr Speaker. That didn’t even come close to addressing the question, which is about whether there should be criminalisation applied to New Zealanders who are consuming illicit substances.

SPEAKER: No, no. With respect, that was not the question. The question was: did he agree with a statement made by a person who was not a Minister at the time—and therefore it almost didn’t stand.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he consider people who answer 111 calls to be front-line staff?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, it’s about making sure that we can deliver for New Zealanders and improve crime outcomes. We want to see lower levels of crime in this country. We’re making sure that all of our agencies are focused on 20,000 less violent criminals in this country; we want to see a 15 percent reduction in serious young offending. We’re focused on the outcomes: we’ll get organised to make sure we deliver those outcomes.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The Government have made a distinction between front-line staff and back-office staff, and have said they won’t be cutting any front-line staff. The question that I asked him is pretty straightforward: whether he regards 111 call centre operators as front-line staff. He didn’t even address or even come anywhere near the question.

SPEAKER: Well, I think he came very, very, very near the question. But the point is—I just point out that it’s not reasonable to use the point of order process to try and extract an answer that is suitable or acceptable to the person asking the question. But in this case, I will ask the Prime Minister to make another attempt at that question.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I expect there will be sufficient resources to man a 111 line.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he consider the people who man the 111 line to be front-line staff?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, that’ll be a decision ultimately operationally for the CEOs to make. But what I make sure is that we’ll have front-line services protected.

Question No. 3—Finance

3. SUZE REDMAYNE (National—Rangitīkei) to the Minister of Finance: Has she seen any recent reports on the economy?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Yes. Every two years, the OECD reports on the economic situation and policies of each member country. The latest report on New Zealand was released yesterday. As well as the usual commentary on economic and fiscal policy, the report looks at three structural issues: competition policy, climate change, and improving educational performance in schools. I would encourage members to read the report. It is particularly good in describing what has happened in the economy over recent years, and it brings cross-country expertise to important policy areas.

Suze Redmayne: What does the OECD say about New Zealand’s fiscal situation?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The OECD report talks a lot about the current fiscal position and how this has come about. It says—and I quote—“The pandemic and spending overruns led to a permanent increase in the government spending to GDP ratio, resulting in a substantial deterioration of New Zealand’s fiscal position.” It says that public debt is rising, Government spending has been higher than planned, and that the discretionary increase in spending in the 2023 Budget “worked against monetary policy efforts to reduce inflation.”

Suze Redmayne: Does the OECD describe how those overruns happened?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Yes. The OECD report says that expenditure slippage, to use the OECD term, arose in two main ways: first, from 2021 onwards the Government set relatively high operating allowances in advance of its Budgets, and, second, when it came to the Budget itself, the actual amount of spending was higher still. This is borne out by the relevant Budget documents. For example, the operating allowance for Budget 2023 was originally set at $2.6 billion, then was successively raised to $2.7 billion, $4 billion, and, finally, $4.5 billion. The actual new spending in Budget 2023 was $4.8 billion. That is how spending overruns happen.

Suze Redmayne: What is the OECD’s advice on addressing these fiscal issues?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The OECD says—and I quote again—“It is important that the Government continues to steadily reduce the fiscal deficit as planned, to limit the rise in public debt and thereby increase the fiscal buffer available for the next negative shock.” [Interruption] Members are clearly very interested in this, so they should listen up: “On the revenue side, any tax cuts should be fully funded by offsetting revenue or expenditure measures.” We’ve not shared any details of the Budget with the OECD, but it is safe to say that after 30 May, they will find that the Budget is entirely consistent with this advice.

Question No. 4—Prime Minister

4. Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his Government’s statements and actions?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes, and especially last week’s announcement that beginning in term 1, 2025, all State schools will be teaching reading using the proven structured literacy approach. Currently, only 56 percent of our year 8 students are at the expected level for reading and writing, and that is unacceptable—all part of our plan to improve educational outcomes so young Kiwis gain the skills that they need to succeed.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he agree with the New Zealand Law Society that his Government’s fast-track bill “Creates a potential for decision making that is not objective or independent … and … a risk that the Joint Ministers will be … subjected to lobbying or other attempts to influence their decision making.”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Look, as you well know, the Minister for Infrastructure has said this—it’s through a select committee process, open for any sensible ideas to improve the legislation, but, again, we are going to build things in this country.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he agree with submitters such as the New Zealand Planning Institute, which said the current fast-track legislation “risks overloading the system and slowing it down, contrary to the intent of creating a fast process.”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No, the complete opposite is going to happen. We are going to speed up the building of infrastructure in this country, and I seriously hope that I get the support of the Greens for this legislation, because if you want serious delivery on our climate change goals, we need to build renewable energy projects much faster. Faster consenting—the better that is for everybody.

Hon Marama Davidson: Is he concerned that by failing to put a list of projects approved for fast tracking at select committee, his Government is not being transparent or democratic domestically, let alone upholding the commitments and international agreements to promote transparency in Government decision-making?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, that’s a very long question from that member, but what I would say is that the legislation is before a select committee, and, importantly, as you’ve heard from the Minister, he’s very comfortable with taking on feedback from that process.

Hon Marama Davidson: Is he concerned that seven out of eight regional councils who submitted on the bill oppose it in its current form?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No; we are going to build things in this country. We have to get things done. It does not need to take eight years to consent an onshore wind farm in this country. It can take one year. We can build it in two and we can get the climate change benefits of it. That’s why I look forward to that member’s support, as the leader of the Green Party, to support this legislation.

Hon Marama Davidson: Will the Prime Minister allow public scrutiny of the list of projects intended for fast tracking at select committee, given the multitude of concerns raised about environmental protections, lack of transparency, executive oversight, free-trade agreements, and the 27,000 submissions on the bill?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, this legislation, as I’ve been explaining to the member, is about accelerating towards our climate change goals and commitments. This is enabling us to build more renewable energy. That surely is a good thing. That is what I would expect that member to be supporting.

Question No. 5—Local Government

5. DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote) to the Minister of Local Government: What recent announcements has he made about a financially sustainable model for water in Auckland?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): On Sunday, I joined Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and Auckland Mayor Wayne Brown to announce that the Government has delivered on our election promise to provide a financially sustainable water services model for Auckland under our Local Water Done Well plan. Our plan was unanimously endorsed by Auckland Council’s governing body, and Watercare’s more financially sustainable model will ensure water rates for Aucklanders remain affordable, both now and into the future.

Dan Bidois: What do these changes mean for Auckland ratepayers?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, good news. Under the Local Water Done Well solution we announced on Sunday, Aucklanders will avoid the 25.8 percent water rate hike previously proposed by Watercare; $1.2 billion was spent over the last six years by the last Government on water reform, which took away local control and was divisive. But in six months, our Government has avoided these significant water rate increases.

Dan Bidois: How does this fit into the Government’s plan to keep water assets in local control?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, good news. Our Government recognises the importance of local decision-making and local ownership of water infrastructure. As part of our 100-day plan, we scrapped three waters, to restore council ownership and council control of water assets. And in six months, we have delivered our first Local Water Done Well deal: a sustainable financial model for Auckland that will keep water assets in local control.

Dan Bidois: What reports has he seen on water reform in Auckland?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, I’ve seen reports that over the last six years, $1.2 billion was spent on water reform plans that would take away control of water assets from local councils. Some said that our Government’s Local Water Done Well plan would not work, but in just six months we have delivered a financially sustainable water services model for Auckland, and we spent only $300,000 on that.

Question No. 6—Finance

6. Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of Finance: Does she stand by her statement that “tax reductions will be funded by reprioritisations, savings, and new revenue measures”, and is she committed to delivering meaningful tax cuts as outlined in the National–ACT and National–New Zealand First coalition agreements?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Yes and yes. The fact that tax reductions will be funded by reprioritisations, savings, and new revenue measures means that tax relief in the Budget will be fiscally neutral. The Government has decided to reprioritise lower-impact spending to give a modest amount of tax relief to people and families who have been paying more and more of their wages in tax over the last 14 years. Our tax package will be responsible. I look forward to when that member explains to working people why they should be yet again denied the opportunity to keep more of their own hard-earned money.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: What national assets, if any, will she sell to pay for the tax cuts?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: None.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Can she commit to no changes to the Government contribution to KiwiSaver to pay for her tax cuts?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Yes.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is she committed to the changes to the independent earner tax credit that is outlined in the coalition agreements for Budget 2024?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, now we’re getting exciting questions, because the member clearly wants to know the detail of the tax relief that we will be delivering on Budget day. I’m sad to say that, just like everyone else, she will have to wait until 30 May, and gosh, it’s going to be good.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Can the average earner expect to be $50 better off, as per the coalition agreements, or $10 to $20 per week better off, as announced by David Seymour last week in the media?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Only 22 sleeps to go. I tell this to every worker listening to question time today: you will get precisely zero dollars of tax relief from a Labour-led Government, and from our Government you’ll be getting a lot, lot more than that.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is it responsible fiscal management to continue with her tax cuts when her Budget Policy Statement shows that tax revenue will be down $13.9 billion over the forecast period, and she has confirmed she will be borrowing for everyday costs; if so, which economists support her tax cuts in the current economic climate?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: In answer to the first part of the question, yes, and what a mess we have been left. I will just invite the member opposite to consider the counterfactual. So if the counterfactual was to have a $3.5 billion operating allowance and spend it, as was her party’s stated alternative, then our Budget package, including tax relief for working people, requires less borrowing.

Question No. 7—Education

GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland): My question is to the Minister of Education—[Interruption from gallery]

SPEAKER: Just wait. Grant McCallum.

7. GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland) to the Minister of Education: What recent announcements has she made about improving the way New Zealand children learn to read?

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Last week, I announced that beginning in term 1, 2025 all children in State primary schools will learn to read using structured literacy approaches. Structured literacy gives children the foundational skills they need to master reading, starting with sounds and phonics to decode words, and is fundamentally based on explicit teaching material with a clear sequence. We are putting $67 million from Budget 2024 in to ensure that teachers are supported by this approach and schools have the resources and supports they need to transform how our kids are learning to read, both in English and te reo Māori. This announcement, together with the cell phone ban and the “hour a day” policy, is just the start of our plan to put achievement back at the heart of our education system so our kids get a world-leading education.

Grant McCallum: What feedback has she seen about this announcement?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I’ve received strong support—overwhelmingly strong support—from the sector. From a board chairman: “I love your enthusiasm for proper, structured learning and especially for doing something decent and long term to fix the atrocious state of reading and writing.” From a principal: “Great news. From a secondary perspective, I’m very excited about this change and look forward to seeing the results coming through in a few years to us.” From a junior school team leader: “Thank you so much for your strong statement on structured literacy. This would have to be the best news I’ve ever heard in my 20-year-long career to date. Follow the neuroscience, not the theories. I’m so pleased that a Government is finally putting their foot down and standing by what works for all children.”

Grant McCallum: What evidence does she have to support the need for structured literacy in New Zealand schools?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Just yesterday, the OECD Economic Survey of New Zealand 2024 made recommendations for a clearer curriculum—something I’m pleased to say this Government is already actioning. It also makes the following statement: “Teachers are overly reliant on Reading Recovery that fails to improve learning outcomes for a significant minority of children”, and recommends that the Government “Continue to expand support to alternative interventions … including structured literacy …”. This is a Government of action. Funding for reading recovery will be repurposed directly into the front line, resourcing schools to provide small-group and one-on-one structured approaches to literacy, so our structured literacy approach will be consistently delivered.

Grant McCallum: Why is change urgently needed to transform the way New Zealand children learn to read?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Recent data shows that just 56 percent of year 8 students are at the expected level for reading, and 35 percent for writing. The recent OECD report stated that an important reason for turning around a trend decline in New Zealand school education performance—including in literacy and numeracy, and increasing education outcomes—is that it is key to ensuring the future performance of the economy and the wellbeing of all New Zealanders. I could not agree more. This Government has set an ambitious target to get at least 80 percent of year 8 students to curriculum by 2030. Learning to read will ensure our children can achieve success in education and life. Teaching using structured literacy approaches are a critical part of how we get there.

SPEAKER: Question No. 8 in the name of Debbie Ngarewa-Packer.

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Come on! Ask a supp, Jan.

Hon Jan Tinetti: Oh, it’s coming.

SPEAKER: Hang on a minute. Sorry. Just wait a minute. That member needs to remember that we don’t talk while someone else is asking a question—something I thought a schoolteacher might know a lot about.

Question No. 8—Prime Minister

8. DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his Government’s statements and actions?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes, in the context they were given.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What assurances can he give to iwi like Ngāti Toa Rangatira, whose stream and harbour have been poisoned by raw sewage waste as a result of unrestrained development, that fast-track legislation will not lead to a repeat of this situation as they’re experiencing in their rohe?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, as I’ve answered before, the legislation is before a select committee and submissions are being taken. The Minister for Infrastructure is open for any considerations that come through that process, but we are going to get things built in this country.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What qualifies a fast-track project as having significant regional or national benefits, and how are these economic benefits weighted against environmental costs?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, again, what I’d say to the member is, as she well knows, the legislation is before a select committee. It is being worked through. We’re opening it up to public submissions, but we are going to make sure that we balance economic considerations, environmental considerations, social considerations. But we are going to get things built.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What diplomatic pressure will he apply to Israel after their refusal to accept terms of a ceasefire today and their continued attack on the civilians at Rafah?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, again, we’ve been very strident in our urging that we do not want Israel moving into Rafah. What we have seen today is something that we do not support. But what I’d say is that we have a moment in time to make sure that Hamas and Israel get round a table and actually put peace in this process.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Will he support the United Nations’ call for an independent international investigation into the mass graves containing hundreds of bodies at two hospitals in Gaza, which show evidence of the mass execution and torture of Palestinian civilians?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, what we want is a focus in the world for Hamas to release hostages. We want Israel to give unimpeded access for humanitarian assistance, and we want both parties to get round the table so that a peace process can commence, because military action isn’t going to solve anything.

Hon David Parker: Did I hear the Prime Minister correctly, saying that he thinks that Israel should be negotiating with Hamas rather than Palestine?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What I said was it’s important that both parties get round the table, put themselves into the peace process, and actually resolve this thing diplomatically. That’s the only way it’s going to get resolved.

SPEAKER: The honourable—

Hon Members: Rawiri Waititi.

SPEAKER: Rawiri Waititi.

Rawiri Waititi: You are definitely not only a Speaker but a prophet.

SPEAKER: I’m also forgetful.

Rawiri Waititi: How will the addition of 110 new prison beds impact Māori, given that Māori are 37 percent of the people proceeded against by Police, 45 percent of the people convicted, and 52 percent of the people in prison?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What I’d just say to that member is there are 450 beds in that prison at Waikeria today, there are 600 that will come on-stream next year, and there are a further 810 beds to be added under the announcement from yesterday that will lead to over 1,800 beds at Waikeria Prison. We are determined, in this country, to make sure that we are going to lower crime. It is unacceptable, and I don’t care which ethnicity you’re from; if you want to commit a crime, you will actually do the time.

Rawiri Waititi: What measures are being taken to ensure that the increased capacity will not lead to overcrowding or compromise the wellbeing of inmates?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, under the previous administration, the only goal on law and order was a reduction in the prison population. We are focused on reducing crime—violent crime, retail crime, ram raids, serious crime. That’s what we’re focused on. And as a result, we will continue to expand prison capacity if we need it, but at this point in time, our focus is on making sure we expand that capacity, add more corrections front-line service officers, and make sure that we actually support and get law and order restored in this country.

Hon David Seymour: Can the Prime Minister confirm that, regrettably, Māori are more often victims of crime and, unlike this line of questioning he’s just been addressing, our coalition Government is focused on the Māori victims of crime before we worry about the welfare of criminals, and, actually, that goes to people of all ethnic backgrounds?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I couldn’t agree further. The reality is that Māori are disproportionately victims of crime. That is why we are lowering crime rates in this country. That’s what we are obsessed about. That’s what we’re going to do so that people feel safe, whether they’re Māori or non-Māori. That’s important.

Rawiri Waititi: Who are the most incarcerated peoples here in Aotearoa?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Māori are sadly overrepresented in the prison population, but they’re also overrepresented as victims of crime too.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Isn’t it a fact that half of the people who claim to be Māori in prison are less than half Māori?

SPEAKER: We’ll move on to question No. 9.

Question No. 9—Police

9. Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) to the Minister of Police: Does he stand by all his statements and actions?

Hon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Police): Yes.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Does he stand by his statement, “This Government is determined to put public safety back at the heart of the criminal justice system.”; if so, has the number of victimisations from incidents using a stabbing or cutting weapon in the Auckland City Police District increased by 32 percent since he has taken office?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Absolutely we stand by that statement, because we’ve come off the back of six years of a soft-on-crime Government and we’re having to fix and repair the enormous amount of damage that they did. In terms of the Auckland CBD, we have increased by over 50 percent the amount of beat patrols and foot patrols now. There are early signs that crime in the Auckland CBD is starting to reduce, and we’re going to continue to be focused on this work.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Are the number of victimisations from incidents involving a stabbing or cutting weapon in the Waitematā Police District up by 25 percent since he took office?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, again, I’d say that this Government inherited a situation where we’ve got massive violent crime that we’re now having to get on top of and start to reduce. When it comes to knife crime, I have spoken to police, and I’ve asked for advice on that because we’ve seen in the UK a massive increase in knife crime. We’re now seeing in Australia an increased use of knife crime, and this is probably going to arrive on our shores too, and this Government’s going to get ahead of the problem and make sure that we actually deal with it.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Does he agree with the Prime Minister that it is for the chief executive or the Commissioner of Police to determine if police communicators who answer 111 calls are front-line or not?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Yes, I do agree with the Prime Minister because just about every day he’s committed to making sure that we’ve got a safer country and that we’re moving in the right direction. In terms of 111 operators, I would define a front-line police officer, myself, as a sworn police officer, and I would say that the 111 operator’s job is no less important in terms of public safety. But it is there to support those front-line police officers in their job.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Mr Speaker, I’m not clear—

SPEAKER: Why are you talking?

Hon Ginny Andersen: Point of order. Mr Speaker, he said he agreed with the Prime Minister that it’s for the chief executive or the Commissioner of Police to determine. But then he gave his own reckons that it was actually a sworn officer. So I’m unclear as to what was the answer to my question.

SPEAKER: Yeah, but I’m not. So next question?

Hon Ginny Andersen: Does he stand by his answer to written parliamentary question No. 8217 that in fact police communicators who answer 111 calls are not front-line?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, again, I would say that my determination is I view a front-line police officer as a sworn member of police, and I view the incredibly important job that communicators and 111 call takers do as being critically important, but they are there to support our sworn front-line police officers.

Question No. 10—Prime Minister

10. CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his Government’s statements and actions?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes, and especially our announcement on the weekend which will save Aucklanders, including those in that member’s electorate, from a predicted rates increase of 26 percent. We promised to repeal and replace Labour’s disastrous three waters model, and we are. The previous Government’s divisive, ineffective approach wasted $1.2 billion and achieved absolutely nothing. In just six months, we’ve delivered for Auckland and Aucklanders. Local Water Done Well’s going to deliver better water services.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does he agree with the OECD’s findings, some of which his Minister of Finance was just referring to, that, I quote, “New Zealand’s tax settings remain an outlier internationally.”, and that shares, land, and owner-occupied residential property are tax favoured?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What I would say is that I agree with some of what the OECD says; I disagree with other things that they say.

Chlöe Swarbrick: What did the OECD get wrong, then, with their analysis that New Zealand’s tax settings remain an outlier internationally and that shares, land, and owner-occupied residential property are tax favoured?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What I would say is what they got right is that we need to invest more in education; we need to invest more in competition and deregulation; and we need to make sure that we’re investing in science, technology, innovation, and international trade and investment.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does the Prime Minister agree that our tax settings incentivise property speculation and disincentivise productivity, or does he disagree with the Treasury, the IMF, the OECD, and pretty much every credible economist in the country?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Look, what I agree with is that low and middle income working New Zealanders—the very people that the Labour Party and the Green Party used to profess they cared about—actually deserve tax relief. It’s been 14 long years; there’s been a 40 percent growth in inflation. They’re going to get it at this Budget.

Chlöe Swarbrick: What does he say to those low and middle income earners who can see in this OECD report that shares, land, and owner-occupied residential property are tax favoured under his Government’s tax settings?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, as I said, we are not supporting a capital gains tax; that is period. We’re not doing that.

Question No. 11—Corrections

11. JAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata) to the Minister of Corrections: What recent announcements has he made about investment in Corrections?

Hon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Corrections): Yesterday I announced—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just hang on—wait. Just let him at least start the answer before the barracking begins.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Yesterday I announced a key part of this Government’s plan to crack down on crime and restore law and order. Alongside the Prime Minister, I announced $1.9 billion of investment in Corrections to meet their workforce requirements for a growing prison population as well as capital investment to build a new 810-bed facility at Waikeria Prison. The funding will meet the current shortfall left by the previous Government, which has meant that Corrections is housing an additional 1,100 prisoners on top of what they’re budgeted for. Not only are we meeting the shortfall, we are funding headroom on top of that. It means that Corrections will be staffed to house 10,000 prisoners at any given time. It gives the system capacity to take violent repeat offenders off the street. The new build at Waikeria will comprise three units, with an additional 810 beds. This is on top of the 500 beds opening in the middle of next year. This announcement will take Waikeria’s total capacity when complete to 1,865 prisoners, making it New Zealand’s largest prison. The previous Government had a target to empty prisons. No Government wants to see a skyrocketing prison population—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. Speakers’ rulings are pretty clear that Ministers shouldn’t really go on once they’ve answered the question. This was answered—the question—a long time ago. And also, now we’re straying into areas that you yourself have warned Ministers about, it’s one thing to make factual statements; it’s another thing to make political statements. I asked for a point of order immediately upon that Minister making political, not factual, definitely debatable, statements.

SPEAKER: Yes, that’s right. You raise an interesting question, actually, because it is my personal view that some of these questions here today could have been answered with the word “yes”, and then there would be no supplementaries to follow. But I haven’t ruled that way. I would say, can I just ask the Minister to leave out political references that are attacks on the Opposition and speak factually about the matters that he’s been asked to speak on.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Can I just seek your guidance on one point. The fact is that the previous Government’s only target set for public safety was a reduction of the prison muster by 30 percent. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just a minute. We’re dealing with a point of order, so please stay quiet. That might be the Minister’s view, but it’s probably not the public record. So there are other ways to make that statement, and I think it would be more reasonable for the Minister to try and do that. But that answer was extremely long—informative, but long. So can we have another question on that, James Meager?

James Meager: Has he considered the need for rehabilitation of our prisoners?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: I have. As part of this announcement, we’ve announced a total of $78 million for Corrections’ rehabilitation programmes. This will deliver fulltime-equivalent resources to rehab services, physical spaces for the rehab to occur, and additional staffing to ensure our prisoners get the rehabilitation services they need to return to society. Since becoming Minister, I’ve asked Corrections to refocus rehabilitation services on practical skills—helping to develop practical skills like driving and trades.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Mōrena. Are the additional 810 new prison beds part of this Government’s approach to Māori housing?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, this Government has clearly said that we’re putting public safety at the heart of what we’re doing. That means that we anticipate that there probably will be an increase in numbers coming into our corrections system, and that’s why we made this announcement around capacity. But what we really want to see is a reduction in that prison muster as we start to get control of the crime in our country.

SPEAKER: Can I just remind the House that when it comes to asking questions, ironic expressions are not acceptable. I didn’t pull the member up—

Rawiri Waititi: Tag and release.

SPEAKER: I beg your pardon?

Rawiri Waititi: Tag and release.

SPEAKER: Now hang on, are you going to take a point of order?

Rawiri Waititi: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The expression was also used in this House that I believe fits in the same explanation that you’ve just used—the catchphrase “tag and release”, and there was no—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, catch and release—catch and release; listen up.

Rawiri Waititi: No, I’m not talking to you. Catch and release. I think that’s unacceptable also, but it was never pulled up.

SPEAKER: Yeah, partly I didn’t hear it because of other noise in the House, but I think—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Catch and release, I said.

SPEAKER: Just a minute.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: It’s on the Hansard; they know it.

SPEAKER: Yeah, I’m trying to deal with this. Just everyone calm down. All I’m saying is that, in general, the Standing Orders are pretty clear about what can be in a question and what can’t be. They are equally clear on what can be in an answer and can’t be, but everyone accepts that there is a degree of leniency for the sake of flow in the House. I’m just making that point today so that we don’t get into that day after day after day.

James Meager: Will this announcement increase the number of corrections officers across the network?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Yes, it absolutely will. We’re funding an additional 685 front-line jobs. This includes 470 corrections officers, increasing both staff and prisoner safety. It will also meet the remuneration requirements that came out of the collective negotiations with the union at the end of last year, as well as funding for future negotiations. This announcement is forward-looking, future-proofing the corrections system’s capacity, meeting the needs of our front-line staff, and making sure that they have the numbers they need to keep people safe.

James Meager: How was this level of spending made possible?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: That’s a great question, because if this was the previous Government, they would have taxed or borrowed this funding—

SPEAKER: No, we’ll stop there—we’ll stop right there. Thanks very much.

Question No. 12—Corrections

12. Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour) to the Minister of Corrections: Does he agree with the Prime Minister that corrections funding announced yesterday was all operating allowance and not capital funding; if so, does he stand by all of his own statements yesterday?

Hon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Corrections): I stand by the statements that—it was a significant announcement that we made yesterday, and it was of a $1.9 billion investment in capital and—

Hon Member: It was beyond you.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, if you give me a second, I will answer it. You seem very excited and keen to hear the answer; why don’t you just let me say it? So the $1.9 billion investment was in capital and operating expenditure for a corrections system that has received very little focus or attention from the previous Government, whose only public safety target was to reduce the prison muster by 30 percent—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The claim that the Minister keeps repeating—as a Minister—is wrong in fact and could only be interpreted as deliberately misleading the House.

SPEAKER: Look, to be honest with you, I didn’t hear it said. There was a lot of noise coming from over here; I missed it.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Well, he said it multiple times—that there was only one target of the previous Government. Anyone picking up the Estimates documents will see that there are dozens of targets for Vote Corrections and that the claim the Minister is making is not true.

SPEAKER: And I’d ask the Minister to therefore refrain from making that statement.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. In fact, he needs to correct it—he has given misleading and incorrect information to the House repeatedly.

SPEAKER: Sorry, no, you can’t ask for that. In the end, it is a political exchange in here, and that is part of that. I can only adjudge the reasonableness of anyone’s statements. But it would be unreasonable for me to say that because the Opposition says you’re wrong, you must apologise or withdraw from it—that wouldn’t be the way the place works. Can I please—

Dr Tracey McLellan: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: Tracey McLellan.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Hold on—he hasn’t answered yet.

Dr Tracey McLellan: What proportion of the funding announced—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: On notice.

SPEAKER: Wait on. Sorry—you’re probably right, actually. I’ve pulled you up too quick. So the Hon Kieran McAnulty is providing able assistance—thank you very much. Mark Mitchell, do you want to answer that primary question without the political inferences—the primary question.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, I’ve answered the substantive part of the question.

SPEAKER: Well, have another go.

Dr Tracey McLellan: Everyone’s confused.

SPEAKER: No, no, no; everyone’s—no, no. Hang on. Wait on. Can I just say—hold on.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: I stand by the significant announcement that we made yesterday of a $1.9 billion investment in capital and operating expenditure for a corrections system that has received very little focus or attention from the previous Government.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. Mr Speaker, this was a question on notice. There is a higher standard required for those questions. The Minister has not answered or addressed the first part of this question.

SPEAKER: Well, I think he has, so much as the previous question of a similar nature, asked by the Leader of the Opposition, got the answer from the Prime Minister, which said that those matters are subject to the Budget. While the quantum might well be out there, the split of that will clearly be announced when the Budget’s announced. So I don’t think it’s an unreasonable answer from the Minister.

Dr Tracey McLellan: What proportion of the funding announced is capital expenditure, and what proportion is operating expenditure?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, like the Prime Minister said, the capital expenditure currently will not be disclosed because there are current negotiations, sensitive negotiations—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: He doesn’t know.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: —going on by Corrections in terms of the delivery of Waikeria Prison. It is completely commercially sensitive. And the Leader of the Opposition—it just goes to show just how little he knows in terms of being able to deliver Government—

SPEAKER: No, no—no, no, no. Sit down! Sit down! No, the member will—

Dr Tracey McLellan: What proportion, therefore, of the $1.9 billion of funding he announced yesterday is from the operating allowance?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, I’ve been very clear about—the piece that we can talk directly to is the $78 million that we’re putting into rehabilitation programmes for prisoners on remand. Anything to do with pay negotiations or commercial negotiations around capital projects on Waikeria is sensitive.

Dr Tracey McLellan: When will the Waikeria upgrades he announced yesterday be delivered?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, we’ve said that the first 500 will be delivered in the middle of next year. Then, the additional 810 will be delivered towards the end of 2028.

Hon Chris Bishop: Can the Minister confirm that the fiscal approach of the previous Government when it came to corrections funding was to believe that all the money came from Treasure Island?

SPEAKER: No, no—no; sit down. I’ve got to say—just a minute. I’m going to call the Hon Nicole McKee, but, I’ve got to say, those sort of questions don’t help the order of the House, at all.

Hon Nicole McKee: To the Minister: does he agree that a well-funded corrections system is essential in supporting this Government’s new and improved three-strikes law, which will take serious violent and sexual offenders off our streets and keep New Zealanders safe?

SPEAKER: Yeah, I tell you what, you can have a brief response. But the question itself—

Hon Member: It’s got nothing to do with the primary question.

SPEAKER: —is not anything to do with the primary, and so a brief response and then we’re over.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Yes, absolutely, I agree with the member. Investing in the capacity and the welfare of the staff in our corrections service is completely aligned with what the three-strikes legislation is intending to do—

SPEAKER: Good—that’s excellent. That was a great answer—I meant only a great answer in its brevity.

Dr Tracey McLellan: How much of the $442 million in operational savings is coming from scrapping programmes, and how many of these programmes are in place to keep corrections staff safe?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, the first thing I’d say is that one of my priorities as the incoming Minister was to make sure that we started to reduce the amount of assaults on our corrections officers—

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Answer the question.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: —who deserve—well, part of the question was around the safety of our corrections officers, so I’m going to answer that. You opened the door, so I’ll answer. One of my priorities as the incoming Minister was around corrections officer safety, because we’ve seen an alarming rise, under the previous Government, of assaults on our corrections officers. The good news is that assaults on corrections officers are starting to reduce. In terms of programmes, that is an operational decision for Corrections. But what I’d say to the members is that while we’ve got people inside the corrections system, we’re going to deliver programmes that give them meaningful life skills that give them the best shot of rejoining society and making a go of it.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. The member asking the question asked him whether any programmes that focused on the operational safety of corrections staff were being reduced. The overall thrust of the Minister’s answer, when you get down to it, was that it’s an operational matter for Corrections. That simply cannot be allowed to stand as an answer in this House. Ministers are accountable for operational matters to the House. It’s well-codified in Speakers’ rulings and in the Standing Orders that you cannot give that as an answer to the House. You might be able to give that as an answer outside the House, but when it comes to operational matters, it is the Minister that is accountable to the House for those issues.

SPEAKER: Yeah, but I have heard numerous times in this House Ministers say, “That is an operational matter for which I don’t have direct responsibility.” So it’s kind of one of those areas that I think you could take two different positions on. But I will ask the Hon Mark Mitchell to perhaps answer the question again.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, what I’d say is that my main priority is the safety of our corrections officers. And so my expectation in corrections is that they enhance programmes and improve programmes to make sure that our corrections officers are safer.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Still no answer.

SPEAKER: So as—well, just before we finish, the member can sit there and say that there was still no answer, but when the Minister says his “expectation is”, that is exactly the relationship between a Minister and a chief executive, as the Prime Minister—and the former Prime Minister—well knows.

Offices of Parliament

Address to Governor-General

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House): I move, That a respectful Address be presented to Her Excellency the Governor-General commending to Her Excellency the alterations to the appropriations for the 2023/24 financial year in respect of Vote Audit, and the estimates of expenses and capital injection for the 2024/25 financial year in respect of Vote Audit, Vote Ombudsmen, and Vote Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment.

Motion agreed to, and Address agreed to.

SPEAKER: I declare the House in committee for further consideration of the Appropriation (2022/23 Confirmation and Validation) Bill.

Annual Review Debate

In Committee

Debate resumed from 2 May on the Appropriation (2022/23 Confirmation and Validation) Bill.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, the House is in committee for further consideration of the Appropriation (2022/23 Confirmation and Validation) Bill. This is the debate on the financial position of the Government and the annual reviews of departments, Officers of Parliament, Crown entities, public organisations, and State enterprises, as reported on by select committees.

There are four hours and 46 minutes remaining in this debate. New Zealand National has one hour and 12 minutes remaining. New Zealand Labour has one hour and 41 minutes remaining. The Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand has 36 minutes remaining. ACT New Zealand has 37 minutes remaining. New Zealand First has 28 minutes remaining. Te Pāti Māori has 27 minutes remaining.

The Government has indicated that the Minister of Housing, the Minister of Police, the Minister of Local Government, and the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries will be available today to respond to members’ questions. Each debate will be led off by the chairman or another member of the committee that considered annual reviews most closely related to the Minister’s portfolios. These speeches should be a non-political report back to the committee from the select committee. The Minister of Housing is here for 45 minutes to respond to members’ questions.

Housing

JOSEPH MOONEY (Chairperson of the Social Services and Community Committee): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. So I rise as the chair of the Social Services and Community Committee which reported back on the annual review of Kāinga Ora Homes and Communities, Ministry of Housing and Urban Development, and Tāmaki Redevelopment Company Limited.

Now, rather than reporting separately on each entity for the 2022-23 annual reviews, we have considered the social housing sector as a whole. And so we conducted a hearing on those three entities, and we also heard from the Minister of Housing, the Hon Chris Bishop, for 34 minutes.

I’m just going to go through some of the key points that we considered and reported back on to the House. So, in terms of Kāinga Ora, in December 2023, the Government commissioned an independent review of the financial situation of, and procurement and asset management in, Kāinga Ora. When the review was announced, the Minister of Housing expressed concern over the current and projected growth of Kāinga Ora’s debt and deficit levels. So as of June 2023, Kāinga Ora’s total debt was $12.3 billion, more than four times its debt level in 2018, which was $2.7 billion. That represents a debt-to-asset ratio of around 27 percent.

So Kāinga Ora’s financial planning takes a long-term view of its financial sustainability, looking 60 years ahead, and it forecasts that under current settings, its debt will not be completely repaid over the 60-year period. They told us that by 2081, they project that its total assets will be valued at around $260 billion and will have around $9 billion in debt. That would represent a debt-to-asset ratio of around 3.5 percent. Its debt is forecast to peak at $28.9 billion in 2033.

Kāinga Ora told us that the three largest areas of expenditure were maintaining public housing, the construction of new public housing supply, and large-scale civil works, including its large-scale projects such as Te Mātāwai Greys Ave in Auckland. It said that it is working to improve efficiency and save costs across all three areas.

The Ministry of Housing and Urban Development told us that it’s been working alongside the Treasury and Kāinga Ora to review Kāinga Ora’s spending, funding, and financing systems. We noted that in 2022, the financing arrangements of Kāinga Ora changed so it could no longer borrow money directly from the private market to build and renovate public housing. Instead, it must borrow through New Zealand Debt Management, a business unit within the Treasury.

In terms of increasing public housing, both Kāinga Ora and the Tāmaki Redevelopment Company Limited advised that their goals are to increase public housing supply. And Kāinga Ora advised that in the 2022-23 financial year, they built 2,893 new public and supported homes against a target of 3,400 homes. So that resulted in a net increase of 2,526 homes to its public housing portfolio in comparison to its target of 2,200 homes. Kāinga Ora has said that in total it has built more than 11,000 homes in the last six years.

The Tāmaki Redevelopment Company reported that it has a target of building 10,500 new, affordable, and private market homes in the following 20 years and in the 2023-24 year constructed a total of 128 new homes.

Housing and Urban Development advise that it has a focus on place-based rather one-size-fits-all approach to addressing housing needs. Under this approach, housing planning aims to recognise and respond to the needs of each specific community, and it uses data such as the social housing register and median regional incomes to determine priority areas of highest need across the country. And the Minister noted that levels of housing affordability vary greatly across New Zealand.

In terms of maintenance, renewals, and retrofits, Kāinga Ora said that it’s guided by its Asset Management Plan, a system it first introduced in 2016, and in the 2022-23 year renewed around 750 homes. Now, the rising cost of construction and high inflation has contributed to an increase in maintenance costs. Housing and Urban Development also noted that it is focused on working with local councils to support growth in their regions and has said that it’s absolutely critical that local councils play a role that is front and centre, and that local councils can have a considerable influence over the housing sector.

In terms of infrastructure and urban planning, all three organisations emphasise that they face significant challenges related to infrastructure and urban planning, and we heard that a lack of supporting infrastructure can create roadblocks to being able to efficiently plan and provide for housing growth.

And finally, in the time available, it’s important that the work is being done with community housing providers, which we also reported back on.

TAMATHA PAUL (Green—Wellington Central): Kia ora, thank you, tēnā koe. So my questions are related to public housing, just off of the back of what the previous speaker was reeling off facts about. My first question, and I’m really hoping to get a response to this, is around the sale of State houses. On 9 April, in question time, there was an exchange between Minister Potaka and Minister Bishop around the briefing that you received when you became the Minister. In that exchange, on 9 April, you talked about—I think Minister Potaka talked about his surprise to read about the impending sale of thousands of State houses. So I was wondering if you would be able to elaborate on that information for us.

The next question I had was around the public housing plan, and income-related rent placements, and the impact on community housing providers. Obviously, this is a critical subsidy and fund that helps community housing providers and Kāinga Ora to be able to build new public housing. So my second question is around who will actually build the public housing that is needed to clear the wait-list in reference to that strategic priority for Kāinga Ora and for the community housing sector; really interested to understand what funding they will have available to them to be able to build more public housing when there, I believe, has been no guarantee of those further income-related rent subsidy placements?

And, sorry, my third question is around the Sustaining Tenancies Framework. I’m really interested to understand a bit more about complaints in the previous year, and the fact that 45 percent of those households where there have been complaints have had children, and I’m really interested to know how those children benefited from the Sustaining Tenancies Framework being in place, because obviously that is about to be removed. I’m really interested to understand how those complaints were handled previously without completely getting rid of the framework, and how that is going to be, I guess, different going into a Kāinga Ora without the Sustaining Tenancies Framework. Thank you.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Housing): Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank the member for her questions. Let me take them in order.

The first question was around the sale of State houses by Kāinga Ora, particularly the reference to the 9 April exchange with Minister Potaka. It’s a matter of public record that the information that came to Ministers upon this coalition Government taking office is that the latest forecast from Kāinga Ora was that over the forecast period—so, in other words, from this year onwards—Kāinga Ora was forecasting the sale of over 10,000 State houses. So I don’t have much more to add to the situation than that. That has been made public by Ministers and is contained in the Treasury document that Ministers received. That is clearly something that the member finds alarming.

Kāinga Ora has on average, until now, been selling anywhere between 50 and 150 houses per year. The previous Government like to talk a lot about how they had stopped the “State house sell-off”, to use their words. Actually, Kāinga Ora continued to sell and demolish State houses, and some places are in the wrong location. Some houses are uneconomic to repair or remediate. It makes more sense to sell, in the same way that any other landlord would do, and so Kāinga Ora has been doing that. But, it is definitely also true to say that Kāinga Ora has forecast, at the end of last year, a significant increase—a surge in sales—and that is one of the reasons why the Government commissioned an independent review into Kāinga Ora at the end of year, on which we will have more to say shortly.

The second question was around the public housing build programme in relation to the income-related rent subsidy. Again, it is a matter of public record that future income-related rent—or IRRS, as we call it—subsidies for social housing places finish on 30 June 2025. That is next year. So, in the ordinary course of events, there would be a four-year budget forecast. That was not done by the previous Government. That funding is time limited and it expires, so, again, that is something that the current Government is having to grapple with. So her question was specifically about who will build new public houses in New Zealand, and the answer is, as is always the case, both the community housing sector, which does an excellent job around the country, and also Kāinga Ora, which plays a very important role in our housing system. It is in fact the country’s biggest landlord. It’s a $45 billion company. It is extremely important that it is run efficiently and effectively. So, in terms of the future, who will be building social houses—the answer is, the community housing sector and Kāinga Ora. In due course, the Government will make its intentions clear around that.

The third question was around the Sustaining Tenancies Framework. Ministers have asked Kāinga Ora to draw a different balance when it comes to sustaining tenancies. We have asked the board to replace the capital “S” capital “F” framework—so “Sustaining Tenancies” with a capital “S” and a capital “F”. We have asked them to replace that and strike a different balance between the clear benefits of keeping tenants in social housing but also making sure that they are accountable and responsible for bad behaviour.

We make no apologies for striking a different balance, because the social licence for Kāinga Ora to operate has been eroded over the last few years by repeated and wilful bad behaviour by a small group of tenants who the public see as very—no consequences or responsibility for that behaviour. So the name of Kāinga Ora has, in many communities, become synonymous with bad behaviour and antisocial behaviour. That is in no one’s interests, because it is very important that Kāinga Ora enjoys social licence, because they own 70,000 houses, and they frequently—very often—look after quite vulnerable members of our community. So, it is very important that Kāinga Ora has a good name, and that has not been the case in the last few years. So, we have asked the board to draw a different balance. Minister Potaka has responsibility for that particular part, and he may wish to offer some other comments.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just to the Minister, or Ministers—and the questions are around the Māori housing area, Whai Kāinga Whai Oranga programme. Can I ask the Ministers, first of all, will the support for the Whai Kāinga Whai Oranga programme continue? That’s my first question, and there are just a couple of others that I’ll add now.

With the devastation caused by Cyclone Gabrielle, what update has the Minister—and it may be Minister Potaka—have in relation to Toitu Tairawhiti and the programme delivery partnership agreement for the delivery of 150 rent-to-buy homes in the last 12 months?

Can I ask, also, how many whānau have benefited from having their home repaired over the past year through the Whai Kāinga Whai Oranga programme?

Lastly, can I ask what is the total number of homes approved and contracted for delivery in Te Tai Tokerau, Tāmaki-makau-rau, Waikato, Tainui, Ikaroa-Rāwhiti, Te Tai Hauāuru, and Te Wai Pounamu in the last 12 months?

But if we could have some response particularly in terms of the continual support of this programme Whai Kāinga Whai Oranga, we’ll be very pleased to hear the Government’s response. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I have a series of questions, and I know these work best when it is a question and answer – type format, so I’ll keep the first one brief. I’m interested to hear the Minister’s comments that when they came to office, they were presented with Treasury advice—this is consistent with the statement that he made on 18 February on Facebook and that the Prime Minister made in the state of the nation speech. I ask how he can rectify that, when considering response to written question 7084, that the advice in question was actually commissioned by the Minister of Finance later in December.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Housing): I’m not sure what’s inconsistent about that. The Minister of Finance and I are both responsible Ministers for Kāinga Ora. I’d have to go back and check the exact specifics. It was either a joint memo or piece of advice to the two of us, or it was a piece of advice to the Minister forwarded to me.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Nevertheless, neither of those equate to when they came into office they were presented with the advice. I would ask the Minister to respond to an Official Information Act request which answered the question, “What advice did Treasury receive from other departments on forecasts of the sale of Kāinga Ora homes?”, which says that Treasury did not receive formal advice from other departments on the forecast of the sale of Kāinga Ora homes; analysis that determined the 10,200 figure presented in the withheld document was conducted in consultation with Kāinga Ora and Ministry of Housing and Urban Development officials using Kāinga Ora’s own internal financial forecasting models; and the response that we received during the select committee hearing that confirmed that the model and the projection of 10,200 sale of State houses was contingent on a lack of additional funding post-2025?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Housing): Some of what the member talks about is commercially sensitive. But what I can tell the member is that, well, firstly, in response to his first point: if his point is that late December is not “upon coming to office”, I don’t accept that. We took office on 27 November, so three or four weeks later is, I would argue, “upon coming to office”.

The second point is in relation to—I wasn’t quite sure what he was saying in relation to the Treasury report. The Treasury report, as the member himself adverted to with his comments, is based on Kāinga Ora’s own internal information. So they base that on their own internal data, so it speaks for itself. Some of what he says is not factually accurate around the future funding requirements. It is a matter of fact and now public record that at the end of last year, Kāinga Ora was forecasting a significant surge in State house sales over the forecast period.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Is the Minister therefore saying that Ministry of Housing and Urban Development officials that presented to the select committee were incorrect when they said that forecasts—which are made and based upon the information they have available to them at the time; which are therefore based on a lack of funding post-2025—when Treasury was asked to commission advice on the future forecasts of Kāinga Ora based on a lack of funding past 2025—forecast that 10,200 homes would need to be sold, and that figure was landed to solely on the basis of a lack of funding, as confirmed by officials in select committee?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Housing): No, I’m not saying that. Forecasts, by definition, are static at that point in time and are dynamic and updated—so I’m not saying that. But I would venture to suggest that the member goes and talks to his colleagues who’ve been previous Ministers of Housing. They would not have found a situation at any time in the last 6.5 years in which Kāinga Ora was forecasting such a significant upsurge in State house sales.

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Associate Minister of Housing): Madam Chair, thank you. And thank you for the questions about Māori housing, which I will take a little bit of time to respond to. Certainly, the challenges that Māori have had in housing are well documented, whether or not it’s ownership or rental, or other challenges such as the large number of Māori in State housing—public housing—in either Kāinga Ora homes, community housing provider homes, or emergency housing. I think people know that some of the stats, particularly with emergency housing, are very concerning. In some locations, over 70 percent of those residents of emergency housing arrangements are Māori, such as in Rotorua and near to Hamilton.

The Whai Kāinga Whai Oranga strategy documents the tremendous aspiration to have more homes for Māori, but also “by Māori, for Māori” approaches to building homes. There is certainly some evidence of excellent success and exemplary success in the Whai Kāinga Whai Oranga programme, particularly with Toitū Tairāwhiti, Ka Uruora, and other providers, but there are also some opportunities, however, for improvement, for value for money, and to make sure that the homes that are being built are not only affordable at the end point but also affordable through the construction methodology that is used. So there is a definite intent to look at how we can encourage and work more closely with those operating within the Whai Kāinga Whai Oranga strategy to ensure greater efficiency and expeditious delivery of housing.

I think there was a question in relation to Cyclone Gabrielle, and then it merged into whether or not the rent-to-buy homes at Toitū Tairāwhiti were progressing according to the aspirations and the intent, and I can represent to the committee that there is some significant build programme in front of Toitū Tairāwhiti. One thing I like about Toitū Tairāwhiti is that they engage with young people as well, to get them involved as kaimahi, as trainees, and, as I mentioned last week in this House, some people who lost their jobs down at the timber mill in Gisborne were retrained to get into construction jobs. So that was a marvellous result for those people who were going to be laid off. Now they’re in construction, helping Toitū Tairāwhiti build homes. Toitū was actually involved in also building separate cabins and homes for those that suffered through the Cyclone Gabrielle process and those North Island weather events, and also raising the existing homes, not just cabins, to accommodate any further flooding in the future.

There were a couple of questions in relation to home repairs and the programme of home repairs which has been ongoing through Te Puni Kōkiri and the overall Whai Kāinga Whai Oranga programme. I can reflect that that mahi has actually resulted in some really good outcomes for people living in homes that have had a few challenges, getting them back up to scratch and up to speed, and I can come back with specifics on numbers for both that and the question around Te Pouahi up in Te Taitokerau, which is one of the iwi housing prototypes, which has just got started, and it started a little bit later than the other three housing prototypes. But it’s on its way, and it’s starting to get homes built for needy Māori and needy New Zealanders. Kia ora tātou.

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tokerau): Kia ora tātou. So I’ve got maybe three questions and I guess I’ll just talk through my notes and land on the questions in each one of them. Thank you. The context of this, if I can, is that of the reports that Minister Potaka was referring to—I built 16 of those homes in Aupōuri, and we did a few good things ourselves as iwi—I’m very familiar with Pouahi and very familiar with the home repairs, so, yeah, that’s doing good with what we’ve got at that time, so I’m just really hoping that it gets even better.

So, 2018: only 31 percent of Māori were in a position of home ownership compared to 57.9 percent of Pākehā countrywide. What strategies will the Minister put in place to reduce these inequities for Māori? I’ll keep moving, should I, or—

Hon Chris Bishop: Over to you.

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI: Happy to. All right. Thank you. A report on Māori housing and wellbeing conducted in 2021 found that there were direct links between frequent moves between homes and poor health and wellbeing outcomes. Māori report higher moving rates between homes, at 8.7 percent compared to 5 percent for Pākehā. The reality of this is Māori having moved five or more times within five years. How can the Minister assure Māori tenants that the proposed changes to the Residential Tenancies Act will promote longevity of residency, and thereby better health and wellbeing outcomes for Māori?

Proposed changes to the Residential Tenancies Act encourage landlords, mostly Pākehā, back into the rental property market. What assurance can the Minister provide for Māori who are, perversely, tenants on their own whenua, that the Government will protect their rights against the greed of landlords?

Māori housing deprivation is six times the rate of Pākehā—you can see the method I’m using in this description. Can the Minister provide current examples of what the Government is doing to improve housing outcomes for Māori?

Housing First, in their last quarterly findings, reported that of all people who access their services, 59 percent were Māori, based on the primary applicant from the participating household. Can the Minister provide evidence that the Government is reducing the need for Māori social housing?

And my final—there are quite a few there, aren’t there? How will the Minister ensure forced eviction of unruly tenants utilising Kāinga Ora services is not a measure used to disguise racist attacks and removal of whānau and tamariki from their kāinga? Thank you, Madam Chair.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Housing): I thank the member Mariameno Kapa-Kingi for her questions. She’s doing well when she asks sensible questions rather than talk about some of the things she was talking about in the general debate last week. But let me deal with the questions in order. First question was about Māori homeownership: 31 percent was the figure mentioned; it’s too low. Homeownership for all New Zealanders is too low. In 2018, which is the latest figure we have stats for, homeownership was down to 63 percent. It’s a 30-year low, give or take, so it’s too low for everybody, and it’s particularly too low for Māori and Pacific.

We have a comprehensive plan across the housing system to improve homeownership. The centrepiece of that is the Going for Housing Growth plan, which is about unlocking land inside our cities and at the edge of our cities and sorting the infrastructure constraints that stop that land from being developed, and also working alongside councils to develop incentives for them to grow. Ultimately, as a Government we are focused on dealing with the underlying cause of all of our housing issues, and the social housing system—some of which we’ve been talking about—sits within that broader housing framework around land supply and infrastructure funding and financing. Unless that is sorted, we will not make progress on any of the underlying issues in our housing system, including homelessness and including emergency housing and including social housing.

So we have deliberately made a conscious decision to focus on the fundamentals, and that work is under way right now, but the driver of our agenda is to lower land cost, make it more affordable and cheaper to build, and over time that will lead to more affordable housing for homeowners and first-home buyers and for community housing providers, and Kāinga Ora as well, because Kāinga Ora also pays too much for land; Kāinga Ora also pays too much to build a house. My colleague Chris Penk, the Minister for Building and Construction, has work under way around lowering build costs, but as I say, the primary driver is around land supply and infrastructure funding and financing.

In relation to her second question around people moving around and the stability of homeownership, I agree with her, that families that don’t get stuck in the rental cycle of moving from year to year are able to put down roots, and there’s a sense of social stability that comes with that. Evidence tends to suggest kids go to school more often, they are able to build relationships—all of the benefits that come with homeownership and social stability. We’ve also got to balance that with the fact that we have a very tight rental market at the moment. The member will have seen the TradeMe data out last week that rents are at record highs. We’ve got a tight rental market, and the reality is many landlords left the rental market over the last few years because of a twin-pronged assault on landlords. The member calls them greedy. Actually, the New Zealand housing system would fall apart without private sector landlords, because they do a lot of the heavy lifting when it comes to providing accommodation to people.

The word “landlord” is a somewhat pejorative phrase. Actually, what a landlord is is someone who rents out something that they own to someone who needs accommodation. We have rejected the last Government’s policies when it comes to interest deductibility and restored a principled approach to tax policy which taxes profit, not revenue, and so that will be wound back and that will put downward pressure on rents. We will also rebalance the rental market to make sure that people who want to provide property to other people are able to do so. There are, finally, balanced judgment calls around things like 90-day notice periods and some of the fixed-term tenancy changes we are making, but I think they will, on balance, be a good thing, because they will send a message that those who wish to provide property are able to do so. In relation in particular to a market like Waiheke Island or Queenstown or Dunedin, for example, the fixed-term tenancy automatic rollover to a periodic tenancy has caused utter chaos, and my colleague Joseph Mooney, who’s the MP for Clutha-Southland, has been advocating for the changes that we are making, and rightly so. I think that deals with the third point that the member raised as well around the rental market, and, as I say, reject her characterisation about the greed of landlords.

If I just finish with this point: there are often solutions put out there to solve the fact that rents are too high. The Greens like to talk about rent freezes and things like that—economically illiterate, nonsense solutions. The ultimate answer to—

Chlöe Swarbrick: It’s your tax settings, Bish.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, that doesn’t affect it either, because as the member well knows, and I can’t believe we’re—I feel like I’m stuck in Groundhog Day, because, you know, the entire time I’ve been an MP and Chlöe Swarbrick’s been an MP, we’ve had this ongoing back and forth about capital gains taxes. I invite the member to go to Sydney and Melbourne and London and all the other countries and places that have, in some cases, quite punitive capital gains taxes, where you will find housing markets that are utterly out of control.

The actual point is this: the only sustainable, long-term way to make rents more affordable is supply of housing. That is the answer. As the member well knows herself, if she looks at the evidence from the Auckland Unitary Plan that was adopted in 2016, which has led to a big house-building boom in Auckland, particularly around apartments and terraced housing and other housing typologies that Auckland didn’t have enough of, there’s a wealth of evidence now available—and I refer the member to Stuart Donovan’s research and some other research by other urban economists that Auckland has experienced an increase in rents far less than other housing markets with inflexible land supply and restrictive land policy. So once we liberalised the Auckland land market and made it easier to build, people went and did it.

That’s got to be the thrust of our housing policy generally, which is why—and the member wasn’t here—I go back to the point I made at the start, which is: we are dealing with, or we are aiming to deal with, the fundamentals of housing supply, which is land supply, infrastructure settings, and getting councils to go for growth, because the political economy in too many of our councils is stacked against growth. We actually want to invert the situation so that councils don’t see growth as something to be ambivalent about or hostile to, but they see growth as good. That involves considering sharing the benefits of growth with them, and we’re taking on board the good suggestions of the ACT Party in relation to that. But the fundamentals are about land supply. It’s about density inside our cities, and it’s about growth at the city fringe where the infrastructure can be justified and the economics of that make sense. That is what we are focused on. That is the only sustainable answer to more affordable rents.

Everything else is tinkering. Everything else is sugar-hit economics. Everything else feels like the right thing to do but actually is counterproductive. The proposals often put about by the Greens—and I’m pretty sure the Māori Party has been on board this illogical train as well. Everything about rent controls is counterproductive. It means that landlords just simply don’t offer properties in the market in the first place and everybody else raises their rent, because when demand stays the—[Interruption] This is economics 101: when demand stays the same and supply falls, guess what happens? The price goes up, or, when the price is not allowed to go up because of, sort of, Stalinist-style rent controls, when the price can’t go up, they don’t offer properties in the first place. That has been the experience of city after city that has looked at the well-intentioned but misguided stupidity of rent controls and decided that that is a good idea.

Economists don’t agree on that much stuff almost universally, but there are two things: one, free trade is good. It raises incomes across the board. That’s the number one. And the second thing they almost universally agree on, with the exception of a few crank economists out there, is that rent controls are counterproductive and stupid policy, and that’s why we won’t be adopting them.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. The annual-review appearance at select committee was useful, and it enabled us to put some context in the claim that the Prime Minister made in his state of the nation speech, the story that, presumably, they lined up before that, which indicated that there was advice sitting on their desk when they got under Government that said that Kāinga Ora was going to sell 10,200 homes, because the appearance at select committee clarified that that was contingent on this Government not providing funding post-2025—a pretty important piece of context. And I can confirm that no such advice was ever received by any Minister from the previous Government. What they also confirmed at select committee is that if there is no funding certainty moving forward, Kāinga Ora and some community housing providers may not be able to continue with their plans to build houses. We’ve already seen Kāinga Ora announce some cancellation projects. We’ve seen community housing providers, like the Salvation Army, indicate that they have cancelled projects. My question to the Minister is: how many Kāinga Ora projects and how many community housing projects have been cancelled since this Government was formed?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Housing): Well, in relation to the member’s last part of the question, you’d have to put that in writing, because I don’t know. Kāinga Ora owns 70,000 houses around the country, and it’s $45 billion company. So, at any given time, there will be any number of projects that are rephased, deferred—some may have been cancelled. The market economics of building change literally on a weekly basis.

Hon Member: Ground conditions.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Ground conditions—there’d be any number of things. So, I’d have to go and look it up, and if the member puts it in writing—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: I’ll do that. That’s all good.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yeah, we can have a look at that. But, as I say, at any given moment—and it would have been true in the last six years too; there are all sorts of projects that will have been cancelled. I mean, to give one notable example, there is Porirua East, which was announced with great fanfare in 2021, or perhaps even a touch earlier than that, which has been massively downscaled, which was done very quietly in mid-2023 without many public pronouncements—I suspect because the Government wasn’t very keen on it, but that’s what happened. So, as I say, at any given particular moment, there’d be any number of changes to projects.

Just to repeat the point and to deal with the member’s first point, it is a matter of fact that when the current Government came to office, the figures that the member is talking about around State house sales were presented to us. Yes, it is true that that figure is without any increase in support for Kāinga Ora, but it’s worth also bearing in mind that that is the situation we inherited. So it is not true that the outgoing Government had provided budgetary support or the fiscal support in order to avoid that situation. Kāinga Ora did its budget in December 2023, based on the settings not from the current Government but from the outgoing Government. So it was right on the precipice of the change in Government, and Ministers had barely been sworn in and had not taken any policy decisions whatsoever. So it is true to say that the situation in December was as has been presented by the Government, and that is one of the tricky challenges that we are going to have to deal with as a Government, and it’s one of the reasons, as I said earlier, why we have commissioned an independent review into Kāinga Ora, because that is an alarming state of affairs.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, our time with the Minister of Housing has now ended. We have the Minister of Police now available for 45 minutes to respond to members’ questions.

Police

JAMES MEAGER (Chairperson of the Justice Committee): It’s a real pleasure to lead off the debate into the annual review of Police for the 2022-23 year. Look, the Justice Committee met with Police for two hours in our review, one of three major reviews we did this year, and we are very much looking forward to finalising our scrutiny plan and looking into a few of our other entities and departments throughout the end of this year and over the term.

I thought the committee worked actually pretty well, pretty collegially throughout our annual review process, ably led by our Deputy Chair Jamie Arbuckle, and Opposition members all, I think, contributed fairly well and fairly collaboratively to the annual review debate.

Now, I’m hoping that that collegiality and that spirit of cooperation continues throughout the term. The Justice Committee is an incredibly busy, effective, hard-working committee with a lot of legislation coming through from a busy, busy Government, and a busy backbench as well, because we’ve got lots of members who are keen to put their views on justice bills coming through.

But in terms of the annual review, look, we covered a lot of territory for Police, and I wanted to just highlight the key items that the committee ended up moving through over the two hours that we had. And can I just say it was a real pleasure to have the commissioner with us. I thought he conducted himself really well in front of some pretty good questioning from all sides of the committee. I think the questions answered were answered in pretty good detail and in pretty good spirit. And where the Police didn’t quite have all the answers, they committed to come back to us and provide them in writing if we needed anything further. So I just wanted to acknowledge the work of the commissioner and, of course, of all our police men and women who serve throughout the country and who have done for many, many years.

And can I just take the opportunity to give a shoutout to my brother’s partner, who is a police officer, who had her baby boy late last month. So just a shout-out to wee Lachlan James. And finally we get another James in the House, given that we lost one last week, and I’m the last one standing. So just want to acknowledge Stuart and Jackie and the family.

We did go through quite a number of topics with the annual review, and I just wanted to highlight a few of the key ones there. So one of the big topics that we talked about during the select committee stage was about reducing gang intimidation and violence. The commissioner was very clear that he found dealing with gangs over his time as a police officer incredibly frustrating and challenging. And I think that’s why the Minister and the Government have placed a very large focus of their law and order agenda moving forward on controlling gang behaviour and eliminating the response and the presence of gangs in our community.

And I wanted to touch on something that happened during that review period, and that was what happened down in Timaru in my patch, when the local police and local authorities took a pretty hard-line approach to gangs. They decided that they wanted to reject gang presence in our community down in Timaru, and also then start looking at replacing what they stand for. So, yep, they went in and they knocked down the pads and they got rid of the gang presence, and they sold out the land from underneath them, but now we’ve also got to work on that underlying problem of what it is in those gang communities that those young men and women are looking for and how we can we replace that. And that’s going to be, hopefully, part of the strategic intentions of the Government moving forward.

So we talked a bit about reducing gang intimidation and violence. There was some discussion on the legislation to ban gang patches, which hadn’t come before the Justice Committee at that point, but now we are currently considering it, and I think we’re doing a very good job on that too.

We talked at length around retail crime and around how we were very, very concerned at the spike in retail crime over the past few years and what police’s response had been to that. And it was actually very pleasing to see that some of the changes in the approaches of police towards the end of the last term of Government have actually led to a bit of a down-tick in some of those ram-raiding offences. And part of me probably suspects that when you take the individuals out of the communities who are doing those crimes, they can’t do them. They’re not there to drive the cars, they’re not there to do the ram raids. So let’s see how we continue to progress with looking at retail crime and supporting victims of retail crime in that space as well.

The committee covered off topics around youth offending, we looked at increases in cyber-crime, and also an interesting stat that came through during the select committee stage was that a good 25 percent of what police deal with now is family harm. And at the same time, there’s also an increase in cyber-crime. So if you consider how different those two areas of policing are, it’s going to present a real challenge to Governments going forward about how you resource those effectively. So that’s going to take a good amount of leadership from the Government on that too.

We spoke also around strengthening Police’s relationship with Māori, addressing the activities of organised crime. We talked a little bit about recruitment of front-line staff and some of the challenges that are going to be there about making sure you get the right people into our police services, because we have high standards for our police and we want to make sure that we have the right men and women going through our police service. So I’m confident that with the recruitment work that the police can do over the next three years, that will quite comfortably meet our targets around that. So with that, I will resume my seat.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank you very much to the chair of the committee. We had a good session, and the Commissioner of Police gave a good outline of all of the challenges. The key challenge that was sort of identified is that Police—with a $2.2 billion budget, $1.7 billion of which is in staff—is that they’re facing into a 6.5 percent budget cut, so that’s really looking at personnel. So we’re quite keen to understand what is front line and what is not front line, given that context. I’d just like a bit of clarity from the Minister in relation to that, I’m a bit confused. Today, we established that it’s for the commissioner to determine what is front line or not, but also the Minister today said that 111 call responders were not front-line staff. So I’d just like to confirm if those 111 callers are front line or not.

In addition to that, I’d also like to know whether authorised officers are front line or not. And in addition to that, also those who answer the 105 reports in communication centres—are they front line or not?

Hon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Police): First of all, can I just acknowledge the chair of the Justice Committee, the outstanding work that he does chairing that committee—it is important; you have got a very heavy workload. I know that you’re taking a very bipartisan approach and I think that’s important with the type of legislation that you’re dealing with because it’s around public safety and security. Can I acknowledge him becoming an uncle again and I’m hoping that Lachlan follows in his mother’s footsteps into the police service.

I just do want to acknowledge our police force. Without a doubt they’re doing an outstanding job protecting and serving our communities, and they’ve done it under a fairly difficult set of circumstances, certainly in 2022-23, because we have seen a massive increase—an ongoing massive increase—in violent retail crime, we’ve seen an increase in family harm incidents, and we’ve seen an increase in mental health call-outs. That’s put massive pressure on their services.

One of the things, as the incoming Minister, that I’ve been very focused on is making sure that we get the agencies responsible and the most appropriate agency to actually deal with, for example, mental health call-outs; being able to actually attend that and free up our front-line police officers to get back on their core role—and that is the protecting and the serving of the community that they joined the police to do.

In terms of the Hon Ginny Andersen’s question, it’s actually for the police commissioner. The police Minister does not interfere, nor does he or she have any say over how the police commissioner deploys his or her staff or how he deploys them operationally. That is for him. But the one thing that we’ve been very clear about as the incoming Government is that we want to see resources pushed to the front line. She’s right in that under the previous Government, in the 2022-23 year, there’s been a big investment in numbers but their core funding has not increased; in fact, quite the opposite. They were asked to fund from baseline the competency service increment payment. It’s an incremental payment that goes to police officers as they advance through their career and it recognises their experience. As an incoming Government, we became aware of that and I’m pleased to announce for the member that we have decided that we would fund that, the Government would fund that again, that we’d not ask the Police to find that from their baseline, which means that it’s freed up more resources and more money to be able to support the additional numbers and their deployment.

TAMATHA PAUL (Green—Wellington Central): Thank you very much. My questions follow on from some of the stuff that the chair of the Justice Committee, James Meager, brought up—around the gang patches stuff. Now, obviously, we’re looking at the former year rather than looking forward to the future. I really want to ask the Minister how he’s found the existing gang patch ban to have worked. My understanding is that you can’t wear them in public places, but the number of fines that are being handed out for the legislation that is currently in place does paint a picture of it being a very ineffective policy. So could you have a chat with us about how you reconcile that in your mind, and, I suppose, about the police officers that are being charged with enforcing the gang patch bans.

I mean, surely that’s a really dangerous and difficult position to put police officers in, and just looking at the amount that they’re being paid, particularly those starting officers, I mean, is that a fair and reasonable expectation to have on them? And is it a fair expectation to set with the public? If the existing bans are not being enforced and we’re still seeing gang violence and we’re still seeing that harm being created in the community, then how do we reconcile that fact—that we’ve got a police force that is unable to enforce the existing bans and future bans—and that we are putting more police officers in danger through setting that expectation for them and for the public? Thank you.

Hon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Police): Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank the member Tamatha Paul for the question. I think that it’s timely, obviously with the legislation sitting in front of the Justice Committee, which she’s a member of, and the fact that there is a lot of public debate around it at the moment, in terms of the gang patch ban—not so much the dispersal notices and the non-consorting orders, but certainly the gang patch ban.

Look, can I just say that I’ve just recently come back from a meeting in Canberra with the state Ministers, and the federal, the Attorney-General, and their commissioners, and one of the bilateral meetings I had was with the Hon Paul Papalia and his commissioner, Col Blanch. He’s the police Minister for Western Australia. Col Blanch is the commissioner for Western Australia. The legislation that we’ve taken, which is the gang patch legislation, the dispersal notice, and the non-consorting orders are basically the legislation that that Government passed about 18 months ago. So the meeting, for me, was to get feedback and find out how effective that legislation has been in terms of suppressing the gangs and getting on top of the gang problem that they had in Western Australia. Overwhelmingly, the response that I got—the feedback that I got from them—is that it’s been hugely effective. In fact, the day that we met, the front page of the main West Australian paper was running a story saying that the leader of the Rebels motorcycle gang had just left the gang because he was finding it too tough—it was too tough to be in the gang, and he had left. That was the front-page story running in Western Australia the day that I met the Minister and the commissioner.

I just want to give you a little bit of background and a little bit of context around why we felt it was so important to introduce this legislation. In the last six years, there has been a massive increase in patched gang members in this country. We have seen a proliferation of weapons. We’ve seen gang members now that will carry weapons and are willing to use them. We see gang members that think they’re above the law and that, if they come out and take over public spaces, they can abuse and intimidate members of the public. We’ve even seen them go so far as to roll into our provincial towns, take over the towns, shut schools, and stop our kids from getting to school. We have seen a very permissive environment where these gangs feel like they can operate with impunity, and that has made not just the public less safe, it’s made our front-line police officers less safe as well. These gang members do think they’re above the law. They’ve got no respect for our front-line police officers, and part of the legislation and the new tools that we’re giving the police is actually going to give the police the ability to reassert themselves over and above the gangs and give the community that they serve a feeling that they control the streets, and not the gangs.

So, when we talk about it being dangerous for our police officers to go out there and deal with gangs, I accept that; that has never changed. They’re an organised criminal group, and they have a propensity for violence, but we have the best professional police service in the world, and they have a very strong and proud history of knowing how to deal with gangs. It’s just that, at the moment, the gangs think they’re running the show, and we’re going to send a very clear message to them that they’re not. And, by the way, when you actually start to get on top of the gang problem, not only is it safer for the public, it’s safer for those police officers as well. That is why we’re so committed, and why we feel it’s so important, to have this legislation in front of the committee and to be part of our overall approach to public safety in our country.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Look, I’m just interested to learn a bit more about the Firearms Safety Authority. That was funded under the previous Budget—Te Tari Pūreke. I’m just interested to know from the Minister of Police: can he talk us through how the system would operate if it was to be moved out of police, and, in particular, how would the intelligence that’s very vital for front-line safety—if it was sitting in the Department of Internal Affairs, how do the national intelligence agency and front-line police quickly access intelligence about who may have attempted to buy a firearm? I’m thinking of a scenario when an officer’s approaching a house and there could have been a purchase that day that’s been declined under the Firearms Safety Authority. If it’s moved, how will that interaction happen to protect front-line safety?

Hon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Police): Thank you, Mr Chair. As the member knows, that’s an ongoing piece of work, but the one thing that I would say to her is that we are fully committed as a Government to making our country more safe, not less safe, and the police have got a huge role to play in terms of dealing with firearms and public safety. And whatever the model is once this piece of work is finished, Police will have absolute full access to all the intelligence, all the information that they need, to keep the public safe and to keep their front-line officers safe.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much. There have been reports that the cost of shifting Te Tari Pūreke out of Police into somewhere like the Department of Internal Affairs would cost around $100 million. What advice or reports has the Minister of Police received in relation to the cost of that shift?

Hon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Police): Thank you, Mr Chair. Well, again, as I say to the member, that is an ongoing piece of work. No decisions have been made as of today. The Hon Nicole McKee is leading that piece of work with support from Police. We are making it very clear through that process that the access to intelligence and the ability for police to be able to do their job to keep the public safe and keep our front-line police officers safe needs to be enhanced, not degraded.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. In relation to intelligence, there’s been a project that’s been under way for a while within Police—ReFrame—which enables police to have access to good intelligence, technology, and using non-sworn to get back out on the street quickly. I’d be interested to know if there’s any proposal from the Minister of Police to pause or halt that programme of work.

Hon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Police): Thank you, Mr Chair. As the member knows, that’s looking forward and that’s Budget sensitive. What I would say is that intelligence is critically important to the efficient running of our police service, and they are constantly looking at ways of being able to increase that.

HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE (Te Pāti Māori—Hauraki-Waikato): Tēnā rā koe, otirā tēnā rā tātou, e te Whare. E tū ana hau ki te waha i ngā kōrero mō Te Pāti Māori, ā, ēngari mōku ake mō tōku rohe o Hauraki-Waikato, me tōku tino āwangawanga ki tēnei Kāwana kaikiri me ō rātou take.

[Greetings to you, and to us all here in the House. I stand to voice the opinions held by Te Pāti Māori, but also for myself for my people of Hauraki-Waikato, we are very worried about this racist Government and their ways.]

My question is to the Minister of Police; I have a series of questions. I have attended not one but three tangihanga, or funerals, within my electorate of Hauraki-Waikato, and I have been absolutely appalled with distress at the amount of police that have barricaded the local marae, and even more so the violation of discrimination to the whānau pani, the family of the deceased, ones during a time of mourning.

I am seeking answers from the Minister today on, firstly, what is the process for 60 police officers to attend a tangi? Secondly, how is it acceptable that 60 police officers can show up to a tangi, have armed checkpoints with M4s, then on burial day have an Eagle helicopter circling around the urupā, or cemetery, as karakia commences, as they are lowering the caskets of their loved ones?

We have witnessed enormous amounts of police cars showing up to the streets of marae to have checkpoints at tangihanga. This is completely unacceptable. These proceedings are highly discriminatory. I would like to seek clarity on the fact: do police now have the authority to interfere in tikanga protocols, cultural considerations, and tangihanga?

A majority of local police officers have a good relationship with their local communities, hapū, and iwi. Our local police have been very apologetic for what has been happening and said it was a direction not from them but from Wellington. By police turning up to tangihanga in this way, which is completely disrespectful and culturally inappropriate, this will cause further pressure and distrust between mana whenua and police. What reassurance can the Minister give to this urgent, disturbing take [subject]?

Hon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Police): Thank you, Mr Chair. I thank the member for the question. Look, I can’t talk in great detail to the examples that the member has used, but I guess if I could sort of give you an overview in terms of the approach the police are taking, I have to assume that they probably involved gang members.

Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke: Point of order, Mr Chair. I’m just clarifying just so that constituents know at home, one of those tangihanga was a gang member - affiliated tangi and two of them weren’t.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): OK. Point taken.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Yeah. So, again, I apologise. If you give me the details, then I can definitely look into that for you, but I just don’t have enough detail now to give you a detailed response.

The only thing that I would say is that, personally, I’m extremely proud of our New Zealand Police service. They are deeply connected with their community, and that’s the entire community. But I think that probably what you may be seeing and witnessing is that a lot of these gang convoys have felt that they have the right to take over public roads. In fact, in your own area, there was a terrible example a couple of years ago where a gang convoy came around a father who was trying to get home and he was scared and pulled off to the side of the road. They pulled him out of his vehicle and they assaulted him so badly that he ended up in Waikato Hospital with a serious brain injury. I’m using that as an example, because what they’re doing is they’re intimidating members of the public. They’re taking over public spaces. Actually, I feel very strongly, as the incoming Government and as the Minister, that we should protect the rights of those law-abiding citizens and reinforce the law and remind the gangs that they don’t get to just come out and do whatever they want. They don’t get to come out and take over public spaces. They don’t get to intimidate members of the public.

I’m only assuming that maybe what you’ve seen or what you’ve experienced is the police trying to effectively manage those convoys in a public space. I’d be very surprised if the police have come on to any private property, but they definitely would be dealing with that assertively, because that has been an expectation of this Government, but it would be in a public space.

HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE (Te Pāti Māori—Hauraki-Waikato): Thank you to the Minister for responding back to my questions. However, I do want to clarify that, yes, one of them had gang member whānau, but two of them had absolutely no gang patches, no gang whānau. It was just a normal tangi where people were attending, and, in one instance, the police officers weren’t actually on the marae but on the actual street—the beginning road of the marae. And the members had then been pulled up or there had been checkpoints, which I think is discrimination. Because there are no gang members there, there are no gang patches there, there is no affiliation to gang member rōpū; it is just Māori people having a tangihanga.

Now, I understand where the Minister is coming from. However, I think it is completely inappropriate for police officers to then discriminate, “Oh there’s a Māori tangi; let’s go to that area.” That’s not right. And I’m liking to get more clarification on not the gang members but the actual tangihanga proceedings: how would those proceedings occur in future for my local electorate of Hauraki-Waikato?

CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): Thank you, Mr Chair. My first question pertains to some worrying numbers and trends in the annual report of the Police 2022-23. Despite victimisations going up nationwide from 155,000 to 185,000 in that period 2022-23 and given all the increases, as the Minister has alluded to, in ram raids, retail thefts, and serious and violent crime, is he satisfied that the net gain of full-time constabulary in the Auckland region fell—well, there wasn’t a net gain at all. Well, there was a net gain but not in Counties Manukau. Overall in the region, the net gain was just five sworn constables, up from 2,929, across the Auckland region, to 2,934, despite the increase in victimisation and the offending, as I’ve outlined. That’s my first question, and what plans does he have around more police and more presence on the streets of Auckland?

My second question follows an appearance to the Justice Committee, as Chairperson Meager has pointed out, by the Commissioner of Police, Andrew Coster. I asked him about the success of the anti-gang policies and overall gang crackdown in Western Australia, and Commissioner Andrew Coster said, “They were quite successful in removing the visible presence of gangs in Western Australia.” Does the Minister expect similar success with his anti-gang policies here in New Zealand?

Hon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Police): Thank you, Mr Chair. So starting with the last point first, yes. A big part of the reason why we want to remove gang patches and insignia is we don’t want the public to be exposed to that and we don’t want them being visible to the public. The police still know who gang members are—they’ve got very good intelligence; that’s their business. They know who they are, but we don’t want the public to be exposed to that anymore.

In terms of the numbers, there’s a couple of things that we’re doing. Obviously there’s a commitment to deliver an additional 500 front-line police officers in the term of this Government—the next two years. The other piece of work that’s got going—and it will take a bit of time, but we started it—is trying to free up police resource away, for example, from mental health call-outs and back on their core role.

In terms of presence in Auckland, one of the things that I was very clear about as the incoming Minister in my letter of expectation is that we start to see more police out on the beat—highly visible, developing those relationships with shopkeepers, knowing the patch that they’re in—and the police are responding well to that, from what I understand. I was certainly with Bruce Bird in Waikato, the district commander there, last week and they have had a big increase in foot patrols in Hamilton. I was in Tauranga the week before—the same. I was talking to some retailers there and they said that it’s given them a huge boost of confidence because they’re actually seeing beat constables back out doing those foot patrols. It’s a similar situation in Auckland.

In terms of the numbers, I think what that report reflects is the fact that if you go back to the previous Government, New Zealand First as a component part of that first Government wanted to deliver an 1,800 additional front-line police officers. The target date had to be moved back two or three times—they couldn’t actually achieve the numbers—and then when the final numbers were reported to this House as being delivered, in actual fact probably maybe 300 but possibly as many as 500 of those were authorised officers. Authorised officers have a critically important role to play inside our police service—don’t get me wrong on that—but they’re not sworn officers out on the street that are able to respond to a member of the public putting their hand up for help.

So we’ve got quite a bit of work to do in terms of being able to free up our police resource and get it back focused on the work they want to do, their core role; delivering the additional 500. I think that we will start to see a real difference in terms of visibility in our police actually doing what they want to do best and that is protecting the public they serve.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I just have one more question on the Firearms Safety Authority. One example from overseas where it was moved away from Police into another department was Canada, and it did not work so well there. I just want some reassurance or commitment from the Minister—if Nicole McKee, as the responsible Minister for that, makes decisions in relation to Te Tari Pūreke and if he has real concerns about the front-line safety of officers, particularly in relation to getting real-time intelligence in relation to firearms, will he make a commitment to step up and speak out? Will he speak out if he has concerns about decisions being taken by the Associate Minister that may potentially endanger not only front-line officers but our community?

Hon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Police): Well, that’s my job. I mean, I’m glad that the member highlights Canada, because, you know, I would expect and I’ll make sure that officials are looking at that so that if there’s lessons to be learnt from what Canada have done, we should be adopting and looking at those. But I just come back to the fact and just say to her and give her a commitment that, in terms of the way firearms are treated and dealt with in this country, this Government is committed to making our country a safer country. And a big part of that is the way that firearms are dealt with, and my commitment is to make sure—police have got a big role in that—that the police continue to have the ability to collect and have access to the intelligence and the information that they need to be effective to keep the public safe and to keep our front-line police officers safe.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. Just in relation to recruitment and retaining police, police are able to take 10 wings consisting of around 80 recruits per year. I’d just like to get the Minister’s view. Is he concerned about the first two wings of the 500 new front-line police officers—that wing 376 only had 58 recruits, and then wing 377 just had 61 recruits? What does this do to the forecast date for when that 500 new police officers will be reached?

Hon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Police): Well, our commitment hasn’t changed. We’ve committed to delivering 500 new sworn front-line police officers in two years. And, look, the Police is doing some great work around the country in terms of recruiting. The one thing that they’re very clear about—and I fully support them—is that there will not be any reduction in standards. The quality of our police force reflects the quality of our recruits and police officers. But, look, there’s some very good work going around the country. I was in Gisborne a couple of months ago. They’ve got a young constable there who is working with the schools in identifying year 12 and 13 students that they can get alongside of, give the training, give them the skills that they need to enter and enjoy a rewarding career in our New Zealand Police service. And the most recent graduations that I’ve been at, Gisborne is constantly having four or five constables there. So there’s some outstanding work being done around the country, and I’m confident that solutions will appear in terms of delivering those 500 additional police officers.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): More questions?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Mr Chair, if there’s no one else—just being fair. Thank you very much, Mr Chair. In relation to gangs, over the past six years, police have prevented an estimated $6.7 billion of social harm. I’m interested to know if he has done any modelling into the estimated amount of social harm that police will prevent as a result of the changes outlined in the Government’s coalition agreement.

Hon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Police): Thank you, Mr Chair. Well, look, I’ve been given a good crack of answering a lot of these questions that are looking forward, not looking back over the review period. But in the spirit of what this is meant to be about—and that is transparency and trying to give the best possible answers that we can—I have been answering those questions. But that question that the member just asked is projected forward, not back. I would recognise and agree with you that the police do an outstanding job of reducing social harm, and I have no doubt—and my expectations moving forward, in this term of Government—that, as we free up their resource, as we actually give them more tools, as we give them the ability to be able to dig even deeper into those issues, then we’ll continue to see very strong results.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Just to support the committee, I’ll get members to reflect on Speaker’s ruling 147/2, and that is around when we do have future-focus questions that they’ve got to be about progress against the strategic intentions of the plans and intentions of those organisations, and those strategic intentions are, of course, the annual review.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. So retail crime has continued to be a problem for our business community as well as our communities. Funding for the Retail Crime Prevention Programme was provided in the last Budget. Does the Minister have any intentions to halt or pause the funding of that programme?

Hon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Police): Sorry, I was talking to the chair. Does she mind just repeating the last part of that question.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): The Retail Crime Prevention Programme: does he have any intention to halt funding to that programme?

Hon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Police): No, I don’t—anything to do with retail crime and getting on top of the violent retail crime in New Zealand is a huge focus for this Government. And if anything, we want to invest into that more, because there’s a huge human cost to this and it’s awful. And in my view, we’re a small island nation, we’ve got a lot in our favour in terms of trying to get on top and deal with this, and we should be, but that is going to require ongoing investment to make that happen.

JAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata): Thank you, Mr Chair. I was reluctant to take another call because I had a good crack at the start, but given the enthusiasm of the committee on this topic, I did want to look back a little bit. I wanted to ask a question about past resourcing of police, and in particular, in the technology space, and in and around this idea that if we can get our systems to work smarter and not harder, we can actually gain a lot of efficiencies and a lot of resource out of the existing resource that we have. The reason I raise that is because I didn’t make a lot of contributions during the annual review debate—I allowed members to have a pretty free-flowing debate back and forth—but the one contribution I did make was towards the end. It might sound a little flippant now, but hear me out because I’ve got a good train of thought going on this. It was around health and safety, and resourcing for our local police.

The issue is that in my electorate, mid-Canterbury and South Canterbury, over the history of the past few decades, we have had about three or four of the top five temperatures ever recorded. So when you are a front-line police officer and you’re operating in the middle of summer in those temperatures, wearing your full kit—and the Minister of Police will know probably what it’s like to wear some of that kit. I tried to carry a bit around when I visited Ashburton a couple of weeks ago, and after a couple of minutes of just holding it, I could feel the strain—that was in an air conditioned office. So if you have our police officers running around in 38 or 39 degrees wearing this kit—one of the suggestions from the police in Timaru was looking at different types of uniforms and looking at a summer uniform for some of our police officers in those areas where it is quite stifling, or looking at different ways of operating—maybe they could remove their tactical vests sometimes.

The reason I come to that is because that is probably a question around resourcing. Every time we make a decision, we’re going to have to make a decision on what stays and what goes. So I just wanted to ask the Minister if he’s satisfied with the work that’s happened in police so far around looking at where they can gain efficiencies, where they can use technology to replace some of the paper-based systems.

I visited Ashburton Police Station a couple of weeks ago and I met two pretty brand-spanking-new constables who’d been in there for a couple of months. They love their job; they love being part of the police force. The one thing that surprised them was the amount of desk work that they had to do and the amount of paperwork they had to do. They pulled open a filing cabinet—it was empty at the time, but they said, “Here’s where my next files are going.”

So I just wanted to know if the Minister’s satisfied with the amount of work that’s happening, has happened in the past year, around trying to look at where we can gain efficiencies and use technology to operate in a more effective way, and if he has any strategic intentions moving forward about where we’d go in that space.

Hon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Police): Yeah, look, very good question. I’m not sure I’ll be very popular raising this, but there was a time when the part of the police uniform was walk socks and shorts.

Hon Member: Yeah, bring it back.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: I’m not sure we’re going back there.

Cameron Brewer: Show us the photos.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Nah it wasn’t in my era. But, look, you raise a really good point. There was a very big investment made into police back in 2013-14 in terms of technology. They got tablets and they got mobile phones. The reason for that is, obviously, we wanted a modern police force with the best technology available. And it was a big drive to the point that you raised: get them out of the office, allow them to be back out on the street, visible and back in the community—and that was very successful. But the police have got an ongoing programme of always looking at updating, modernising the technology that they have. There is a big project under way at the moment around a new digitised communication system for police, for St John’s, and for Fire and Emergency New Zealand. Probably, once that’s delivered, we could probably broaden that out even further.

In terms of uniform, I agree with you. Police are constantly looking at providing a uniform that is functional, that police officers can feel comfortable in. I agree with you—when you think about a hot summer’s day and the amount of equipment that they are wearing, the core heats up pretty quickly. So it’s trying to get that balance between making sure they’ve got the protective equipment and they’ve got the tactical equipment—that it’s functional and it’s comfortable and they can work a whole shift without putting unnecessary strain on the body.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. Now, I just wanted to clarify one point—the answer the Minister gave before in relation to front-line staff and non - front-line staff. I understand that he said that is a clear decision for the commissioner to make, but then he’s also provided the answer in a written parliamentary question, and today, that those 111 call responders are not front line. So if you could just reconcile those two different pieces of information, I’d really appreciate that.

Hon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Police): Well, I just think that she’s conflating the two issues. The first thing is the commissioner will decide what’s front line. He’ll decide where he deploys his staff and he’ll decide the best use of all his  resources and his staff. The member asked me as the Minister of Police what I would define as a front-line police officer and I said I consider a sworn police officer as front line.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Members, our time with the Minister of Police has ended. The Minister of Local Government is now available for 30 minutes to respond to members’ questions.

Local Government

RACHEL BOYACK (Chairperson of the Governance and Administration Committee): Thank you, Mr Chair. It’s a pleasure to kick off the debate this afternoon into the annual review of the local government sector. I just note that the annual review for local government takes part under the Department of Internal Affairs. This year, for the 2022-23 year, the Governance and Administration Committee undertook its first in-depth review of local government under the new Standing Orders. The Department of Internal Affairs has Government oversight for the regulation and guidance that is provided to local government by central government.

Can I thank the officials who provided advice to the committee throughout the hearing, and also to the committee members of the Governance and Administration Committee for their constructive and useful approach to the annual review.

There were a number of matters that we undertook to examine as part of the annual review, and I’m going to note some of those now before we get into questions for the Minister of Local Government. The first was around the future of local government reform. Members of the committee will be aware that the Future for Local Government Review was established in 2021 to assess the ways in which local democracy and governance need to adapt into the future. The review’s final report was published in June 2023 and included 17 recommendations. We noted that the Department of Internal Affairs had advised the select committee that the responsibility for the implementation of that review and its recommendations does sit with local government. But we did note that we would like to see stronger support and reporting into the work that the Department of Internal Affairs does to support local government on the ground.

We also spent a lot of time discussing infrastructure. It will be of no surprise to the committee that the topic of investment in critical water services and water reform was a matter of reporting to the select committee, and I’m certain will be part of today’s debate and questions that are put to the Minister.

Finally, I did just want to make some comments around another matter that was brought to the attention of the select committee, around ongoing support and financing of local government. This is a matter of critical importance for central and local government to resolve, and the increase in rates that we see and the increase in debt that we see across local government is a matter that will continue to have an impact on ratepayers. It does fall to local and central government to work together to address how we can resolve the critical matter of how we fund the services and investment needed to run local government in New Zealand.

So no doubt it will be an interesting debate this afternoon. Again, I thank officials for advising the select committee, and I thank the select committee again for what was a very constructive look at local government as part of our first in-depth review of the Department of Internal Affairs. Thank you, Mr Chair.

CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): Thank you, Mr Chair. My question’s around strategic intent, and it follows the Minister and the Prime Minister, along with the Mayor of Auckland, Wayne Brown, announcing the Local Water Done Well policy, an agreement unanimously reached by Auckland councillors that will avoid a 25.8 percent water rates increase on water users in and around Auckland this coming financial year. They were up for $348 per average household, and it will be a lot, lot less than that. So my question looking forward is to the Minister in the chair, Simeon Brown: when will the broader range of structural and financing tools be available to other councils to ensure they can finance themselves appropriately and access the long-term debt required for investment into water services?

CELIA WADE-BROWN (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. It’s a pleasure to be the third member of the illustrious Governance and Administration Committee to ask questions today. I’d like to ask more about the Future for Local Government report, He piki tūranga, he piki kōtuku, which was issued on 16 June. I’d like to ask: does the Minister agree, first of all, that our system of local democracy and governance needs to evolve? And which of the report’s five identified shifts—amongst those wider recommendations were five specific shifts: strengthening local democracy, especially increasing citizen participation; authentic relations between councils and hapū, iwi, and Māori, enabling self-determination and shared authority; number three, a stronger focus on community wellbeing; number four, a genuine partnership between central and local government to coinvest and deliver wellbeing outcomes; or number five, moving from a constrained funding system to an equitably funded system that enables communities to thrive. So I’m asking the Minister which of those five he thinks is the most important.

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): Thank you, Mr Chair, for the opportunity to take a call in regards to the annual review of local government. This debate, obviously, relates to the last 12 months, or the last financial year, so I will keep my comments within that, but, obviously, I will give some colour where necessary in terms of the direction this Government is taking. I thank the members for their questions. I thank the committee for its work on the review, and there has certainly been a range of issues that have been raised through the committee stage.

The question from my colleague Cameron Brewer around Local Water Done Well, noting what has happened there. Obviously, we’ve taken a very different approach from the last Government in terms of water; the last Government had a one-size-fits-all approach to water, and that ultimately ended up with them spending, I think, $1.2 billion in the last six years, mandating co-governed mega-entities or local councils across the country. Ultimately, the vast majority of councils rejected that approach, which is what we are doing through our Local Water Done Well approach, which we are delivering on.

The second question is in relation to the future of local government review. Look, I think the point I’d make about that review is it raised a number of good points, but it ended up finding all the woke answers—you know: “Well if we’re going to fix it, let’s lower the voting age. That’s going to solve the problems.”, “Why don’t we entrench the four wellbeings into local government. That’ll fix it as well.”, “What about STV? If you just had STV voting, that will fix the problems that local government are facing.”

Well, ultimately, that ended up with finding all the woke answers rather than actually dealing with some of those actual challenging issues, and then, effectively, said, “Well if you just give more money, then that will solve all the problems”, and that was the answer of the last Government. It was, ultimately, that if you simply just put more money—I think I heard one of their former Ministers once say, “Just appropriate it. You’ll be able to fix all of the problems”. So, ultimately—

Hon Willie Jackson: Just say what you feel.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: I am saying exactly what I feel. I’m saying exactly what I feel, Mr Jackson. Effectively, it was trying to also entrench co-governance through local government, which was another part of that report.

The question was: does the system of local democracy need to evolve? Well, I’d say let’s start with the word “democracy” and let’s ensure that people are able to have their say and that communities are able to vote and have their say, and that’s the side of that particular question that this Government stands on.

CELIA WADE-BROWN (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. Well, thank you for answering the previous question and giving your view of the independent report. I have a second question in a different area.

New Zealand is highly vulnerable to natural hazards, as the Insurance Council notes, and this is a matter that came to our Governance and Administration Committee. We cannot overstate the importance of risk reduction, readiness, response, and recovery. Dave Gawn, Chief Executive of the National Emergency Management Agency, recently spoke to us and said that the New Zealand Emergency Management System has been set up to manage small events, generally weather events—not big catastrophes like the Hikurangi subduction or the Alpine Fault, which could be level 8 and almost unimaginable.

Now, I’m asking the Minister of Local Government for his thoughts because civil defence and emergency management committees are run by local councils with fire, police, and other organisations—hopefully iwi, although you do wonder; they would be better to be woke than asleep in my view, when we come to emergencies. However, smaller councils do not employ any specialised civil defence and emergency staff, and, in addition, Fire and Emergency New Zealand have not extended their local advisory committees to all of New Zealand.

Does the Minister of Local Government have concerns that councils do not have adequate resources to fulfil their civil defence and emergency management duties?

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I’m keen to sort of ask a question the Minister alluded to in his answer previously; he talked about democracy.

Being the MP for the Bay of Plenty, for the last three years we have had appointed commissioners at our local city council, at the Tauranga City Council, and so I’m keen to know—because that was an appointment from the previous Government and it was an appointment under this term that we’re reviewing. They were appointed on 9 February 2021 through to the elections in October in 2022, to align them back to the local government elections, and then their appointment was extended to July 2024. I’m keen to understand the Minister’s priorities in the space around the return to local democracy and the use of appointed commissioners, and what he sees is the importance around the local community having their say for the people who represent them around the council table and the decision making being made on behalf of the local community.

If we think about Tauranga, we’ve got our local elections taking place in a couple of months’ time and the community is ready to re-elect and to elect the council to represent them around the table and to be held accountable to the ratepayer. That’s what the community, locally, in Tauranga, is keen to do. But they’re also keen to ensure we’ve got representatives sitting at that council with future direction, future forward thinking, so we can take our city—the fifth-largest in New Zealand—forward and have the prosperous city that we want to have.

So I’m really keen to understand from the Minister how he likes the use of appointed commissioners, what he views to have been under their term, and what he sees around the importance of local democracy and decision-making at local city councils.

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): Thank you, Mr Chair, and I thank the members for their questions. The question from Celia Wade-Brown around councils fulfilling their obligations in relation to civil defence—and obviously that is a critically important role that councils have, alongside civil defence which leads the Government’s response. It’s really important that councils do play that role, and ultimately that’s why my message to local government is to focus on the must-haves, not the “nice-to-haves”. And so that’s the focus that we expect from local government.

In terms of the question around Tauranga and local democracy, we are committed as the Government to restoring democracy. We are not extending the term. We’ve confirmed that the decision made by the previous Minister will remain unchanged, which means that in July this year the residents of Tauranga will be able to elect their own mayor and elect their own councillors and we will not be having some form of—

Tom Rutherford: Hybrid.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: —hybrid model, or commissioners in place alongside elected members. Ultimately, what we will be doing there is ensuring that the local community can decide who will represent them in that community.

The wider question, though, around the role of commissioners—so Part 10 of the Local Government Act does give the Minister of Local Government certain powers to intervene in particular circumstances, and, ultimately, where there are problems. And that is a process which, ultimately, I will reserve judgment on in terms of other councils.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. Just a couple of questions to the Minister over this whole democracy area. Would the Minister agree that we have seen quite a diverse set of councillors over the last year or two—last couple of years? With the change in terms of Māori seats, we have seen Māori being given an opportunity that they have never had before. Would the Minister agree that in past years so few Māori would be able to get elected on to the council? So in the previous Government, obviously, we thought, “Well, this is an opportunity.” Now we’re seeing record numbers. We’re seeing Shane Jones’ nephew, for instance, as the mayor up there in the North. You’ve got a whole Māori board up there in the North—opportunities they’ve never had before.

So I’m asking the Minister, in all seriousness, did he see benefits in that? And if he did, how can we maintain Māori representation? Surely Māori have a right to be a part and play a part in New Zealand’s democracy today, because there’s been so few who’ve been afforded an opportunity. So what are the Minister’s plans in terms of giving Māori opportunities, giving them the chance to get on to the council? Is it just about returning to what has been done in the past, or is there some new, innovative, creative strategy that the Minister might be able to give us?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): Thank you, Mr Chair. I thank the member for his question. I note this is the former Minister who once famously said “democracy has changed”. Well, I’m not quite sure what he means by “democracy”, but on this side of the House, democracy has not changed, because we actually believe in people of this country being able to decide who represents them.

When it comes to the issue of Māori wards, we are going to reverse the position to ensure that local communities can make those decisions as to whether there is a Māori ward on a particular council—that is about letting local voters actually make decisions. In some councils around New Zealand, I expect they will vote to retain those Māori wards, and in other councils they may not. That is ultimately about local communities, local voters, the public of New Zealand, the voters of New Zealand being able to have their say.

And he mentions Matua Shane Jones’ nephew, Moko. Well, Moko is not elected as the mayor of the Far North on a Māori ward; he is elected as the Mayor of the Far North District Council in an open contest against every single other person who decides to put their name forward for elected office. That is how it is and that is how he got elected. Whether a council retains its Māori ward because the voters in that community decide they want it, or they don’t, I am confident that more and more Māori will get elected to local councils up and down this country.

CAMERON LUXTON (ACT): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’d just like to ask the Minister, following on from the erudite questioning from my colleague the MP for the Bay of Plenty, Tom Rutherford, and the less erudite contribution from former Minister Willie Jackson—we’ve got a situation about democracy in New Zealand, and, as one famous commentator once said, “Throw the buggers out.” That’s the real benefit of democracy; you can throw them out when you don’t want them.

In Tauranga, we have been unable to throw the buggers out. No matter what decision they have made, there has been no opportunity for the good people of Tauranga Moana to throw the buggers out. Well, I thank you for clarifying, Minister, that there will be full democracy returning to Tauranga in the elections on 20 July.

But I do have a question that I would love to hear you expound on, and that is, Minister: what do you think about what the commissioners, in their time as the leaders of Tauranga City Council—what do you make of the decision the commissioners took to ignore a petition which was submitted to council with the required amount of votes to have a referendum on a Māori ward? What do you make of the commissioners’ decision to ignore such feedback from the community and implement a Māori ward?

I’d like to also note that we are going to be having a Māori ward established in Tauranga, where there has never been one before, due to the decisions made by this commission. I’d ask the Minister to reflect on what has happened here.

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): I acknowledge the question. Ultimately, the commission has the same responsibilities as an elected council to make decisions under the law. What I would say, though, in relation to the issue of the Māori ward, is that there will have to be a referendum in Tauranga. The legislation we’ll be bringing to the House will mean that that referendum will have to happen between now and the next local government elections. Ultimately, that is when Tauranga people will be able to make their decision as to whether that ward stays or goes.

LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour—Māngere): Thank you, Mr Chair, and I thank you, Minister Brown, that I have the opportunity to ask a few questions, specifically around Auckland Council. You’ve made the announcement with regards to the water increase percentage. Just a couple of questions, and my first question is: can you explain the financial sustainable model for the record to ensure that these rates will remain affordable?

My second question is around infrastructure. As you’re aware, Minister, the committee has had quite an in-depth discussion with regards to infrastructure investment in terms of local government. Specifically in Auckland, there have been many transport projects that have been delivered, especially walking and cycling. Can you explain, or can you highlight, that these will be continued as an affordable investment in local communities?

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. This is a time-limited debate, and by our calculations, the National Party have roughly seven minutes remaining and there’s three full sessions to go. So it’s very disappointing to see the National Party using up their time with patsy questions that they could indeed just go and ask the Minister themselves and save the Minister’s time to be able to answer questions. It would be a tremendous shame if we get to the sessions on Thursday and next week and Government Ministers simply don’t have time to answer genuine questions. That would be a shame, indeed.

So I’ll keep my contribution to the point, and, hopefully, the Minister will answer in the same vein. Does he agree with the Prime Minister that local governments just need to “stop doing dumb things”, does he agree that rating systems are currently unsustainable, and what is the projected credit rating of Watercare after the announcement he made on Sunday?

Celia Wade-Brown: Mr Chair?

Tim Costley: Mr Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Celia Wade-Brown.

Hon Members: Oh!

CELIA WADE-BROWN (Green): You’ll get your turn, I’m sure. Thank you, Mr Chair. The Future for Local Government report—we heard much about a wider vision of democracy for local government that included citizen participation. Of course, councils do consultation, and many of us see that as part of democracy, not only a vote every three years. So if the Minister considers referendums are such a vital part of democracy, would he suggest that as well as for Māori wards, we have referendums on rates rises, cycleways—why not?—and a number of other things? We consult on these things at local government. Why is one issue of representation needing a referendum, and the number of councillors, the ward boundaries, and a number of other matters, apparently, don’t need a referendum?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): Thank you, Mr Chair. A number of quick answers to some questions. In regards to affordability of rates rises, in particular in the water context, in terms of—we’ll be introducing economic regulation to ensure that consumers are paying appropriate prices and to maintain investment.

In terms of Watercare’s credit rating: obviously, this is a review going backwards. Obviously, I’ll be very generous and answer the member’s question, but, ultimately, that will be determined as part of its separation when that separation is finalised, as the member will know. He was responsible for this particular area not too long ago.

He tried to make the point that his plans were going to be more affordable. Well, the briefing to the incoming Minister from Entity A made it very clear that Entity A was not going to be in place by 1 July, which meant Aucklanders were going to have to pay 25.8 percent increases in their water rates if that Government had got re-elected. Thankfully, that didn’t happen.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. It’s extraordinary to hear those sorts of responses. But I do note that he didn’t answer one of my questions, so I’ll repeat it: does he agree with the Prime Minister that all local government needs to do is to stop doing “dumb stuff”, and does he agree that the rating system as it stands is currently unsustainable?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): Well, I would agree that councils should not do dumb stuff, and also, when you think about it—and I just made the point earlier—we want councils to be focused on must-haves, not “nice-to-haves”, and that’s exactly what we’re doing as a Government. We’re doing the exact same thing, as Government, going line by line to ensure that the focus is on the must-haves, not the “nice-to-haves”, because we’re in tough economic times. We have had an inflation bomb left behind by the last Government and we’re trying to deal with these challenges. Local government is dealing with these same challenges, too, and so the focus needs to be a focus on core business and must-haves, not “nice-to-haves”, and to stop the dumb stuff.

TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki): Well, we’ve heard a lot in the debate so far, particularly around the structure, and I’d like to tap not just into structure but infrastructure.

If we think about structure, thinking about councils and how they are formed, how they are funded, how they are elected, how they operate—and we’ve spoken briefly on the local government review that was done last year. The future of local government—particularly around the suggestions of, for instance, giving 16-year-olds the vote and changing the mandate or the requirements for people to be elected to Government, and maybe the Minister has some views on what the future really looks like. But I’d like to move from the structural to infrastructure, because there are 17 recommendations, as the member for the Greens mentioned, in that report. Many drop in the word “wellbeing” every second sentence, but none around infrastructure, none about actually delivering the quality roads and pipes and opening up opportunities for development that people need if they are indeed to have any wellbeing at all. Nowhere in that is there a focus on delivering public services, which I think is a key function of local government. And so I’d be really interested to hear the Minister’s views on that.

For example, in our region, in the Kāpiti Coast, where I represent, the good people of Mills Albert would have been out there replacing our pipes. We’ve brought on water meters. We don’t want to be lumped in with Wellington metro when it comes to three waters. Actually, we believe in autonomy, but we do believe that there needs to be a focus on infrastructure. If I think about in Horowhenua, where we’re building an entire new suburb—3,500 homes—it needs roads, it needs pipes, it needs connection, it needs the ability to develop. That’s how wellbeing comes, not by adding it to a report.

So I’d be really interested to hear from the Minister what he thinks the future of local government looks like. I’d be really interested to hear his views that came out of the report on things like forming new Government departments, new entities, new bureaucracy, if that is indeed the answer, or if we need a focus on world-class infrastructure. Do we need it on world-class infrastructure, on delivering public services rather than these mandates for new Government entities and bureaucracy?

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Members, our time with the Minister of Local Government has ended. The Minister for Oceans and Fisheries is now available for 30 minutes to respond to members’ questions.

Members, just for members’ information, usually at this point we have someone nominated from the select committee to give a non-political summation of the annual review process—usually that’s the chairperson. So do I have an honourable member from the Primary Production Committee to give that non-political summary of the annual review process?

Oceans and Fisheries

CATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki): I will stand up from the Primary Production Committee and speak to the annual review that we went through.

Hon Rachel Brooking: Where’s the chair?

CATHERINE WEDD: I’m not the chair of the Primary Production Committee—no, I’m not, but the chair doesn’t appear to be in the Chamber currently—but I am a very strong member of the Primary Production Committee and I have had a very long involvement in the past six months on the Primary Production Committee.

But we certainly went through the annual review and I would like to acknowledge our members of the Primary Production Committee for all their input on that annual review with the Ministry for Primary Industries. It was a long, long review where we looked at many areas, and particularly in relation to fisheries and ensuring that we have a very strong export industry. This was a lot of the focus of our annual review when it came to the Ministry for Primary Industries. We looked at many areas around trade and export, and looking at the Government’s objective of ensuring that we double our exports in the next 10 years and looking at ways that we would do that by doubling the value of our exports in the next 10 years.

Part of that was ensuring that our food producers are more equipped, and that is also looking at our fisheries sector, where we want to ensure that we’re making some amendments to the Fisheries Act 1996. The changes on that included clarifying commercial fishing rules that set out which fish must be brought back to port and which fish can be returned to sea. Looking at on-board cameras was another area where, you know, we looked at ensuring that we are better equipping our fishing industry to ensure that we can fish in our waters and ensure that we have this high-value, added-value fisheries industry and making sure that it is sustainable as well—a very, very important focus.

We talked about some of our areas—me coming from Hawke’s Bay, we have a strong fisheries industry there, which is really, really important to support that industry. But also looked at, you know, areas which are restrictive around fisheries, and bottom trawling was another area that we also discussed through the annual review process. We had a few comments that were made from our Minister for Biosecurity and Food Safety, and the Associate Minister of Agriculture as well.

But particularly looking at our fishing industry, the Ministry for Primary Industries highlighted two pieces of work regarding bottom trawling in New Zealand waters, and they consulted on a lot of this. So those were areas that that we focused on. But also, I think one of the main things is to look at the fact that we have got this great resource here in New Zealand and we’ve got a great resource, you know, around in our waters and we’ve got potential to add a lot of value to our fishing industry and ensure that—

Hon Rachel Brooking: Oh, like was spelt out in the industry transformation plan!

CATHERINE WEDD: No, but this is what was spoken about during the Ministry for Primary Industries annual review process and the fishing aspect of it because, you know, we spoke about a lot of things during that annual review. But fisheries is certainly acknowledged as an important export for New Zealand, and there’s a lot of great work going on there. And I would like to acknowledge the Ministry for Primary Industries for a lot of the great work that they’re doing in this area and for their vision and focus.

So on that note, I think we’ve got a lot of opportunity and it was great to speak about that as a committee, and it was great to be on the Primary Production Committee really focusing on our New Zealand fisheries.

STEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’d appreciate the opportunity to ask questions of the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries.

Minister, after the industry fought for so long against cameras on boats, we found that when the data came in on the 127 vessels with cameras, there was significant under-reporting: a sevenfold increase in dolphin interactions, a 350 percent increase in albatross interactions, and an almost 50 percent increase in discarded fish volume. When will your review of cameras on boats be completed? And will you extend the programme? That’s my first question.

Secondly, are you concerned about a company that is wholly owned by the fishing industry—FishServe—taking control of camera footage from commercial boats? And who will have access to that footage—the Department of Conservation? And how often will they have that access? That’s my first tranche of questions, but I would also like to talk about the bycatch kill limit.

Minister, you removed the fishing-related mortality limit (FRML) on sealions just recently. My question is: if, as the industry claims, the sealion exclusion devices are working, surely, then, there is no need to remove the limit, because it won’t be reached? Secondly, will you consider setting a fishing-related mortality limit for leatherback turtles, following recommendations of a recent National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research report? And, on what basis did Fisheries New Zealand set the fishing-related mortality limit for Māui dolphins—i.e., why isn’t it set over a period of time, like other FRMLs? And will the Minister release the underpinning advice? Thank you.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Kia orana, Mr Chair. I have a number of questions, but I’ll start with a couple of them. The first is in relation to cameras on boats—to the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries—whether specific advice has been given to him about the future of cameras on boats, and, if so, what is the nature of that specific advice? I think it would be also very helpful for the committee to understand from the Minister what has been learnt, from his perspective, as a result of having them on board. I’ll just start with those.

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): Kia ora. Greetings to members of the Primary Production Committee and thank you for those questions. As a few words of introduction, sadly, this is a sector of governmental and economic activity riddled with apocryphal falsehoods. The fishing industry is not going out there plundering, plaguing, or targeting rare and endangered species. It grieves me to hear—in fact, it reminds me of the milky flesh disease when I listen to the member from the Green Party suggesting that the industry, number one, is not telling the truth. The modelling carried out by the officials behind me is not too inconsistent with the recent results, and the camera initiative is all about the future.

On the question as to what the future of the camera roll-out is, a number of boats will be focused on and the cameras will be affixed to them, and at that point we’re going to have a taihoa and ascertain who’s going to pay for this, and, if it’s a public good, then how the public is going to pay for it. We’re not going to have this commercial sector continually burdened down with a host of compliance costs preventing it from generating the necessary economic dividend to pay for our schoolteachers, our police men and women, and to meet the costs of our schools and hospitals. Neither are we going to have a situation where the footage associated with the cameras is continually chased up by these busybodies, these meddlesome third-party interests who want to further stigmatise the existence of a proud industry. So to be very, very clear, I’m not going to continue with the perfidy of the last regime. I campaigned against cameras, but that was unsuccessful, sadly.

On the matter of FishServe, FishServe is a legitimate, legal, and, indeed, existing company with enforceable obligations. One of the options that will be investigated is how more of the responsibility of cameras can be delegated down to FishServe. I hope, at some point in time prior to the next election, as my officials work with us to enhance and optimise the outcomes from a better fisheries management system, to take and place before my colleagues—in our drive for greater relief in terms of regulatory burden—an option as to how that burden might be shared between the State, and, if it’s good enough, for the National Animal Identification and Tracing programme to not be fully, fully covered by the Official Information Act. I’m exploring how that can be emulated with cameras.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Can I ask the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries if he’s able to elaborate on the time frame around his thinking around the next steps around cameras on boats, given that he’s indicated what his general sense of direction is. Moving to industry transformation plans (ITPs) and what he sees as the state of those ITPs: what learnings can be taken forward as a result of that exercise of pulling all of that information and people—not just the info but the people—together to put in place an industry transformation plan; and whether he agrees or not with David Wilson, New Zealand First’s Upper Harbour candidate, who said at the pre-election World Wildlife Foundation debate that he agreed and celebrated what the ITP was for the sector?

My final question in this particular phase is around—the annual review talked about the fact that fisheries was seeking more accessible information. My question to the Minister is: what does that mean, what does it look like, and what can people expect as a result of having more accessible information being made available?

MARK CAMERON (ACT): I thank the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries for his time. Perhaps the Minister could enlighten the committee a little bit further on the technology that, especially, the coastal commercial fleet has implemented over the last few years and speak to, if he’d be so kind, the changes in net technology—the fact that it has gone from a four to a five to a six, from a diamond to a square—especially in the mid-water fish space, and, by virtue, the technology that has embraced, taking into consideration the bycatch limits and how onerous it is.

Could the Minister also, if he’d be so kind, enlighten the committee of the rigours, especially, that the coastal commercial fleet suffers, of operational cost, and how that is affecting the table fish market.

STEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to ask the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries about the South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organisation. Despite our nation, New Zealand, having put through a proposal for a 70 percent protection of vulnerable marine ecosystems, including seamounts—which was actually a descent in the proposal of the whole body, for 100 percent protection; we reduced it to 70—after the change of Government, we refused to submit that proposal and in fact Australia had to submit it. New Zealand backing out from this was a cause of some significant annoyance to the United States and to Australia—to the extent that Australia considers it should now treat New Zealand as an opponent when it comes to managing fisheries in the South Pacific. Apart from the international embarrassment of this, my question is: is the Minister committed to the South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organisation? Is the Minister committed to a Pacific-wide marine protection strategy? And as a general point, is the Minister committed to marine protected areas at all? Has the Minister given any instruction to the Ministry for Primary Industries on marine protected areas?

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): A very quick response: the member Steve Abel correctly identifies that our Government did change our stance in respect of the South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organisation, although that relates to the fact that we’re not going to carry on with this indiscriminate destruction of our fishing interest in international waters, as was a hallmark of the last regime. We won’t be having any of that. Neither will we pay any attention to MPs standing up here invoking provisions from overseas trade deals as if it’s some type of bludgeon to undermine the democracy and the sovereignty of our legitimately elected Government. We’re not tolerating and we’re not agreeing with the outsourcing to overseas jurisdictions as to how we should run our resource management programmes. Go and talk to the Spanish about their own fishing outcomes before you lecture the matua.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Thank you, Mr Chair. Still interested in the Minister’s thoughts around the industry transformation plan for the sector—it’s still a question that is yet to be addressed. And also—

Hon Rachel Brooking: And the taiao?

TANGI UTIKERE: Yes, the taiao approach of cameras on boats and when we can expect to see the next step in that particular phase of the Minister’s thinking?

I just wanted to touch on this issue of the South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organisation and ask the Minister what the current position is regarding the proposed bottom fishing management boundaries—but, in particular, the role that New Zealand scientists were involved in in developing those boundaries and what might be seen by some as world leading, and whether or not the Minister supports them as scientists in their approach or not?

STEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you. I wanted to repeat the question to the Minister: have you given any instructions to the Ministry for Primary Industries on marine protected areas? Have you given any instructions to Ministry for Primary Industries on marine protected areas?

MARK CAMERON (ACT): Minister, if I make a statement—and I’m pleased with a yes or no—do you agree: do you agree that the coastal commercial sector has innovated significantly over the last 10 years to try and alleviate bycatch? And what does innovation look like, to try and nullify some of the concerns on the political left?

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Mr Chair, thank you for the opportunity to ask the Minister a question about Maōri fisheries. There is a bill going through the House at the moment which is essential to creating a regime which is fit for purpose now, so that Maōri can realise the value of fisheries assets and unlock the economic potential of that not only in the regions, but everywhere around Aotearoa. Maōri fisheries are really important and I want to ask the Minister why he is proposing to change what is a bill that was supported by iwi Māori, worked on by the Māori Affairs Committee that used a cross-partisan approach, that dealt with stakeholders for a number of months and engaged deeply with those stakeholders, and is it because the Minister is only taking advice from Te Ohu Kaimoana? And is the Minister acting in the interests of Te Ohu Kaimoana?

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): Firstly, references to innovation within the fisheries sector is beyond cavil. Sadly, the fisheries sector is plagued by a whole host of dangerous and hurtful allegations on a regular basis, heard here every week in this House. Well, they are clapping in the streets because they know they have a champion in my good self. Innovation will be supported. It doesn’t necessarily mean we stay with exactly the same template of an industry transformation plan. Indeed, four times a year we are engaging with the senior figures of the fishing industry to effect better outcomes between the civil service, myself, and them. As indeed I’m doing it with oil and gas, as I’m doing a similar thing with minerals—in particular coal. So I don’t think anyone should imagine that the zest to develop better innovation outcomes has diminished.

And the final thing I’d say about Māori fisheries: the member makes a very good point: I have no interest in disfiguring the progress forward for Māori fisheries but neither do I want to set up a host of opportunities for Māori and for them to argue with each other; I’d rather see them mend a net, catch some fish, and make some money.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): If the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries is correct in saying that he wants Māori to be able to progress their interests in developing their fisheries rights and sharing that with iwi who benefit from settlements, then isn’t the first version of the bill which came to this House, which had cross-partisan support, and will be enduring, a better option than what has come back and has been proposed, essentially, by Te Ohu Kaimoana to suit their interests in the status quo?

STEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. In 2023, the New Zealand orange roughy fisheries ORH 3B, responsible for 80 percent of the catch, lost our Marine Stewardship Council certification—an important marking point to the United States and EU consumers. Evidence showed that the fishers were having to trawl for longer yet still not catching more fish, suggesting depletion and spawning aggregations had disappeared or were severely reduced on seamount areas and had been heavily trawled. The only seamount that showed some positive signs for the fish was one that is closed to trawling. The implication is that the extent of the exploitation was meaning that there would be no sustainable orange roughy, because we’d fished it to oblivion. How is that sustainable for the industry, let alone the environment, and what does the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries intend to do to ensure that New Zealand fisheries remain actually ecologically sustainable and viable? And to that point, has the Minister given any instructions to the Ministry for Primary Industries on marine protected areas?

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): On the latter, I’m aware that the Minister of Conservation has a bill wending its way through the House. My level of interest in that is not particularly strong, but it’s not my statutory role. I, as you may have worked out, sir, am here to enable the industry to boost the dividend within the parameters of sustainability.

On the question of orange roughy, I’m advised by the officials, on searching for the answer in this mammoth midden heap of paper, that in 2023-24, orange roughy 3B was reduced by 40 percent. The system works in this very simple way: scientists establish—and I’m talking about robust, genuine science, not these lib pen-pushers—genuine enforceable justiciable figures, and the politicians, like myself, act on that. But we have no time for these lib pen-pushers who write all this green diatribe.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Thank you, Mr Chair. We’ll try third time lucky. We still haven’t had an answer from the Minister to industry transformation plans and the time frame for the taihoa on cameras on boats. Perhaps he’s still looking through his mammoth heap of paper there to find the answer.

Can I move to the Oceans Secretariat. I’d like to put to the Minister: what has motivated him to, essentially, disestablish the Oceans Secretariat and how does he expect that to impact the fishing industry and the health of New Zealand’s oceans, respectively. And, in the absence of such a secretariat, what resources does he foreshadow the Oceans and Marine Ministers Group will need to make informed decisions that will ensure the long-term resilience, but also the long-term health, of ocean and costal ecosystems, including the role that fisheries would play within that?

STEVE ABEL (Green): Minister, I appreciate you commenting on the Minister of Conservation’s opinion on marine protected areas, or something to that effect. But I wonder: have you expressed any opinions on marine protected areas to the Ministry for Primary Industries?

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): I realise that time is running out, and this is obviously an important feature, because marine protected areas, marine reserves, rāhui areas, mātaitai areas, and taiāpure areas are a key feature of marine-based resource management. That role, obviously, rests with my officials to study the various demands and needs. If you’re asking me “To what extent is that a priority?”, you’re asking the wrong guy.

CATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki): So I understand that our seafood exports are going to increase, hopefully, to around $2.3 billion by 2024. Obviously, that drives a lot of productivity here in New Zealand and that’s something that we’ve discussed a lot on the Primary Production Committee. And obviously there’s a lot of potential in our fisheries industry to add a lot of value and drive some of this productivity. What’s your vision in that area?

MARK CAMERON (ACT): Thank you, Mr Chair. Minister, can I, for the sake of the question, help you illuminate—or you might be able to illuminate this further—the difference between the coastal commercial fleet fishing and the deepwater fleet, the disparities in technology. And for the former Minister’s benefit, maybe some of the cost structures therein in terms of the roll-out of cameras on boats—the technology—what it looks like in terms of implementation, and the distinct difference between table fish market and the export market.

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): Sadly, the cameras issue was conceived without true appreciation of costs, but it’s driven and propelled by an ideology which is very hostile to the flourishing of the fishing industry. Sadly, that was allowed to carry on uncontested. But wait, taihoa, help is on the way.

In reference to the member’s question from my right—yes, we are seeking to boost the profitability of the fishery sector. To that end, four meetings a year are happening between the key leaders. They are finding common ground that will include—that will include—options not to increase levies during the next two or three years, and to learn to live within a shortened piece of cloth.

To that end, it’s important we work out how the industry can not only profit but how the industry can work more effectively with the State—maintain their social licence, but curb the incessant upward pressure on levies and other costs that are being imposed on industry in New Zealand. So the question to my right was a very clever question, and given that we will be addressing the uncertainty around the permits associated with aquaculture, you will find there will be a greater level, percentage-wise, of wealth coming from aquaculture over the next 5 to 10 years. Details will be revealed very, very soon.

STEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. Minister, given the recent article in the Sunday-Star Times this weekend of the footage of the efficacy or otherwise of the SLEDs, the sea lion exclusion devices, will you release that footage or instruct that that footage is released for public scrutiny so that we can indeed assess the efficacy of the SLEDs? And, in that regard, I wanted to repeat my question: why remove the bycatch kill limit for sea lions, if indeed the SLEDs are working? Surely there is no need to remove the limit, because it won’t be reached. And will you bring, in pace, a similar mortality limit for leatherback turtles? Those are the two follow-up questions. Thank you.

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): Just before we wind up, there is no great threat to sea lions. I trust the quality of advice coming from our officials. They are not driven by politics, ideology, such as the member who’s just resumed his seat. And, similarly, there is no great threat from the technology which has been deployed to enable the sea lions to escape when they may, from time to time, encounter harvesting activity. And I’m not interested in the wittering of that lady from the Otago university—irrelevant to me.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Thank you, Mr Chair. Can I ask the Minister around the suitable use of fishing stocks but also around the question of allocation. What has been the direction of travel for the three types of fishers—the commercial, customary, and recreational fishers—and whether or not we can expect, with him as Minister, to see any changes regarding stock but also allocation?

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): There don’t appear to be—Steve Abel.

STEVE ABEL (Green): Never to miss an opportunity, Mr Chair. I guess I’ll repeat the question: will you release the footage that proves, or otherwise, the efficacy of those seal protection devices? What are you afraid of showing; what is the industry afraid of showing? If that footage is available, it can be scrutinised independently and it can be assessed. If you are so certain of the advice, what is the harm in releasing that footage, Minister?

JENNY MARCROFT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): Thank you, Mr Chair. My question to the Minister: could he inform the Chamber as to what is the response to the roll-out of the camera programme? What is the response from many of the skippers on the boats that have these cameras?

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): Obviously, the existence of the footage in respect of the sea lions issue does not rest with the Crown. Obviously, the footage that is referred to associated with the cameras has enabled the officials to better test their models—and they’ve found that their models are remarkably accurate. But let no one think in this session that that footage is going to be surrendered to people who have as their motivation the delegitimisation of fisheries. That’s just not happening.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The time with the Minister has expired. I’d invite an honourable member to move that the committee report progress.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): I move, That the committee report progress on the bill.

Motion agreed to.

Progress to be reported.

House resumed.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Madam Speaker, the committee has considered the Appropriation (2022/23 Confirmation and Validation) Bill and reports progress. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

Bills

Immigration (Mass Arrivals) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 2 May.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Members, this was the second part of a split call. It’s a National Party call.

MIKE BUTTERICK (National—Wairarapa): Good evening, Madam Speaker. This evening, I have the opportunity to speak on the Immigration (Mass Arrivals) Amendment Bill. For me, this bill is about three things. First, it’s about ensuring we manage risk both to the security of New Zealand and, therefore, New Zealanders, and to those genuinely seeking to escape persecution in their home country; second, this is about due process, affording the judicial system and immigrants from mass arrival more timely access to legal advice and representation and for their applications to be considered; and, thirdly, this is to acknowledge that this Government is pragmatic and able to take a considered approach to decision making.

We started in a position of opposition to this amendment bill when it was first presented by the previous Government. However, now, after having won the Government benches, we’ve been able to access further information, some of which was previously considered confidential advice from officials. Taking this into consideration, we are now in a position of support for this bill.

Although there is a low likelihood of mass arrivals to New Zealand, we’re living in a fool’s paradise to assume that it won’t occur. Quite simply, a failure to plan is a plan to fail. This bill is not about scaremongering and misinformation. It is not about saying that immigrants are dangerous to this country. It is also not about imprisonment. This bill is about mass arrivals of immigrants to our shores, not one by one, but in a group at one time and without any permission to be here. It is simply about legislation that allows New Zealand to strike a balance between detaining any mass immigrant arrivals and their right to access legal advice and representation to support their applications to stay in New Zealand. More time to undertake this process is not a negative.

We are a nation of immigrants. Our arrival to this beautiful country started some 800 years ago and continues to this day. This amendment bill will allow this to continue in a considered and humane way, allowing those that have a desperate need to leave their home for reasons that we, as New Zealanders, will hopefully never experience: war, political instability, and the targeting of specific groups. This bill is about protecting their rights along with ours, and having a right to put forward a case to remain in New Zealand—again, in the unlikely event of a mass arrival.

We all know our district courts are under significant case load pressure, and allowing more time will reduce the risk of additional pressure if any mass arrival group was to arrive on our shores. In addition to this is the already well-known court system pressure. We have limited capacity of appropriately qualified lawyers capable of representing any such group. Currently, there are only around 40. Therefore, the current time frame is entirely impractical as security and health screening checks are likely to need significantly more time to complete. Allowing more time will ensure that judicial decision makers are afforded all the information needed to make a fair and considered decision which has taken into account every relevant piece of information.

To finish, I would like to reiterate that whilst initially as a party we did not support this amendment bill, once we had all the information at hand enabling our support, we’ve made sure to expedite this process. Why, when the previous Government had introduced this bill, did they not continue the process and finish the legislative pathway?

But, rest assured, not only are we adult enough to reconsider our previously held position on this amendment bill; we will actually do something that will seem refreshingly original, given the previous administration’s record of non-delivery. We will finish the job and deliver. We are back on track. Therefore, I commend this bill to the House.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Notwithstanding the need that we agree exists to have a framework in place so that in the unlikely event of a mass arrival, there are arrangements in place that allow the orderly processing of asylum seekers and a process that fairly respects their rights, we do recognise the concerns raised by the refugee and human rights advocates at select committee, which were overwhelmingly critical of the bill, and we do recognise that they made arguments that need to be taken seriously.

As a result of that, Labour is supporting this bill to the committee of the whole House stage on the condition that four additional safeguards that officials drew up and that were presented to Cabinet after the select committee process under the former Labour Government are incorporated in the bill as amendments at the committee stage, and I want to touch on those. The first is that there must be an amendment that establishes that prior to a warrant of commitment being issued, a member of a mass arrival group may be detained in premises approved by the chief executive of the department, except in a prison or police station, and that’s very important. It was our Government that commissioned Victoria Casey KC to investigate the practice of detaining asylum seekers in criminal justice facilities and in corrections facilities, and found that to be contrary to New Zealand’s international obligations under international law for the treatment of asylum seekers. It’s a very, very important principle that they are not held in prisons or police stations.

Secondly, the legislation must require an immigration officer to establish, in making an application for a group warrant of commitment, the following: why the proposed detention is necessary, that the detention sought is for the least amount of time and is the least restrictive necessary to achieve the outcomes of detention, how the proposed location of detention meets the Government’s obligations under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and how the proposed location of detention meets New Zealand’s obligations under the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, which is the piece of international law that governs the rights of asylum seekers.

In addition to that, the law must require an immigration officer to report to the court weekly—unless varied by a judge—during a period of warrantless detention of a mass arrival group. So that is in the period from the arrival through to the warrant of commitment. Finally, a judge may order that the location specified in an application for a group warrant of commitment may be varied on his or her own motion.

We believe that those additional safeguards are necessary, and we are exploring other possible amendments that will meet the concerns that have been raised by the human rights community about this legislation. One of them, which I think is worth considering, and which I hope the Government will consider, is the idea of this legislation specifying that in the event of a mass arrival, the Government will undertake with an independent organisation—that could be the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC); it could be the Ombudsman—to put in place a memorandum of understanding that would deploy someone from one of those independent organisations to regularly inspect the conditions and the treatment of the detainees. It is something that the ICRC do internationally. It’s part of the role that they play, and we believe that it would be a valuable addition to this legislation. I think there are other things that I hope we’ll have the chance at the committee stage to explore that would put some limits around the time that asylum seekers who come here as part of a mass arrival can be held, and reduce the amount of time that they are in detention.

I think the House would agree that it is a very low-probability scenario of a mass arrival to this country, but it is not a no-probability scenario. There are precedents in Canada of steel-hulled ships being used to transport, by people smugglers, a mass group of would-be asylum seekers across the ocean that landed in Canada. There has been a case that was believed to be on its way to New Zealand. It’s not entirely improbable that this country could have to face up and deal with a mass arrival, and it’s very important that we have arrangements in place that allow those people to be looked after and processed, but their right not to have their liberty taken away unnecessarily and without due cause must be protected. That is essential, and I believe that if we make the amendments that I’ve set out and put those safeguards in place, we can achieve that. Thank you.

GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to speak on the second reading of the Immigration (Mass Arrivals) Amendment Bill. The purpose of the bill is clearly to just be prepared for the unbelievable potential mass arrival of asylum seekers. As unlikely as this is, we have to be prepared, because we as a country don’t want to not be prepared in the event of it actually arriving. People say, “Well, what’s the likelihood?” Yes, it’s very low, but we just have to look at the history of this great nation of ours and the original settlers, whether they’d be Māori or European, arrived here by boat. They travelled for very long distances in themselves. You can extrapolate that out, where people could come from many parts of the world to come here.

So why would they want to come here? Well, when you look at some of the desperate situations around the world today, you begin to see why people would want to leave the situations they’re in and why they would then look to a country like New Zealand—even though it is a very long way away from anywhere. Because we are well recognised with human rights and all that sort of thing, and being very, very good to people. So, in particular, they could easily end up coming in and landing in the northern part of the country, into Northland, an area which has got plenty of coastline. And then we have to be ready and prepared to actually deal with these people and handle them appropriately when they get here, because it’s a fraught journey from very, very long distances. I mean, we only have to look at the world—there’s lots of people in very desperate situations and these people are prepared to pay people large amounts of money to come here. So the case, I think, is definitely there—it is very unlikely, but we have to be, as a country, prepared.

Currently, the rules don’t allow for a well prepared, professionally managed handling of mass arrivals. One of the key things we have to look to do is give ourselves time to process people professionally and properly. Because these people are highly likely to come here and they will be stressed, they could be dehydrated, they’ll have high health needs, high psychological needs, really, really challenging journeys. It’s a long, long way to get here, even if—like, the distance from here to Australia is a long way, and of course we’re likely to see them come from much, much further.

So we have to be prepared and give ourselves the legal framework to detain these people in a way that is both humane and allows us to look after them. It’s really, really— e have to look after them very, very carefully. I mean, when people come on long journeys like this, we might have to give them specific healthcare, we’d have to make sure that when they turn up we can then feed them properly and look after them in a way that we all will be proud of as a country.

So, currently, we’re looking to change the rules so that if an application is made within 96 hours of the initial arrest and detention, the court must then determine this application as soon as reasonably practical and within seven days. If the court considers that this is not reasonably practical to determine the application—the number of people we’ve got to deal with—then they can extend it out to 28 days. This is a huge improvement. It gives everyone time to deal with these things, because you don’t just want people suddenly being released into the wider country. That’s what all our laws allow. That would not be ideal at all.

So we’ve talked about the risks, the challenges of getting here, and then the challenges of dealing with a mass arrival when they do actually get here. One of the things is that you also need the right people to help these people when they get here, represent them; they want and need good legal representation. It’s been noted by many that, in the country, there are only currently around 40 lawyers who are qualified to deal with this. So if we had a mass arrival of several hundred people, this would take time and we’d have to give them due process. So we need to make sure we give ourselves proper time to be completely professional about how we go about this, so that we are seen on the world stage as being humane and fair and reasonable about this sort of thing. Because we want to maintain our reputation as a country, which I think is very, very important.

So the bill, when it came through the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee—obviously this happened in the previous Parliament, and I was not part of that previous Parliament. I came in on the last Parliament after winning the seat of Northland, which was a great experience. That’s why I can talk about the potential of arriving into the Northland coastline, because I drive around the edges of it quite a bit—some of the best coastline in the country, of course.

Joseph Mooney: No, Southland.

GRANT McCALLUM: No, no, you wouldn’t want to swim in Southland—you might freeze. So we—

Joseph Mooney: It’s pretty nice; you need to come to Riverton.

GRANT McCALLUM: I’m getting lots of good advice here, but that’s all good. So when—I’ve lost my train of thought, completely lost my train of thought. So, anyway, when they do arrive here, we’ve got to look after them and maintain our reputation as a great country, a free and reasonable country.

There’s been concern about holding people in prison, and let’s make this very, very clear: there is no expectation and there has never been any expectation that ordinary members of a mass arrival would be held in a prison. And I note the comments from a member across the House who highlighted this issue—and he’s right to highlight the issue. We’re talking about a humane detention, not being put in a prison. Because that is not what anyone in this country would necessarily envisage, all right?

So we’re working through the process now. So this came through the last Parliament, and I was not part of that select committee process, but I understand that there are more than 300 submissions. The actual select committee at the time was made up of three members of Labour, a couple of National MPs, and a Green MP. They heard a number of submissions—obviously, over 300—and they worked through them and they recommended back to the House what they should do. National at the time decided that they would not support it at that time, but once coming into Government and being very pragmatic about things, we took some good advice and actually we could see the benefits of actually working through this process and actually passing this into law so that we would be prepared. It’s really, really important that we are prepared. So it just shows that we are a Government that can be pragmatic and sensible, and we are prepared to work with an idea that we need, and with policy and legislation that the country needs.

So the question is: why are people so concerned about the future of mass arrivals into our country and elsewhere? Why is it concerning about mass arrivals? Because, actually, we don’t want to create a situation where—we want to respect people who make those distances, travel, all those things, from very, very desperate places. We want to treat them properly, look after them when they get here, make sure that we work them through a process. If we’re going to settle them, we can use places like the Māngere Refugee Resettlement Centre, which has been managing people like this, refugees, for a very, very long time, and has got lots of experience in dealing with people with trauma, with mental health issues—you can just imagine how tough this would be for people when they actually come from all around the world, in a desperate situation, then to land in a country where they’ve got no idea what it’s like, they cannot necessarily speak the language, which would be a real challenge. So we’ve got to have interpreters and professional people who can actually deal with these sorts of situations.

So it was with great pleasure that I finish my contribution to supporting the Immigration (Mass Arrivals) Amendment Bill in its second reading. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Immigration (Mass Arrivals) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 102

New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 21

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Regulatory Systems (Education) Amendment Bill and the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Controlling Interests) Amendment Bill.

House in Committee

House in Committee

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Members, the House is in committee for consideration of the Regulatory Systems (Education) Amendment Bill and the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Controlling Interests) Amendment Bill.

Bills

Regulatory Systems (Education) Amendment Bill

In Committee

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): We come first to the Regulatory Systems (Education) Amendment Bill. Members, we start with Part 1. Part 1 is the debate on clauses 3 to 7, “Amendments to Ngarimu VC and 28th (Māori) Battalion Memorial Scholarship Fund Act 1945”, and Schedule 1. The question is that Part 1 stand part. The question is that—

Katie Nimon: Mr Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Oh, sorry—Catherine Wedd.

KATIE NIMON (National—Napier): Ah, no; Katie Nimon, in fact. But that’s all right. It happens almost every day, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Well, at least I got a name!

KATIE NIMON: I move that the bill be—sorry, I’ll just get my wording right.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): You seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one question, I believe.

KATIE NIMON: Yes, thank you. I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one question. Thank you, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none.

Parts 1 to 3, Schedules 1 to 3, and clauses 1 and 2

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Parts 1 to 3, Schedules 1 to 3, and clauses 1 and 2 stand part.

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister for Energy): Thank you, Mr Chair. On behalf of the Hon Erica Stanford, the Minister of Education, whose name this bill is in, the Regulatory Systems (Education) Amendment Bill makes minor technical amendments to maintain the effectiveness of our regulatory system. It’s an omnibus bill, which makes changes to two education Acts: the Ngarimu VC and 28th (Māori) Battalion Memorial Scholarship Fund Act 1945, and the Pacific Education Foundation Act 1972. As well as updating these two Acts, the bill makes technical amendments to two sets of regulations that impact the education sector.

The Minister does have an Amendment Paper on the Table that relates to the Pacific Education Foundation Act amendments. The Pacific Education Foundation Act provides for the Pacific Education Foundation, which is a statutory entity established with the purpose to promote and encourage the better education of Pacific peoples in New Zealand, including administering different kinds of support such as financial support and scholarships. This change updates clauses 9, 11, and 15 of the bill, to revert the term labelled “Pacific person” in the defined terms of the Pacific Education Foundation Act, rather than proceed with the previous Government’s proposal to use the term label of “Aotearoa Pacific person”.

The coalition Government will support retaining the current term label of “Pacific person” in the Act rather than the proposed new term of “Aotearoa Pacific person”, so there is an Amendment Paper on the Table which simply makes that very minor change to ensure consistency of language, and I look forward to members across the Chamber supporting that Amendment Paper.

KATIE NIMON (National—Napier): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. Look, I just want to know, now that we’re considering it all in one question, whether or not, with the section that we have talked about—the Ngarimu VC fund—with the proposed amendments, the Minister in the chair, Simeon Brown, considers that there are any great changes that we can see long term, or whether this is sort of a fairly minor amendment?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister for Energy): The proposed amendment which is on the Table affects clause 9 primarily in terms of—it replaces the definition of “Pacific person” by removing the word “Aotearoa” from before “Pacific person”. Effectively, there is no substantial change in terms of the legislation, but it reverts the terminology to that which is currently used in the principal Act to describe the class of persons eligible for financial assistance under the Act. Effectively, what the previous Government was doing by creating a new term “Aotearoa Pacific person” was creating a new definition which, of course, isn’t used in other legislation. The legislation will be, basically, consistent with other pieces of legislation which refer to “Pacific persons” rather than “Aotearoa Pacific person”.

Of course, there’s a very clear, different definition: “Pacific person means a person who is living in New Zealand and who—(a) is a New Zealand citizen or has been granted permanent residence or has been permitted to enter New Zealand with the intention of gaining permanent residence; and—(b) has indigenous Pacific cultural heritage from a place listed in Schedule 2”. New Schedule 2 is in the bill, of course: “American Samoa; Cook Islands; Federated States of Micronesia; Fiji; French Polynesia; Hawaii; Kiribati; Nauru; Niue; Papua New Guinea; Pitcairn Island; Rabi; Rotuma; Samoa; Solomon Islands; Tokelau; Tonga; Tuvalu; Vanuatu; Wallis and Futuna”. Those are the Pacific cultural heritage, or the places which have been listed in that.

There are a number of other clauses. Clause 11, again, deletes the word “Aotearoa” in section 5(a); clause 15 deletes it from clause 15(1), page 6, line 6. So that very clearly outlines a very minor and technical change to make sure it’s consistent with other pieces of legislation.

CARL BATES (National—Whanganui): Thank you, Mr Chair—

Hon Member: Isn’t it dinner time?

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Well, the time has come for me—you looked like you were about to make a speech, Mr Bates. I thought it may have been a closure motion. However, I anticipated that wrongly. So the House is suspended now until 7.30.

Sitting suspended from 6.02 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Kia ora, members, the committee is resumed. This is just a reminder that all parts are being read at the same time.

CARL BATES (National—Whanganui): I move, That debate on this question now close.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Apologies, I do still have questions of clarification, if that’s permissible—thank you, Mr Chair. Just one very technical question of clarification. First of all, I would like to preface this by saying my apologies: I was not here for the first reading of the bill when it was first introduced. But just checking in terms of clause 17 in the bill, which inserts new section 35 in the Pacific Education Foundation Act 1972 , “Amendments to Schedule 2 by Order in Council”. This is just a clarification in terms of subclause (2) of new clause 35: “An order made under this section is secondary legislation”. I just want a little bit of clarification: does that mean there is secondary legislation coming, or is there secondary legislation already available?

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): I move that the—

Hon Member: Ask a question.

TOM RUTHERFORD: Ask a question? All right, we’ll ask a question then.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Ask a question, yes, because the Minister’s still trying to get some advice.

TOM RUTHERFORD: Oh, she’s still trying to get—well, I’m happy for her to take the call once she’s got the advice, Mr Chair.

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): I thank the member Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan for his question and I’m just confirming that that is secondary legislation.

CARL BATES (National—Whanganui): I’ve got a question for the Minister of Education, just regarding the confirmation of the scholarship fund succeeding the 28th Māori Battalion Association. I’m just wanting to clarify exactly what the purposes of administering the fund and authorising the use of the words and emblems relating to the 28th Māori Battalion and association is for, and why we are going about creating that confirmation to succeed the 28th Māori Battalion and what the purpose of doing that within the Act is. Thank you.

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): I thank the member for his question. Look, the scholarship fund is incredibly important to honour the memory of the 28th Māori Battalion. I was recently at their award ceremony, where many incredible young Māori were provided with a scholarship. It means a huge amount to them to carry on the legacy of the 28th Māori Battalion. The reason for this legislation is to make sure that they are legally able to use the emblems of the 28th Māori Battalion, because there has been some question in their new form, their new entity, whether or not they have the legal right to use those, and this just clarifies that they do.

CARL BATES (National—Whanganui): Minister, I’m going to ask a quick question, and then go from there. Does that cover all emblems that the Māori Battalion may be using across—you know, all varieties or variations of that emblem, or just the emblem as per Schedule 1 of the bill?

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): I can confirm with the member that that’s all.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): All emblems.

CARL BATES (National—Whanganui): I move, That debate on this question now close.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the debate on this question now close.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the Minister’s amendments set out on Amendment Paper 29 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Parts 1 to 3, Schedules 1 to 3, and clauses 1 and 2, as amended, agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment.

Bills

New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Controlling Interests) Amendment Bill

In Committee

Parts 1 and 2, the Schedule, and clauses 1 to 3

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Members, we now come to the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Controlling Interests) Amendment Bill. Members, we start with Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 4 to 9, “Amendments to principal Act”, and the Schedule. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

CARL BATES (National—Whanganui): I seek leave that all parts are taken as one question.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Leave has been sought for that purpose. All those in favour say Aye; to the contrary No. The motion is agreed to. The question is that Parts 1 and 2, the Schedule, and clauses 1 to 3 stand part. If there are no calls to be sought, the debate will end. So if there are calls to be made—

CARL BATES (National—Whanganui): So we’re asking questions on this bill to enable the New Zealand Superannuation Fund to invest a larger portion of the ownership of particular businesses, and we recognise that the New Zealand market is a small market and that the Superannuation Fund has grown substantively over a reasonable period of time and is now in a position where it is unable to take minority positions in sufficient numbers of companies to fully utilise all of its funds.

I just want to understand if the Minister has any idea on the number of companies that passing this amendment would enable the Superannuation Fund to expand its investment into as part of the Government’s focus on ensuring that we can grow a more productive and value-adding New Zealand.

Obviously, the Government is under some challenge to grow the size of the economy, and thus needs more productive and engaged businesses, and this amendment is working to support that objective of the Government and ensure that we can have the sort of investment that we need into companies to enable the growth in the economy. So the second part of my question is whether or not the Minister has any indication of the number of those businesses that would be able to be invested in by the Superannuation Fund, should this amendment bill be passed.

The second part of that question is whether or not the Ministers had any indication of the degree to which investing in those businesses would help to grow the New Zealand economy should this amendment bill be passed. I think it’s really important that we have clarity on both of those questions so that we can be assured that passing this amendment bill will support the Government’s legislative agenda, will support the growth in this economy that we need to see, will support an increase in productivity, and that the bill will achieve its aim by expanding the mandate of the Superannuation Fund to take a majority stake in businesses, that the bill will achieve its underlying objective of supporting that economic growth through enabling it to take these positions.

So I’m really interested in understanding if the Minister has been able to take advice and has those specific numbers on both the number of companies—now, that might be by value, that might be by number of employees, that might be by industry. All of those variations, I suppose, would give us insight into the impact that the Superannuation Fund being able to have a wider investment mandate, being able to take these majority positions, would have for the New Zealand economy. I think it’s important, when we’re asking questions about this bill at this stage, that we have that sort of clarity so that we can assure the public that the Government’s agenda of delivering on growth in this economy and growth in productivity will be achieved through increasing the Superannuation Fund’s mandate to take these majority stakes.

Coming from a background in supporting our boards of directors to appoint directors and run good boards, I think it’s really important that we understand the sort of companies that this bill will enable the fund to invest into, because if we don’t have good leadership, both of the fund and of those companies, then we’re going to have a real challenge in delivering on that mandate.

But I know the Minister will have clear answers. Just to clarify both of those questions, one was the number of companies that the Minister understands that passing this bill will expand the mandate for the Superannuation Fund to invest into, and secondly, whether there’s any indication of the growth in the New Zealand economy that that might achieve by enabling that investment to occur here onshore, rather than overseas. Thank you.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): A very quick call Mr Chair, just to point out that this bill came back from the select committee unchanged and with unanimous support from the select committee. So there is very little to debate and the objective of the bill is not something where the Government should be telling companies what to do, but it just gives the New Zealand Superannuation Fund a little bit more scope to make more investment.

So it’s a very simple, straightforward bill, and a bill that this House already, via the select committee, you know, agreed to in its first formation.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you, Mr Chair. The New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Controlling Interests) Amendment Bill is a great bill, and I think there’s wide acceptance across the committee that things need to change.

I have a question around the Guardians having independence in their investment decisions. I think it’s really important that the House and New Zealanders actually have confidence that the New Zealand Superannuation Fund will invest in companies based on the fundamentals of those companies and their business cases rather than trying to seek a political objective. We did hear in the second reading, from some of the speakers at least, about ESG goals—that is environmental, social, and governance goals—which, in my view, cloud investment decisions. In fact, what we’re seeing, as I’m sure the Minister will be aware, is entities such as BlackRock Investment, which are the champions and the global leaders in ESG investments, have been losing funds. Their returns are down, and they’ve been losing investment from the private sector putting money into that, because of those poorer returns that they’ve had. And it’s because they’ve been trying, of course, to focus on things that are not related to the fundamentals of the company concerned: what are their business cases, are they going to make money, do they have a clear objective?

When they start clouding it with objectives other than what the company is set up to do—let’s say it’s an investment company in the energy sector—what are they trying to do there? Would they forego an investment in a company that might build a gas “peaker plant”, for example—that would keep the lights on but would not necessarily meet ESG requirements, because it would emit carbon dioxide as a result of it running to keep the lights on, but would be a very good business case—and instead say, “No, we won’t invest in that; we’ll invest in something else”? Now, those decisions should be made by the market. They shouldn’t be made, in my view, by trying to put overarching templates of some sort of social goal that goes along with it. We’re not talking about investment in landmines or something; we’re talking about other things.

An energy company is a really easy one to use for that as an example, but there would be others—forestry companies, for example. Are we investing in those, and if we are, what’s the investment goal from that? Is it about sequestering carbon? Is it about a business that’s actually going to return a good return on the capital investment? And, if the Superannuation Fund is able to take a controlling stake in that company, it could be a major impact on that business’s operations. Are we going to have the Super Fund then imposing its own view on how the company should be run, other than the investment drivers that the business was originally set up for? So I’d really like to have some clarity on that, in the Minister’s view—how that might play out—and that would be really helpful. Thank you.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Well, Mr Chair, thank you for the questions from the members, from Carl Bates, the comments from the Hon Deborah Russell and from Stuart Smith. One of the issues that did come through the select committee process, and that the members are all referring to, is this important question of the independence of the New Zealand Superannuation Fund. Because by allowing the fund to take controlling interests in entities, it becomes arguably even more important that the Government be distant from its investment decisions.

So I simply draw members’ attention to section 58 of the Act, which requires the Guardians to “invest on a prudent commercial basis” and requires them to apply “best-practice portfolio management;” and to “[maximise] return without undue risk to the Fund as a whole;”. So this section, in conjunction with the independence of the board and the governance frameworks in place, give me comfort that the legislative settings do allow for a high degree of investment independence; that that is there in the Act and will continue to be preserved even while we allow this controlling entity stake to be made.

I would note that the Minister is not able to give a direction that is inconsistent with the Guardians’ duty to invest the fund on a prudent commercial basis. I think that is a very important part of the law, and it would be inappropriate for the Minister—and, in fact, illegal for the Minister—to do that.

What that requires of the fund is that it assess what it thinks are good investments in the market. What can be observed as that direct investment is now a much more common feature of best-practice global portfolio management today than it was when the Super Fund was first created, and that we also can see that the proportion of the fund allocated to direct investments has increased and may continue to grow into the future. As the fund becomes larger, it actually has to look for a wider range of investments and there are more investments that are available to it.

Look, the member is correct to identify that there are other significant investors from around the world who the fund may want to jointly invest with, and certainly we have seen that that’s common practice with super funds in other parts of the world—that they invest with other technical experts into things.

So I share members’ hope that this will lead to investment in New Zealand infrastructure and significant New Zealand projects. But I would never direct the fund in that way, and it would not be appropriate for me to do so.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): I just want to say that in this particular case, we have debated the independence of the New Zealand Superannuation Fund quite substantially during the second reading. And in terms of this particular thing, there has been no amendment—there has been no new amendment tabled. And I think in terms of the technicality of this particular bill, it’s pretty robust. So I just want to say that we should observe the same expediency as the previous bill in terms of getting it through the House. Thank you.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Assistant Whip—Labour): I move, That debate on this question now close.

KATIE NIMON (National—Napier): Look, I just want to ask a couple of questions, particularly around the main provisions of the bill. What I’d quite like to understand is how this seeks to allow for the Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation to hold controlling interest in a business, particularly also with the New Zealand Superannuation Fund statutory requirements and the five-yearly statutory reviews—as well as that also how that applies to public sector organisations that aren’t intended to apply to entities that the Guardians have invested in. So sort of more administrative questions, but if there’s any way that we can have some answers to those questions. Obviously there are consequential amendments involved in this bill, but I’d quite like to really understand a bit more about the removal of the control restrictions specifically, because obviously there’s a wide group of investment opportunities that this will unlock, and just to understand some of those administrative outcomes that we can potentially seek to see as a result of the viability of investment partners.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): I thank the member for her question. The New Zealand Superannuation Fund, via the Guardians, is currently required to maintain a statement of investment standards, policies, and procedures. And in making these changes, we will be requiring the Super Fund to update that to contain a governance framework for the implementation and operation of controlling interests.

I think this is important for a couple of reasons. One, because it will require the Super Fund to make transparent the approach it intends to take towards these sorts of investments ahead of making them, and that that approach will be able to be scrutinised and consistently applied.

The second reason that this is important is that it provides a separation between the Guardians’ functions as an investor or a shareholder and then the underlying operations of the investee, which is to say, just because the fund has a controlling interest doesn’t mean that it’s actually running the business in which it is invested. Because management of that underlying entity would run the business under the supervision of the entities board. So I hope that goes some way to addressing the member’s question.

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I was privileged to take part in the debate last week as the final speaker for the Government side. I pointed out the irony, at that time, of being the youngest member of the Government talking about superannuation.

Arena Williams: Yes, you said it then. It’s repetitive.

TOM RUTHERFORD: It’s repetitive but it was from last week, so I was just reminding the committee just in case they didn’t remember. Good to see members on the opposite side being so engaged and involved with the debate. I’m looking forward to seeing them making some meaningful contributions—

Hon Member: I’d like to know what you want to know about it.

TOM RUTHERFORD: —meaningful contributions. You want to know what I want to know about this bill? Oh that’s a good question.

Having looked through the department disclosure statement, I’m keen for the Minister to flesh out a little bit further for us around how the bill distinguishes between the Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation as a Crown entity and the Guardians as a manager and administrator of the New Zealand Superannuation Fund. The reason that I’m keen to know about that is because the laws that apply to public sector organisations are not intended to apply to entities that the Guardians control as managers and administrators of the fund. I’m keen to understand from the Minister the intention behind that direction but also around why the bill is clearly distinguishing needing the Guardians as a Crown entity but also the Guardians as managers and administrators of the New Zealand Superannuation Fund. So if the Minister wouldn’t mind just providing some clarity for me on that, I’d really appreciate it.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): The member does raise quite an important point, because there could be the scenario in which controlled entities, if they were treated as having the same requirements as typical Crown entities, would therefore become subject to all of the usual expectations that the law places on those Crown entities. That is what has given rise to some of the technical and consequential amendments in the bill, which include amending sections of the Income Tax Act and the Ombudsmen Act to make it very clear that any controlled entities are not subject to the same requirements as Crown entities. I think this is actually quite an important limitation, because that could actually both prevent the Super Fund from making some investments if it thought that, in making that investment, it would be subject to the same expectations as a Crown entity. It could also complicate the nature of those investments and create obligations, in fact, for the Crown.

It’s also relevant, though, that we distinguish here what would be the legal duties from this other question, which is: could there be a greater expectation, because of the nature of a controlling interest investment, that the public, that stakeholders would look back to the Crown to, say, in the event of a failure of an entity, that the Crown would be expected to bail it out? I think it’s really important that the way that the Act is set up, that the policies are set up, that the independence is set up, we don’t create that expectation. The Super Fund, if it is to be free to make investments, also has to be free to make investments that fail, without the expectation that the Crown would be bailing it out. That is very much the way that this Act has been written, with that very clear, so that the Super Fund, in entering those investments, it can be clear that there is absolutely no expectation that the Crown would become the funder of last resort.

CATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki): Thank you, Mr Chair. It’s great to stand up here and look at this bill, and we really enjoyed the second reading, where we did see cross-party support for this very, very important issue of the Superannuation Fund in New Zealand. You know, we’ll all agree that there’s been some great success with this fund, and with the ageing population that we are seeing in New Zealand at the moment, it’s critical that we have some good investment and we can grow this fund so that we can sustain this ageing population.

But I was particularly interested, because, obviously, this opens up more opportunity for investment not only internationally but also in New Zealand, whether that be in infrastructure or even looking at—particularly agriculture at the moment have seen some wonderful, successful investments from the Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation, whether that be in our orchards, in horticulture, or whether that be in dairy, and I’ve seen some viticulture investment as well. So that’s really positive, and, obviously, this amendment is going to open up more of that opportunity.

But I was particularly interested in amended section 49A(b), inserted by clause 5, “an entity that is formed or controlled by the Guardians for the purpose of holding, facilitating, or managing the investments of the Fund”, and just around, I suppose, the implications of that moving forward when we are looking at investment around New Zealand. Obviously, one of the members did point out before that it is very important that the Guardians do act independently and make sure that there is that independence when they are making those decisions around those investments. But if the Minister in the chair, Nicola Willis, could perhaps just make a few comments around that, that would be much appreciated.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Well, the question relates to the sorts of investments that the fund may wish to have a controlling interest in and the circumstances in which it would make that choice. The member in particular highlights a sector which I too have great confidence in and optimism for, which is the New Zealand primary industries, which certainly have a very bright future in a world that is looking for sustainable protein and nutrition—and we produce the very best.

I’d start by saying that because the Super Fund is by its nature a long-term investor, that does distinguish it from some other investors in that it has the ability to ride out short-term market volatility and can instead wait to sell assets until the market has improved, and it is right to do that. By its nature, it has a long-term horizon and so isn’t investing for short-term gain or short-term return, and that lends itself very well to the concept of having a controlling interest. If an investor is investing in something seeing long-term potential, sometimes what that will require is changes to the way that a business is operating—recapitalisation in different ways, new personnel, new approaches—which necessarily require a controlling interest in order to exercise those changes. These two things come together when you think about an industry like the primary industries, where, potentially, there are areas that, if there was significant new investment or new innovation, could, over the medium- to long-term, offer significant additional return.

So all of this is a complicated way of me saying that I will never and should not tell the Super Fund who it should invest in or what it should invest in, but it does seem to me that agricultural industries would be a category of investment that the fund would consider and that having a controlling interest in would enable them to consider a broader range of investments.

More generally, beyond agriculture, it is obvious that when we look at New Zealand, we’ve actually seen a reducing proportion of the Super Fund’s investments being in New Zealand over time. Well, we can envisage that happening if we don’t allow it to broaden out to investments which require a controlling stake, which is to say I think there’s a risk, if we weren’t passing this legislation, that the Super Fund would feel increasingly constrained by what investments it could make in New Zealand because it wouldn’t be able to have a controlling stake and therefore would look increasingly offshore for those sorts of growth opportunities and innovation opportunities.

So I would put to members that by allowing this change, this controlling stake, we’re opening up a whole new range of investments for the Super Fund, medium and long term assets, and there could be some significant economic benefit from having another investor at scale investing in growth industries and businesses in our own country.

Certainly, when you look around the world at pension funds and similar funds in other jurisdictions, as they have grown larger, as they have accumulated scale, they have made increasingly sophisticated investments where they do hold those controlling interests and, in some cases, have built up expertise in particular industries or particular ways of investing. It is not impossible, Catherine, for me to envisage a world in which the Super Fund would develop expertise in a particular sector or a particular area and would have its controlling interests aligned with that. So I do thank the member for the question—I think it’s a good one.

CARL BATES (National—Whanganui): Thank you, Mr Chair. I feel like I’ve come late to the party in relation to this particular piece of legislation. I’m not a member of the esteemed Finance and Expenditure Committee. However, I am a chartered accountant and have a particular interest in the management and oversight of companies. So I have several questions I’d like to ask in relation to this bill that I haven’t already had the opportunity to ask, and I have a few more I’ll ask, hopefully later in the evening.

My first concern sits around this context that has been touched on already, but I really want to get certainty, particularly for my constituents. Because in the wonderful Whanganui electorate we have a large South African population. In fact, yesterday I was in Stratford buying some droëwors from a great butcher there, and it reminds me of the concern that particularly South Africans have when you start thinking and talking about political influence, which is important to this bill when it comes to the Guardians fund not having political influence over the companies that they make—

Arena Williams: Point of order, Mr Chair. Thank you, Mr Chair. Members on this side of the Chamber gave the member a minute and a half to ask the Minister a question which was relevant to this bill, and the question is, in fact, repetitive. If you look to Standing Order 112(2), this is something which has been asked now by three members on the other side of the Chamber and would be something which would warrant you terminating the member’s speech now that it has been raised a third time.

Stuart Smith: Speaking to the point of order. Well, thank you, Mr Chair, but as the Chair well knows, that is a decision and a judgment for the Chair alone. It’s not for members on either side of the Chamber to make that judgment call. So I put it that that point of order is completely out of order.

David MacLeod: Mr Chair, speaking to the point of order. I also think it is upon us to think that there are many other questions that we wish to ask. So whether it was repetitive in that particular case, there are other unanswered questions as well.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): OK, OK. OK, what I will ask members to do is to relate it specifically to the bill. I think the contribution just before this contribution did relate specifically to—and I was listening to it—59(1)(b), I think, and that was quite helpful. So if members do have questions, if you could relate it specifically to the bill, that would be very helpful. I’ll allow Carl Bates to continue. So relating it directly to the bill.

CARL BATES: Thank you, Mr Chair, and I take the point about questions being related to the bill. I’m speaking to section 64(2) of the Act.

Arena Williams: We know! A few of your colleagues have raised it already. We know.

CARL BATES: If you give me an opportunity to ask my question, I might be able to get around to actually asking my question. It surprises me—and, Mr Chair, hopefully you’ll indulge me as I speak about the bill—that my colleagues on the other side of the Chamber when I’m speaking about an immigration matter related to the bill and the concerns of our fellow New Zealanders who have come here from around the world, and the mental wellbeing they bring to this country, and my colleagues across the Chamber aren’t allowing me the opportunity to ask a question that would be of significant concern to all South Africans living in electorates should they be MPs for an electorate. But if they’re not, Mr Chair, I’d like to come back—

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Mr Chair, we’ve just been through this just a few moments ago. Whether or not—yeah.

CARL BATES: Well, if you don’t interrupt me, I’ll get to my question.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Just for my clarification, you were talking about 6 and—

CARL BATES: So I’m referring to the provisions as provided in section 64(2) of the Act related to political influence, which the bill is related to. In ensuring that we don’t allow the Guardians fund to get into a position where we have entities invested in that become majority-owned and ultimately have through—whether it be directly through the Act or through the influence of politicians, and we have strong politicians, as we’re seeing here in the House this evening, who have opinions that that come across.

I want to have certainty for my constituents that the Minister assures this committee that there won’t be political influence in any form enabled through this bill being enacted through this House. That’s the first question, Mr Chair. I said I had two questions and I’m coming to the second part of my question now, in relation to the different ways. So I’m now speaking about section 59(1).

Arena Williams: Yep! No, we’ve had that one too.

CARL BATES: I think it’s important to point out the section because while my colleagues on this side of the Chamber are following me clearly, my colleagues on the other side of the Chamber are finding it difficult to follow.

So section 59(1), which speaks to the different types of ways the Guardians fund can take interests in companies. I wanted—and I’m probably not going to get to be able to ask my question given the interruptions I’ve had so far this evening, but what I wanted to understand is, from the Minister, the different types of ownerships. Now, whether we’re speaking about majority control just in the form of shares; whether we’re speaking about majority ownership in the form of other types of instruments that could be converted into shares; debenture bond allocation; as well as bringing in different classes of shares to sort of get around—Mr Chair, can I finish that—

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The member’s time has expired.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Mr Chair, the member is asking about how the bill relates to section 64 of the Act, which it amends. And there is actually an important point here around ministerial directions, which I haven’t covered as yet, because there is a clear legal separation from the core Crown to that of autonomous Crown entities in respect of the fund. And while I’ve at length commented on the fact that the Minister can’t specifically direct the New Zealand Superannuation Fund, the Minister can give non-binding directions to the Guardians regarding the Government’s expectations as to the fund’s performance, including as to risk and return.

And the member asks about where the line lies in terms of politicisation and what that looks like. And I think it is important to look at where that section has been operable. I think back to the Rt Hon Bill English, who as finance Minister directed the Super Fund to conduct a higher level of investment in New Zealand markets. And in that case, he directed the Super Fund to have regard to increased funding within New Zealand, but he didn’t—because he lawfully couldn’t—direct the entity to give effect to the policy. And there is a subtle difference there that is quite important. And so, in that case, the Guardians’ obligations under section 58 remain unchanged.

So to the question on the ministerial directions; those same requirements remain in the Act unchanged by the bill before us. What the bill focuses on, importantly, in terms of amending obligations as set out in section 59, is about the status of those entities in which the fund invests. Because, as I commented on earlier, it is important that no one be under the impression that an entity, simply because the Super Fund has a controlling entity in it, in some way becomes a Crown entity subsidiary, or a Crown entity, and therefore would be treated with the obligations, rights, and responsibilities of a Crown entity. And you see at section 59 that outlined clearly that the Official Information Act, the Ombudsman Act do not apply, and that “The Guardians’ interests in an entity that is formed or controlled by the Guardians for the purpose of holding, facilitating, or managing the investments of the Fund are Fund investments and part of the Fund.” And so that distinction is important.

And I would simply also note in relation to those ministerial directions that while the Minister cannot direct in a way that requires the fund to do one thing or another, it would be interesting, of course, to observe that I would find it hard to imagine there isn’t a member in this House who would like to see the Super Fund investing more in New Zealand infrastructure. That currently forms a very small portion of the fund’s overall investment portfolio. And I’m sure others would join me in being hopeful that the changes we are making tonight would enable the Super Fund to make more investments in New Zealand infrastructure, to grow and build this great country.

TAKUTAI TARSH KEMP (Te Pāti Māori—Tāmaki Makaurau): Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. Tēnā tātou e te Whare. A real short call from us here at Te Pāti Māori. We are in support of this bill. But just to make a statement and to remind the committee that superannuation—when I think about our kaumātua and kuia, they are the pou of our society. They’ve worked hard and long and contributed to building the economy of Aotearoa. The problem we have and the issue we have for Māori is we don’t get access to the Superannuation Fund. We die seven to 10 years earlier than non-Māori. If you follow the science and the data, it tells us that. So what we need is legislation and policy that aligns to be able to adjust the inequalities of superannuation so that we can get access to it sooner, earlier, so that Māori get access to their right and to what they’ve contributed to in their years of life. Kia ora.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I want to focus on clause 6. I think the Minister of Finance made some very good points about ownership and what constitutes the entity, or what the entity that it’s invested in is considered as, and whether it’s a Crown entity or otherwise. I think it’s really important—the Minister had made points earlier about investment, much-needed investment, coming in from overseas. I do understand that and I think it’s really important; we do lack depth and breadth of capital in New Zealand to invest into businesses, and that does create a problem.

But I want to turn to clause 6 of the bill: sections 59 to 59B of the principal legislation are being replaced with section 59, “Status of certain entities”, which the Minister covered. Subsection (2) of section 59 states, “To avoid doubt, the Official Information Act 1982 and the Ombudsman Act 1975 do not apply to any entity by virtue of a Fund investment or any related [arrangements]”, and in brackets it says, “(but the Official Information Act 1982 applies to the Guardians in respect of information held by the Guardians about the entity).”

Now, I have some concerns about that, Minister. If I was a company that was looking for an investment, large capital raised in some way, and a New Zealand Superannuation Fund was one of the options, if I knew that any information that I had about my company could be accessible via the Official Information Act (OIA), I’d be reticent. If I’ve got two offers on the table, one from the New Zealand Super Fund and one, say, from an overseas investment firm, and one of them I know will not be subject to the OIA and the other will be, I’d be quite concerned. So if that information included commercially sensitive information such as pricing, such as suppliers and supplier agreements, which would normally be part of a transaction—any investor would want to know some of those things and they’d have a non-disclosure agreement, I’d imagine, for commercially sensitive information. That wouldn’t be worth anything if the New Zealand Super Fund was the potential investor, as I read the bill. There may be some other caveats that go with that.

We do know from long experience in the Opposition that getting OIA requests—sometimes there’s a lot of redaction. Sometimes there’s more black ink covering everything than there is in the rest of the request and you can’t read anything. But as this bill reads, it would seem that everything that the entity supplied to the Super Fund could be viewed by Official Information Act request. So my question is: am I understanding this correctly? If I am, what would be acceptable as a redaction on the grounds of commercial sensitivity, and where does that go for those businesses? Because it could well gazump the whole intent of the bill, which is to enable the Super Fund to bring much-needed depth to the capital markets to ensure that New Zealand businesses survive and thrive.

The whole point of an investment might be to invest in new technology to increase productivity, it might be to invest in ensuring that they can grow their markets. It may well be better to accept an investor or only to cast your net as wide as the international markets where you might get extra benefits other than money coming from offshore, like access to markets, which the New Zealand Super Fund would not actually bring to the table. So I’d be very interested in hearing that, Minister, because I think it’s a very important thing for New Zealand and for the Super Fund as well.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): The member raises a very good question, because what the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Controlling Interests) Amendment Bill recognises in new section 59(2) is that if the Official Information Act 1982 were to be automatically applied to any entity which had a controlling fund investment in it, that would be significantly problematic, because it could actually prevent the fund from wanting to make that investment in the first place. It would make it a less beneficial investor than others, due to the additional disclosure obligations that would sit upon it. So that is specifically carved out in this bill.

However, what the member is now focusing on is the fact that the Official Information Act still applies to the Guardians in respect of the information that the Guardians hold. That is the case. However, the Official Information Act—by way of, I understand, sections 9(2)(b), 9(2)(i)—does allow entities to withhold the release of information on a number of grounds relating to commercial sensitivity. That is, entities can choose to withhold information if they believe that supplying that information would damage the public interest in a number of ways. Looking at the Ombudsman guidance on that, this goes to whether or not it would prejudice a commercial position, and, in particular, the information the release of which could prejudice a commercial position includes information that could disadvantage an entity vis-à-vis their direct competitor, that could increase their costs, that could decrease their income or profits, damage their negotiating position, damage their reputation leading to a loss of business or trade, or damage shareholder, customer, or supplier confidence.

Now, I don’t pretend, members, that I came to the committee tonight with expertise on the particular commercial grounds for withholding under the Official Information Act, but what I can assure the member is that the operation of the Official Information Act as it has related to the Super Fund has included grounds for withholding information that I am not aware of there being any concerns about. As the member points out, it would be another step for the entity itself to be subject to the Official Information Act (OIA) simply because the Super Fund was its investor, and that would raise a new range of concerns. So I think that is an important point that the member raises.

For members’ interest, the Super Fund does already have a number of direct investments in New Zealand in which it doesn’t have a controlling interest but which it does have a direct investment. This includes: Kaingaroa Timberlands, which obviously owns a large forest; Longroad; Datacom; Awanui; Kaha Ake; Fidelity Life; and NZ Gourmet—alongside significant property investments in hotels and land development. The point that I am simply making is that the Super Fund has been able to make investments of this nature while being subject to the OIA previously, and that gives me confidence that when it later takes controlling interests in entities that could be similar to those it already holds, this will not be prejudicial to its commercial performance in the way that the member raises.

RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): Thank you, Mr Chair. Just very quickly, as I read through this piece of legislation, and going on from what my colleague has just mentioned around Māori accessing the New Zealand Superannuation Fund, and due to our mortality rates—dying seven to 10 years earlier than everybody else—it seems to me that this particular fund has built up its funds due to those who maybe don’t have access to it, including Māori. My question to the Minister is: will this legislation allow for the Superannuation Fund to invest in closing the mortality gaps for Māori? Is there a priority for this National Government to then start to put pressure on the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act and the Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation to start to look at closing the mortality rates, investing in those who probably have contributed more to the superannuation because they haven’t accessed it—those being Māori.

And my colleague also talked about the ability to lower the superannuation rates so we are able to access superannuation due to many of our people working in precarious labour-type jobs for many, many years. Many of them don’t own homes—we’re renters—and so the investment into housing, the investment into better health outcomes, I think, would be a better spend for the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act. And whether the Minister would guide the Guardians or have this piece of legislation ensure that those who are not accessing superannuation because they’re dying earlier are able to access that through investment funds where we’re able to start closing those particular gaps—that’s the question I ask of the Minister.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): I thank the member for his question. I think he appreciates that some of his question relates to aspects of the superannuation scheme in New Zealand which are outside of this bill that we are debating tonight in terms of the age of eligibility for superannuation.

However, the second part of the member’s question, which relates to the nature of the kinds of investments the Super Fund can make and may make in future is, I think, relevant to the bill because what the bill says is that the fund in future can take a controlling interest in a broad range of entities. What the Guardians are required to consider when they make those investments is whether they are making those investments in a prudent and commercial way that is consistent with their statement of investment standards, policies, and procedures, and that is consistent with their governance framework.

And it is not hard for me, Mr Waititi, to imagine that there will be investments which have two benefits, which provide commercial return but also provide enhanced wellbeing to Māori people. There is an example in that list of organisations I just discussed: Awanui. They are the leading provider of laboratory and pathology services in New Zealand. The provision of health services that are effective and efficient can be life enhancing. But I have an aspiration which is that I would like to see more New Zealanders feeling that their superannuation assets are being invested in New Zealand assets. And I think that the Super Fund is a vehicle which in some senses is highly democratic, because even if you yourself don’t have a KiwiSaver fund, by virtue of being a New Zealander, you can claim a stake in the New Zealand Superannuation Fund. So when the New Zealand Superannuation Fund goes out and invests, it is quite literally investing on behalf of every single taxpayer and New Zealander, and therefore, in making those investments, has the capacity, I think, to make positive social and commercial impact for New Zealand.

Here’s a number for the member and others to reflect on: New Zealand investment represents only around 14 percent of the Super Fund’s current total portfolio. Less than 1 percent of that is in infrastructure. So the point that I would simply make is if we want the Super Fund to be more invested in activities that create prosperity for New Zealanders and that create commercial return for New Zealanders, then we should be broadening out the scope. And a bill like that, that we are doing tonight, will actually broaden out the scope of activities, I hope, that the Super Fund will consider. And I look around the world and I see the positive effect that social bonds and social venture investment has had, and the willingness of pension funds in other parts of the world to invest in those vehicles because, again, they have that patient investor mind-set, that long-term return mind-set.

So to come back to the beginning, of course the Super Fund still has to be looking for commercial return and prudent return, but as any good investor will tell you, often commercial return and prudent investment comes hand in hand with offering positive social or environment impact to the benefit of Māori and to the benefit of all New Zealanders.

KATIE NIMON (National—Napier): Mr Chair, thank you for the opportunity. I think one thing that hasn’t really been covered off which I think is quite important is the title and commencement of this bill. I think that’s just one thing I want to point out particularly, and there’s another couple of points I want to make. Actually, first, before I do that, I just wanted to say, to my colleague Stuart Smith’s point about what I call the perverse outcome, I suppose, with potentially not wanting to take on investment from the Superannuation Fund—if that was going to be disclosed—which I think is really important.

One thing also to mention: Australia has great investment in transport and infrastructure businesses through this very protocol, and so I’m really excited to see what this will do for our superannuation scheme, for investment, for people getting involved in KiwiSaver as well, obviously resulting in the outcome of better investment and what that contributes to New Zealand. But I think just the question about, obviously, the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Controlling Interests) Amendment Bill; I just want to be sure that, obviously, “controlling interests”, in parentheses, that that is the best and clearest way that we can put that bill amendment forward.

Then in the terms of commencement, obviously, with it being in its immediacy of being the day after the date on which it receives its Royal assent, if that gives enough time for those that are in the investment departments within the Superannuation Fund, the Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation sort of aspect of that, that they’ve got that time to be able to prepare themselves for what this means for their investment programme and how this might work, from an administrative point of view.

So, really, quite administrative questions, but I think they are quite important. Something that we tend to get quite involved in in all of the clauses—particularly, obviously, with replacement section 59, inserted by clause 6, and the wording, which is obviously vital, but as we’re talking about this in one full part, I think it’s important that we cover those off. Often, those are the things we don’t give enough thought to, so if the Minister could answer this question.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Well, thank you. Look, the question is about the date of commencement, which is obviously quick in this instance. It’s the day after the Act receives Royal assent. I’d assure the member that I met with the board of the New Zealand Superannuation Fund earlier this year—well, members of the board—and mentioned to them the passage of this bill through the House and how pleased I was that it was being agreed to in a bipartisan way. The Superannuation Fund made clear to me that they are both looking forward to and prepared for its passage. As we have been discussing in the committee tonight, they did think that it would open up the range of investments that they could make, and they have obviously been thinking about this for some time.

I think one of the issues that we haven’t canvassed as much, that they are prepared for and have been thinking about, is that in the past, even when they haven’t entered an investment intentionally with a controlling stake, they have had to be careful about some investments that they make on the basis that if one shareholder was to exit that investment or the nature of that entity was to change, that they could inadvertently or accidentally become a controlling shareholder. So that has meant both some avoidance but also that they have had to have particular investment requirements and technicalities in a range of investments that they’ve made.

I think that they would anticipate that there would be less of that kind of concern in the future. Of course, they would continue to have to be prudent about the nature of any investment in any stake that they took, but it is safe to say that they are very ready for this bill. They have waited patiently for it to become law and would welcome it becoming so. As to the title, look, it’s not a very creative one, but it says exactly what it does.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Just for members’ awareness, I am listening for new material, particularly for material that relates directly to the bill. I do note that that has been happening, but we’re down to the title and commencement, so listening very, very carefully.

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. When we are taking this all as one part, I’m really keen to actually talk about the title of the bill, particularly. The Minister of Finance did talk about it briefly in her response to my colleague Katie Nimon’s proposal and question to her. I’d ask the Minister: the title currently is New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Controlling Interests) Amendment Bill; had she considered a potential title for the bill to be “New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Ideally Invest in New Zealand) Amendment Bill”, where we’re looking for the New Zealand Superannuation Fund to invest ideally—

Camilla Belich: Point of order, Mr Chair. Thank you, Mr Chair. Just a point of order. That is repetitive. The Minister has already spent a great deal of time responding to questions around the title and commencement, which she did describe, herself, as quite simple and straightforward, describing the nature of the bill.

TOM RUTHERFORD: Speaking to the point of order. Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I would just note in the Standing Orders, under the committee of the whole House, each member is entitled to make multiple speeches of up to five minutes.

Camilla Belich: If relevant.

TOM RUTHERFORD: Well, I was relevant, because I hadn’t proposed this to the Minister for her consideration yet, on the specific title that I was putting forward.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Yeah, that question is repetitive, but I will allow the Hon Nicola Willis to respond, if she has a response to that question.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Look, I thank the member for his question. The member is bright, he is bright-eyed, he is bushy-tailed, he’s enthusiastic, and he’s full of ideas. I will admit that I didn’t get to name this one, and, actually, it was my predecessor who got to name it. Perhaps, in future, when I have the exciting opportunity to name a bill, I will consider, first, a visit to Tom Rutherford, he the designer of creative bill titles.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): I move, That debate on this question now close.

Motion agreed to.

Parts 1 and 2, the Schedule, and clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.

Bill to be reported without amendment.

House resumed.

Report of Committee of the Whole House

Report of Committee of the Whole House

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Mr Speaker, the committee has considered the Regulatory Systems (Education) Amendment Bill and reports it with amendment. The committee has also considered the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Controlling Interests) Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

Bills

Ngāti Tara Tokanui Claims Settlement Bill

Second Reading

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I present a legislative statement on the Ngāti Tara Tokanui Claims Settlement Bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House. It can be found on the Parliament website.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: I move, That the Ngāti Tara Tokanui Claims Settlement Bill be now read a second time.

Tihei mauri ora!

Te Whare e tū nei, tēnā koe, te papa i waho nei, tēnā koe, te mana whenua o tēnei rohe, tēnā koutou, te hunga mate, haere haere haere. Haere ki te whenua o ngā tūpuna.

Te hunga ora tēnā tātou katoa. Ka mihi ki ngā māunga kōrero ki ngā awa rangatira, ki te whenua taurikura o Ngāti Tara Tokanui, e ngā kāwai rangatira, tēnā tātou katoa.

[‘Tis the breath of life!

The House that stands, greetings, the land we are on, greetings, the protectors of this region, greetings to you all, the deceased, farewell. Farewell to the homeland of your ancestors.

To us, greetings to you. I acknowledge the many speaking mountains, the many formidable rivers, and also to the cherished lands of Ngāti Tara Tokanui, dear esteemed leaders, salutations to you all.]

This bill gives effect to the deed of settlement signed by Ngāti Tara Tokanui and the Crown in July 2022. The deed of settlement resolves all the remaining historical Treaty of Waitangi claims of Ngāti Tara Tokanui, who are an iwi centred around Paeroa in the Hauraki/Coromandel region.

The historical claims of Ngāti Tara Tokanui relate to Crown purchases of their land, and the operation of the Native Land Court. The cumulative effect of the Crown’s actions and omissions had a devastating effect on the economic, social, and cultural development of Ngāti Tara Tokanui, leaving the iwi virtually landless by the 1920s. This bill comprises three parts, detailing, firstly, the historical background; secondly, Crown acknowledgments of and apology for breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi; and, thirdly, cultural and commercial redress. I look forward to providing greater details about the redress at the bill’s third reading.

The pathway towards settlement for Ngāti Tara Tokanui whānau, hapū, and iwi has been a long one. The Waitangi Tribunal heard the Hauraki claims, including the Ngāti Tara Tokanui Wai 714 claim lodged by the late Hone Tewaewae Williams, from 1998 to 2002. The tribunal heard 24 hearings and completed its report in 2006. The focus then turned to direct negotiations with the Crown, which concluded with the signing of a deed of settlement in July 2022. The first reading of the Ngāti Tara Tokanui Claims Settlement Bill was passed in June last year.

I acknowledge that the Ngāti Tara Tokanui has lost many members who were part of the settlement journey, but are not alive to see this day. I acknowledge those tīpuna and all iwi members who have participated in this process, whether they were collating evidence, attending hui, being witnesses in the Tribunal, supporting leaders and negotiators participating in iwi discussions, or voting on whether to support the settlement.

For more than 25 years, Ngāti Tara Tokanui has pursued acknowledgment of their Treaty claims and redress for current and future generations. I acknowledge the Ngāti Tara Tokanui Trust and your negotiators Amelia Williams and Russell Karu. Your dedication and determination have been vital in achieving this settlement for all. The Ngāti Tara Tokanui Trust will be the post-settlement governance entity that will receive the settlement assets on behalf of Ngāti Tara Tokanui and will represent the iwi in its future dealings with the Crown.

On the Crown side, I acknowledge the work of chief Crown negotiators Michael Dreaver and the Hon Rick Barker, who have been well supported by Te Arawhiti throughout this process. I also acknowledge my predecessors the Hon Chris Finlayson and the Hon Andrew Little, who both made significant contributions to this Treaty settlement.

This Government is continuing the bipartisan effort to restore the Crown relationship with iwi by settling historical Treaty grievances. There have been many other Ministers and Crown agencies involved in this settlement, and I thank you for your contributions.

The bill was referred to the Māori Affairs Committee on 29 June 2023. The committee received and considered 15 submissions on the bill. Based on the submissions and advice received, the committee does not recommend making any significant changes to the bill. The committee recommended some minor and technical amendments to ensure consistency with other Hauraki iwi settlement bills. I thank the committee for their diligent work in the consideration of this bill. I’m satisfied with the committee’s recommendations, as they will ensure the redress agreed in the Ngāti Tara Tokanui deed of settlement can be properly implemented through this bill.

I look forward to the final steps towards settlement for Ngāti Tara Tokanui, and it will be my great pleasure to host them and all their supporters for the third reading of this bill. I commend this bill to the House. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. Ngā mihi o te wā, o te Pīpiri e haere mai nei i tēnei pō.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker. Acknowledgments of the month, particularly as the month of June nears us this night.]

It’s an honour and a privilege to stand today to speak to what is an important part of the history of not only Ngāti Tara Tokanui but all members of the Hauraki, of uri who whakapapa to what is a shared set of interests and shared tūpuna in the Hauraki region, and for Māori to celebrate an opportunity for the Crown to atone for those things in this historical account that we say today were wrong and should never have happened.

The Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations is right to acknowledge the work that has gone into this, and the first acknowledgment that I wish to make is to those tūpuna and esteemed members of Ngāti Tara Tokanui who have since passed on and who are not with us at this time, when the bill is progressing through the House. There are members who have contributed to this piece of legislation who will be proud today to have reached the second stage in the legislation, and who will be looking forward to the third reading, when it will pass into law. I know that there are members who will be watching today who will hold their contributions in their memory and at the front of their minds as this progresses through the House, and I acknowledge them.

I also want to acknowledge those Crown negotiators, who have worked very hard to make sure that the Crown’s history and the agreed account is something which is enduring and which captures those not only oral histories but written histories, which are available in this region because of successive Waitangi inquiries into the history here, and that is recorded in the legislation today. Those are the chief Crown negotiator, Mike Dreaver, and also the Hon Rick Barker, who worked through this settlement with Ngāti Tara Tokanui and, indeed, the Pare Hauraki settlements, which were treated as a large national grouping and were progressed as such under both Labour and National administrations in the large national groupings approach to these settlements.

It was hard work to progress these settlements with the Hauraki iwi. I want to thank not only those negotiators but also the Ministers who were involved with the Crown agencies for providing the support that was required to achieve these settlements, and this settlement with Ngāti Tara Tokanui, in particular.

The negotiations with Ngāti Tara Tokanui began at Ngahutoitoi Marae in 2011. It gives you a sense of what it takes, even for a settlement of this size—which is deeply important in its historical nature, but is not large in quantum—when members formally hand over the power to their negotiators to represent their interests on their behalf with the Crown and when they then work through a process, for their negotiators to build a sort of consensus around these areas which are dealt with in the settlement. The agreement in principle was reached in that same year—in 2011—and that’s a tribute to those negotiators, who were able to quickly work through the issues which needed to be put to the Crown. Then, to get to this stage, is quite a quick settlement process, and it’s a tribute to their work.

I just want to touch on how this is an area of the country as somewhere where the Crown has a lot to apologise for. The history here, which is recognised in this bill and the other bills which have come before this House already for Pare Hauraki, are an account of the historical injustices that the people of the area faced.

A lot of that is recorded in the Native Land Court records of this time, and so it provides a useful historical touch point for this House to consider—records, like the letter of 1869 written by Te Keepa Raharuhi, which he wrote to the Native Minister and the Crown’s representative in Hauraki, asking them to honour undertakings negotiated by them. He wrote, “E hoa mā tēnā kōrua. He kupu tāku kia kōrua, ko mātou whakaaro kua tūturu ki runga ki o tātou whakaaro. E hoa mā, tera pea mātou e mate i te Hauhau, e ngari kei a kōrua te whakaaro kia mātou. Kāore hoki e tahi o mātou i whiwhi i te tika, i enei mo te wahi, e kino ai Te Hauhau kia mātou. E hoa mā, tēnei ano tētehi o a mātou kupu kia kōrua. Kō matou pīhī whenua i roto i te rohe a te Kawana, i te takiwā o Katikati i tukua e mātou kia Te Maki i mua. Whaka-ae ana ia i tēnei ra ka tukua atu e mātou kia kōrua, ma kōrua e whakaputa mai kia mātou. He oi ano te kupu kia kōrua.”

[“Friends, greetings. I have a message to you both, our thoughts, we have agreed to what us and you suggested. Friends, we may die at the hands of the Hauhau, but we will leave our decisions to you. Not one of us received any rights to this block where the Hauhaus may not like us. Friends, this is another message to you. Our piece of land within the boundaries of the Government, in the Katikati district, we gave to Mackay before. He agrees on this day to give over to you, for you to hand back to us. This is all we have to say.”]

What he was saying there was that he was appealing to the Government to honour the agreements that they had made, and he refers to them over and over as “my friends”. He was offering a peace there for what was an injustice of land being taken away by the Government but also of boundaries being violated by successive Governments in the Katikati District. He had already appealed to Mackay before, and he refers there to the injustice which had been done over and over by a Government which was refusing to negotiate with the people who occupied that land at the time.

The historical account of any settlement legislation is one of the most important parts. At this second reading, it’s my privilege, as the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee when this went through that select committee, to inform the House that we delved deeply into the historical issues. We heard from the 15 submitters about how this would affect them and how having access to an agreed history would allow them to move forward. It is something which I am proud that our Treaty settlement process in Aotearoa allows us to do—to have these historical touch points on the record as part of the shared knowledge that we can then build from.

In conclusion, may I thank everyone who has worked on this bill, and I thank Minister Paul Goldsmith for continuing to advance it at pace. It is something that I am proud that New Zealand legislators all agree on, and may that long continue.

STEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. In the heart of the rohe of Ngāti Tara Tokanui is the Waihou River, and that river has a particular significance in the history of colonisation of our land, not just for the Hauraki and the Waikato but, indeed, for the whole nation, because in 1769, when Joseph Banks and James Cook anchored off what became Thames and took a longboat up the Waihou, what Banks recorded in his journal was essentially a plan for how the lands could be acquired, how they could be cleared of their forests, how they could be drained, and how they could be farmed. It was a plan for colonisation.

When both Banks and Cook saw the magnificent kahikatea forests of the Hauraki Plains, they were deeply impressed by them. Banks said that the “immense quantity of Woodland, which was yet uncleard, but promisd great returns to the people who would take the trouble of Clearing it … Swamps, which might doubtless Easily be draind, and sufficiently evincd the richness of their soil by the great size of all the plants that grew upon them, and more particularly of the timber trees which were the streightest, cleanest, and I may say the largest I have ever seen … I may have seen several times single trees larger than any I Observd among them, but it was not one but all these trees which were enormous, … we rowd for many miles between woods of these trees, to which we could see no bounds. The River Thames”—as Cook named the Waihou River, for political reasons, to convince England that this was the right place to colonise—“is indeed in every respect the properest place we have yet seen for establishing a Colony;”.

We know that from 1865, shortly after the occurrence of the invasion of the Waikato, the confiscations of the land began in the Hauraki, as well. The land was taken. It was acquired by hook or by crook, and, as Philip Steer said, “If a lesson emerges, it is that nature’s death occurred not only by grand confiscations and conflagrations, but also by innumerable small bureaucratic concessions and oversights.”

Those magnificent forests where Ngāti Tara Tokanui had their livelihoods—those forests were dense with native birds that were snared for food. The koroī berries, as the berries of the kahikatea were named by Māori, were harvested by the skilful ascending of the sleek trunks of these enormous trees. The kahikatea is the largest native tree—not the kauri, but the kahikatea—and, for context, these trees are so ancient ecologically, they are 160 to 180 million years old, which is to say the kahikatea tree came into existence before there were even birds on Planet Earth. It is the pterodactyl that would have originally eaten the berry of these trees, and who were kaitiakitanga of this magnificent natural heritage of Aotearoa? It was Ngāti Tara Tokanui and the other iwi around the nation, who also had such magnificent forests.

Within a few decades, they were almost entirely cleared. If you travel across those Hauraki Plains, those green, flat, drained plains with their dairy farms, you may see gentle little pockets of beautiful conical trees in areas of swamp. Those are the regenerating echo of what was there. Those are young trees, but are 100 or 150 years old, at most.

Those huge, ancient forests were primarily burned. In 1882, when refrigeration was invented, much of the remnant was cut down to make butter boxes for export of our butter and our dairy products to Britain. Indeed, the Bagnall family set up a mill for harvesting the kahikatea trees to make the butter boxes.

In the years between 1909 and 1917 alone, the remains of kahikatea were reduced by 63 percent. In 1913, a royal commission was asked to determine how areas of New Zealand still remaining under forest should be dealt with. It said, “As is well known, the soil of the white-pine swamps, when drained and the trees removed, forms one of the richest agricultural land, which when grassed is [extremely useful] for dairy farms.”, and thus the remnant of those magnificent forests were milled. The Bagnall brothers’ riverbank mill at Turua cut down the trees, and the descendants of that family would lament their loss. In 1937, a woman reported in a newspaper article “Where the Village slew the Forest”, about a grand and noble forest, that it was “the beginning of the end for the feathered world that inhabited its depths.”, and in 1984, in her book about Turua, Shirley Bagnall wrote of her deep sorrow at “the death of the trees that had taken such ages to grow”.

I tell all this because one of the untold stories of colonisation is the massive destruction of nature—the massive destruction of the extractive industries that were brought by the coloniser. Those industries destroyed the actual livelihood of tangata whenua Māori, the traditional life and culture, and the means of food acquisition and propagation that had sustained those iwi for many years, and here, in the Hauraki, Ngāti Tara Tokanui are a glaring example of it. Also, when the goldminers came, they poured the cyanide into the Waihou River, so it is accounted that 300 iwi lost their source of water. These are the impacts of this sort of extractive and destructive colonisation, aside from the injustice of the very theft of the land—the utter destruction of the ecological structure of it. This is a loss for all humanity, I would say—those magnificent forests—but it must be such a bitter loss for the iwi who were the kaitiaki of those forests.

I note that Andrew Little said that the Crown will apologise for confiscating large tracts of land, as well as for the policies and laws that were designed to dislocate Ngāti Tara Tokanui from their land, to erode their tribal structure—and, rightly, that is a just apology for a terrible loss—and, also, I would add, to destroy the ecological basis of the society and the culture of the livelihood of those people. So we support this settlement; it is never enough. It is irreplaceable what is lost.

We do not, as Te Pāti Kākāriki—as we have articulated before—support the idea of full and final settlements. It seems, in a sense, to be adding a final insult to injury to suggest that they should be full and final.

If we are to have a just basis for society and our land, it must be based on a recognition of the history of the means of our presence here as tangata Tiriti. It must be based on a reciprocal recognition of the right to self-determination of tangata whenua Māori, of upholding of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and of a seeing and a sighting and a knowing and a remembering of the history that has befallen the people—the proud indigenous people—of our land. So, in that regard, we commend this bill to the House. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

SIMON COURT (ACT): The ACT Party is pleased to support this bill. It restores the property rights and provides compensation for an iwi which had their property taken in an unjust way, and it was in breach of the Treaty of Waitangi. So the ACT Party is very pleased to support this bill as reported back.

I want to acknowledge that Ngāti Tara Tokanui have suffered significant harm as individuals, as an iwi, and as the people of the Hauraki Plains, and that resulted from the confiscation of a large tract of land by the Crown in the Tauranga area which included their traditional lands. It was not clear to me from reading the summary—the historical account—what the role was of Ngāti Tara Tokanui at the time that led to their lands being confiscated. It’s not clear.

However, confiscation, or raupatu, was a common punishment for rebellion under the British and under other empires, and not just in New Zealand. It was common, going back to medieval times in Britain, for example, that rebellions were punished by confiscating land. The difference between medieval times and now, though, is that New Zealand is a country which believes in the rule of law protecting property rights, although they have been severely eroded. There is an opportunity to address the wrongs of the past, and that’s what this settlement bill does in some small way.

As the previous speaker, Steve Abel, mentioned, it’s not possible to restore Ngāti Tara Tokanui to their previous status. It’s not possible to return all the land. In fact, the historical account indicates that after having land confiscated, and after selling a large amount of land—although it’s not made clear, it appears that that was to pay bills—they were left with only 232 acres of land by 1995.

I think what’s also important to acknowledge—and it’s stated very clearly here in the historical account—is that the iwi were seeking to develop their land. They had signed an agreement with the Crown to establish a goldfield. They were supporting the investigation of goldmining on their land because goldmining at that time—in 1870—was seen as a fantastic contributor to economic and social development where it occurred, and iwi like Ngāti Tara Tokanui could have benefited from it. But it appears that the iwi never got to benefit from it, because some of the commercial arrangements that they entered into were all cost and no reward.

It appears that their property rights have been infringed many times over the years. That’s why the ACT Party is pleased to see this settlement bill come before the House. It upholds the property rights, restores the mana, and provides for this iwi to grow and develop their lands and to attain some kind of economic sovereignty within the laws of New Zealand. With that, the ACT Party commends this bill to the House.

ANDY FOSTER (NZ First): Mr Speaker, thank you. I rise to speak to the Ngāti Tara Tokanui Claims Settlement Bill, and it is very good to see this claims settlement legislation being advanced. We’ve seen a number of claims settlement bills advanced this year, and it’s good to see that, because it helps us to move through the process of setting right some of the wrongs which have been done in the past and being able to move forward together as a united nation.

We heard the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations say that this process has been going on—well, I guess, from the perspective of the iwi, this process has been going on for 180-odd years. But in terms of the actual response to the legislation, or to getting a settlement process under way, it’s been a good 25 years, and 13 years since the negotiations began. Like others, I want to acknowledge all the iwi members who have been part of this who are, sadly, no longer with us, because these things do take a long time and it means that some of the people who start out leading these processes at the beginning—and I know; I’m aware of some of those processes in the Wellington region—are, sadly, no longer with us at the end of these processes. So I salute all of those members of the iwi—the tīpuna who are no longer with us.

I also, like others, want to acknowledge the negotiators and the officials who’ve been involved in this process, because I know that a lot of work goes into it. It’s actually been really, really interesting to just listen to some of the history that we’ve been hearing today, because that history is rich. It’s sad, it’s challenging, but it is history none the less, and it is good to have that history brought to our attention.

Also, while we don’t have members of the iwi here with us in person, I hope that some are watching tonight, and I do hope—

Hon Scott Simpson: They’ll be watching.

ANDY FOSTER: —they’ll be watching—that, as we have seen in the past, when we get to that final reading, the galleries are indeed full and there is a sense of celebration.

Ngāti Tara Tokanui is a small iwi, we hear, of less than a thousand members, but that doesn’t mean it is not important, and I’d just like to point out that we are also a small nation, but that doesn’t mean that we don’t think that we’re important. We are the centre of our own universe, and for Ngāti Tara Tokanui, that is the centre of their own universe, as well. So it is a really important piece of legislation.

We know that there are three parts of the Treaty, and when you look at those three parts, you can see the way in which those three parts were breached. Establishing British Government and laws and protections—those protections, clearly, were breached. The agreement to the rights of undisturbed possession of lands, forests, and fisheries—well, quite clearly, the confiscation of most of the iwi’s land was a breach of the Treaty. Thirdly, the rights of equal citizenship—well, I didn’t see the Crown in those days doing the same to British or other settlers as they did to the iwi.

So this bill is clear that the Crown—the Government—breached these obligations of protection and these obligations of the right to undisturbed possession of lands, forests, and fisheries. We’ve heard from the ACT Party how important property rights are, and I just would say to the whole House that sometimes the greatest protections we actually need are not from foreign powers or anyone else; they are from our own Government. We do not have many checks and balances in our system, and it’s something that we should be giving a lot of attention to so that we have protections and balances against all of us and the decisions that we might make going forward.

The bill tells the history, and the apology is a really, really important part of this bill, going forward. It provides for the return of some land under cultural redress—we’ve seen nine specific sites—and it also provides for some financial redress. It’s only $6 million, but, again, it’s a small iwi, and it’s a small compensation for the wrong that was done. It also provides for the recognition of some important associations with some important places.

It also provides for some ongoing relationships going forward. So it’s not only looking backwards and providing compensation but also saying, looking forward, that there is an important ongoing relationship with the Department of Conservation Te Papa Atawhai. It was good to hear that very sad story that Steve Abel has just been telling about the destruction of the natural environment that was here long before human beings even existed—millions and millions and millions of years before the destruction that was done. In fact—

Carl Bates: It was good to hear it.

ANDY FOSTER: Well, it was good to hear it, but it was also bad to hear it—but we know that. Since human beings have arrived in this land, it has been a disaster for the natural environment, and our responsibility is to try and turn that around and make it better rather than worse. If we can make it better than we found it, then we’ve done something that is worthwhile doing.

Just to finish off with, these settlements are really, really important for all of us to help us move forward together as a united people—a united people in all our rich diversity. I’m just going to finish off by saying some of the principles that New Zealand First holds which I think are relevant to this. First of all, we’re standing behind those principles of fairness, of justice, and of upholding the Treaty of Waitangi. We also know that we need to right the wrongs of the past and we need to ensure that all New Zealanders, regardless of their ethnicity, are treated equitably under the law—and, clearly, that didn’t happen in this case in the past. Our party also stands for being committed to fostering strong relationships based on mutual respect and on understanding between the Crown and Māori. These things are essential as we go forward.

So why do we support the bill? It is about restorative justice, and that is a really, really important principle. It is about honouring the Treaty. It is about fostering trust and cooperation and building a more inclusive society.

In conclusion, New Zealand First strongly supports this bill. Again, we thank all the people who have put so much effort and so much mana into this, and we look forward to it progressing through the committee stage, and then to a final reading. Then, truly, the iwi can celebrate the return of their mana, and the return of these significant cultural areas of land and some small financial compensation. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): This is a five-minute split call.

HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE (Te Pāti Māori—Hauraki-Waikato): Tēnā rā koe, e te Pīka. Otirā tēnā rā tātou e te Whare. E tū ana ahau ki te waha i ngā kōrero mō te Pāti Māori i tēnei pō. Heoi anō, hei tū hei māngai hoki mō tōku rohe o Hauraki Waikato. Inā te maringa nui.

Kei aku parepare, kei aku whakaruruhau tēnā rā koutou katoa kua whakarauika mai ki rō Pāremata i te pō nei. Āio nuku, āio rangi, āio te pou herenga tangata o te motu a Kingi Tūheitia, rirerire hau pai mārire.

E tangihia ana ki ngā mate, tāruru nui o Pare Hauraki o Pare Waikato kua hoki atu ki te parekawakawa o Pareārau ki reira rātou ka tangi ki konei ō rātou uri mokopuna, e waha i ngā kōrero mō tēnei pire.

Pare Hauraki, Pare Waikato nei rā te tū, nei rā te mihi ki a koutou e whakarongo ana i te kāinga, ki tēnei o ngā pouaka whakaata, ā, kua tū mai mātou ki te tautoko katoa i tēnei o ngā pire. Ko Pare Hauraki ko Ngāti Tara Tokanui he uri rātou nō ngā kāwai whakapapa o Whatihua rāua ko Ruapūtahanga. Ko tō rātou Rangatira ko Te Keepa Raharuhi. E mihi ana, ka nui taku reo whakamiha, ka nui taku reo maioha e tuku karere atu ana ki a koutou ngā mana whenua o tēnei o ngā pire.

Ko Ngāti Tara Tokanui tētahi o ngā iwi i muri rānō ko tō rātou nei ingoa ko Ngāti Koi, i tēnei wā tonu kei te tuku au i te aroha. Nōku te maringa nui nōku te haepapa nui i roto i a Pāremata i tēnei wā tonu. Kua kōrerotia e au ki ngā pire e whā i roto i tōku ake rohe ki roto i tōku ake iwi. Ko Ngāti Hei tēnā, ko Ngāti Paoa tēnā, ko Ōrākau tēnā. Ā, i tēnei pō ko Ngāti Tara Tokanui tēnā. Nō reira ahakoa tōku wā iti ki konei, ka nui taku maringa nui ki tēnā.

Nō reira ki ngā pāti katoa o tēnei Whare ahakoa noho mai ki konei, ahakoa noho mai ki konā. Kua tautokotia katoa e rātou ēnei pire katoa, nō reira koinei te reo mihi o tōku iwi ake o tōku rohe ki a koutou i tautoko i tēnei o ngā pire.

Te kau mā rua o ngā iwi ki roto o Ngāti Tara Tokanui, ki roto mai o Hauraki. Ko te pokapū o tōna rohe whai pānga, ko Paeroa. Whakateuru atu i reira ki te Manaia o Hauraki, whakateraki anō hoki ki te pūtake o te tara o te ika a Māui, ki Wharekawa. Nō reira, te kau mā rua o ngā iwi ki roto mai o Hauraki, ki roto mai o Ngāti Tara Tokanui.

Ka nui taku mihi ki ngā rangatira kua whakawhāriki i tēnei pire, ki a Russell Karu rāua ko Amelia Williams nā koutou anō tēnei pire, tēnei take raupatu i kuhu mai ki rō Pāremata. I roto i tāku titirohanga ki roto i tēnei take raupatu take kereme, ka tiro au ki te nui o ngā hua i a Ngāti Tara Tokanui. Pēnei i te koura, pēnei i te kōhuke, minerals, pēnei ki te huhua o ngā kai me te wai.

[Greetings, dear Speaker. Also greetings to everyone here in the House. I stand to represent Te Pāti Māori this evening. However, I also stand to represent my region of Hauraki Waikato. A huge honour.

My dear esteemed, my dear formidable, salutations to you all who have assembled here to this Parliament this evening. Peace to the land, peace to the skies, and peace be to what ties us people all together, King Tūheitia, rirerire hau pai mārire.

We mourn for our dead, the many of Pare Hauraki of Pare Waikato who have returned to Pareārau, in which their descendants are here representing them in this bill.

Pare Hauraki and Pare Waikato, I stand to acknowledge you who have tuned in from your home television, and, we are all here to support this bill. Pare Hauraki and Ngāti Tara Tokanui are descendants of Whatihua and Ruapūtahanga. Their prominent leader is Te Keepa Raharuhi. I have immense respect, and acknowledge with these words the home people in which this bill pertains to.

In times of old, Ngāti Tara Tokanui’s name was Ngāti Koi, and so right now I would like to send my love. It is my honour and my responsibility within this Parliament right now. I have spoken to the four bills within my own region and people. Ngāti Hei, Ngāti Paoa, and Ōrākau. And this evening, it is Ngāti Tara Tokanui. And so despite the little time I have here, it is still a huge honour for me.

So to all the parties of this House no matter if you sit on this side or on that side, we all are supporting this bill. And so this is the heartfelt acknowledgments of my people to you all supporting this bill.

There are 12 subtribes that make up the Ngāti Tara Tokanui confederation in Hauraki. The centre of this region is at Paeroa. To the west from there is Manaia of Hauraki, to the north as well is the centre of Te Tara o te Ika a Māui, at Whakarewa. So then, 12 subtribes within the Hauraki region, Ngāti Tara Tokanui.

I immensely acknowledge the esteemed leaders who helped with this bill: to Russell Karu and Amelia Williams, this is your bill, the confiscation made by this Parliament. What I observe within this claim are the many assets within Ngāti Tara Tokanui. Like gold, like minerals, like all the food sources and water.]

I have been doing multiple hakas, mōteatea, and waiata in Parliament, but that’s my way of expressing and articulating the best form that I know on how deep—and no Pākehā words can articulate, for me, Treaty settlements. So I must end with this waiata apakura a tā Kīngi Tāwhiao mōtōna uri [song of lament of Kingi Tāwhiao for his descendants], which clearly reflects this Treaty settlement bill of Ngāti Tara Tokanui.

Ka mātakitaki iho au ki te riu o Waikato

Anō nei he kapo kau ake māku ki te kapu o taku ringa

Ka whakamiri noa i tōna ara tau

E tia nei he tupu kua hou

[I look down on the valley of Waikato

As though to hold it in the hollow of my hand

And caress its beauty

Like some tender verdant thing]

Ko tēnei waiata tangi nā Kīngi Tāwhiao i waiata, i tangi mōteatea.

[This is a song of lament sung by Kingi Tāwhiao as he grieved.]

This was Kingi Tāwhiao’s tangi to his land on the return to seeing his land confiscated, and it talks about the many different resources, arā te rarirari o Waikato, and it’s plentiful. So ngā mihi ki a tātou e te Whare.

HŪHANA LYNDON (Green): E mihi ana ki a tātou i tēnei pō. He reo mihi tēnei ki ngā whanaunga o Ngāti Tara Tokanui. Ko ngā uri o Tara, te hononga o Te Awapū, he mokopuna o tēnei tupuna, o Tara, ka moe i a Te Rae, nō Ngā Mārama anō hoki. Ka puta ko tēnei iwi rangatira o tātou, ko Ngāti Tara Tokanui.

E mihi ana ki ngā rangatira o tērā rautau, arā ko Taiwhakaea, ko Matarehua, ko Tikitearoha, me Te Whakamaromaioro. Ēnei o ngā rangatira i whakapaua te kaha mō te ora o tēnei iwi o tātou, o Ngāti Tara Tokanui.

[I greet us all this evening. This is a voice of greeting to the relatives of Ngāti Tara Tokanui. To the descendants of Tara, the connection of Te Awapū, a grandchild of this ancestor, of Tara, who married Te Rae, who was also from the Ngā Mārama people. From this union emerged this noble people of ours, Ngāti Tara Tokanui.

I acknowledge the leadership of last century, Taiwhakaea, Matarehua, Tikitaaroha, and Te Whakamaromaioro. These leaders, who expended their strength for the wellbeing of this iwi of ours, of Ngāti Tara Tokanui.]

I wish to acknowledge those tūpuna of the times of the 1800s that saw the confiscation of large blocks of their whenua, sold by others to the Crown, and, as I heard from my colleague, the way with which the map was already laid out for how colonisation was to roll out in Hauraki—thank you, Banks. Thank you, Banks, for what you did in mapping out how you were going to raupatu whenua for our people of the Coromandel. Why do I say thanks? I don’t say thanks happily; I say thanks, because that’s what we got.

We have an iwi that lost 290,000 acres around the Tauranga Katikati rohe. It was sold by others to the Crown, and this is not something dissimilar, because the Crown had a kaupapa of individualisation of title and seeking to purchase large tracts of our land out from underneath the iwi who actually lived there. That is the experience of Ngāti Tara Tokanui.

As I read the history and I reflect on even the marine and coastal area claims—the takutai moana claims that this iwi has currently live for their rohe moana—I think of the gestures of mahi tahi, and it is true: they tried to engage in an economy which was not ours, aka those minefields. In the 1860s, we saw rangatira try to align and work with the Crown to establish minefields in their tribal rohe. Now, again, we see the individualisation of title as a means to alienate the whenua from this iwi rangatira, and while we might reflect and say, “Well they’re a small iwi. They’re doing pretty good, and this settlement is about fairness and justice and honouring Te Tiriti.”, well, I argue it isn’t, because I want to mihi to the Red Book. For those of you that don’t know the Red Book, that’s the Crown rule book for Treaty settlements, and this iwi, Ngāti Tara Tokanui—as in the tribes of Hauraki—have done their best according to the rules set by the Crown.

Because the Crown sets the rules, the Crown negotiates, and the Crown seeks to save a dollar and not spend a dollar, there is no justice for this iwi. They are trying to rebuild their iwi. The $100,000 offered to them for revitalisation—when you are stripped of your land, your language and culture, and $6 million is offered to you as your settlement, full and final, for all your losses for 184 years? Meinga meinga, nā wai i tika. Tēnei mahi he mahi rangatira nā te Kāwanatanga? Kāhore, kāhore. E mihi nui ana ahau ki tēnei iwi o tātou e noho pōhara nei mō te wā roa.

[Is that so? According to who? Is this a prestigious effort made by the Government? Incorrect, incorrect. I acknowledge this nation of ours who have been in poverty for a long time.]

But within the rules of the Red Book, they did their best, and they’ve negotiated this very small settlement—because, you see, $1.6 billion was offered to South Canterbury Finance. If we want to do what’s right, then there is plenty of opportunity for a willing Crown to do what’s right and support Ngāti Tara Tokanui to truly re-establish their tribal footprint in their tribal rohe. This is about raupatu, this is about tāhae, and if we want to really honour Te Tiriti, look at offering a genuine compensation package that can re-establish this tribe, tēnei iwi rangatira o tātou ki runga i tō rātou ake whenua [this esteemed nation of ours on their own land].

So thank you for Paeroa School—that’s a good contribution. Thank you for the seven properties that are being offered to Ngāti Tara Tokanui. But, as an uri of Hauraki, I say, wow! When will we, as this House, genuinely uphold Te Tiriti o Waitangi? When will we come as negotiators and look at something that is a redress package that will uphold the mana of these tribes who have lost so much? Nō reira e te Whare, tēnei taku īnoi ki a tātou te Whare Pāremata. Kia ora. [So, dear House, this is my plea to us, the parliamentary House. Kia ora.]

GREG FLEMING (National—Maungakiekie): Kia whakakorōriatia te ingoa o te Atua, te putanga mai o te rā, tae noa ki tōna torengitanga. E te Māngai, i te putanga mai o te rā i tēnei ata i au e oma ana, he momo ona, ki ngā mārā hua ota i raro te menemene o Tama nui te rā.

Ka huri ōku whakaaro ki te mahi e whai ake nei. Ki te mahi ā muri ki tōna torengitanga. Ki tēnei kōrero ki te āheitanga te tū anō i roto i tēnei Whare whakahirahira te tautoko he pire whakataunga kereme anō kia whai atu te whakarauora o te mana Motuhake o te tino rangatiratanga o he iwi anō. Ā, te korero e pā ana ki tēnei Kaupapa i te reo o te whenua, hīkaka au. He piki te ora. Ehara au i te matatau o te reo, heoi he hōhonu taku aroha mō te reo o te rangi. He whānui taku wawata mō te whakapūāwai anō te reo o ngā atua. Nā reira, ka whakahua te nuinga o ōku whakaaro i te reo taketake.

Ko tōku tumanako he tīno whakaute ki ngā tāngata o Ngāti Tara Tokanui. Ka whakamana te pire nei i ngā ritenga e tika ana kia whakaturetia i roto i te whakaetanga whakataunga i waitohua rā i te 28 o Hūrae 2022 i te Karauna me Ngāti Tara Tokanui. Ko Ngāti Tara Tokanui he iwi e tau ana ki ngā whenua huri noa i Paeroa i te rohe o Hauraki. I te tatauranga 2018 he 830 ngā uri o Ngāti Tara Tokanui, nui taku mihi ki a koutou katoa. Ko Ngāti Tara Tokanui tētahi o ngā iwi me ngā hapū 12 e whai pānga ana ki te rohe o Hauraki.

I te tau 2009 ka piri tahi ko te Pare Hauraki Collective, ko te whiriwhiri whakataunga tiriti te take. Ka oti i te Karauna me te Kāhui nei te whakaetanga te waitohu i te tau 2018, ā, tēnei te pire kei te aroaro o te Whare nei. Ka whai te pire whakataunga kereme a Ngāti Tara Tokanui ki te whakatau i ngā kereme Tiriti o Waitangi hītori a Ngāti Tara Tokanui mā te whakamana i ngā puretumu ā-iwi tonu e tika ana kia whakaturetia.

Kei te wāhanga tuatahi o te pire ko ēnei. Tuatahi, ko tētahi whakarāpopoto o te takinga kōrero hītori o roto i te whakaetanga whakataunga. Ko te mahi tino, te mahi o te hītori kia kore ai tātou te hītori o tēnei whenua o tēnei iwi. Tuarua, ko ngā whakapuakanga, ngā wāwāhitanga a te Karauna i te Tiriti me ōna mātāpono e pā ai ngā taumahatanga ki kō. Ā wairua hoki ki a Ngāti Tara Tokanui. Ko te whakapāha a te Karauna mōna i kore rā i tiaki i a Ngāti Tara Tokanui i te rironga o te whenua. Te peinga o te iwi o rātou pā, me ō rātou kainga, me te tūkinotanga ā-taiao ki ngā awa e rua. Te mutunga kē mai o tērā momo tūkino, tā te kōrero a Steve Abel.

Kei te wāhanga tuarua ngā ritenga puretumu ā-tikanga tae atu ki te whakahokinga o ētahi wāhi whakahirahira, iwi ki te iwi. E rua o ērā ka whakahokia tahitia ki ētahi atu iwi hoki. Ko ētahi o ngā wāhi nei ko ngā Uritara ko Mimitu Pā ko Tāwhiti Paraia me Karangahake. Kei te wāhanga tuatoru ko ētahi ritenga puretumu ā-tauhoko.

Kāore ētahi wāhanga o te whakaetanga whakataunga e herea kia whakamanatia ā-turetia me te aha kāore e takoto mai ki te pire. Ko ēnei, ko te puretumu ā-pūtea, ā-tauhoko, hoko 6 miriona. Ko te kupu taurangi kia uru ki tētahi whakaetanga whakahoanga me te Papa Atawhai. Ko ētahi reta takawaenga, reta whakatakinga rānei i ētahi Kāwanatanga o te motu, o te rohe hoki. Ko te tauāki piringa ki Moehau maunga ki te taone o Te Aroha hoki, ko te puretumu ā-tikanga e $444,000 te nui mō te whakarauoranga o te ahurea me ētahi atu take hoki me āta whakatakoto.

Kīhai te kōrero o te Minita o mua, te Minita Ānaru Paku, ahakoa e kore rawa e taea e tētahi rahinga puretumu te utu anō ngā mahi kino a te Karauna i mua ki a Ngāti Tara Tokanui, ka whakaratau te tūāpapa te puretumu i tēnei whakaetanga hei whakapakari i te taha ohaoha o Ngāti Tara Tokanui ki anamata. Ka whakarite anō hoki ka āhukahukatia te hononga ahurea i waenganui i a Ngāti Tara Tokanui me ngā wāhi ahurea whakahirahira mō ngā whakatupuranga kei te heke mai nei.

[Glory to God, the rising of the sun to sundown. At the break of dawn this morning as I was out running—well, sort of running—to the gardens whilst the sun was smiling below.

My thoughts turn to the matter that is at hand, and to its completion. To this debate and the honour to stand within this formidable House and support the settlement claim bill to ensure the restoration of their nation’s sovereign and independence, and to speak to this bill in the language of the land, I am delighted. It is a blessing. I am not competent in the Māori language. However, I have deep admiration towards this language. I have huge aspirations to see the language of the gods thrive again. Therefore, the most part of my speech will be spoken in the indigenous language.

My hope is to show much respect towards the Ngāti Tara Tokanui nation. This bill honours to correct the wrongs in this settlement claim that was signed on 28 July 2022 between the Crown and Ngāti Tara Tokanui. Ngāti Tara Tokanui are the people that stretch from the Paeroa area towards the Hauraki region. According to the 2018 stats, there were 830 Ngāti Tara Tokanui descendants, salutations to you all. Ngāti Tara Tokanui is one of the 12 nations that relate to the Hauraki region.

In 2009, Pare Hauraki Collective was established to work on the Treaty negotiations. The Crown and this collective signed the agreement in 2018, and so this is the bill before the House today. The settlement claim bill aims to address the obligations of the Treaty of Waitangi and the history of Ngāti Tara Tokanui by seeking to rectify iwi redress.

Here is in the first part of the bill. Firstly, is a summary of the history within the settlement claim. Its purpose is to ensure we don’t forget the history of this land. Secondly are the declarations and the breaches of the Treaty principles done by the Crown in which the people of that area were heavily affected, spiritually as well for Ngāti Tara Tokanui; the apology of the Crown for breaching its obligations to protect Ngāti Tara Tokanui from land confiscation; the banishing of the people from their villages, and their homes and the destruction made on the environment and the two rivers. Such a destruction was caused, said Steve Abel.

The second section seeks to redress the protocols and the return of some significant areas of the people. Two of those will be returned to other nations, as well. Some of these significant areas are Uritara, Mimitu Pā, Tāwhiti Paraia, and Karangahake. In the third section, it seeks to redress the economy.

There are some parts of the settlement claim that aren’t to be made legislation; as a result, that is not supported in this bill. This is the financial redress of $6 million. There is a promise made to enter a partnership with Papa Atawhai. There are negotiating letters, and introduction letters as well throughout the councils of the land and the region. The promise of Moehau maunga and the town of Te Aroha as well—it’s the cultural redress of $444,000 to revive the culture and other promises also should be set forward.

The former Minister Andrew Little said that although the redress cannot completely pay for the destruction to Ngāti Tara Tokanui caused by the Crown, this redress sets the foundation for this settlement to strengthen the future economy of Ngāti Tara Tokanui. This sets to recognise the cultural connection between Ngāti Tara Tokanui and the significant places for the future generation.]

Let me finish my thoughts now in te reo Pākehā. As the previous Minister has said, while no redress can fully compensate for the Crown’s past injustices against Ngāti Tara Tokanui, the redress in this settlement does provide a foundation for the economic future of Ngāti Tara Tokanui to build upon, and it ensures that the cultural relationship between Ngāti Tara Tokanui and sites of cultural significance is recognised for generations to come. It’s a beginning.

Secondly, this settlement serves as a vital step towards healing the deep wounds inflicted upon Ngāti Tara Tokanui. This is about recognising the mamae that has echoed through generations, and it seeks to restore the mana motuhake that was compromised. This acknowledgment is not merely a formal gesture; it’s a profound acceptance of historical truths. That’s what I spoke about earlier: historical truths that pave the way for genuine reconciliation.

Thirdly, this settlement reinvigorates the rangatiratanga of Ngāti Tara Tokanui, allowing them to chart a course towards a future defined by their aspirations. It’s about more than compensation. It’s a restoration of sovereignty over their resources, enabling them to decide how their lands are nurtured and how their people are sustained.

Finally, the resilience and unwavering advocacy of Ngāti Tara Tokanui reflects their deep commitment to returning to their ūkaipō—their place of origin. Their journey through the complexities of negotiations demonstrates a profound dedication to reclaiming not just land but a sense of home and belonging, and of re-establishing their physical and spiritual connection to the whenua that breathes life into their stories and into their traditions. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Ko te mihi tuatahi ki te Atua, nāna nei ngā mea katoa. Ko te mihi tuarua ki te Whare e tū nei, tēnā koe.

Apiti hono, tātai hono, te hunga mate ki te hunga mate. Apiti hono, tātai hono, te hunga ora ki te hunga ora.

He mihi mahana tēnei ki te iwi Ngāti Tara Tokanui. He mihi mahana ki a koutou katoa. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, huihui mai tātou katoa.

[My first acknowledgment is to God, who is the creator of all. My second acknowledgment is to this House; I thank you.

Those who have passed on, to those who have passed on. We the living, to the living.

I extend my warm greetings to Ngāti Tara Tokanui. My warmest greetings to us all. I thank you all who have gathered here.]

It has taken many years for Ngāti Tara Tokanui to reach this point on the long road which is the settlement journey. First, I would like to acknowledge those tīpuna of the iwi who have since passed away, who have given many hours and many days of their lives for this settlement process to reach this point in time.

I want to acknowledge the negotiators Russell Karu and Amelia Williams for their dedication to their people, and also for being part of the settlement since it began back in 2011. I’d also like to acknowledge those trustees of the Ngāti Tara Tokanui Trust, and also those who will have a pathway in administering the assets and the cultural redress that this settlement package delivers. On the Crown side, both Rick Barker and Michael Dreaver have had a key role in negotiating over the many years that have passed.

The deed of settlement itself with Ngāti Tara Tokanui began at Ngahutoitoi Marae when, in 2011, iwi members formally gave the mandate to begin negotiations, and the path then began. An agreement in principle was then reached in 2011 and the deed of settlement was signed here, in Parliament, in 2017, and the first reading of this bill was around Matariki last year.

The deed of settlement itself records the Crown’s acknowledgment and apology for its breaches of the Treaty in relation to Ngāti Tara Tokanui, and I think it’s worthwhile to go through a few of those in order to understand what is the purpose of this redress in terms of the grievances that are being attempted to be resolved. Between 1865 and 1868, the Crown confiscated 290,000 acres around Tauranga, including lands in which Ngāti Tara Tokanui had interests, and then, from around 1868, the rangatira Te Keepa Raharuhi entered agreements for gold prospecting and mining on Ngāti Tara Tokanui lands in the hope that they would be able to retain some ownership over those lands and also potentially gain some income from the leases in the mining agreements. But, instead, as with similar iwi around the Hauraki area, that was not the case, and this is a common tale in the story of colonisation in New Zealand. The Native Land Court processes left this iwi in debt and the Crown’s lease arrangements for mining at Ohinemuri did not provide Ngāti Tara Tokanui any income from the goldmining on their lands.

Later, the Crown purchased the operation of the Native land laws, and the Public Works Act took further land, alienating the iwi further and fragmenting Ngāti Tara Tokanui. The land was divided up so they could not stay in one place together. Then, in 1865—and this is, I think, an important thing to note—the Crown authorised discharge of the mine tailings, which included cyanide-treated waste, into the Ohinemuri and Waihou rivers. Ngāti Tara Tokanui used the rivers as water sources for washing, for drinking, and for using on their crops, and those poisons that were discharged into the natural environment caused illness and death within that community.

The Crown actions and omissions caused harm to Ngāti Tara Tokanui communities, whānau, hapū, and iwi, and left Ngāti Tara Tokanui virtually landless by the 1920s. In the deed of settlement, the Crown acknowledges that until now it has failed to address the longstanding grievances of Ngāti Tara Tokanui in an appropriate way and that the recognition of and provision of redress for these grievances and the breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi are long overdue.

I would just like to pause for a moment and reflect that it is over 120 years ago since the Crown rode roughshod over the environment and breached the Treaty of Waitangi in order to mine natural resources. As I say those words, it’s great that here, in the House today, we’re all singing off the same song sheet, but it is important to note that there is legislation within this very House now that proposes to do those same wrongs that have been done in the past. There is no difference in what these breaches were in our history 120 years ago to what is proposed: to ignore the Treaty, and also to ride roughshod over environmental protections for mining and natural resources. The Ngāti Tara Tokanui Claims Settlement Bill will give effect and will give compensation for the wrongs of the past, and maybe we will be here in another 120 years, redressing the wrongs that will go on in the next few years here in New Zealand.

The final redress of $6 million is a small amount, as noted, compared to the losses sustained by this iwi, but it is important to note that I really hope that it provides some certainty and foundations for the iwi to move forward in the future. The vesting of seven sites of cultural significance in Ngāti Tara Tokanui, including Mimitu Pā and Tawhitiaraia—two sites are jointly vested in the iwi Hako and Ngāti Tamaterā, including Karangahake. The Karangahake area is especially important as this holds special significance to Ngāti Tara Tokanui. It has been described by the people as their heart—manawa—of their rohe, and I’m pleased to see that the relationship with this area will be recognised by the redress provided through the bill.

The redress includes relationship protocols with Crown agencies, and also it provides the ability for statements of association with 14 areas of significance, including the very river I spoke about—the Ohinemuri River, and its tributaries—and that is enhancing Ngāti Tara Tokanui’s ability to participate in resource management processes, providing a strong partnership for working together in the future. It is providing an overlay classification, or whenua rāhui, which provides for the Crown to acknowledge iwi values in relation to Karangahake Scenic Reserve, and also a cultural redress payment for Ngāti Tara Tokanui cultural revitalisation.

In conclusion, I’m always kind of sad and happy on these bills. I’m sad to see the hurt that has been done, but also pleased that this gives iwi an opportunity. It gives Ngāti Tara Tokanui an opportunity to have some more determination around their own future and to make decisions that can benefit their people in the way that only they know how. While no settlement package can ever, ever fully compensate the magnitude of loss, suffering, and prejudice, it is my real hope that this package provides some comfort, future hope, and sustenance to this iwi going forward. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

DANA KIRKPATRICK (National—East Coast): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is an honour and a privilege to rise and take a call on the second reading of the Ngāti Tara Tokanui Claims Settlement Bill. May I first off please acknowledge the next significant step for the people of Ngāti Tara Tokanui, for the tīpuna who have long hoped for redress, and for all those who might be watching from home as we discuss and support the passing of this legislation that is aimed to finally bring some closure to the considerable and extraordinary acts of the past.

The area that is covered by Ngāti Tara Tokanui covered a good section of the southern Coromandel, and extended from Thames across to Whangamatā, south to Paeroa and Waihī, including a large area of the northern Kaimai ranges. Negotiations with Ngāti Tara Tokanui began, as other colleagues have said earlier this evening, at Ngahutoitoi Marae in 2011, when iwi members formally gave the negotiators, Amelia Williams and Russell Karu, the mandate to negotiate a comprehensive historical Treaty settlement with the Crown on behalf of the iwi. An agreement in principle was reached in 2011, and a deed of settlement was initialled in 2017 and then signed here at Parliament in July last year. We acknowledge, of course, the work done by the negotiators, the Ministers Chris Finlayson and Andrew Little, Te Arawhiti, and all of those who have in some way contributed to the finalisation of this bill.

The deed also includes a Crown apology to Ngāti Tara Tokanui for its acts and omissions which breached its obligations under Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and for the damage those actions caused to Ngāti Tara Tokanui. These include the promotion of laws and policies in Aotearoa New Zealand that led to the alienation of land, caused environmental damage to the Waihou and Ohinemuri rivers, eroded Ngāti Tara Tokanui tribal structures, and dislocated them from their pā and their kāinga.

When we read the accounts of the Crown’s actions of the past, it really does bring home the considerable mamae and ongoing angst that this iwi and hapū went through as they watched their livelihood and ability to sustain meaningful lives literally drain away before their eyes. We must always, when speaking on these issues, acknowledge the patience and the ongoing commitment that the people of these iwi have demonstrated as they’ve fought for their right to redress.

I wasn’t part of the Māori Affairs Committee that gathered the submissions on this piece of legislation in the past parliamentary term, but I have read the submissions and the reports to ensure I could at least make some meaningful contribution to this debate, and it is indeed hard to fathom the continued persecution the people of Ngāti Tara Tokanui experienced as they traversed the 19th and 20th centuries. As mentioned, it all started in 1865, when the Crown confiscated 290,000 acres of land in which Ngāti Tara Tokanui had an interest; from an ill-fated leasing arrangement of its land in the 1870s, which subsequently removed any income from gold and mineral mining for the tribe, to the next event which saw the Crown awarded 31,700 acres of land following those leasing issues.

In 1895, the Crown authorised the discharge of mine tailings, including cyanide-treated waste, into the Ohinemuri and Waihou rivers. Ngāti Tara Tokanui had used the rivers as water sources for washing and drinking, and it’s alleged the discharges, of course, caused illness and, in some cases, death. In the early 1900s came the development of the Hauraki drainage system, designed to create farming land and prosperity, but not for Ngāti Tara Tokanui. The Crown drained the land in the swamp, and then, to add insult to injury, took the remaining land under the Public Works Act in between 1978 and 1995. That, effectively, saw the iwi landholdings diminished to a mere 232 acres. As part of this bill, the Crown has made several acknowledgments about its failure to deal with the longstanding grievances of Ngāti Tara Tokanui in an appropriate way, and that recognition of and provision of redress for these grievances is long overdue.

In my early career, I worked for a very fine establishment called the Hauraki Herald, and, as part of that, there were many trips across the Hauraki rohe which included some of the significant sites of importance to this iwi. It is indeed a beautiful part of the world, and I have this week reflected on how we must take time to understand the landscape, the rivers, and the potential that was lost for this iwi.

The Karangahake Gorge is now a cycleway and a tourist route. The area is especially significant to Ngāti Tara Tokanui. It has been described as the manawa, or heart, of their rohe, and I’m pleased their relationship with this area will be recognised by the redress through this bill. It would once have been a jewel in the crown of Ngāti Tara Tokanui, and I’m hopeful that the iwi narrative of this part of the country will be well told going forward.

This claim settlement bill will give effect to the package, which includes financial redress of $6 million, the vesting of seven sites of cultural significance, and two sites jointly vested with neighbouring iwi Hako and Ngāti Tamaterā, including Karangahake. The redress also includes relationship protocols with Crown agencies and various other aspects of it as well, including an overlay classification, or whenua rāhui, which provides for the Crown to acknowledge iwi values in relation to Karangahake Scenic Reserve. We also note that Ngāti Tara Tokanui is a member of the Hauraki collective and will receive collective redress through the Pare Hauraki Collective Redress Deed.

There is nothing that any of us can say that will make up for what happened in the 19th and 20th centuries. To these people, the devastation of their whenua and their awa, and the lack of understanding of an iwi’s connection to the land and what it means, will look beyond the physical and tangible nature of resources.

This settlement serves as a vital step towards healing the deep wounds inflicted upon Ngāti Tara Tokanui. It’s about recognising the mamae that has echoed through generations and it seeks to restore the mana motuhake that was compromised. This acknowledgment is not merely a formal gesture but a profound acceptance of historical truths that pave the way for genuine reconciliation.

This settlement reinvigorates the rangatiratanga of Ngāti Tara Tokanui, allowing them to chart a course towards a future defined by their aspirations. It’s about more than compensation. It’s a restoration of connection to their resources, enabling them to decide how their land is nurtured and their people are sustained.

Whilst after everything they’ve been through, it seems simple to stand here and speak on a bill that, by all accounts, I’ve only just become acquainted with. I genuinely want the people affected here, both past and present, to know that we hope the redress will go some way to providing hope, clarity, and aspiration for what they can now achieve with careful stewardship. Along with my colleagues, I urge the people of Ngāti Tara Tokanui to embrace their future, to see a way forward, and to ensure that whatever they do post-settlement, they set themselves up for future security and enduring sustainability so that they can share their stories in a meaningful way and the small amount of pūtea in this settlement can be the start of something great.

There were a number of submissions that were sent in for this, and only one speaker wanted to be heard, but I think it’s worth just thinking about a couple of those. The Thames-Coromandel District Council supported this bill and wanted the council to continue to develop an ongoing relationship with the iwi and the people of Hauraki through a multiplicity of formal and informal interactions. Ngāti Paoa Iwi Trust—whom we just spoke about a couple of weeks ago in this House for their own Treaty settlement claims—submitted, saying that they recognised the years of hard work, including by the negotiators Amelia Williams and Russell Karu, required to progress the settlement to this stage.

But I think it’s fitting to finish and conclude my speech tonight as we look towards a new future for Ngāti Tara Tokanui with the words of the former Mayor of Hauraki District, the wonderful Basil Morrison.

Greg Fleming: Yeah, Basil.

DANA KIRKPATRICK: Ha, ha! In his words, he said, “They have simply waited far too long to have their grievances heard and settled.”

As mentioned, National is pleased to support this piece of legislation, and I commend this bill to the House. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): This is a five-minute split call.

CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Tēnā koe, otirā tēnā koutou katoa. Tuatahi māku he mihi ki te wāhi ngaro. Kua oti i aku hoa te mihi atu ki ngā tīpuna o Ngāti Tara Tokanui. Kaha rātou i whawhai kia tae mai tēnei pire ki mua i a tātou i tēnei pō.

Heoi anō, i runga i tērā kei te mihi hoki au ki tērā aku hoa, a Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke, nāna i whakahua i te whakapapa o tēnei iwi. Tuatahi kia mōhio ai mātou tō rātou kāwai whakapapa, tuarua kia rongo ai tātou kia kōrero atu ō rātou ingoa kia rongo ai tātou i tēnei pō.

Kua tae mai mātou ki te kōrero mō tēnei mea te whakapāhā.

[Thank you, and greetings to all. Firstly, I would like to acknowledge our departed. My friends have already acknowledged the ancestors of Ngāti Tara Tokanui. They have fought hard to get the bill before us this evening.

Furthermore, I would like to also acknowledge my friend Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke, who recited the genealogy of this nation. Firstly, to shed some light on their chiefly genealogical ties, secondly also so that we can hear their names before us this evening.

We have arrived here to speak to the apology.]

I just want to acknowledge the fact that we’re here to acknowledge an apology, and I had to actually google what the Māori word for “apology” was because I don’t often have to make one. Hoi anō—

Hon Willie Jackson: Don’t tell stories.

CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL: Well, no, it’s true—I mean, I had to look up the English definition, as well, to be honest. You just text my husband—he’ll verify that. Hoi anō, all jokes aside, I think it’s important to acknowledge that. We’ve acknowledged those who, 15 years ago, started these negotiations so that we may arrive today. That’s such a long time. That’s about as long as it would take for someone to get me to apologise—hoi anō.

In acknowledging Ngāti Tara Tokanui, I thought there’s probably a generation who haven’t actually heard the apology. So for those who are probably watching at home or who may some point watch on social media, where most people seem to watch these days, I thought that for the benefit of the taringa of ngā mokopuna, I would read out that apology tonight: “(a) The Crown has prejudiced Ngāti Tara Tokanui by promoting laws and policies in New Zealand that led to the alienation of your whenua, caused environmental damage to the Waihou and Ohinemuri Rivers, eroded your tribal structures, and dislocated your people from their pā and kāinga. The Crown has failed to uphold its obligations under te Tiriti o Waitangi … and has caused physical and spiritual hardship that is deeply felt today. (b) For its actions, which have caused Ngāti Tara Tokanui prejudice, and its breaches of te Tiriti o Waitangi … and its principles, the Crown is truly sorry. (c) The Crown hopes that this settlement marks a new beginning in which the relationship that has been damaged can be restored, and that the Crown and Ngāti Tara Tokanui can begin anew in a spirit of mutual respect and partnership, guided by the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi”.

Willie Jackson is champing at the bid to take the second half of this call, so I will keep it brief. There is a lot of kōrero been had tonight about mana, and I want to be clear that this is not about restoring mana to Ngāti Tara Tokanui. In confiscating their land, their water, they retained their mana. We are here simply to redress what was done financially, fiscally, when their land was taken—that’s why we’re here—because they maintained their mana and they fought as kaitiaki of the whenua and the wai.

There have been comments about the amount of compensation being $6 million—kei a koutou tonu te mana mō tērā Ngāti Tara Tokanui [who still hold the mana for that, Ngāti Tara Tokanui.] But I just want to put that into perspective. You don’t have to look too far; you’ve just got to google to find a private property for sale for that amount. So to compensate a whole iwi—I just want to keep that in perspective.

Heoi anō rā, hei whakakapi tēnei te mihi atu ki a koutou Ngāti Tara Tokanui, ehara mā mātou tō koutou mana e whakahoki, kei a rātou tonu tō koutou ake mana. Koutou ngā kaitiaki o te whenua, ngā kaitiaki o ngā wai, otirā kei a koutou hoki te mana o tēnei Treaty settlement. Mā koutou e whakatau me pēhea koutou e haere ki mua. Tēnā koutou. E te Māngai o te Whare, tēnā tātou.

[However, to conclude my acknowledgments to you, Ngāti Tara Tokanui, it is not for us to return your mana, you already own your mana. You are the protectors of the land, the protectors of the water, you also hold the mana of this Treaty settlement. You can decide on what the future looks like. Salutations. To the Speaker, thank you all.]

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. As the member of Parliament for Coromandel, much of the Ngāti Tara Tokanui rohe is encompassed by the existing Coromandel electorate. So even though—as others have already mentioned in this second reading debate—it is a small iwi, it is mighty in stature and it is proud in history and heritage, and they have indeed waited far too long.

Much has been said in this mostly respectful second reading debate of the history and the scars that have been vested upon the land, the rohe, of Ngāti Tara Tokanui. As people cycle through today’s Hauraki railway cycleway, which is one of the most ridden in the country, they traverse through the riverbanks of the Ohinemuri River and the beautiful native regenerating bush, but still the scars on the environmental landscape are still there—the remnants of mining, the rusting hulk of mining, that was taking place a hundred years or so ago—and, as the Green member Steve Abel so eloquently mentioned during his contribution about the mighty native trees that once stood so high, tall, and proudly in the rohe, most of them are gone. Fortunately, the bush is regenerating, but those scars are still prevalent, and as the former Mayor of the Hauraki District Council, the very venerable Basil Morrison, has said, these people have waited far too long.

In April of 2011, I think it was, I had the privilege of being selected as the National Party candidate for Coromandel, and people were saying to me then, “Get ready, Scott. Get ready, because these Treaty settlements are about to be done, and they’ll be done in about six months’ time. You’ve got to get ready for it because there’s going to be great change occurring, and it’ll be a good thing for the region.” Well, here we are almost—in fact, even a little over 13 years’ later, and we are still making slow progress to a small attempt to right the wrongs of the past. We can never right the wrongs of the past, because the measure we use today simply can’t account for what was done by our predecessors, and we look back askance on that now, often, at how that happened.

So I’m pleased that we’re now at the second reading stage. We’ve got the committee of the whole House to come, and then we have a final third reading on this piece of legislation.

When we go through these Treaty settlement pieces of legislation, for me, and, I know, for other members in this Chamber, they provide an opportunity for reflection and for an insightful analysis of this nation’s history but also, I hope, a small element of optimism for the future and what might come from them—inadequate as they are, and as small and modest as they are, still hope and optimism for the future. I want to congratulate members who have made that future, forward-looking, aspirational hope for Ngāti Tara Tokanui and their people as part of the debate tonight, and I for one am going to be looking forward to the third reading, and to being here in this Chamber when that occurs, for the optimism and hope that that settlement will bring.

I want to acknowledge, in the last few minutes of my contribution tonight, those who have gone before and who have made their contribution and have not been able to be with us to see it concluded. I want to acknowledge the negotiators and the officials that have got this piece of legislation to where it is, and the Ministers who have been involved from successive Governments who have worked diligently and carefully to get to the point where we are today. Too slow, too little, not enough, but, hopefully, a glimmer of hope for the future, and if we didn’t have that glimmer of hope for the future, we wouldn’t be pursuing this process, which has taken too long, so long, and has been so fraught for so many.

So I want to join with others in commending this second reading to the House. I look forward to the bill’s further progress and, ultimately, to third reading and passing it in the not too distant future. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon Willie Jackson: Mr Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Sorry, the Hon Willie Jackson. You may need an apology from Miss Tangaere-Manuel about taking your time, because the time has come for me to leave. The debate is interrupted and is set down for resumption next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 9.59 p.m.