Thursday, 14 November 2024

THURSDAY, 14 NOVEMBER 2024

THURSDAY, 14 NOVEMBER 2024

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Karakia/Prayers

Karakia/Prayers

TEANAU TUIONO (Assistant Speaker): E te Atua kaha rawa, ka tuku whakamoemiti atu mātou, mō ngā karakia kua waihotia mai ki runga i a mātou. Ka waiho i ō mātou pānga whaiaro katoa ki te taha. Ka mihi mātou ki te Kīngi, me te inoi atu mō te ārahitanga i roto i ō mātou whakaaroarohanga, kia mōhio ai, kia whakaiti ai tā mātou whakahaere i ngā take o te Whare nei, mō te oranga, te maungārongo, me te aroha o Aotearoa. Āmene.

[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 and humility for the welfare, peace, and compassion of New Zealand. Amen.]

Speaker’s Rulings

Oral Questions—Form of Questions

SPEAKER: Members, yesterday when I suggested to a member that she find another way of asking a question, I did not intend to suggest that members cannot ask the same question more than once. Parties have a limited number of oral questions allocated to them. If they wish to use that allocation asking the same question, there are certainly no restrictions to doing so. Speaker’s ruling 186/4 makes that clear.

Visitors

Canada—Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories

SPEAKER: I’m sure members would wish to welcome Kate Reid, who is a member of the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories of Canada and is present in the gallery this afternoon.

Business Statement

Business Statement

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Deputy Leader of the House): Next week, the House will consider the committee stages of the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill. There will be extended hours on Wednesday morning for Government business and the afternoon will be a member’s day. On Thursday at 5.45 p.m., there will be Benjamin Doyle’s maiden speech.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Does the Government intend to have any other contentious legislation lined up for when the Prime Minister isn’t here?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Deputy Leader of the House): Well, we’ve got a very busy agenda, as that member knows.

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

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

SPEAKER: Two petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.

CLERK:

Petition of Greenpeace requesting that the House reverse the decision to amend the Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa Moana Marine Protection Bill to open protected areas of Hauraki Gulf to commercial fishing

petition of Forest & Bird requesting that the House stop work on the proposed amendment to the Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa Moana Marine Protection Bill that would allow commercial fishing in high protection areas.

SPEAKER: Those petitions stand referred to the Petitions Committee. Ministers have delivered two papers for the Clerk to present.

CLERK: 2024 annual reports of New Zealand Growth Capital Partners Ltd and Research and Education Advanced Network New Zealand Ltd.

SPEAKER: Firstly, I present the report of the Controller and Auditor-General entitled Immigration New Zealand: Managing how it makes decisions about skilled residence visas. Those papers are published under the authority of the House. No select committee papers have been reported. The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of two bills.

CLERK:

Crimes (Countering Foreign Interference) Amendment Bill, introduction

Disputes Tribunal Amendment Bill, introduction.

SPEAKER: Those bills are set down for first reading.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Social Investment

1. CARL BATES (National—Whanganui) to the Minister for Social Investment: What recent reports has she seen on progress in social investment?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister for Social Investment): Last week, I announced an important step in the Government’s implementation of social investment. That is the new Social Investment Board, chaired by former Treasury Secretary Dr Graham Scott, and made up of highly skilled people with a diverse range of expertise and known to many members of this House. They are Laura Black, the Hon Te Ururoa Flavell, Helen Leahy, Katie Murray, Julie Nelson, Debbie Sorenson, Mike Williams, and David Woods. I met with the board earlier today, and I know it will make a valuable contribution to bringing about better outcomes for New Zealanders.

Carl Bates: What is social investment?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Social investment is about funding, delivering, and measuring the impact of social services in a way that ensures better results for the most vulnerable New Zealanders. Despite decades of good intentions, multiple strategies, and thousands of contracts, Government efforts have not had the impact required. Social investment is more than simply delivering better value for money; it is about improving people’s lives.

Carl Bates: How will social investment be implemented?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Social investment will only come to life by the Government working closely together with others. That means drawing together grassroots providers, iwi, experts, and others, and empowering providers to do what works. I’m delighted that Andrew Coster has this week taken up his role as chief executive of the Social Investment Agency. He has the skills and experience to foster those partnerships. Work has already begun to create a social investment fund, create a new way to commission social services, and, most importantly, to identify investments that will make a difference to the lives of the most vulnerable New Zealanders.

Carl Bates: What other progress is being made in implementing social investment?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Tomorrow, I will attend a social investment hui in Lower Hutt, bringing together more than 100 people who work, lead, and support the delivery of social services in New Zealand. There will be grassroots providers at the hui with deep experience and knowledge. There will be iwi representatives, experts, philanthropists, Public Service leaders, and others with an interest in getting better results for our most vulnerable. The hui will discuss how we collectively push ahead with social investment. I’m looking forward to those discussions, and, more importantly, I’m looking forward to getting on with delivering solutions for New Zealanders.

Hon Ginny Andersen: What analysis has she reviewed on the social investment implications of repealing section 7AA, disestablishing Te Aka Whai Ora, cutting front-line Oranga Tamariki social workers, and the social division caused by rewriting the Treaty of Waitangi?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Part of that question illustrates part of the problem, which is that the idea of creating a new bureaucracy in the form of the Māori health commission—a view that that would somehow help a Māori child in Kaitāia. What I would put to you is that we have to get away from the idea that creating new structures for Government is the way of getting better results for people. In fact, it’s my view that we should devolve more power and responsibility to those closest to those we wish to help. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: I just made the point at the start of question time that a general barrage like that is not acceptable. Rare and reasonable interjection is the accepted norm in the House, but it does have to be more rare and more reasonable.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

2. Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all the Government’s statements and actions?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Speaking on behalf of the Prime Minister, yes.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Does he stand by his statement that the Treaty principles bill is a “disservice” to the Treaty; if not, why not?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I stand by all my statements.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: What did he mean when he said the bill is “divisive”; and how does it reflect upon the Prime Minister that he is willing to introduce legislation he describes in those terms to secure a coalition?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Speaking on behalf of the Prime Minister, the Government in its coalition agreement has agreed to support this bill to the select committee process, and we are doing so. The National Party has indicated it will not support this bill becoming law.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: How is the Treaty principles bill “very simplistic”, as he described it this morning, and does he acknowledge the complex and detrimental effects it is having on Crown-Māori relations?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, we believe in equal citizenship and equal opportunity for all New Zealanders, but we do not believe that this bill is the way to achieve that.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Does he agree with 42 King’s Counsel that the Treaty principles bill and the intended referendum on the implementation of the bill is “wholly inappropriate” as a way of addressing such an “important and complex constitutional issue”; if not, why not?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Speaking on behalf of the Prime Minister, and as has been traversed in this House many times, it is not the intention of the National Party to support this bill becoming law.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Is he concerned that the bill is disturbing even the business community, with a director telling the Mood of the Boardroom survey last month that “[Mr Seymour’s] divisive approach needs to end; this is not the Kiwi way”?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: As we have set out, it is a bill that is required through a coalition agreement to be supported to a select committee. What I have said before is that I do not think it makes sense or will be enduring for Parliament to simply set down its interpretation of the Treaty and then seek a majority of the public to confirm it in a referendum. That is a crude way to handle a very delicate subject.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: What does it say about his leadership when his soon-to-be Deputy Prime Minister accused him of being “clearly nervous” about the bill and the National Party of being “afraid of taking on hard issues”, with him doing nothing to dissuade the public of that notion?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, of course, David Seymour is responsible for his own statements. In this case, they are wholly incorrect.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. The Prime Minister is responsible for comments made by Ministers, even those Ministers speaking on behalf of the Prime Minister in this capacity.

SPEAKER: That might be true, and if that is the case, then the person acting for the Prime Minister in this case saying that Ministers are responsible for their own statements is an answer to the question.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. With respect, sir, if the Prime Minister gave that answer, then, as you have in the past, you have agreed that they are responsible for comments made by their Ministers. A Minister speaking on behalf of the Prime Minister—and for the purposes of the Hansard it’s considered to be the Prime Minister’s words—surely shouldn’t be able to provide a different answer to that expected of the Prime Minister.

SPEAKER: No, I’m not requiring that. I just made the point that the Minister acting for the Prime Minister specified the Minister who had made the statements was the leader of another party and said he is responsible for his own statements. I don’t think that’s anything other than an answer.

Hon David Seymour: Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Well, what is it—supplementary?

Hon David Seymour: No, I was going to offer some assistance to the—

SPEAKER: No, no. I think we’re right here.

Question No. 3—Prime Minister

3. CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: E tautoko ana ia i ngā kōrero me ngā mahi katoa a tōna Kāwanatanga?

[Does he stand by all of his Government’s statements and actions?]

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Speaking on behalf of the Prime Minister, yes.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does the Prime Minister stand by his statement both yesterday and earlier today that the Treaty principles bill is “divisive”, and, if so, does he take personal responsibility for the division currently amplifying across this country?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Speaking on behalf of the Prime Minister, I stand by my statements in the context in which they are given.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does the Prime Minister take personal responsibility for the division that the Treaty principles bill is causing across this country?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: What I take responsibility for is the coalition agreement which I am honouring by supporting the first reading of the Treaty principles bill. As I have made clear in this House on several occasions, we in the National Party will not support it becoming law.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does the Prime Minister have the constitutional power to block National Party MPs from voting with their conscience on the Treaty principles bill?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The member is confecting things that haven’t occurred.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the Prime Minister there saying that members of the National Party are free to vote with their conscience this afternoon on the Treaty principles bill? [Interruption]

SPEAKER: That is to be the last outburst from the gallery.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The vote this afternoon will be a party vote.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Are we to take from that that the Prime Minister is blocking his MPs from exercising their conscience on one of the most significant constitutional votes that has come before this House in living memory?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Speaking on behalf of the Prime Minister, no.

Question No. 4—Transport

4. TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki) to the Minister of Transport: What recent announcements has he made on the Kāpiti Expressway speed limit?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): Good news for Kāpiti: on Monday, I announced that the speed limit on the Mackays to Peka Peka and Peka Peka to Ōtaki sections of the Kāpiti Expressway would increase to 110 kilometres per hour from yesterday. [Interruption] This road of national significance, built by the previous National Government, was designed to a safety standard suitable for 110 kilometres per hour. Enabling these types of expressway to have speed limits of 110 kilometres per hour is part of our Government’s plan to get New Zealand moving again.

SPEAKER: And that needs to be a much more muted response to a question that pretty much everyone in the House knows the answer to.

Tim Costley: What support has he seen for having a 110-kilometre-per-hour speed limit on the Kāpiti Expressway road of national significance?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, a lot of support. In April, I announced that the New Zealand Transport Agency was consulting on the new 110-kilometre-per-hour speed limit on the Kāpiti Expressway road of national significance. The results are in: 93 percent of the 3,313 submissions received supported the new 110-kilometre-per-hour speed limit, and this has now been delivered for those travelling through Kāpiti.

Tim Costley: What reports has the Minister seen on the safety benefits of the Kāpiti Expressway road of national significance?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Incredible safety benefits. The Kāpiti Expressway, started by the previous National Government, was designed and constructed to a high safety standard. Since this expressway opened, no one has died in a crash, and there has been a 70 percent reduction in road deaths in the Kāpiti Coast District. Our Government is committed to delivering safe, and new roads of national significance across the country to enable people and freight to get where they need to go quickly and safely.

Tim Costley: What other roads of national significance are currently proposed to have a 110-kilometre-per-hour speed limit?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Good news: there are currently proposed speed limit increases to 110 kilometres per hour between Ōrewa and Warkworth, and on the Christchurch Southern Motorway road of national significance to reduce travel times for those travelling on these routes. The roads of national significance are some of New Zealand’s best highways that are unlocking economic growth and improving safety.

Question No. 5—Māori Development

5. Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour) to the Minister for Māori Development: Does he stand by his statement, “Te Tiriti o Waitangi is foundational to our country”; if not, why not?

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister for Māori Development): Āna—yes. Te Tiriti o Waitangi—the Treaty of Waitangi—is foundational for our country, past, present, and future. Whilst there are other important documents, like the Magna Carta 1215, the National Party recognises that the Treaty is fundamental in our constitution by stating recognition of the Treaty of Waitangi as the foundational document of New Zealand as one of our 10 party values.

Hon Willie Jackson: If Te Tiriti is foundational to our country, why is his Government allowing the Treaty principles bill to proceed when all the evidence shows that the bill will discriminate against Māori?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: First, I want to acknowledge that there’s significant opposition to this bill. Second, National supports the process to take this bill through first reading to select committee. This was the output from negotiating coalition Governments in an MMP environment. However, as you know, National’s focus is to rebuild the economy, reset law and order, and deliver better public services. This bill does not strengthen that focus. As a result, we will not support this bill beyond select committee and will vote it down.

Hon Willie Jackson: Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, can I—

SPEAKER: Just wait till the House gathers itself.

Hon Willie Jackson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Has the Minister read the Cabinet Manual, which provides a framework for policy formation and decision making and recognises the Treaty as a major source of the constitution which accords special recognition to Māori rights and interests, and, if not, when does he plan to read it?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: I have read that manual.

Hon Willie Jackson: Why did he choose to appoint former ACT Party leader Richard Prebble to the Waitangi Tribunal ahead of the brilliant Dr Hana O’Regan and our foremost broadcaster Derek Fox—why was that appointment made given that Mr Prebble has actively advocated against the tribunal and also said that he thinks there should be a Treaty principles debate, which he is on record as saying?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: A number of members from across our communities are appointed to different boards, such as the former Labour Party president Mike Williams being appointed to the Social Investment Board. As a former Minister of various Labour Governments and someone who is well acquainted with the machinations of this House, Richard Prebble is an appropriate person to be appointed to the tribunal.

Hon Willie Jackson: How can the Minister for Māori Development stand there and look our people in the eye and tell them that he is an advocate for Māori rights when he has done nothing to stop the Treaty principles bill proceeding?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: The member presumes what happens in caucus and Cabinet and various other places where I advocate for various matters, and I think that is very presumptuous.

Hon Willie Jackson: Can I say to the Minister, what will it take before—

SPEAKER: Wait on—wait on. Your own side’s making a lot of noise. So let’s just all get quiet for questions, which are asked in silence. When you’re ready, Mr Jackson.

Hon Willie Jackson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. What will it take before this Minister actually does something, or has he given up because—and I will quote him—he’s “way down … the food chain” and has no influence at all?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: As we’re aware, National will not vote for this bill beyond select committee. Our long-held position is that a referendum on the Treaty would be divisive. It is unrealistic for that member, who was part of a former Government that saw an increase of unemployment across Māori by over 30 percent, to come and give me a lecture on tikanga or anything else.

Hon Willie Jackson: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Yes, and it will be heard in silence.

Hon Willie Jackson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The question was pretty clear and direct there; I don’t think he got anywhere near it. It was asking him when he would do anything or had he given up because he’s well-known, and he’s given the quote—

SPEAKER: No, no, hang on—OK, you’ve made your point. I think the Minister would probably want to say something in addition to what he has already said.

Hon TAMA POTAKA: As people are aware, in my caucus in this House, my quest is to help achieve equal citizenship and equality of opportunity that your tupuna Tā Apirana Ngata wrote about a century ago and that many of our kaumātua went to battlefields across the world to fight for. The equality of opportunity that I fight for was left well short by people like the other member who’s barracking right now.

Hon Willie Jackson: Mr Speaker—Mr Speaker, point of order.

SPEAKER: No, no, I haven’t called you. I haven’t called the member.

Hon Willie Jackson: Oh, sorry, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: That is the last outburst that the House is to have today. Otherwise, if we do that again, we’ll be hearing the balance of question time—questions and answers—in silence.

Hon Willie Jackson: Mr Speaker, point of order. I still don’t believe the Minister has got anywhere near answering the question, because I’m asking a specific question—what will he actually do?—and he goes waffling off about the army and tūpuna and ancestors. What will this Minister actually do for his people—

SPEAKER: That’s enough.

Hon Willie Jackson: —or has he given up because he has no influence in terms of Cabinet?

SPEAKER: That’s enough—that is enough. The member clearly wasn’t listening to the answer; I was, and he started by saying what his entire focus as a Minister is. I think that is more than enough to answer the question.

Question No. 6—Transport

6. KATIE NIMON (National—Napier) to the Associate Minister of Transport: What recent announcement has the Government made regarding funding support to strengthen front-line volunteer service organisations?

Hon MATT DOOCEY (Associate Minister of Transport): More good news. Last month, the very hard-working Minister of Transport and I announced a $23.1 million funding package over four years to boost critical front-line volunteer services. Heading outside for a day of fun is part of the Kiwi life, I’m sure you’ll agree, Mr Speaker, particularly as we head into the busy summer season. However, with that comes risk. That is why our Government is making this investment so we can better equip and prepare organisations to continue saving lives, communities, and livelihoods when faced with emergency situations.

Katie Nimon: What organisations are set to benefit from this announcement?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: Oh, good question. More good news. Surf Lifesaving New Zealand will receive $14.6 million over four years. Coastguard New Zealand will receive $3.1 million. These two front-line agencies provide critical water safety services for Kiwis, and their services are delivered almost entirely by volunteers. Let’s have a big shout-out for our hard-working volunteers in New Zealand.

Katie Nimon: What will these funds be used for?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: Oh, another good question. Surf Lifesaving will use this funding to repair and replace Surf Lifesaving assets that were damaged in the 2023 North Island weather events, including a replacement for the Surf Lifesaving Club at Bethells Beach and repairs to the Mangawhai Heads club that was damaged following a landslide.

Katie Nimon: What other actions has the Government taken to support front-line volunteer service organisations?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: Well, what we have here is a Government that’s focused on reducing wasteful spending so we can reinvest that into critical front-line services. So that’s why you see in this funding package an addition to early investment that the Government announced for Coastguard and Surf Lifesaving New Zealand. Through Budget 2024, Coastguard and Surf Lifesaving received a funding boost of $63.644 million over four years to keep Kiwis safe in, on, and around the water.

Question No. 7—Small Business and Manufacturing

7. CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour) to the Minister for Small Business and Manufacturing: What recent steps has the Government taken to improve payment times for small businesses?

Hon ANDREW BAYLY (Minister for Small Business and Manufacturing): My colleague the Hon Melissa Lee and I recently announced that the Government is committed to supporting faster payments for small businesses, especially given that the Government spends over $50 billion annually with its suppliers. From 1 January 2025, the Government’s 135 agencies will be required to pay small businesses much more promptly, providing these businesses with the timely cash flow they need to grow and succeed.

Cameron Brewer: What is the time line for implementing faster payment requirements for Government agencies?

Hon ANDREW BAYLY: From 1 January next year, the 135 agencies must pay 90 percent of trade invoices within 10 business days, increasing to 95 percent in 2026. Secondly, as part of the Government’s focus on encouraging greater digitisation of the economy, from 2026, Government agencies processing over 2,000 domestic invoices annually must use e-invoicing, ensuring payment within five working days.

Cameron Brewer: What steps will the Government take to ensure compliance with these payment rules?

Hon ANDREW BAYLY: To ensure compliance, we will require Government agencies to report their payment results quarterly. These results will be published on the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment website. This will allow anyone to check the compliance of relevant Government departments. These agencies will also have to report why they have failed to meet the payment requirements and front up to their respective Minister.

Cameron Brewer: How will these new rules impact the day-to-day operations of small businesses?

Hon ANDREW BAYLY: These rules are set to make a substantial difference. We know that for small businesses, cash flow is critical, and waiting extended periods for payment can hinder growth or even threaten survival. By mandating shorter payment times, we’re providing business owners with the resources they need to invest in their operations, whether it’s hiring more staff, upgrading equipment, or expanding services. This is all part of the Government’s support for small businesses.

Question No. 8—Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti

8. Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour) to the Minister for Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti: Does he stand by his answer to oral question No. 11 on 7 November 2024 that “There are a number of matters that have strengthened the Māori-Crown relationship”; if so, why?

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister for Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti): I stand by this answer, and, as mentioned, people like Minister Goldsmith are prioritising outstanding Treaty settlements in the vein of previous Ministers for Treaty of Waitangi negotiations. Minister Willis has continued to support Māori back pockets through tax cuts, resulting in hundreds of millions of dollars staying with whānau. Of course, we are expediting purely settlement delivery matters, like the payment of $25 million to Kurahaupō iwi last week for the failure to deliver the airport to them. Constructive relationships do require work. There is a lot more mahi to do no matter who is the Kāwanatanga.

Hon Peeni Henare: What does he say to Ngati Toa leader Helmut Modlik, who described his answers last week as “so dishonest, duplicitous, and dishonourable”?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Thank you, Matua Helmut. I know you are pono. I know you are genuine, and I know you carry the international responsibilities of our people of Ngāti Toa Rangatira, and thank you for your tautoko of Te Kahu o Te Raukura here today and every day.

Hon Peeni Henare: Is the Treaty principles bill one of the matters the Minister has referred to that has strengthened the Māori-Crown relationship?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: As we’re aware and as I’ve mentioned today, the bill is the result of a coalition arrangement between the National Party and the ACT Party in order to get a stable Government in an MMP environment. But, as you know and I know, our view from the National Party is that this bill is too blunt, is too simplistic, that it fails to address equal citizenship and equality of opportunity for iwi members, Māori, and all New Zealanders, and that our quest is to ensure equal citizenship and equality of opportunity for Māori and for everyone.

Hon Peeni Henare: Should the Treaty principles bill be voted down, will he commit to ensuring that every Minister directs their agencies to uphold their Te Tiriti o Waitangi obligations?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: National will vote this bill down at its second reading, and it is absolutely clear to us that the Treaty responsibilities and obligations, whether they come from a settlement arrangement or otherwise, need to be upheld and pursued by agencies across this Government and future Governments.

Hon Peeni Henare: Who is correct: the Prime Minister, who says the Treaty principles bill is “divisive”; or David Seymour, who says the bill is not divisive, and what does he think that these divided opinions mean for the Māori-Crown relationship?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: I stand by the Prime Minister’s comments and say this: the Treaty of Waitangi—Te Tiriti o Waitangi—can be and should be and will be a force for kotahitanga.

Hon Peeni Henare: Will he commit to, after his vote is registered as in support of the Treaty principles bill, fronting up to the hīkoi on the forecourt of Parliament on Tuesday and explaining his decision?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: E te Māngai, e mihi ana ki tērā pātai. Me te mea nei kei te tautoko au i te anga whakamua o tō mātou Pirimia, tō tatou Pirimia, me te mea nei ko te tumanako ka taea e au te kōrero, te noho, wānga enei kaupapa me te tira haere e haere mai nei.

[Mr Speaker, I’d like to acknowledge that question. And to say, I am supporting the future aspirations of my Prime Minister, of our Prime Minster, in the hope that I can speak, sit, and discuss this bill with the right people.]

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: On the forecourt? He didn’t answer.

SPEAKER: Yes he did.

Question No. 9—Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti

9. DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori) to the Minister for Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti: Does he consider that the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill threatens the continued existence of the Māori-Crown relationship?

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister for Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti): E te Māngai, e mihi ana ki te pātai. [Mr Speaker, I acknowledge that question.] First, I wanted to acknowledge that there is significant opposition to this bill across many communities—tangata Māori, tangata Tiriti, tangata Pasifika. Second, in response to the question, this bill cannot and will not wipe out the responsibilities of rangatiratanga and Kāwanatanga, along with the quest to achieve equal citizenship and equality of opportunity. National supports the process to take this bill through to select committee. That was the output from negotiating the coalition Government; however, as you know, National will not support this bill beyond select committee and will vote it down.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What message is the Minister sending to te iwi Māori and ngā mokopuna in the gallery today that it is OK to compromise the mana o Te Tiriti?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: As we know, and as I’ve discussed today, we have taken this matter forward as a result of negotiating a coalition arrangement, in light of an MMP environment and to ensure that it wasn’t left for other parties to create an unstable situation. However, what I can also add and say is that, please mauria mai ō pūkana, ō arero, ō tetē, tō ihi tō wehi tō wana [bring your bulging eyes, your protruding tongue, your clinging teeth, your fearlessness, your power, and your prowess] to the select committee process.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: How can you be a Minister of this Government and allow the Treaty principles bill to viciously attack your people?

SPEAKER: Look, reword that question. The Minister is not doing anything of the sort, and the question should not be as personally directed as that.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Ka pai. How can you be a Minister of this Government and allow the Treaty principles bill to viciously attack te iwi Māori?

Hon Simeon Brown: Point of order. She’s referring to you, Mr Speaker, and I think—

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Can’t hear.

Hon Simeon Brown: Sorry. The member is saying “you” in the question, which, in this instance, is referring to you as the Speaker, and I would suggest that again she should be rewording that question.

SPEAKER: Well, look, I’ve taken a much more liberal approach to members using the term “you”. In the strictest sense, that is referring to the Chair, but I think that everyone knows it is a question directed to the Minister. I certainly didn’t for a minute think that the member was accusing me of attacking anybody, but if I’m wrong, she should tell me and I can take some action. Just ask the question again.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: How can he be a Minister of this Government and allow the Treaty principles bill to viciously attack te iwi Māori?

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Point of order, Mr Speaker. It’s a basic rule in this House that questions cannot have assertions in them, and that is an assertion, which is not correct.

SPEAKER: Well, I would immediately point out to the Minister that answers can’t have assertions in them either, and, well, if you want to go down that track, it will become a very sterile House. I think, given the circumstances, the way in which the Minister is handling these questions, it’s not an unreasonable one to ask him to answer.

Hon TAMA POTAKA: I can acknowledge that there is genuine hurt and pain across many communities as a result of this bill, but what I will say is—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: That’s it. Silence.

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Ka mate tēnei pire ā te whakamutunga o te kōmiti arohaehae.

[This bill will be revoked at the end of the committee process.]

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: How will the Minister use the position to fight for te iwi Māori if there is a referendum?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: As we’ve said many times, whilst the National Party is a part of this coalition Government, we will vote down the proposed Treaty principles bill immediately after the select committee and at the second reading. That is what we will do, and I can repeat it as many times as you like in this Whare this afternoon.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order, please, Mr Speaker. The question was specific. You may think otherwise, but the question specifically asked what role or how the Minister would use the role to fight for te iwi Māori if the referendum got through. There is an assumption that it won’t get through.

SPEAKER: Yes, yes, I know.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: So the question was really targeted—

SPEAKER: The assumption was that the bill would pass. The Minister answered, saying it’s not going to pass, which nullifies the question.

Question No. 10—Justice

10. TAMATHA PAUL (Green—Wellington Central) to the Minister of Justice: Does he have confidence that the Government is upholding the rule of law and Aotearoa’s constitutional arrangements?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): Yes. The Government is committed to upholding the rule of law and New Zealand’s constitutional arrangements. I’m also confident that our constitutional arrangements have the strength to withstand unhelpful comments, such as those by that member’s party leader that we have “A criminal justice system that we all know only serves to produce more harm, more crime, and more victims”, which is a slap in the face for the tens of thousands of Kiwis who work every day in the justice system to keep our communities safe.

SPEAKER: Yes, I’ll just point out that some of the Minister’s own answers there were somewhat incongruous with his concern about the questions asked earlier in the day. Tamatha Paul—sorry to interrupt you.

Tamatha Paul: Thanks, Mr Speaker. How is it consistent with upholding our constitutional arrangements for the Government to, in the words of the most senior legal counsel in our country, “unilaterally [change] the meaning of te Tiriti”?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, the member opposite doesn’t seem to understand the processes of the Parliament—that would only happen if a law was passed and it did indeed do what the member claims. We won’t be passing it, and it doesn’t even do what the member suggests.

Tamatha Paul: What would be the effect of the Government proceeding with a bill that 40 King’s Counsel say would “cause significant legal confusion and uncertainty, inevitably resulting in protracted litigation and cost.”?

SPEAKER: Well, no disrespect to the opinion of the learned King’s Counsel, but that is also a supposition. I’m not sure that the Minister is responsible for answering such a supposition. Please ask another question without loss of that question.

Tamatha Paul: Does he agree with the open letter to the Government from 40 King’s Counsel stating that the Treaty principles bill seeks to “rewrite the Treaty itself.”?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Look, the very nature of the law is that there is a wide variety of opinions, and lawyers always argue over every piece of legislation. They’re perfectly entitled to their views, and they’ll have an opportunity, no doubt, to discuss them.

Tamatha Paul: Has the open letter signed by the most senior legal counsel in this country given him pause for reflection or concern at all as the Minister responsible for the rule of law, constitutional arrangements, and protecting our democracy?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: I’m always pausing and I’m always reflecting, but I won’t be taking lectures on the rule of law from that party, which has the view—it’s campaigned on removing welfare sanctions on people who are on the run. I mean, I know it’s expensive to be on the run, but I don’t think that strengthens the rule of law in this country.

Tamatha Paul: Will he heed the call of these 40 King’s Counsel and the Waitangi Tribunal and the tens of thousands of people currently in the hīkoi across the nation to “act responsibly now and abandon the Bill.”

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, I’m always willing to listen to the views of all New Zealanders, and the Government is also committed to its coalition agreements.

Chlöe Swarbrick: What exactly triggers the Minister about my statements that the criminal justice system currently creates more victims, more crime, and more harm; and has he considered changing the Ministry of Justice’s website and the statistics on that, which make these points demonstrably clear?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: What triggers me is the fact that there are tens of thousands of New Zealanders working in the justice system that that member characterised in that way, and those people are doing their very best to keep this community safe. That member would do better to support them in their efforts to keep New Zealanders safe.

Question No. 11—Education

11. Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) to the Minister of Education: Is she committed to the purpose of the Education and Training Act 2020 that establishes and regulates an education system that “honours Te Tiriti o Waitangi and supports Māori-Crown relationships”; if so, how?

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): Absolutely. As I have said many times, raising achievement and closing the equity gap is at the heart of everything that we do. For Māori students in mainstream education, the outcomes are of great concern to me. Regular school attendance rates are 39.1 percent, 12 percent of Māori students at the end of year 8 are at curriculum for maths, over a third of rangatahi Māori left without NCEA level 2 last year. Everyone has a part to play—parents, iwi, Māori leaders, schools, the Crown, and both sides of this House. This Government’s relentless focus on lifting attendance and achievement of tamariki Māori is an utterly essential way in which we must collectively honour the Treaty.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: What does tino rangatiratanga in article 2 of Te Tiriti o Waitangi mean for Māori education?

Hon David Seymour: Charter schools.

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Well, there was a comment to my right that mentioned charter schools. It is also this Government’s commitment to kaupapa Māori education—[Interruption] In answer to the question, this Government is about choice in education. We are massive supporters of kaupapa Māori education, as evidenced by my support for Te Rūnanga nui o ngā Kura Kaupapa Māori o Aotearoa and Ngā Kura ā Iwi o Aotearoa, who I meet with regularly and have an excellent relationship with, and I’m rebuilding that relationship. It’s evident in the fact that we have also set aside $100 million for kura kaupapa property because of the state of their buildings. It’s evident in the fact that everything that we have done in structured literacy and maths in the mainstream, we have also provided in te reo Māori for rumaki and for kura kaupapa as well. We have delivered the world’s first structured literacy phonics checks in te reo Māori because we are supportive of choice in education.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I appreciate the Minister’s answer, but I was actually asking the Minister what tino rangatiratanga in article 2 of Te Tiriti o Waitangi means for Māori education.

SPEAKER: I would have thought that the long list of initiatives listed by the Minister is a satisfactory answer to the question; perhaps not the one the member wanted. Is there another supplementary?

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: How can she say that she is honouring Te Tiriti o Waitangi when national education leaders including Te Akatea, NZEI Te Riu Roa, New Zealand Principals’ Federation, New Zealand Post Primary Teachers Association, Teaching Council of Aotearoa New Zealand, and others have said, “As a group of national education organisations, we are united in our opposition to the Treaty principles bill.”?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: All of those organisations are also extraordinarily concerned about the achievement of our tamariki and rangatahi Māori. Every single one of those educational groups has talked about the fact that things like 66 percent of the young people in alternative education are our rangatahi Māori, because we are utterly failing them. This is a Government that is putting educational outcomes and the achievement of young Māori at the heart of everything we do so that they can go on to live the life that they want.

Hon Tama Potaka: How does her approach to Te Marautanga o Aotearoa give further effect to the Education and Training Act requirement to honour Te Tiriti o Waitangi—the Treaty of Waitangi?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I’m proud to be supporting te reo Māori in line with article 2 of the Treaty through a refresh of Te Marautanga o Aotearoa. This Government is refreshing Te Marautanga o Aotearoa to be a knowledge-rich, year-by-year curriculum in te reo Māori; launching Rangaranga Reo ā-Tā, which is a structured literacy programme teaching reading, writing, and kōrero; providing free decodable books for the first time; and, as I mentioned, that world-first phonics check. These tools and resources have been developed with Māori education leaders and sector groups, demonstrating my commitment to Māori-Crown relationships and to raising Māori achievement.

Hon David Seymour: Would this Government consider abandoning charter schools supported by the Iwi Chairs Forum at the behest of the predominately Pākehā teacher unions, and, if not, why not?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Absolutely not. There are many Māori groups and excellent Māori educators around this country who are very excited at the prospect of running their own school and having self-determination in their own educational settings, and we support that because we know the outcomes are excellent.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: How is she honouring Te Tiriti o Waitangi and supporting Māori-Crown relationships when she is whitewashing the curriculum by removing Te Tiriti o Waitangi from the curriculum framework, Te Mātaiaho, and scrapping the group of experts contributing te ao Māori knowledge to science?

SPEAKER: OK—just a minute. Think about the question you’ve just asked—some of the concerns that have been expressed in the House, from both sides, I might say, about the use of various descriptors that are in the nature of an opinion. Ask the question again, without that descriptor.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: How is she honouring Te Tiriti o Waitangi and supporting Māori-Crown relationships when she is mainstreaming the curriculum by removing Te Tiriti o Waitangi from the curriculum framework, Te Mātaiaho, and scrapping the group of experts contributing te ao Māori knowledge to the science curriculum?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: There have only been two parts of the curriculum that have been released, English and maths, and also in Pāngarau as well. Now, the full curriculum with all of the details has yet to be released. So that member’s assertion that things have been taken out is not true, because we haven’t released the full document yet.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: How is rebalancing Aotearoa histories in school curriculum honouring Te Tiriti o Waitangi and supporting Māori-Crown relationships?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: That’s an excellent question. One of the problems that the Education Review Office determined in their report into the New Zealand histories curriculum was that there wasn’t enough of our national history being taught. There wasn’t enough consistency in the curriculum. For example, there are certain—

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Too much Māori!

Hon ERICA STANFORD: That member should listen, because this is quite important. There are certain things like the Māori Land Wars, and people like Meri Te Tai, that we should all learn about. Unfortunately, the history curriculum is far too localised and it’s not consistent enough. We are going to make sure that there are certain things that every single child in New Zealand should learn about our national history and how it links to international events.

James Meager: What broader actions is she taking—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just a minute.

James Meager: What broader actions is she taking to establish a Māori education work programme and honour Māori-Crown relationships?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I’m delighted that this Government has a quarter 4 target to deliver a Māori education action plan. Work on this is well along the way, supported by my recent appointment of my Māori Education Advisory Group led by Dr Wayne Ngata. A key recent announcement included the funding of Pāngarau maths resources for Māori medium and kura, including student workbooks and teacher guides that are curriculum aligned and available in either English or te reo Māori. Now, if the previous Government had been concerned about Māori achievement rates, we wouldn’t be sitting at 12 percent of Māori kids being at curriculum for mathematics.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: How is she honouring Te Tiriti o Waitangi and supporting Māori-Crown relationships when Te Akatea, who represent Māori tumuaki and leaders across Aotearoa, including the 97 percent of Māori learners who participate in English medium schooling, say they have not been consulted on any of the Government’s education priorities or proposed changes to the Act that downgrade Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the national education learning priorities?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I have met with most of those groups. In fact, the one that the teachers spoke—

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Just one?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I’ve met with Te Akatea and Bruce Jepsen—

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Did you consult them on it?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: And the ministry and I both consult with a wide group of principals and groups who represent unions, teachers, including Te Akatea.

Question No. 12—Land Information

12. TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister for Land Information: What announcements has the Government made on removing roadblocks to building infrastructure?

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Land Information): The Government is committed to making it easier to build infrastructure in New Zealand. As part of a suite of efforts to achieve this, we have appointed an independent expert advisory panel to review the Public Works Act. This important legislation allows the Government to acquire land for critical infrastructure, of course while also respecting and acknowledging property rights. I’m pleased to say that the panel has now reported back to me on recommendations for improving the fairness and efficiency of the Act.

Tom Rutherford: Why does the Public Works Act require a review?

Hon CHRIS PENK: New Zealand has a widely acknowledge infrastructure deficit which is holding us back socially, environmentally, and economically. We’re determined to do something about that, and, in particular, to improve our levels of productivity, lift our standard of living, and so we need it to be easier to build infrastructure such as schools, hospitals, public transport facilities, water facilities, and flood mitigation works. The Public Works Act has not been substantially amended since 1988. It’s outdated in several key respects, leading to long delays and cost blowouts.

Tom Rutherford: What did the review focus on?

Hon CHRIS PENK: The independent expert advisory panel has completed a short, sharp review of the Act, focusing on areas in which the efficiency, effectiveness, and clarity of the Act can be improved. Modern, large-scale infrastructure projects often create a knock-on effect where existing infrastructure must be upgraded or moved to accommodate the new project. For example, the current version of the Public Works Act does not allow for this and nor does it allow for collaboration between local and central government agencies.

Tom Rutherford: When will these changes come into effect?

Hon CHRIS PENK: We are moving at pace—you’ll be pleased to hear. The Government is considering the panel’s recommendations, and I hope to make an announcement shortly. An amendment bill will likely be introduced into this Parliament in the middle of next year.

Speaker’s Rulings

Public Galleries—Conduct

SPEAKER: Before I call the next item of business, I want to make clear the expectation of conduct from the public galleries. The debating chamber is a place for MPs, as elected representatives, to debate important issues. The public are very welcome to watch proceedings in the House. They are not permitted to take part. An exception to this rule has been where Speakers have allowed for waiata following Treaty settlements and other bills, the passing of which recognises a significant occasion.

Free and unintimidated speech underpins our parliamentary democracy. Members of Parliament must be able to debate issues without interruption from the public galleries. That becomes even more important when a bill before the House does not meet favour with all who are viewing its proceedings. Accordingly, then, if anyone interrupts proceedings from the galleries, they will be removed and not permitted to return.

Bills

Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill

Discharge—Leave Declined

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green): Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave for the order of the day for the first reading of the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill be discharged.

SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection to that course of action? There appears to be objection.

Additional Speaking Time for Te Pāti Māori—Leave Declined

HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE (Te Pāti Māori—Hauraki-Waikato): Point of order, Mr Speaker. We seek to move an urgent motion that Te Pāti Māori is granted an additional five-minute speaking slot for the first reading of the Treaty principles bill. If enacted, this bill will have a devastating intergenerational impact on our mokopuna.

SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be objection.

First Reading

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Associate Minister of Justice): I present a legislative statement on the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill.

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

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order, Mr Speaker. According to Standing Order 116, matters subject to judicial decisions may not be referred to in any debate. Te Tiriti o Waitangi underpins the judicial system in Aotearoa and, therefore, Te Tiriti o Waitangi and its principles are currently being adjudicated in all cases currently before the courts. It would be inappropriate to debate this matter until all of these court cases have been concluded.

SPEAKER: Well, that would be an interesting proposition if it were realistic. It’s not. Regardless of the status of the Treaty, if you look at all sorts of other documents that support the constitutional arrangements of New Zealand, then you could make the same case and, therefore, all debate in the House on all matters would be suspended.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you, Mr Speaker. The member is in contempt of the House according to Standing Order 418(h). He has provided a bill which contains false or misleading information in an attempt to erase the rights of tangata whenua and sell our resources to offshore interests.

SPEAKER: Well, that would be a matter for the House to deal with, not for me to deal with by way of points of order.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Well—contempt of the House.

SPEAKER: Contempt of the House is a matter that you are suggesting. I’m certainly not going to rule on it, because this is a bill that has been through a process inside the various arrangements between parties—in fact, there is a thing called the legislative committee—to get here. The second point I’d make is that, if you think there has been a contempt of the House, you need to write to the Speaker in a timely fashion.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I move, That the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice Committee to consider the bill.

In 1975, this House passed the Treaty of Waitangi Act. That Act’s preamble says it was “established to make recommendations on claims relating to the practical application of the principles of the Treaty and, for that purpose, to determine its meaning and effect and whether certain matters are inconsistent with those principles.” There was one big problem: nowhere in the Treaty of Waitangi Act and at no time since has this Parliament said what those principles actually are. The democratically elected body of this Parliament has been silent.

Nature abhors a vacuum, so Parliament’s silence has been filled by various court findings, tribunal reports, and the Government departments having a go at defining the principles. They’ve variously arrived at the Crown having a duty to partner with Māori, to protect Māori self-determination, to consult, and redress past wrongs. What all of these principles have in common is that they afford Māori different rights from other New Zealanders. And I know why that is: lawyers, with their training, can’t help but see a contract, and their instinct tells them to interpret a contract instead of asking, “What is the best constitutional foundation for a country?”

Seeing the Treaty as a “partnership between races”, as the Court of Appeal once said, does not work as a constitutional foundation for a country. The lawyers will defend their logic to the hilt, but there is one question they cannot answer: where in the world is it a good idea to give citizens different rights based on ancestry? Where in the world has that approach been a success? Dividing people into tangata whenua, land people; and tangata Tiriti, people here by dint of the Treaty—

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Standing Order 119, “References to Sovereign”—it is offensive and members cannot make reference to the Sovereign. We have our own Sovereign as Māori. We have never ceded sovereignty. What the Minister is doing is deliberately—deliberately—bringing into disrepute and making references to the sovereignty of Māori.

SPEAKER: No, look, I’m sorry, that’s not a point of order that can stand against the cited point of order. I’m not going to go into the constitutional arrangements—the Standing Order doesn’t stand.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: We can all think of examples where dividing people up by their race or religion has failed badly. It is time for the body that posed that question in 1975 to say what those principles are. The purpose of this bill is to break this Parliament’s 49-year silence, to define the principles in law so it’s crystal clear what the Treaty means to modern New Zealanders.

Clause 6 is the core of the bill. It says: “The principles of the Treaty of Waitangi are as follows: Principle 1 The Executive Government of New Zealand has full power to govern, and the Parliament of New Zealand has full power to make laws,—(a) in the best interests of everyone; and (b) in accordance with the rule of law and the maintenance of a free and democratic society. Principle 2 The Crown recognises, and will respect and protect, the rights that hapū and iwi Māori had under the Treaty of Waitangi/te Tiriti o Waitangi at the time they signed it. However, if those rights differ from the rights of everyone, subclause (1) applies only if those rights are agreed in the settlement of a historical treaty claim under the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975.”—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just a little bit of order, thank you very much.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Principle 3 says that “Everyone is equal before the law. Everyone is entitled, without discrimination, to—(a) the equal protection and equal benefit of the law; and (b) the equal enjoyment of the same fundamental human rights.” These principles are based on the three articles of Te Tiriti, the Māori text—or at least Professor Kawharu’s 1987 translation of it.

I’d like to thank the officials at the Ministry of Justice, who, I suspect, don’t all agree with this particular kaupapa but have been scrupulous in their professionalism and shown what the Public Service in New Zealand can be.

The bill has other important clauses. Clause 7 says the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, in clause 6, must be used to interpret enactments. In other words, where there’s a legal reference to the principles, this interpretation must be used. Clause 8 says that the Act is not to apply to interpretation of a Treaty settlement Act. In other words, Treaty settlements are safe. Some people have said that the bill threatens Treaty settlements. It does not, and there’s no reason for anyone who has read the bill to say so any more.

Clause 9 says, “Nothing in this Act amends the text of the Treaty of Waitangi/te Tiriti o Waitangi.” Once again, many people have falsely claimed this bill rewrites the Treaty. There are even those who campaigned for “Toitū Te Tiriti” or “Leave the Treaty undisturbed”. In black and white: this bill does not change the text of the Treaty itself; what it does do is confirm the Government has the right to govern New Zealand and this Parliament has the right to make laws in the best interests of everyone. It commits to protecting the rights of everyone—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Sorry to interrupt the member, but this constant barrage has to stop. I’m actually hearing some of the comments that are being made and, if people think that they are in any way enlightening the debate, they are seriously deluded. So we’ll have very rare and reasonable comments only.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Thank you, Mr Speaker. It commits to protecting the rights of everyone, including Māori, and upholding Treaty settlements. It commits to give equal enjoyment of the same fundamental human rights to every single New Zealander. The challenge for people who oppose this bill is to explain why they are so opposed to those basic principles.

The bill does something else, and that’s the answer: it democratises the principles of the Treaty; it gives everyone a say. The commencement clause says the principles of this bill only come into force if a majority vote for it to do so in a referendum, and, as I mentioned, the principles we know today have been created by a small number of New Zealanders, even though we all have to live within them. But if democracy means anything, it means each and every person has a say in how the rules we all live under are made. It is that democratisation of the Treaty that is so important. The big change here is the idea that each person has a say on the rules they live under. Even people who are convinced this bill will not become law are determined to stop it being discussed, and that’s why you hear so much outspoken criticism of it. They know that whether or not this bill becomes law in this term of Parliament, it’s only a matter of time before its logic prevails. That’s why they say, “Kill the bill”, because they can’t kill the idea behind the bill, especially not the idea of each person who lives legally in this country having equal rights.

Now, let me say I recognise there are people in te ao Māori who do not trust the State, and with good reason. The mamae or pain that has grown up over centuries is real: land taken, culture and language squashed, discrimination in public life. There are those who say this bill takes us back to the 1950s and earlier. I hear those who seek to stir up fear and division saying this bill will strip people of their mana, their taonga, and their reo. That is simply untrue. My mission in politics is to empower every person and every community to choose the life they want to live. It’s at the core of my belief system and, funnily enough, it’s the same belief system that drives many Māori activist movements. I believe that you should be empowered to do what you want with your land, to start your own school or your social service in your rohe using tikanga Māori and Māori language—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just halt for a minute. Start again—it’s not going to cost you any time. Why is it so hard just to listen to an argument before offering a rebuttal? It can’t be too hard.

Hon Peeni Henare: We’re trying to save him from himself.

SPEAKER: Well, I’m not on my feet, so I’m not taking any action. I don’t want to start using members’ names here, but some of the calling out is ridiculous. The Hon David Seymour—resume.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: In short, I believe in freedom under the law, and I believe that you have those rights because of being a human being, not because you have any particular ancestry. I believe that all New Zealanders deserve tino rangatiratanga, the right to flourish as you would like to live, because all human beings are alike in dignity, and thus the bill does not extinguish any right; it does not take from anyone. It reinforces the rights of the Treaty as universal human rights.

There are those who say that the Treaty is necessary because there’s still inequity between Māori and non-Māori—on average—and that is true if you view the world as groups of people based on ancestry and you average them. But the truth is that each person is more than an average. We are thinking and valuing beings with challenges and choices and hopes and dreams. Many Māori do very well and need little help; many non-Maori are struggling and in need of greater help. If you want to help people in need, skip the division and just help people in need is what I say.

There are those who may agree with the sentiment of the bill but believe that there are other priorities. The simple answer is that this Government has not been stopped by this bill—in fact, this Minister has not been stopped by this bill—from making massive progress in health and housing and economic growth and education. You can walk and chew gum at the same time. But more importantly, a system of equal rights is essential for solving the practical problems we face: a separate health administration, seats reserved at the table of public entities, the requirement to consult people on resource management decisions based on ancestry—all of it just makes the task of solving the very real problems we solve all the harder than if we join hands in common humanity against the challenges we seek to overcome.

The division that you are seeing was not caused by this bill; it has been built up over decades, during which New Zealanders have come to regard themselves as based on ancestry or one side of a partnership instead of as New Zealanders, and, what’s worse, successive Governments have encouraged that division. The division is there whether this bill is here to reveal it or not, and we cannot afford to ignore it any longer.

In summary, the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill fills a silence this Parliament has left for five decades. In so doing, it affirms the basis of our country. It is not division. Treaties are supposed to unite people, not divide them. We are fortunate that our country was founded by a voluntary agreement giving ngā tikanga katoa rite tahi [absolutely equal rights], or equal rights, to all, and for affirming and celebrating that wonderful inheritance, I commend this bill to the House. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour): Shame, shame, shame on you, David Seymour. Shame on you for what you’re trying to do to this nation in introducing this Treaty principles bill. Ngāti Rēhia will be ashamed that one of their sons has come up with a political stunt that looks to divide the nation and the partnership that we’ve been trying to get right since the most pre-eminent jurist in New Zealand history—Lord Cooke—made that historic declaration of partnership in 1987.

This bill seeks to rewrite the Treaty. David Seymour wants to turn over 50 years of our understanding of Treaty principles and partnership. The principles are clear—they’re clear. They’re about partnership, they’re about equity, they’re about active protection, and they’re about redress—simple. Why does this offend the Associate Minister of Justice so much?

This bill seeks to give Māori rights and indigenous rights to everyone, and there’s no doubt that Mr Seymour wants to totally change the Treaty as we know it. That’s the view of the best legal minds in the country: the King’s Counsel who have said to abandon this bill; the Waitangi Tribunal, who have said that by engaging with this process, the Crown was sanctioning a process that will take away indigenous rights; and, in fact, there’s a view of Crown Law, the Government’s own lawyers—the Government’s own lawyers—who have said that this bill will undermine Māori rights. But still David Seymour persists with this disgusting piece of legislation. I said some time ago that he was the most dangerous politician in New Zealand, and that has come to pass.

I’m a Labour Party member, but I’m also a proud Māori and New Zealander, and I denounce this foul attempt to rewrite the constitutional framework of this nation simply because the Prime Minister is too weak to stop the dangerous extremism of the ACT Party. [Applause from gallery] The party of Doug Graham, the party of Chris Finlayson, Jim Bolger, Jenny Shipley—none of those people would have been played the way the Prime Minister has been played.

SPEAKER: That is the last time there is to be any outbursts from the gallery, and that is the last time we’re to hear a personal reflection of that nature in today’s speeches.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Sorry, Mr Speaker—thank you, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister claims that this is MMP and his hands are tied, but he chose to sell Māori down the river and chose to throw all our shared work out just so he could be Prime Minister. Every single National Party member should be ashamed at the cowardice shown by the Prime Minister and this party. By introducing the bill—

SPEAKER: Mr Jackson—

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: —National are letting Māoridom down—

SPEAKER: Mr Jackson, think about what you’re saying.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Oh, I have very much, Mr Speaker, but thank you for that.

SPEAKER: I know, but not very clearly, obviously.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Well, that’s your view, Mr Speaker. Thank you for that.

SPEAKER: Sorry to interrupt you, but don’t go down that track.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: OK. By introducing the bill, though, National are allowing David Seymour to launch a six-month hate tour. He’s using that six-month hate tour to launch a citizens initiated referendum to fight the National Party in 1996. The Minister’s “Vanity Treaty Principles Bill” will cost us $4 million—$4 million—at a time when we’ve got the cost of living going through the roof.

I’m telling Mr Seymour, and some of the National Party members who are enabling this, that Māoridom will never accept a redefining of the relationship with the Crown, not today, not tomorrow—not ever. We will march and march and hīkoi for our rights mō āke āke āke.

This Minister has purposely allowed misinformation to replace the true nature of the relationship from the Māori chiefs and Crown, and has sold that criticism as equality. He is not standing up for democracy. He is using and abusing democracy against my people; against your people. How dare you, David Seymour?

Yesterday, I was on a hīkoi. I was so proud to be on that hīkoi with our political colleagues in the Māori Party, the Green Party—wonderful—and Asians, Māori, and Pasifika were all there. They gave me a clear message, and I agreed to give that message here, today. This is to you, David Seymour: you fuel hatred and misinformation in this country, you bring out the worst in New Zealanders, you should be ashamed of yourself, and you are a liar.

Hon David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: It’s all right, I’m about to rule. Withdraw and apologise for that last statement.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: No, I can’t do that.

SPEAKER: Willie Jackson, I’m asking you to withdraw and apologise for your last statement.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: No, I can’t do that.

SPEAKER: Willie Jackson, are you not going to withdraw for saying something that is so blatantly unparliamentary as that?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: No, that’s a message from the hīkoi.

SPEAKER: It doesn’t matter who it came from. You used the term in the House. You made the accusation in the House. Withdraw and apologise.

All right, then. I’m going to have to ask the member to withdraw himself from the House for the rest of the afternoon.

Hon Willie Jackson withdrew from the Chamber.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green): When you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression. That is what is behind this bill. Its architect tells us that this is about equality, but we do not have equality in this country. Pick almost any statistic that you like—housing, incarceration, health, life expectancy—Māori get unfair and unequal outcomes because of unfair and unequal treatment which started with the Crown’s intentional violent actions to dishonour Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

But this is not just about Māori; this is about all of us. Te Tiriti is why and how each of us is on this whenua. It tells us so much about who we are, how we got here, and where we go if we treat each other and our planet well, if we are good Treaty partners.

Capitalism, an economic system with the key priority being to turn profit at almost any cost, needs colonisation. This insatiable, unsustainable economic system needs to assimilate and acquire new frontiers to exploit. It needs to turn every citizen into a consumer and to commodify our natural world. And right now, in this country, the biggest thing standing in its way is the resilience and the fire in the enduring movement from mana motuhake.

When Te Tiriti was signed, Māori outnumbered Pākehā by 40 to one. Can you imagine a small group of people coming to this country, signing an agreement to look after themselves in orderly cohabitation, then, instead, taking our land and our language? Well, that is the abridged history of Aotearoa New Zealand. That is what the British Crown did in establishing this Parliament and its institutions. The legacy of that violence, oppression, theft and colonisation and the breach of Te Tiriti o Waitangi is represented in today’s deeply unequal and unfair statistics in people’s lives.

Pākehā mā, tauiwi mā, we have been told for almost all of our lives that Māori sovereignty is something to be afraid of. Who has been telling you that? Who benefits and who pays the price?

The discomfort that you feel—that I once felt—is an invitation to listen, to learn, to understand, and to honour. Te Tiriti o Waitangi is gift. It is a blueprint of an Aotearoa that respects people and planet. It is the antidote to the exhaustion and the disenfranchisement that I know profoundly is felt in communities across this country right now.

Now, some politicians will tell you that we just need a clean slate for the past. They will tell you that people today should not be held responsible for the actions of our forebears. So let’s be really, really clear here: you do not need to be personally responsible for the historical dishonouring of Te Tiriti o Waitangi to actively benefit from that horrific legacy today. That is the truth. But this Parliament does benefit; all 123 members of this Parliament do benefit. The power in this place, in this Parliament, was built on a legacy of deceit, dehumanisation, and domination, and today all 123 members of Parliament will vote to either further entrench that utterly shameful legacy or to be honest and to do something about it.

The Prime Minister has told us that there’s nothing that he likes about this divisive bill. He’s told us that the National Party don’t support this bill. Any member of Parliament in this Chamber right now can call for a personal vote on this bill to vote differently from their party, to put the country above partisan politics. A leader or a whip cannot stop MPs’ constitutional right to vote how they know that they need to.

My question to MPs is: are you here to hold on to power at any cost or are you here to do the right thing? Are you here to listen to your conscience or are you here to give it all up on one of the most significant votes in this House in our lifetime? Because, if you wear the mask for a little while, it becomes your face. We are what we do. If you vote for this bill, that is who you are and this is how you will be remembered. Toitū Te Tiriti.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The background to the arrival of this bill, the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill, for its first reading in Parliament has been well traversed. The coalition agreement between ACT and National stipulates that National will support the Treaty principles bill for its first reading and to select committee, and that’s what we’re doing today. The Prime Minister also has indicated many times that, as far as the National Party is concerned, that is far as our support will go.

Parliament first referred to the principles of the Treaty in the 1970s but never defined them. The courts have stepped into that vacuum over the past 30-odd years. The principles of the Treaty, such as the concept of partnership, have gained more and more weight over time. It is, of course, appropriate for politicians and the public to debate what the Treaty means today and what it should mean in the future. The interpretations given by the courts are not gospel. We should be able to debate these things.

Our concern comes, however, with the process under this bill, whereby Parliament would simply set down its interpretation of the Treaty and then seek a majority of the public to confirm it in a referendum. This is a crude way to handle a very delicate subject. With a wave of the wand, as it were, we would unwind more than 30 years of jurisprudence—winner takes all. Of course there will be a wide variety of views amongst Māori, just as there is amongst any group, but those opposed to the changes will likely conclude that fundamental change is being imposed on them by a majority if it were to pass. That would risk stoking an already keen sense of grievance. It would risk increasing divisions in our country rather than reducing them.

That’s why National has indicated it will not support the bill in its final stages or for it to be put to a referendum. We believe the better way to address the many legitimate questions about the role of the Treaty in our democracy today is to progress the numerous specific changes we are making issue by issue. The guiding principle is that, in our efforts to honour Treaty of Waitangi commitments and the Treaty settlement, we should never lose sight of the basic expectations of people living in a modern democratic society.

SPEAKER: Order! Enough of that constant, across-the-House comment that adds nothing to the debate. The member may look shocked at that, but if I was to write it down and present it to him, he’d be horrified.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: The guiding principle is that, in our efforts to honour Treaty of Waitangi commitments and Treaty settlements, we should never lose sight of the basic expectations of people living in a modern democratic society, such as equal voting rights; equality before the law; and, broadly speaking, an equal say in matters affecting their lives and the world around them.

There is a tension between those two things, between honouring commitments to Māori flowing from the Treaty and the basic expectations of equality in a modern democracy. This is a tension that can’t just be glossed over or ignored. Our proposition is that, as a nation, we should be serious in our commitment to the first but, in doing so, should be careful never to lose sight of or drift too far from the second. To be absolutist in the sense of demanding perfect equal treatment on absolutely everything would be to overlook the complications of history and commitments made. All democracies have kinks in them flowing from historical compromises. Think of the UK House of Lords or the fact that voters in the US Senate elections in Wyoming have a much greater say than voters in California. At the same time, to drift too far from basic equality would be an invitation to disaster.

This is not a topic that lends itself to a neat, tidy, single solution; it has to be worked through issue by issue, which is what we are doing. That’s why we have reasserted the principle that healthcare should be delivered on the basis of need alone. That’s why we’re pushing back against the previous Government’s move against equal voting rights in local government. That’s why we’re unwinding co-governance arrangements in core public services and a separate Māori Health Authority. That’s why we’ve taken the unusual step of overturning the reasoning behind a Court of Appeal ruling in the marine and coastal area Act to restore a high test before the customary marine title is awarded on parts of our coastline. That’s why we’re embarking on the mammoth task of reviewing the Treaty references in existing legislation to ensure they’re clear about what Parliament does and doesn’t mean.

At the same time, we’re committed to continuing and completing the Treaty settlement process begun in the 1990s. It’s been a bipartisan effort over decades and involved thousands of Māori up and down the country, studying history, negotiating, forming new structures, and managing settlements. The settlements have never been an exercise in attaining perfection, but it is the best effort across many generations and we’re proud of those efforts. The Government will never lose sight of the reality that the things that most Māori want are the same as what most other New Zealanders want: a strong economy that can deliver jobs and incomes and sustain a good standing of living, decent housing, to feel safe in their community, and for their kids to access great education that sets them up to succeed. [Interruption] The reality is that, in each of those areas—[Interruption] Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: No, your time is up.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, I was interrupted half a dozen times by the barracking and intimidation on the other side.

SPEAKER: Sit down. Your time’s up.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Minister of Customs): Te Wai Pounamu, Te Ika-a-Māui, ngā iwi katoa, tēnā koutou katoa. Ko te kāinga manaaki, he mahana; ko te kāinga whānau, he aroha; ko te kāinga wairua, he pūmau.

[South Island, North Island, and all the nations, greetings to you all. A hospitable house is a warm house; a family house is a house with love; a house of union is for ever.] [Interruption]

SPEAKER: OK. Right, sorry. I’ve asked repeatedly for people to restrain themselves a little bit. Of course emotions run high in a debate like this, but outbursts of the type we’re getting don’t change that. So, please, just respect a bit of decorum in the House.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: As this Ngāpuhi proverb says, “The warm home is safe. The family home is love. The home with spirit endures.” I stand here today, in this House of Parliament, our democracy, a home where—as it’s evident today—our spirit endures. Today, I do not speak only about principles, legal contrivances, ideological posture, rather to reflect on the deeper roots beyond politics—the very elements my ancestor Tāmati Waka Nene highlighted when he signed the Treaty in 1840.

As it was recorded, when signing the Treaty, the chiefs were greeted with “He iwi tahi tātou.”—together we are a people, a nation—and we did form a nation, and our people, although not always getting it right, did come together. We are not a people who should fear debate, ideas, or difference of opinion.

Democracy is weakened by a censorious approach. Democracy is chilled if the highest court in the land is stifled. Differences of opinion are expected, and today, in the esteemed debating chamber, we have the chance to demonstrate that we are not censorious and we will not be stifled. There is nothing to fear through challenging ideas and presenting different positions. That is what brings us to the House today—the ability to bring ideas, challenge those ideas, and perhaps be enriched by those different perspectives and maybe come to a better position because of what we have learnt.

New Zealand First has a very long and consistent history on our position regarding the Treaty principles. As a party, we have brought legislation to this House in order to deliver clarity and certainty to this nation regarding the Treaty and its influence on who we are. We have, and continue to, reject that there are principles. New Zealand First brought legislation in 2005, the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill, which was voted down. Following the 2005 election, a confidence and supply agreement between the Labour Party and New Zealand First stated, “Support New Zealand First bill relating to Treaty principles going to select committee for consideration.” This allowed us to bring this bill back to this House. Therefore, it seems not unprecedented to allow contentious legislation in the agreements to form a Government, to come to this House. And we are a healthy enough democracy to survive contentious debate.

We do not stand alone in this view that there are no Treaty principles. Our leader, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, has referred often to the great Māori leaders who forged the path for a better New Zealand: Sir Apirana Ngata, Sir Peter Buck, Sir Māui Pōmare, Sir James Carroll. They all shared the position that there were no principles to the Treaty, and that will remain New Zealand First’s position. It is under the shared knowledge and understanding of our history that New Zealand First has remained committed to the purpose of the Treaty. As Dame Whina Cooper said, “We signed the Treaty to become one people”, but that does not mean that we turn away from our obligation to our democracy.

As my esteemed colleague, the Hon Shane Jones, elucidated to the House yesterday, this precious place in which we stand is a place where ideas must be respected. Parliamentarians are entitled to put ideas forward for debate. The issues on which a party campaigned and, through that campaign, received a mandate to enter this House must be respected, and the process of our democracy must be afforded the opportunity to be heard. We need, in this House, to be guardians of the rights that this Chamber represents. Free and open exchange of ideas is not something to be feared; it is a legacy that was hard fought by many who have gone before. Agreement and consensus of opinion, accompanied by a reluctance to put forward different thinking, would stifle the development of ideas to broaden our minds and innovate our solutions.

This bill is brought to the House for consideration, and I cannot help but be reminded of the words of Voltaire, to paraphrase, “I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it.” It is important to maintain perspective and dignity in this debate, and we do not allow this to become antagonistic. New Zealand First will, as we’ve committed to, support this bill to the first reading; it is our commitment to this Government and to this democracy. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): As I take to my feet, and as my people have taken to theirs, I stand here on behalf of my babies in the gallery, and all of our mokopuna.

Ko aku whakaaro kei te ika hui rua o te wā.

[My thoughts are with the two recently deceased.]

As I stood at the edge of Te Rerenga Wairua at the beginning of our hīkoi, ka tangi kotokoto ki a Koro Bom Gillies [I sobbed with sadness for Koro Bom Gillies] and my teina, Ricky Mitai. Both are the epitome of kotahitanga in life and death. The kotahitanga of the Māori Battalion on the battlefield meant their survival and success. They knew that division would be fatal—a lesson to us all. Ricky Lee, in his short life, has embodied the voice of kotahitanga from the lens of kōhanga reo generation. In death, he has brought together all generations and all iwi as they mourn what should have been a future leader they had nurtured and moulded. They are the cost of kotahitanga, and they are the mana and tapu of our Toitū Te Tiriti hīkoi.

Te Tiriti o Waitangi is superior to any person and any law ever created in this House. It is the constitutional document by which this House and democracy is established here in Aotearoa. This Parliament means nothing in Aotearoa without Te Tiriti o Waitangi. The only reason this Parliament exists in Aotearoa is because our tīpuna consented to it. The only people who can make changes in an agreement are the parties who signed it: the King of England me ngā rangatira o ngā hapū o Aotearoa [and the chiefs of the hapū of Aotearoa]. Now, tell me, David Seymour, which one of those are you?

ACT are seen to be pulling the strings and running the country, like the KKK with a swipe card to the Beehive, and Luxon doesn’t even care. There’s a ghost in his chair.

Everybody, every single one of the members sitting on that side of the House have enabled this bill to be introduced to the House. You are complicit in the harm and the division that this presents and are complicit in the euthanising of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. You have no right to touch something you have no mana over. Te Tiriti o Waitangi sits above you. You have no right to make VIP decisions from the cheap seats. How dare you threaten our mokopuna. Te Tiriti was an arrangement to unify. This bill serves to divide. Te iwi Māori don’t expect this House to liberate us. We must be our own liberation. We’ve been talking about Pākehā honouring Te Tiriti o Waitangi, expecting solutions to come from the very House that attacks us every single day. So the real question we now need to ask ourselves, e te iwi Māori, is when will we honour Te Tiriti o Waitangi?

Article 1 gave consent to Pākehā to govern over themselves. They’ve assumed governance over us. When will we begin to assume governance ourselves? Te Pāti Māori is the only party committed to establishing our own whare rangatira [house of leadership]. E oho. E oho. [Wake up. Wake up.]

Our role as Te Pāti Māori is not to be a part of this system but to create our own. What is the pathway forward for us, e te iwi? Tino rangatiratanga and self-governance is the ultimate goal, but there are steps we must take to get there. First, we need to do what we need to do to get rid of this Government. This must be a one-term Government. How do we do that? E te iwi Māori, we must all register on the Māori roll. E oho. [Wake up.]

Everybody must register on the Māori roll if you are Māori or if you have Māori whakapapa. That is the goal. In order to make this a one-term Government, we need more Māori voices in this House. We need more Māori independent seats in this House. That is how we do it—everybody on the Māori roll. If you are Māori, get on the Māori roll. Talk to your pakeke. Ko rātou ngā mea kei te raruraru. [They are the ones who are in trouble.] The rangatahi are migrating. They are registering on the Māori roll. That must be our goal.

E taku iwi [To my Māori people]: 35,000 people marched yesterday across that bridge, and they will arrive here, at Parliament. And one message to you, David, is “See you next Tuesday.” Kia ora tātou.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak on this bill. As I reflect on the 16 years—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just wait till the House and galleries go quiet.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: —that I’ve been a member of Parliament, as a country we have faced some significant challenges, and I know that we are better when we face them together, when we are united. National’s long-held position is that a referendum on the Treaty would be divisive and would not deliver an outcome that takes our country forward. It’s a simplistic approach to a very complex issue.

Over successive decades, our country has grappled with how to deal with the Treaty, and, of course, significant challenges remain. National has never shied away from the challenging issues or the hard work that is needed, working together through the issues around the Treaty on a case by case, issue by issue basis. I’m proud to be part of National’s broad-church approach to dealing with tough issues and our track record of doing just that. We have actively progressed Treaty settlements to address historical wrongdoings. We continue to build on the relationships that we have forged with iwi Māori over the decades. We have reversed a number of Labour’s divisive co-governance policies, like three waters and the Māori Health Authority. We are working through specific instances where the Treaty is mentioned in legislation and we need to be clear about what it means in the context of that legislation. It is a harder approach, but it is the right approach because it will deliver enduring solutions. It is simply not realistic to suggest 184 years of debate can be settled with the broad stroke of a pen.

National’s focus and motivation is on improving outcomes for all New Zealanders by rebuilding the economy, restoring law and order, and delivering better public services. Through Government, business, iwi, and community working together, we will have a greater impact on the people we serve. This bill does nothing to help. I am determined to build a society that breaks down barriers for Kiwis with the highest needs. Too often, those with the highest needs are Māori, and, in many cases, Māori have the answers. I’m proud of the work that we do to support a by Māori, for Māori approach. We are working to help New Zealanders with a package of reforms to get our kids back to school and learning the basics brilliantly through programmes that support families to move out of motels and into stable housing and by helping people move off benefits and into work. This is how we improve lives and opportunities for New Zealanders. This bill does nothing to help.

MMP is a complex environment, and all parties are required to make compromises to form a Government. National will uphold the coalition agreement with ACT and support their Treaty principles bill at first reading, allowing it to go to select committee. However, we will vote against it at the second reading, as this bill does nothing to help.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Kia ora e te Mana Whakawā. This bill is a shameful return to some of the most offensive legislation this House has passed. When we look back and we think of the Maori Prisoners Act 1880, suspending trial rights for Māori at Parihaka; the New Zealand Settlements Act 1863, confiscating land after the Tainui wars; the Tohunga Suppression Act 1907, banning traditional practices; and the Native Schools Act 1867, banning the use of te reo—we look back now and we think, “How could Parliament have been so wrong, so fundamentally at odds with the promises made in the Treaty? So racist.” Yet here we are. Christopher Luxon, you are presiding over the most racist piece of legislation in a hundred years.

SPEAKER: You could use the word “is” but not “you”. I take a liberal approach generally, but I’m getting a little bit tired of the number of accusations firing my way at the moment. So you could word that a different way—no loss of time here.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: I’ll continue. This bill is a bill that’s so obnoxious that 40 King’s Counsel have spoken out against it. They point out that “[This] coalition Government’s Treaty Principles Bill seeks to redefine in law the meaning of [the Treaty] by replacing existing Treaty principles with new Treaty principles which are said to reflect the three articles of [the Treaty] … The problem is they [don’t]. By imposing a contested definition of the three articles, the bill seeks to rewrite the Treaty itself.”

The Treaty has endured despite everything—a hastily drafted document that has versions in Māori and English that don’t agree with each other, a Treaty which this House has repeatedly ignored, a Treaty that the courts once called a “nullity”, but its spirit has endured. Māori have never given up. They have been tenacious across generations. In the Treaty, there is an underlying agreement and an intention between the Crown and Māori to work in partnership, to recognise their respective spheres of authority, and to protect, promote, and preserve those things which are Māori. This bill seeks to do away with this by rewriting how the Treaty works, by creating new and deeply objectionable principles which deny the authority of Māori. What then is the promise of tino rangatiratanga in the Treaty? In the words of those 42 distinguished lawyers, this new principle “erases the Crown’s Article 2 guarantee to Māori of tino rangatiratanga”; it seeks to undermine the chieftainship and self-determination and their political authority.

This is a damaging piece of legislation. This Government—Christopher Luxon—is taking a wrecking ball to the work that has been done by successive Governments over the past 50 years since the Waitangi Tribunal was established. This bill would amount to the dictatorship of the majority. This Parliament can—and has passed racist laws in the past, and Māori are still paying the price and we all are still paying the price.

We’ve come a long way since those laws were passed—or so we thought. We’ve recognised this House does not have an unfettered mandate to violate the rights of others. But this bill demonstrates that some people still think that because Parliament is sovereign, because the power exists, there’s a mandate to expropriate, rewrite, and revisit. They think their power is unfettered, unbridled, and unconstrained—but it’s not. As those 42 King’s Counsel said, even if Parliament can legislate like this, it should not, because it’s not for the Government of the day to retrospectively and unilaterally reinterpret constitutional treaties—that would offend the basic principles which underpin New Zealand’s representative democracy.

There are big constitutional questions that deserve debate and Te Tiriti is one of them—a contentious one. But it should be given a debate which is careful and conducted in good faith. This Government has approached this debate in a way that’s disrespectful at best and hateful at worst. Will a later Parliament look back at the conduct of Christopher Luxon presiding over this bill and put it alongside those Parliaments which drove a wedge in our society and caused generations of harm? I think so. And now we go to a futile select committee process—one where the National Party said they’re not going to vote for it; we’re not going to vote for it. It’s wasteful, it’s divisive. That Government should be ashamed.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to participate in this debate. In doing so, I want to echo the words of my National Party colleagues who have already spoken. It’s National’s long-held position that a referendum on the Treaty would be divisive. We therefore do not support this bill becoming law. We believe this bill is a simplistic approach to what is a very complex issue and will not deliver the equality of opportunity that National believes all New Zealanders deserve.

Over successive decades, New Zealand has grappled with how to deal with the Treaty. It’s not realistic to suggest that almost 200 years of debate over what is an incredibly complex and challenging issue would be resolved by the passing of a single piece of legislation. It is too blunt and simplistic and risks stoking grievance and driving division.

National therefore takes the more difficult but more practical and enduring approach to dealing with Treaty and race issues, and that is to work together on these issues, case by case. Successive National Governments have worked well with Māori on Treaty issues. We have a proud track record of progressive Treaty settlements to address historic wrongdoings. We know we won’t always agree with each other on the best way forward—

Arena Williams: You’re making your colleagues agree.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: —and that is to be expected—

SPEAKER: Just give it a rest.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: —on an issue as complex as this. For instance, National does not believe in co-governance of public services, and we don’t agree that having a separate Māori health bureaucracy or a co-governance of local water assets is the way to achieve equality of opportunity. Just as we do not believe that this bill will help us to achieve equality of opportunity all New Zealanders deserve.

National was elected to rebuild the economy, to restore law and order, and deliver better public services. This bill does none of those things. The reality of MMP is that parties—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Hang on. Constantly talking like that is not interjecting—it’s being disorderly. There are two members particularly who’ve done it repeatedly throughout the afternoon, and I’ve been very, very tolerant. But they should remain silent for the next two minutes and 10 seconds at least—actually, a couple of days would be good!

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: Hope springs eternal! The reality of MMP, as I was saying, is that parties are required to make compromises to form a Government; that’s the essence of MMP. National has made a commitment to our coalition partner that we will support this bill to select committee, and we will honour that commitment today by voting as such. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: No, hang on. Stop there. What did I just say about constantly talking?

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Well, you said to them. You didn’t say here.

SPEAKER: No, it wasn’t them. I was looking directly at the member who is in my line of sight at the moment.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: You can’t give them an easy run, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: No, no, no, please. Enough.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: As I was saying, we will honour that commitment today by voting as we have agreed in our coalition agreement. However, National is united in our view that this bill should not pass into law, and that is why we will vote against it at second reading.

CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare; otirā tātou katoa. “Ehara taku maunga, a Hikurangi, i te maunga nekeneke; he maunga tū tonu mai onamata”. Engari i tēnei rā kei te hūnuku a Hikurangi ki konei ki te whakahē i tēnei pire kino rawa atu.

[Greetings, Mr Speaker; indeed all of us. “My mountain, Hikurangi, is not a transient mountain; it is a mountain that has stood strong since former ages”. But today Hikurangi is moving all the way here to oppose this exceptionally bad bill.]

My mountain, Hikurangi, is not a moving mountain. It has stood fast since time immemorial, but today Hikurangi is on the move, supporting the thousands descending upon Parliament to condemn this divisive moumou moni, moumou tāima [waste of money, waste of time] bill.

Heoi ko taku mihi tuatahi i tēnei rā ki a koutou e tū ana mō tēnei kaupapa, kia whai mana tonu te Tiriti o Waitangi. Kei te rongo au i tō koutou ihi, tō koutou wehi, tō koutou wana, tō koutou mana, tō koutou tūmanako. Tēnei te mihi nui rawa atu ki a koutou e whawhai tonu ana mō mātou, te iwi Māori, mō ā mātou tika. Ko te inoi kia kaha tonu koutou. Mā te Atua koutou e manaaki, e tiaki kia tae ora koutou ki konei ā tērā wiki.

[However, my first acknowledgment today is to you all who are standing up for this initiative, so that the Treaty of Waitangi retains its power. I feel your internal power, your awesomeness, your fervour, and your hope. I appreciate very much that you are fighting for us, the Māori people, for our rights. My request is that you keep up your strength. May God care for you and protect you so that you arrive here safely next week.]

I stand today with a great sense of responsibility to those gone before me and the mokopuna who will come. I feel them here with me as I stand to condemn this backward-looking, resource-wasting, divisive bill, the Treaty of Waitangi principles bill.

I stand here proud to be Māori, tangata whenua, a proud Wīwī Nāti, but I also stand here ashamed—ashamed—that this Government is even entertaining this ridiculous bill. What are we grappling with? It’s simple: honour the Treaty; no grapple involved.

The people of Ikaroa-Rāwhiti brought me to this House with hope—hope that we might actually address the real issues that whānau are facing, issues like housing, employment, education, and economic development. Instead, on a daily basis, they are faced with what they describe as incessant attacks on Māori: the removal of section 7AA from the Oranga Tamariki Act, Te Aka Whai Ora—but this bill takes the cake.

The explanatory note of this bill says that an overarching objective is to “promote a national conversation about the place of the principles, etc.” Māori have held national conversations about all aspects of Te Tiriti since 5 February 1840 at Taurangatira. It’s been debated on every marae, the length and breadth of Aotearoa since. Why should this Government’s belated arrival to the scene usurp all the conversations that have gone on before? Honour Te Tiriti before altering the spirit, intent, and outcomes tīpuna signed up to.

Yesterday, we stood in unison to honour Tā Bom Gillies, who said, “We returned from war to the continued subjugation of Māori, since the Treaty to this day,”. Honestly, e hika mā [my friends], what is the price of citizenship? Since signing what was, effectively, our very first social cohesion document, Māori have held up our side of the bargain. Māori have fought for this country. Māori have died for this country. Let Māori live in this country with tino rangatiratanga, as we afforded our Treaty partners. I want to be clear: this bill is not a threat to tino rangatiratanga.

Ko tōku mana nō tuawhakarere. Ko tō mātou mana nō tuawhakarere.

[My authority is from ancient times. Our power is from ancient times.]

This bill has already impacted Māori-Crown relationships. Iwi have united in their stance against this backward-looking, money-wasting, divisive bill.

Hei whakakapi, e hika mā, kei te tautoko awau i ngā kōrero a taku tūngāne. Māori mā, e tū. Me pōti. [To conclude, my friends, I support the statements of my brother. To the Māori people, stand up. You must vote.] As my favourite banner, so far, in the hīkoi has said, we don’t need to change the Treaty—we do not need to change the Treaty—we need to change this Government. I stand united with the thousands across Aotearoa who are descending upon Parliament.

Kei te whakahē rawa atu awau i tēnei pire. Tēnā tātou.

[I absolutely oppose this bill. Thank you all.]

JAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata): Thank you, Mr Speaker. As has been well covered, National does not support this bill becoming law. Minister Goldsmith outlined very clearly our long-held position on this bill—[Interruption]—and the reasons why we will—

SPEAKER: OK, that’s the absolute end of it. It’s the last speech, it’s going to be heard in silence. [Interruption] Did someone disagree?

JAMES MEAGER: As I said, Minister Goldsmith did outline very clearly our long-held position on this bill and the reasons why we will vote for it to go to a select committee hearing, but no further. Our coalition agreement with ACT stipulates we will “introduce a Treaty principles bill based on existing ACT policy and support it to a select committee as soon as practicable.” We will honour this commitment and support this bill to select committee. We will also honour our pre-election commitment and vote against the bill at second reading. It is important to point out that compromises like this are at the heart of the MMP system that New Zealanders voted to introduce before the 1996 election and reaffirmed their support of at the 2011 referendum. I suspect neither the National Party nor the ACT Party have achieved exactly what they want with the outcome of this debate, but that is the reality of forming coalitions under MMP.

Yes, the Treaty is a topic of debate in this country, and it has been for the almost 200 years since its signing, and different people will have different views about what it means. But the things that people stop me in the street about, in my electorate, are the same things that National is squarely focused on addressing. How do they pay the mortgage or the rent? How do they fill the car or the shopping trolley? How do they find work after their freezing works is shut down? How do we make our community safe? How do they get the healthcare they need, when they need it? How do they make sure their kids are equipped with the skills that they need to live better lives than their parents did? That is not to say that this issue is not important to some people. The select committee process will allow everyone who wants to make a submission and have their say. But to suggest that this bill would put an end to nearly two centuries of debate is not practical, nor is it realistic.

While National does not support this bill becoming law, as chair of the Justice Committee and out of respect for our parliamentary process and the institutions of this House, it is my job to ensure submissions are heard respectfully and in line with the Standing Orders, and it is my commitment to do just that. So I just simply and respectfully ask that all members do the same as this bill is considered over the coming months. Thank you.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill be read a first time.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Mr Speaker, point of order.

SPEAKER: We’re in the middle of a vote.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Mr Speaker, I call that a personal vote—

SPEAKER: No, sit down. We’re in the middle of a vote. The Ayes have it. A party vote has been called for.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Mr Speaker—

SPEAKER: A party vote has been called for. There is a process here.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill be read a first time.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

[Members perform the haka “Ka Mate” on the floor of the House]

SPEAKER: No, don’t do that. The House is suspended until the ringing of the bells. The gallery is to be cleared.

Debate interrupted.

Sitting suspended from 4.05 p.m. to 4.31 p.m.

Naming and Suspension of Member

Naming and Suspension of Member

SPEAKER: At the end of the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill, Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke misused the voting procedure to stage a protest. Other members joined in. The result is that the vote was not declared and the bill has not yet been read a first time. I’ll proceed to that shortly.

Firstly, the matter of misconduct, appalling disrespectful conduct inside the House: premeditated actions to disrupt the House by one of its members is grossly disorderly and I name Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke. Therefore, the question is that Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke be suspended from the service of the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke be suspended from the service of the House.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill

First Reading

Debate resumed.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green): Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Point of order, remembering that I haven’t yet declared a vote.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: It was on that question, though.

SPEAKER: OK.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: I call that a personal vote be held on that question which has just been put, under Standing Order 142.

SPEAKER: If you read the Standing Orders, you can’t do that until you know what the vote is. It’s quite clear. I’ll just make this explanation, for anyone who is watching. The limitations on a Speaker accepting a motion for a personal vote are in our Standing Orders: reason to believe that there is a gap between the vote legitimately cast by party whips and the intentions of members. That needs to be signalled by a member; it cannot be called for by other members—quite clear.

The Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill: the Ayes are 68; the Noes are 55.

Motion agreed to.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green): Point of order, Mr Speaker. To be clear: the Green Party will allow all of our MPs to vote in line with their conscience and we will not whip our MPs. So, on that note, I call for a personal vote to be held on that question on the Treaty principles bill at first reading, under Standing Order 142.

SPEAKER: No, I’m not accepting that. The time for the Green Party to notify me or the Clerk that there was to be a personal vote by its members would have been before the party vote was cast. That is very clear. It’s been clear for nearly—how long? Since 1996. So there’s nothing new in that.

Bill read a first time.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Associate Minister of Justice): Point of order, Mr Speaker. I reflect on your naming of one member for grossly disorderly conduct. I wonder if others who participated in the same action might also be suitable to name for doing the same thing; in particular, getting out of their seats and coming up to the desks of members from the opposite side of the House. As you know, that’s been the subject of a matter of privilege. I wonder if your guidance is that it should be raised that way or if perhaps they too should be named.

SPEAKER: Well, thank you for your question. I would suggest that if you think there has been a matter of privilege breached, then a letter stating that would be the next course of action. It is, in this case—naming is a very serious thing, and I certainly don’t do it lightly or with any degree of personal satisfaction whatsoever. But it is the instigator of the disorder that should receive that very, very high penalty. If you think there is more to be done, then write me a letter.

The question is, That the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill be considered by the Justice Committee.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5.

Motion agreed to.

The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 68, Noes 55.

Bill referred to the Justice Committee.

Motions

Defence Act 1990—Extension of Authorisations

Hon CHRIS PENK (Associate Minister of Defence) on behalf of the Minister of Defence: I move, That, under section 9(8) of the Defence Act 1990, the following authorisations given on 5 November 2024 and 11 November 2024 to use the armed forces to provide public services in connection with an industrial dispute be extended to 14 February 2025:

Authority for the use of appropriately trained members of the armed forces located at RNZAF Base Auckland to provide aircraft rescue and firefighting services;

Authority for the use of appropriately trained members of the armed forces posted to HQNZDF, Trentham and Linton Military Camps to provide security guard services for Defence House and Pipitea House, Wellington;

Authority for the use of appropriately trained members of the armed forces located at specified camps and bases to provide security guard services at those camps and bases.

As my colleague and friend the Hon Judith Collins KC advised the House yesterday, as Minister of Defence, she had authorised the use of the armed forces to perform a public service in connection with an industrial dispute. The purpose of this motion is to advise the House of the period of time for which that authorisation will apply. On 5 November, the New Zealand Defence Force received an official notice from the New Zealand Public Service Association—the PSA—that strike action would occur from 6 November to 31 January. Among other things, this will impact security guard and firefighting services at various camps and bases across New Zealand. The Minister of Defence, in line with section 9(2) of the Defence Act, has authorised the use of appropriately trained members of the armed forces to provide security guard services at certain defence areas, and for appropriately trained members of the armed forces to provide aircraft rescue firefighting service at base Auckland, in Whenuapai.

It is in the public interest that the security of defence areas and firefighting services can be maintained throughout the industrial dispute, to ensure the safety, preservation of life, and the protection of critical infrastructure and assets. Simply put, the New Zealand Defence Force can only maintain our national security by ensuring these camps and bases are kept safe and secure. These actions, authorised by the Minister of Defence, are necessary to maintain public health and safety. Further, the defence force continues to bargain in good faith with the PSA. These are hard-speak questions, and they’re not made lightly. The New Zealand Defence Force effectively went into this financial year with less operating expenditure than the previous year due to cost pressures such as rising fuel and power costs. The defence force has, therefore, undergone a rapid reprioritisation of its budget to ensure that ships, aircraft, equipment, and personnel are ready to respond when needed.

I acknowledge the valuable contributions that civilian staff in the New Zealand Defence Force make in service of New Zealand’s national security. And, of course, I acknowledge that along with the contribution, likewise, that is made by our uniformed personnel. Unfortunately, we do not live in a benign strategic environment, and so it is a fact of life that the defence force must prioritise core military outputs in the current fiscal environment in order to support our international partners and ensure that New Zealand does its bit for the international rules-based order. While the current industrial action is an operational matter, I place on record that I have, and the Minister of Defence in this Government has, complete faith in the Chief of Defence Force to prioritise accordingly in the current fiscal environment.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I wanted to take the opportunity to respond to this motion as moved by the Associate Minister of Defence on behalf of the Hon Judith Collins KC. I wanted to briefly touch on the circumstances surrounding these quite unusual notices and authorisations that the Associate Minister has made, and I also want to put forward an amendment to the motion which has been tabled by the Associate Minister today. I will speak to that motion and then I will be tabling that amendment as well, but I think it’s important for the House to note that a thousand defence force personnel have given notice to go on strike, and the dates that they have proposed to go on strike are from 6 November until 31 January.

Now, the circumstances of this particular strike, I dare say—and I dare say there’s probably agreement across the House—were not entered into lightly by the civilian members of the defence force who decided to take this strike action. It is important to note that the circumstances of that were that they received a zero percent offer from their employers in relation to their most recent pay negotiation. It won’t be news to this House that there’s been significant increases in terms of inflation in recent times, and for those members of the civilian staff to then receive a zero percent increase should not be—

Hon Chris Penk: It’s what you gave us for six years.

CAMILLA BELICH: Well, actually, the previous Government did actually look at giving pay increases to civilian staff, I understand. Certainly, the zero percent offer—

Tim Costley: What about people in uniform? Do you care about them?

CAMILLA BELICH: Would the member like to take a call to ask some of these questions? I would welcome that. I don’t get to answer questions in this House. I’m not a Minister. I am simply making a suggestion to amend and noting the circumstances, and I’m sure that member has as much respect as I do for the civilians in the defence force who are on strike at the moment, and additionally for the members of the defence force who have been, as a result of this motion, asked to perform the work of the civilian defence force; showing, I think, proving, the essential nature of the work that the civilian staff do and the importance of the work not only to their day-to-day jobs but, in fact, as we’ve seen in many of these authorisations that have been made, to the workings of the defence force.

Now, these circumstances, I would offer, are entirely of the Government’s making. They have chosen to cut parts of the defence budget, which has resulted in this quite astonishing zero percent offer to staff. This is the cause of this strike. The Minister has then taken quite an extraordinary act, which has only been—and I asked the Parliamentary Library to research this—used on a few occasions in our recent history; once in 1996 and in 2001, as has been recently covered in the media, and again, I understand, in 2018 by Ron Mark. This is a very, very rare power. One of the things that I’m interested in, which I would hope that the Minister is able to provide to the House, is advice on why this quite extraordinary step needed to be taken.

There are provisions in the Employment Relations Act when there are concerns around the health and safety of striking workers to actually replace those staff. What advice has been taken—it would be very helpful to find that out—on why that particular provision couldn’t be used? That is a provision which is used in all other industrial disputes when—I think it’s section 97—there is a need, for safety reasons, as you can imagine, when some of these roles are firefighters at airports and they need to be filled in this particular instance. Why has the Minister decided to take this extraordinary step when there was a much better—actually, two clear options available to her? The first is—

Tim Costley: Like pay more money.

CAMILLA BELICH: Yes, exactly; paying more money—

Tim Costley: That’s always the answer, isn’t it?

CAMILLA BELICH: —and recognising the service of defence staff. Members opposite laugh but they clearly have an important role. A zero percent pay increase for defence staff is absolutely shocking, and it is undoubtedly the cause of us using Parliament’s time now—because of that offer. It’s why these people had to take this extraordinary action. That is a very important thing that needs to be addressed.

The Minister of Defence could solve this problem if she wanted to. She obviously does want to interfere in this dispute because she’s taken this extraordinary step of providing these authorisations. My question—and I leave it hanging in the House, in lieu of an answer—is: why was her decision to involve herself in this particular dispute the one that was less likely to solve the problem? Why didn’t she decide to say to the parties, “Get back to the table. Negotiate in good faith. We respect both parties. We respect you as an employer, New Zealand Defence Force, and we respect the work that your civilian staff do.” Why did she not decide to do that if she decided to involve herself in it? That is, I think, a very important question that is begging to be answered. Instead, we have a few notes that have been made on 5 November and on 11 November that authorise the use of defence staff to fill these civilian roles during the strike action.

Now, I don’t know why—and I’m also looking for an answer to this—a notice was put forward on 5 November but was not reported to the House until yesterday. It is very clearly the intention of section 9 of the Defence Act that this is raised at the earliest possible opportunity in the House. Why has that not taken place? I think that’s a very important issue in terms of the application and the correct use of section 9 of the Defence Act.

I do have an amendment to make to this, and I think it’s one that the Minister should consider accepting. That amendment is to look at the wording of this particular motion, which has been tabled in the House. This motion allows striking workers to be replaced by defence staff until 14 February 2025. This is inconsistent with the times of the strike dates. The strike notice is until 31 January 2025, so that leaves, effectively, a two-week period where there is no strike notice, yet there is an authorisation from the Minister in this House for that work to be filled. Why is there this inconsistency? I cannot see any logic to it. If another Minister on the other side of the House would seek to take a call on that, I’d be interested to hear it.

I would like to move, That the words “14 February 2025” be replaced with the words “31 January 2025”. The reason I’m suggesting that is because I cannot see any logical reason why these authorisations need to go on for two weeks longer than the strike notices.

There may be other amendments to make in relation to the reviews and the amount of information that is provided to the House and whether in fact this extension should go ahead, but, at minimum, I cannot see any right reason why the Minister would not accept this amendment, which would allow consistency between the authorisation and the dates where the authorisation applies. I will be shortly tabling that amendment, and I very much hope that the Minister will accept that to at least provide some consistency in the record keeping in relation to this very unusual move that has taken place in this House.

I again urge the Minister and the parties to try and get around the table and solve this issue so that we’re not wasting House time talking about bargaining when we could be doing other things to address concerns that New Zealanders have, like the cost of living, the environment, and all of the other concerns that are present in people’s minds, and not this particular issue which is involving a Minister of the Crown in an industrial dispute, very unusually and not with the efficiency it would take in order to solve this particular dispute through actually providing additional funding to Defence to allow them to offer a pay increase that was respectful and along the lines of the inflationary period we have just endured.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Members, the question before the House for debate is that the amendment be agreed to. The amendment is now debatable together with the motion.

Debate interrupted.

Voting

Correction—Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill, Referral to Justice Committee

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Before I take the next call, can I just inform members that six votes were cast by Te Pāti Māori on the vote on the referral to the Justice Committee of the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill. Five votes should have been cast by Te Pāti Māori due to the suspension of Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke. Accordingly, the vote is corrected as 68 votes in favour and 54 votes opposed.

Motions

Defence Act 1990—Extension of Authorisations

Debate resumed.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Point of order. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I was just listening to Camilla Belich’s contribution there and it occurred to me that there are actually some quite pertinent questions asked. Yes, this is a debate on a motion—it’s not a committee of the whole House stage—but I do wonder whether it might be helpful to the House to provide clarity on the restrictions on the number of calls, because, whilst the Associate Minister of Defence is under no obligation whatsoever to answer questions, it might be useful for all members to hear from you that if, indeed, a Minister chose to answer those questions to assist the debate, no member would be under any restrictions on the number of calls they take as a result.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Thank you for that point of order. I will take more advice as I take the next call, but my understanding at the moment is that, when an amendment is put on the floor, as in the case of Camilla Belich, the Associate Minister of Defence is able to take a follow-up call on that, but I will confirm that with advice from the Clerk.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think, from a Green Party perspective, I do want to lay out our view as to why we are here debating this motion of notice No. 1 from the Government. While yesterday we heard a lot that some of these negotiations were an operational matter, they have to be contextualised around decisions that this Government has made to underfund our Public Service entities, which has actually resulted, and then operational matters around salary issues playing out. We cannot decouple those two things. This is the direct result of austerity politics. The stuff that we’re debating right now is actually deeply unusual.

Yesterday, we heard a lot about how the work that civilians do at the defence force is “life-preserving”. I think this cannot be understated, right? When there are extreme weather events or fires, we rely on our civilian defence force to preserve life. Now, we’re debating the extension of the authorisation for that civilian workforce to be replaced by armed forces. I take the point that the Minister of Defence was raising yesterday around how the civilian workforce performs tasks that do require a lot of skills and training, and cannot easily be replaced, but at the same time, I was quite shocked at, I guess, the dismissal from the Minister at the time around genuine questions on whether alternatives had been sought around this course of action. I have similar questions as well, regarding the dates in relationship to the extension of these authorisations, so far as we know them—they’re from 11 November to 14 February. That’s almost three months, and I cannot see why. For example, we could have come back in a two-week period or at least in the next sitting week, to then, once we’d allowed those two weeks to play out, discuss whether an extension would have been needed. It kind of felt pre-emptive. I guess my first question is in relationship to the dates. I’m curious to know as to what advice the Minister sought around those options.

I do think Camilla Belich’s amendment is really useful for us to take into account, because if we think about when we’re coming back after the summer break, I think there are opportunities for this House to debate whether a further extension would have been needed, right? Because of how unusual these extensions are, I think the Government should do scrutiny and debate around whether, actually, we need to wait way beyond the time we come back to the House, after the new year, to even know if these negotiations have been resolved or whether we need to end such authorisations. I actually think it would even better for the Government to enable scrutiny, say on the first week coming back. I think that would have been quite fair. There’s going to be a break for Waitangi—and all good; I do think that political attention should be in relationship to what is going on at Waitangi after the first sitting week—but there’s nothing that would have stopped the Government to enable these orders and these extensions to, basically, be debated on the first week coming back. I think that’s an incredibly fair request from Camilla Belich, and the Green Party backs that amendment.

I’m really curious, and the Green Party is curious, to understand why the Minister wouldn’t accept that. As has been canvassed, because of how unusual these extensions are and actually the consequences of having armed personnel replacing a civilian workforce, I think, again—and the nature of the job that they perform—it’s really important that we allow scrutiny of them. I’m also curious to know around arrangements that will be made over the summer, and for the Minister to actually expand, for the public’s benefit, the arrangements that these armed forces will be performing over the summer break, and then also the exceptional circumstances that require these. I guess, the budgetary decisions that create these circumstances in some ways I don’t think are that exceptional—they are of the Government’s own doing. It’s not like we had something outside of the Government’s control that created these conditions. In fact, some people could argue that they could have predicted this happening. In fact, that would have necessitated this extension.

I note the Speaker is receiving advice, so, at any point, feel free to interrupt me to give us an update, but for now, I think, I do want to invite the Minister to give a reflection as to Camilla Belich’s amendment.

I also want to understand why the Government would be against us debating this in the first week? Is it that perhaps they’ve got more controversial legislation in place that they’re hoping to get through in that first week, without being interrupted by a debate in the first week coming back? I think, to me, like, the way that this has happened, I don’t think the Government has engaged in the debate. Yesterday definitely didn’t give us the impression that the Government is operating in a good-faith way when it comes to just genuine questions around advice around the considerations that we’re giving. Again, these are quite extraordinary tools that the Government is tapping into.

With that, I will, I hope, allow the Minister to engage with the amendment on the advice that he would have received around the specific reasoning for 14 February, and I hope that we can move forward constructively, because, again, this is no minor issue.

Finally, I do want to move forward in the debate around some of the arguments that were said yesterday around the Green Party’s position on the funding of the New Zealand Defence Force. I want to make it really clear that we should separate our political arguments around the funding of the defence force for the purposes of waging war versus actually life-preserving services.

Tim Costley: That’s what we do. That’s all we ever did.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: No, no, I think this is important, because if we have Ministers yesterday making accusations around this, I think it’s an important point to be made.

Tim Costley: No one made accusations.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: Well, you may have not been listening yesterday, but that was what’s been happening. The Green Party does have a longstanding position around what the defence force should be used for. I do think it’s important that the public has the means to know that the Public Service is there to back them—should, for example, a fire break in the vicinity of someone’s livelihood—and that they know they will have the resources to be supported. With that, I will allow more contributions from other members of the Opposition, and the Minister.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Thank you. Just to inform the House to the point of the Hon Kieran McAnulty: I was right, but in terms of—

Hon Members: Ha, ha! Good on you!

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): I’ve got to own something, guys. But, for further clarification, may I draw members’ attention to Standing Orders 124 through to 130. There’s a bit more detail in terms of the ability to speak to further amendments. The way that it works, if there is an amendment that has been tabled: if you have spoken before, you can then speak to that new amendment—and there are a couple of other things.

Hon CHRIS PENK (Associate Minister of Defence): Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity just to respond very briefly to the amendment that is on the Table, which I think deserves consideration to the extent that I feel the need to point out that the Government regards it as prudent to provide a notice that will be long enough, at least until such time as the industrial action takes place, and a bit longer.

The reason for additional time could well be—well, number one, I suppose if in unforeseen circumstances the industrial action were somehow prolonged, but actually even if not, then as a matter of practicality to allow a couple of weeks for rosters to be put on so that people know, from one day to the next, when they are going to be required to turn up and do their shifts, including overnight, at all hours of the day. Of course, we require our personnel to be on standby for accidents—God forbid—in terms of aircraft crashing, for example, or on security gates and so on, so a little bit of lead time is prudent to allow.

Of course, I also just finally add the obvious point that the notice can be cancelled at any time, so we’re very hopeful that the matter will be able to be resolved not only before 14 February but also before 30 or 31 January, and, indeed, as soon as possible. As I said at the start, I’m very confident that the Chief of Defence Force and his team will work constructively in good faith. No doubt, the Public Service Association and their respective members will too, and we wish all parties the best to reach a satisfactory resolution as soon as possible.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour): Mr Speaker, thank you, and thanks to the Associate Minister of Defence for that contribution. I really enjoy and value his plain-spoken presentations in the House. We’re here today debating this motion because 1,000 civilian defence force staff will go on strike because of their zero percent pay offer from the New Zealand Defence Force. This motion is to enable an extension to authorisations for orders made by the Minister of Defence to replace the striking uniformed civilian staff with uniformed staff. This includes for important roles to do with health and safety, such as aircraft rescue and firefighters and security staff at bases. No one is doubting the importance of that work.

We might cast wider when we think, “Well, why are we really here?” As my colleague Camilla Belich has noted, we are here because there was a zero percent pay offer to those civilian defence staff this year at a time when members of the Government have been declaring widely that there has been a cost of living crisis. Well, surely those hard-working people fulfilling these essential functions are also entitled to have their wages keep up with inflation. The Labour Party supports the rights of workers to be able to take a strike, to be able to work with their unions, and to have their employer—even if it is the New Zealand Defence Force—come to the table to negotiate with them and to constructively resolve this dispute.

I want to reflect on the comments made by the Minister in relation to the earlier motion yesterday. At that stage, the Minister—I appreciate it was Minister Collins—made comments which I’ll paraphrase as not letting these important functions go unstaffed, such as fire crews and security. Well, that is actually not the choice that is before the Government. The choice before the Government was how much to fund the defence force in the first place. The choices that this Government made were made in Budget 2024-25 when they set the funding envelope for the defence force in the context of a Budget that had marked cuts to public services across all votes, but defence was not exempt. The defence budget—total Vote Defence—was $4.949 billion for this financial year, which was a $308 million reduction on the budget for the preceding year. That is why the defence force is in the situation it is in. That is why the staff have been offered a zero percent pay increase in the context of recent inflationary pressure. That is why the defence force is also undergoing 200 voluntary redundancies.

It is the choices this Government has made when it promised tax cuts to landlords, tax cuts to tobacco companies, and set commitments about their Budget prior to the election that did not add up. As a result, public servants of all sorts, including those civilian members of our defence force, are unable to get the pay they deserve. It is easy to get into the weeds of how on earth this piece of rarely used legislation is being invoked in this particular instance. I am lucky to have skilled employment lawyers in my caucus who can take the Government to task on that, but I am not one of those. I just want to reflect on the fact that it is the overall funding environment that has created such a limited set of choices for the defence force and they cannot treat their staff as well as I am sure defence leadership aspires to.

It has been a tough time for public servants across the Public Service, defence, and elsewhere. They have often heard their service—their essential service to our country—reflected as being mere bureaucrats. That is not OK. It is not OK to malign these people who serve our public. In this debate, we’re not talking about the uniformed members of the armed forces; we’re talking about the civilians who help them do their job every day, but they are just as important. They are just as important to the efforts to recover the Manawanui. They are just as important to the pilots being able to fly the planes safely, to know that they can have a safe landing with fire crew at the other end, but this Government has demonised public servants. They have just used that demonisation to justify large-scale cuts of the Public Service. Defence is only one of many agencies having 6 percent cuts across the board. This has caused multiple impacts for the services themselves. We see that this type of trajectory for our public services is one that happens across the board.

I’ve looked at the Budget documents while preparing for this debate, and you see annual increases to the combined operational expenditure and capital expenditure defence budget under the last Government, and then they all step down, going down from here. That is the impact of the Budget that this Government sitting across from me passed. These consequences—strikes from people running our essential services—are the consequences of that Government’s decisions. This will happen over and over and over again. It is unusual that we have to debate it in the House because of the legislation that is being invoked, but it is just one of many examples about how our public services are being taken backwards by this Government. We hear about it in health, where we know that voluntary redundancies are removing vital support staff from across services. We hear about it in education, where many of the back-office staff are being removed there. The idea that these sorts of cuts—6 percent cuts—cannot impact the front line is absolutely wrong.

What’s happening to the front line under this motion? Well, the defence force was probably where the very definition of the idea of a front line came from. The front line is being pulled into doing other jobs. They’re being pulled into doing jobs that non-uniformed staff usually do. We are reducing and hampering the front line, when there are many demands on their time, because of this Government’s cost-cutting agenda.

Tim Costley: Like isolation hotels, for example?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: Well, I just welcome the member who has so much to say about this to come over here and run a response to a national emergency, and then can lecture me about what to do in that situation. When you’ve saved 20,000 lives in a health emergency, come and tell me how to run a Government.

This Government will want to take cheap shots again and again, because fundamentally they are unwilling to face up to the consequences of the Budget that they passed—the Budget that never added up before the election and the Budget that now will have multiple consequences as years go on. We see it regularly in this city. We see it in the number of our young people leaving. We see it in the fact that many people have lost their jobs. And we see it in the fact that even those who do have their jobs feel so insecure precisely because of events like this—voluntary redundancies, zero pay offers—that they don’t have any money to spend. The knock-on effects are that other businesses are going out of business. The Wellington hospitality sector is struggling, retail is struggling; all of this because of the decisions that Government has made in its Budget. It does mean that over time we are facing an erosion of public services. Bit by bit, things are being nibbled away—whereas we made progress. We managed to invest in new aircraft for our defence.

We see under this Government again and again the rug is pulled out from public services that New Zealanders need and depend on. Overall, both the capital expenditure and the operational expenditure goes backwards. We end up in a situation where we have industrial action like this. These are the consequences of that Government’s poor choice.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, I was motivated to make a contribution and draft an amendment to this after the Associate Minister of Defence’s response. I find the Associate Minister to be a reasonable man and indeed it was a reasonable response, but it did make me wonder: what is the purpose of this extension? This is a very rare thing for Parliament to consider, and not only is it rare to consider an extension, I’m not aware of an example where an extension is sought that goes for so long. The provisions available to the Minister of Defence in the Defence Act allow her to make a decision to authorise properly trained defence personnel to do a particular task for 14 days—two weeks—and anything beyond that, the Minister is required to come to the House and that’s why we are here today.

Now, there’s a reason that 14 days was the original number, because this is an extraordinary measure for a Minister to move and so it was deliberately restricted to a fortnight. What we are being asked to do is to support an extension motion for the exact same reasons that were given yesterday by the Minister, but all the way out to 14 February. Nothing given today is any different to the reasons given yesterday. Those reasons were to justify 14 days; we would have expected something more compelling to justify all the way up to 14 February.

If Parliament has risen for the Christmas period and an emergency arises, the Minister has a provision to go through the Governor-General to seek these powers, but whilst Parliament is sitting, the Minister requires the support of Parliament to be able to do this. But why all the way out to 14 February? The Associate Minister, in response to the amendment moved by Camilla Belich, says that, for practical reasons, the Government would like these extraordinary powers to be available until the industrial action is concluded, with a little bit of wriggle room at the end to allow for logistics and shift changes, etc.—fine—but at the heart of this is an industrial disagreement and there’s industrial action in play. There are negotiations under way between the civilian staff in the Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of Defence. Both parties are required to act in good faith. How is it good faith for this Parliament to send a message to those workers that they shouldn’t expect a resolution until at least 14 February?

Now, that’s not good faith. If the Government is determined to negotiate in this industrial action in good faith, it certainly shouldn’t be asking for extraordinary powers all the way through to halfway through February next year—beyond new year’s, beyond Rātana, and beyond Waitangi Day. There are a lot of things that are going to happen in people’s lives between now and 14 February—Christmas being one. These workers who are entering into industrial action in good faith, in the hope of being able to settle this before Christmas, are being sent a message today by this motion. It is saying, “You should expect to go through Christmas and New Year’s with uncertainty hanging over the wages and conditions that you are working under.”, and I think that’s wrong.

The other reason that I wish to propose an amendment is that in passing this, Parliament would be accepting the implication that the Government is giving—that there is no need for further debate. If the Defence Act only gives the Minister the power for 14 days, there’s a good reason for that. It is because any extension beyond that needs to be justified at every step. I think this is an overreach. I think that for the purposes of potentially undermining the bargaining but also definitely restricting the opportunity of Parliament to have a debate on this matter, the Minister is pushing it out to 14 February. Why couldn’t we apply the same rationale and approve an extension of 14 days, exactly the same amount that the Minister has available to her under the Defence Act, and then come back to Parliament and justify it?

Hon Chris Penk: We’re not sitting that week or the one after that.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: The answer is that we’re not sitting that week, which is exactly why I’m not proposing that. What I am proposing is, in a practical way, a month. A month would be a Saturday. I’ll get in front of the Minister and say that I’m not proposing that either, but I am proposing the following Tuesday—the first opportunity that Parliament will have after a month from this date, assuming that it gets passed, and, to be honest, the quality of the contributions suggests that there is a lot that people want to have a say about on this, so it might not. A month from today, until the next Tuesday—that happens to be the last sitting week of this sitting calendar year.

Now, the Government hasn’t confirmed this, but chances are Parliament’s going to knock off on Wednesday, 18 December of that week. They’ve pretty much confirmed it at the Business Committee, or at least we figured it out and Simeon Brown didn’t deny it and that’s good enough for me. The 18th December is likely to be the last sitting day, so what I’m proposing is, That we amend this extension motion to replace “14 February 2025” with “17 December 2024”. I’ll be tabling that at the conclusion of my contribution. That’s twice the amount of time that the Minister has available to her in the Act. It’s allowing the extension that the Government is proposing, but it doesn’t go all the way—almost two months later. This motion proposes 14 February; I’m proposing 17 December.

What that will mean is if the Minister does wish for a further extension, she can come to Parliament and explain why and can justify it, and, in doing so, potentially give an update as to the negotiations and the industrial action where appropriate, because the House deserves to know. At the heart of this are workers who are facing a zero percent pay rise. Now, I don’t intend to go into those reasons—others may wish to and others already have, and I’m sure there’s many reasons they haven’t been touched on—but the fact is that is why they are striking, and the Labour Party will always support their right to do so.

There’s an expectation that both parties act in good faith. I don’t believe that the Ministry of Defence can act in good faith if this Parliament sends them a message that they actually don’t need to engage with the union or engage with the workers until next year: “Well, it’s a busy time of year. We’re coming up to December. Everyone’s got a lot on. We’ve got a lot on our plate. We’re thinking about other things.” I’m sure the Ministry of Defence, given the current circumstances around the world, has a lot to think about at the moment, and it would be very convenient for them to just leave this until next year when everyone has a break and comes back. This actually suggests to them that they can do that.

Where does that leave the workers? They’re already facing zero percent—facing the cost of living, dealing with zero percent pay increases, with rates, with insurance, with rent all going up at record levels. That is not a pleasant prospect to face heading into Christmas and New Year’s. As a message to the Ministry of Defence and a message to those workers, if we amend this today to 17 December, it’ll say, “You keep negotiating; we will revisit this. Ideally, by 17 December, before Christmas, you would have resolved this and there’ll be no need for an extension.” I think it sends the wrong message and, frankly, I think the Minister deserves to justify any extension.

It’s a pretty simple proposal; a pretty simple amendment. I’m not wanting to fiddle around with the justifications as outlined—the three bullet points in the motion—it’s simply to change “14 February 2025” to “17 December 2024”. I’d be very interested to hear why the Government wouldn’t support that. What could possibly be wrong with coming back to Parliament on the last sitting week of the year for, say, an hour, an hour-and-a-half , or two-hour debate to justify why they need to extend it further?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Members, the question before the House for debate is that the amendment be agreed to. The amendment is now debatable together with the motion.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Following that contribution from my colleague the Hon Kieran McAnulty, which differs slightly from the amendment that I had put up, I think it is incumbent on me to make some comments about his amendment that he has made, which does make a lot of sense to me.

I think that it’s really important to remember, when we talk about the fact that there are uniformed personnel from the defence force being seconded into work to cover striking workers, how fundamental the right to take industrial action is and where that comes from. When—

Hon Chris Penk: Uniformed personnel don’t have it.

CAMILLA BELICH: When there is a—well, we’re talking about civilian staff having the right to take industrial action. And that right to strike comes from the right of freedom of association.

The International Labour Organization, which New Zealand participates in, has ratified many, many different conventions on this; and a lot of our domestic legislation, including the Employment Relations Act, recognises the right of freedom of association and sees the right to strike as a corollary to the right of the freedom of association. Because of this, when using these extreme powers—which does impact on the industrial action of the civilian defence force who are permitted to take industrial action—there are significant limitations on it, and that is why I support the amendment put forward by my colleague Kieran McAnulty. I think that it is fair enough that, when we have a piece of legislation decided on by this Parliament which puts such restrictions on the utilisation of uniformed officers to take over the work of striking workers, we need to respect that.

I mean, if you read the piece of legislation; if you read the Defence Act 1990, if you look at section 9, you will see how seriously the Parliament who passed this Act took this exceptional power. The reason that they put in the 14 days is, I think, reflective of how serious they thought utilisation of this power is. I do support the amendment of my colleague Kieran McAnulty, but I also have a slightly different amendment which I think could go alongside his amendment and would assist with making sure that there was accountability to this House. The amendment that I want to move, Mr Speaker, is that after on the—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Just for clarity, Standing Order 130: “A member who has moved … amendment may not move a further amendment”. A member who has moved an amendment may not move a further amendment to the same question.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: That’s OK; Glen will do it.

CAMILLA BELICH: Yes, that is OK. Glen will do it. Thank you, Mr Speaker. That was not my understanding of the procedures, but I’m happy to take your guidance from it.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): I’m here to help.

CAMILLA BELICH: I think the point stands that I would encourage my colleagues to put forward this amendment. If it can’t be in my name, then hopefully another honourable member will put it forward.

I do consider that this amendment that I would speak to—that I think would complement Mr McAnulty’s amendment, which I am speaking to—would assist the House in that it requires the Minister to report to the House every two weeks on the status of the resolution of the industrial action. Now, I actually think that is a very minor requirement in line with the spirit of section 9, and so I would encourage other colleagues to recognise that that is an important power.

In terms of Mr McAnulty’s contribution and amendment, though, I do think that we haven’t been provided with—as he’s said—the additional reasons as to why such a significant extension would be given without the requirement on the Minister of Defence to come back and report to the House. The Minister provided an explanation to Parliament, as she was required to do, yesterday in the House, and she talked about the important work that the New Zealand Defence Force does and she talked about why it was important to have people covering important work for safety reasons, like the firefighters at airbases. She made a good point that you wouldn’t ever expect to be in a civilian aeroplane and not have those emergency firefighting rescue services available, even at a domestic airport, and you certainly shouldn’t expect that either at a defence airport or, in fact, at any place where aeroplanes are landing because this is one of the health and safety requirements.

I do a lot of work on health and safety and a lot of consideration, as I know you do, Mr Assistant Speaker Tuiono—but I’m not wanting to bring you into this debate—and health and safety is incredibly important. We’re not arguing about that here, and I hope that the Minister and those opposite will reflect on the fact that that is not the basis and the thrust of our amendments and our contributions today.

We do not begrudge the Minister taking responsible decisions in terms of health and safety—that is, of course, important—but the Minister must also recognise the reason that we are in this particular situation, which is to do with the fact that the defence force and the Ministry of Defence are not in a position to pay their civilian workforce an adequate amount to account for their work and to account for the fact that they have had a number of significant costs in terms of the cost of living in recent times. That is the true reason for this. We’re not saying that there shouldn’t be adequate health and safety measures in place to ensure the safety of individuals—that is, of course, essential—but let’s try and resolve this matter, and the way to resolve this matter is through resolving the industrial action that is being undertaken by these members.

As I said at the beginning of my contribution, we must recognise the spirit and the intent of the legislation which we’re working under: the Defence Act 1990. I know that the Associate Minister of Defence will be very keen to refresh his memory around how important and how particular this piece of legislation is, and it doesn’t take the right of undermining the industrial action, which I think it’s fair to say that utilising additional labour to mitigate the impact of a strike is. It means that there has to be a review within 14 days. I think that is an effective period of time because you can get a lot of negotiating done  in 14 days, and that is an appropriate time for there to be an update to the House and for the Minister to come back to the House and extend, if needed.

Of course we all want this industrial action to be resolved amicably to the satisfaction of both parties as soon as we possibly can. However, we’re in a situation now where the Associate Minister has put on the table an extension until 14 February. We have put forward two reasonable, sensible, practical amendments which allow for the health and safety of the personnel involved, and also to recognise the fact that there must be accountability to the House.

I do support my colleague Kieran McAnulty’s amendment. I also do think that if the Minister is not minded to support Mr McAnulty’s amendment, there should be some accountability to this House. I would be interested to know, if the Minister’s view is not to accept the amendment and the Government’s view is not to vote for it—and, obviously, they have a majority in this House and they can determine that. Why, within the spirit of this Act—which was so carefully pored over by a Parliament in the past that required accountability—would he not agree to additional reporting by the Minister to make sure that there is a spotlight on the parties to actually resolve this dispute and get everyone back to work, which is what I think we all want.

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Thank you for allowing me to take this call. I’d like to elaborate a little bit on the comments that were made by the previous speaker, Camilla Belich. In her comments, she talked a little bit about some of the reasons why the defence force was facing quite significant pressure and why they were perhaps having trouble settling. She mentioned the cost of living crisis, which is no doubt an important factor, but she neglected to mention two key Government initiatives that have been passed recently, which I believe are quite significant contributors to, I guess, the reason why we’re having this debate in the first place. Those two things are the baseline savings target exercise which all Government departments were required to meet—all Government departments made cuts between, I believe, 5 to 7.5 percent, and that included the Ministry of Defence—and the Government Workforce Policy Statement.

I’ll go through why the baseline savings targets led to these cuts. Obviously, we heard the Minister of Defence speak yesterday about how the funding for the Ministry of Defence had been increased by $571 million, and, look, we have to recognise that that is a significant increase in the context of this. We have to wonder, why is it, in the context of such large budget increases, that the Ministry of Defence is having such trouble actually negotiating for this pay? It seems like, if your department has just gotten a nearly $600 million increase, you shouldn’t be offering zero-dollar pay increases to your civilian staff.

Let’s actually break down what that announcement was for—the $571 million—because I think it’s important to illuminate. I did wonder how it is the case that a Government department that just got nearly $600 million can have such trouble actually paying workers what they’re worth. We’ve heard, and I recognise the contributions of the Associate Minister of Defence and members across the House, about how important these striking civilian workers are and what valuable roles they play across the defence industry, and the fact that we are debating this motion in the first place and the fact that they’re even being replaced by the military in the first place speaks to quite literally how—well, I was going to say irreplaceable, but they’re being replaced—critical the roles are.

Of this $571 million increase, $163 million would go to improving remuneration for the New Zealand Defence Force personnel and $408 million to upgrading equipment and infrastructure. All important things—all things that are important for meeting the capability of the defence force—but the issue is that the $163 million increase for remuneration was for uniformed personnel only; I guess that’s the key distinction here. The reason why the defence force is actually having trouble meeting the needs of the civilian workers who are striking is because the funding increase which was tagged to remuneration was for uniformed personnel in the first place. Nobody on this side of the House is saying that they shouldn’t have gotten those pay increases, that they shouldn’t have gotten $163 million to boost remuneration for them, but the issue is that this was not the case for the civilian workers.

In fact, if we’ve looked at what the civilian workers have had to go through—and I’m referring to I know (a) that was proactively released was they had to make cuts under the baseline savings targets, the non-uniform personnel. That was cuts of $7.5 million, so that affected the civilian personnel.

Another facet of that is that while the baseline savings target was imposed on the defence force, that meant that the people running your defence force had to come under pressure to actually find how to meet that savings target. I think because they’re incentivised to be a little bit more aggressive on how they perhaps conduct these negotiations, they might have gotten a little bit overzealous. I think we would agree that literally a zero percent increase in your wages, particularly at a time when there’s been such cost of living pressures, is actually being quite aggressive.

This is why us in the Greens will be supporting the amendments that our colleagues and comrades in the Labour Party have put forward. We do need to make sure that we’re actually putting a little bit of pressure on the Ministry of Defence to actually settle these claims and settle them in a fair way. The issue with the current time line is that they are quite far into the future, so it doesn’t create any incentives. In fact, all the incentives are for them not to settle.

I alluded to one of the things that I wanted to speak to earlier was the Government Workforce Policy Statement. Now, the Government Workforce Policy Statement that the public services Minister, the Hon Nicola Willis, published earlier this year—I think it was in August—said that remuneration had to be met within baseline. Because remuneration has to be met within baseline—there’s no additional funding—that means that in the context of the baseline, which was already reduced by the baseline savings targets, that the people running defence have to choose between paying workers what they’re worth and also upgrading the other operational aspects of defence and the other things that defence needs.

That’s not a context that’s isolated in defence only—the Government Workforce Policy Statement does apply across the wider public sector and we have to acknowledge that context—but acknowledging and actually knowing the wider context doesn’t actually mean that we actually need to support this action, even though the same level of cuts being imposed on defence are being imposed across the wider public sector, that doesn’t mean that they’re right or good.

The Government Workforce Policy Statement means that because they’re having to compete between different funding priorities that this is putting great, great pressure on the Ministry of Defence to actually have to pick and choose. I think that is something that we, as a House, should be very careful about because when you allow the military to replace striking workers for any reason—and, you know, as my colleague Camilla Belich spoke of earlier, we take no issue with the valid health and safety reasons why striking workers might need to be replaced.

If the Government is doing it in order to alleviate pressure on the Ministry of Defence to actually negotiate a fair settlement for the workers, because of the funding freeze that they’ve essentially created, then that’s something that is not a good justification for this Government notice of motion. This is why we in the Greens will be supporting the motion to cut the length of time, and this is why we in the Greens will also be advocating for wider policy solutions so that the actual cause of this motion—which is the fact that the wider Public Service and, well, more specifically, defence and, more specifically, I guess, the civilian component of the Ministry of Defence has been gutted of funding—then we need to actually overcome these barriers.

Otherwise, we’re just going to be sitting here in maybe—well, I think the original motion was meant to be 14—we’re going to be sitting here again on 14 February with the Ministry of Defence again asking for this motion to be extended. Because if we’re not dealing with the fundamental issues, then we’re just going to be going around in circles again. As to avoid going around in circles with my contribution, Mr Speaker, I’ll take a seat now. Thank you.

TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki): I move, That debate on this question now close.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour): Kia ora, Mr Speaker.

Tim Costley: Point of order. I just wonder, for my clarity, if you could help me to understand. With respect to Standing Orders 124 through 130, I understand that each member can speak once, and if they have already spoken once, which some of these haven’t, they can speak again after an amendment is made. I just wonder, at what point, given the content of the contributions, is the same argument—and there appears to be, perhaps, a lot of repetition more targeted on the resolution of industrial disputes and funding, not the use of defence force personnel under section 9 of the Act, which is indeed the question. I just wonder if you could provide some guidance as to where that balance lies.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Well, so, with the Standing Orders, members who haven’t spoken are able to participate in the debate. I do note that Glen Bennett has yet to speak in this debate and possibly he might be proposing a new amendment, but I guess I make the reflection that, if people that have spoken previously want to take further calls on new amendments, which they are entirely allowed to do under Standing Orders, it would assist the House if those further comments were focused specifically on those amendments, appreciating some of the general comments that members have made previously.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Mr Speaker, point of order. I’m concerned about what just played out there. It is very unruly for a member to move a closure motion to be ruled on and then do a point of order questioning the decision of the Chair. Now, it was very respectful and very calm, but that, in effect, is exactly what happened and you, as Chair, should not have to deal with that. If you look at what was proposed to you then, it was proposed immediately after you rose on a closure motion that in that member’s view, there was grounds for that, but that was dealt with by you deciding to seek another call, and I don’t believe you should have had to put up with that questioning of your ruling.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Well, thank you for that, the Hon Kieran McAnulty.

Tom Rutherford: Just speaking to the point of order.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): I do want to move this debate on, so I do want this to be specific.

Tom Rutherford: I’m happy for you to move it on.

GLEN BENNETT: Mr Speaker, have I got a deal for you: I am bringing you content to this conversation as the member who tried to comment on this. I do actually want to focus specifically on the defence force and the fact that this is unprecedented in many ways in terms of this decision that’s being made today. I am in a bit of a dilemma as well, and I do want to briefly comment on some of the dates, which I will move quickly on from because I know it has already been traversed. I’m in a bit of a predicament, a bit of a quandary, because I have my friend and colleague the Hon Kieran McAnulty proposing a date; I also have my good friend and colleague Camilla Belich proposing another date. I had considered a separate date yet again, but I think I will move on from that because it is important for us to prosecute the challenges we’re facing and the time line.

I will come back to that, but I really want to comment on the defence force and the use of the defence force in the history of New Zealand in terms of when they have actually engaged, in terms of stepping up because of industrial action. The piece of legislation that we are referring to in the motion is, obviously, the Defence Act 1990. Camilla Belich already spoke of two incidences, or situations, in 1996 and in 2001 where the defence force was brought in. I guess it’s extraordinary circumstances and that’s why we need to take time to consider it.

I was reflecting on the fact that this is a very rare occurrence—a very rare occurrence. The Great Strike was in 1913. Of course, it was huge for New Zealand in terms of the labour movement and, I guess, the trajectory to where we are today in terms workers’ rights. It was a very important time in New Zealand history; it was a very fraught time. Obviously, we were close to some geopolitical issues—we were on the cusp of World War I. Between 1913 and 1914, there was major strike action around Aotearoa New Zealand. That was the first time that I can recall—not that I was there, but the first time I can recall in terms of my history lessons—when the New Zealand Defence Force was actually brought in to actually deal with things like transportation, things even like waste, etc., and the movement of people and that type of thing. That was 1913. That was, as far as I know, the first time the defence force actually was used in this capacity.

Camilla Belich: Although they were volunteers.

GLEN BENNETT: As we said, although they were volunteers. Of course, there were also the special constables in that—just a fun fact for everyone—I think they were called “Massey’s Cossacks”, who came in and who, again, weren’t paid. It very much was around the fact that we were trying to keep the country operating, which I understand is what the Government was wanting to do, but the fact is that the defence force and the special constables, Massey’s Cossacks, were there to do it.

Well, that was 1913, and then nothing happens for a long time until 1951. We all know of—hopefully, if we did learn a bit of history at school—the great waterfront dispute, which was an appalling time in New Zealand history.

Hon Chris Penk: It’s getting very far from the motion, man.

GLEN BENNETT: But in terms of—no; one of your colleagues, Minister, was asking me to come back to the defence force and talk about that, so I thought I would reflect on that just to understand that they’re actually unusual and extraordinary circumstances when they are used.

Then we look and we come along, and there was 1979, in terms of transportation. Then, because we’ve talked about firefighters and that type of thing, 1981 was around traffic control. Again, this is where we understand that the defence force plays a key role in terms of the operations and the skills that they bring.

I want to propose an amendment. I want to step aside from the dates and look at amendment—so we look at what the Minister of Defence has here and we look at the third bullet point, which says, “Authority for the use of appropriately trained members of the armed forces located at” specified camps and bases, it continues.

I would like to move an amendment in my name, That after the words “camps and bases” the following words are added: “as long as the above authorisations are in place, the Minister will update the House on the progress being made to settle this industrial dispute on a weekly basis or on the next sitting day.”

The reason I propose that that be added is, again, around transparency. I don’t know if the word “pressure” is the word I want to use but it puts it firmly in the camp of the Minister to ensure that the work that is being done to negotiate with the civilian staff—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Can we get a copy of that?

GLEN BENNETT: Yes, I can provide it here, Mr Speaker. The reason is not only for the Minister to account to this House to make sure that progress is being made but also it is, I would hope, around allowing for the public to know what is actually progressing in terms of this space.

I want to ensure that all avenues have been exhausted before we actually come to this point. It was in July that negotiations began, and it’s been several months now. Having that added into that third bullet point, I think, just allows clarity not only for us to hold the Government to account in terms of progress being made but so that the public is fully informed of what is happening.

There has been a zero percent pay offer. It is taking time, and I think we really need to consider how we come to a place of solution. I’m just coming back to my initial thoughts on my colleagues and their amendments around the dates. I fully hear what the Hon Kieran McAnulty is saying about something before Christmas, and I think that really honours the staff and says, “Look, we are committed to working towards a solution before Christmas.” I think the amendment I am moving is far more significant because we haven’t traversed any dates.

I had considered putting in “28 January 2025” as the day, and the reason I was thinking of that, just so you know, was that it is our first sitting day back in 2025. I thought it would be a good line in the sand, but also we hear the narrative that this Government is a hard-working Government and they work through Christmas and New Year, so we come to the House early, back in January, and we’re all here. Of course, we have a recess the week after and we don’t actually have a full three-week sitting block until the end of March. But that’s beside the point. It kind of strays away from this motion.

I hope the clerks will give me some advice on the wording. I hope that the wording is correct and appropriate. I really do believe we should support the Minister in terms of getting this right. It does also put pressure on her to ensure that she is reporting back to the House, that she is ensuring transparency. We know that there has been some criticisms, and we on this side of the House have criticised some of those things. We felt that, potentially, transparency has been degraded slightly. We were speaking yesterday on the fast-track bill and our concerns on that. This is making sure we shine light in that space and making sure that the Minister is in a place where she can work her way through and keep us, as a House, notified. Of course, what that means is it keeps the public notified.

I caution the Government to seriously consider the issues of 1913 and the issues of 1951, the issues of 1979, or 1981. Are those issues that are etched in the memory of New Zealand’s history—are we in that pivotal moment? Or is this just something that they’re doing because they haven’t really given it the time, haven’t given it the effort, and really haven’t looked at the funding structure so they can do right by the civilians in the New Zealand Defence Force who do an amazing job, not only for our security here but in serving in peacekeeping throughout the world.

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): I move, That debate on this question now close.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Before I take the next call, I do want specific contributions on the amendments. That would be very helpful for the House.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Kia orana, Mr Speaker, thank you. This is the first opportunity I’ve had to take a call on this Government notice of motion No. 1. I concur with the comments that have been made around this being a very unusual step to take. I mean, it is one that is obviously permitted with the legislation, so there’s no issue there, but it is—well, it’s not unusual; it is very rarely enacted. I understand the last time that it was enacted was back in 2001, so it means that this is not an issue or an item that has been placed before the Parliament on a frequent or regular basis.

This does come back to the position of the Government not having any financial resource or capacity to be able to deal with the zero-pay offer from the New Zealand Defence Force—

Hon Chris Penk: Oh, repetition, come on! This is half a dozen times, for God’s sake!

TANGI UTIKERE: —and that really is a matter for the Government. Now, I raise that because this has a direct implication on my constituents. My constituents of Palmerston North, as you know, sir, are individuals who are employed heavily within the defence force. When we’re talking about the financial position of the Government and the decisions that they take, I do not believe that anyone in this House has spoken about the impacts on the constituents of Palmerston North as a result of that Government’s choices in this particular space.

Hon Members: Ha!

TANGI UTIKERE: Now, members opposite might laugh about that, but I might need to remind them that a significant number of defence force personnel who will be undertaking this work fall within Palmerston North City—and I’m not just talking about those from Linton Military Camp; I am talking about those who, Mr Costley will be aware of, also are employed or work at Royal New Zealand Air Force (RNZAF) Base Ōhakea. This does relate, actually, to the decisions that the Government have taken and the impact that this will have on my community in Te Papaioea.

Mr Speaker, I actually was reflecting on the amendments—and you’ve asked me to speak to the amendments, which I will specifically do. Mr McAnulty has identified a particular range of dates there. I think actually having that as the option of the last sitting date of this calendar year does make some sense, because it does allow for the Parliament to turn its mind to those particular issues, which are pretty important as well.

One of the things that hasn’t been addressed—and this might be something that the Associate Minister of Defence can respond to—is he’s identified that the strike notice ends on 31 January. The extension is sought through to 14 February, which in itself is questionable. Is he aware as to whether or not those involved would be, effectively, within the time period within which that ends and the extension ends—whether a lockout is going to be on the cards or undertaken? Now, that is not something that the House has been made aware of, in terms of that. It is important, because—

Hon Chris Penk: It’s a bad-faith suggestion.

TANGI UTIKERE: A bad-faith suggestion? OK, well, then I look forward to the Minister’s response around that, because there must be some movement perhaps that must be discussed, and maybe the Minister just wants to indicate that no, it’s not on the cards. There is a clear difference here between when the notice ends and when the extension period is sought to end as well.

Hon Chris Penk: I explained it earlier; you weren’t here.

TANGI UTIKERE: Thank you, Minister Penk. I intend to move an amendment that doesn’t relate to dates, actually, and it doesn’t relate to what Mr Bennett has referred to. The reason why I’m going to move this amendment is that the original order that was issued by Minister Collins on 5 November had an annex appended to it, Annex A. It actually identified the specific list of defence force bases within that. That was not contained in the subsequent one in terms of the further extension notice.

My amendment seeks to just focus specifically on the third bullet point of the Government’s notice of motion—and I have a copy of it. I will move, That “authority for the use of appropriately trained members of the armed forces located at specified camps and bases to provide security guard services at those camps and bases”—so that’s the final bullet point in the notice motion—be replaced with “authority for the use of appropriately trained members of the armed forces located at”, and then specify the individual locations. That is important because it was contained specifically in the 5 November documentation that the Minister issued—it didn’t appear anywhere else.

Now, there might be a question, “Well, you know, you don’t need to do that from the Government because we’re just referring to camps and bases.” If that is the case, why did the Minister of Defence specify that on 5 November? There is a bit of a mismatch there. To address that, I suggest that it be replaced with “authority for the use of appropriately trained members of the armed forces located at Devonport Naval Base, RNZAF Base Auckland, Papakura Military Camp, RNZAF Base Ōhakea, Linton Military Camp, Trentham Military Camp, Burnham Military Camp, RNZAF Base Woodbourne, and Headquarters, Joint Force New Zealand”. That is, basically, a lift and shift from the 5 November annex, Annex A. It is basically, effectively, introducing this into the notice of motion to provide a level of specificity around where this would apply. I reflect on that, and that’s why I think—well, you know, the folk of Linton and Ōhakea are constituents of Palmerston North, and, somewhat, the wider surrounds of course.

I think providing some clarity would be very important, and that’s why I’m prepared to move that amendment in my name. When we look at the actual relevant piece of legislation, which is the Defence Act, we know, Part 1, section 9(2)—it does indicate in that piece of governing legislation that the “authority shall specify the part or parts of the Armed Forces that may be used and the public service or public services that may be provided.” Now, the Government might be pursuing that, “No, no, that’s contained in the earlier notice of motion.”, but the question I have for the Minister is: why was that not effectively carried through to any of the documentation post 5 November, but also any of the documentation that currently is in front of the House in terms of the notice of motion?

This is, in terms of the exercise of this power, something that is not utilised very often at all, and so I think the proposed amendments—I’m sorry to my colleague Camilla Belich, but I do prefer Mr McAnulty’s amendment in terms of the date, just because it provides a little bit more timeliness. I think Mr Bennett has identified that issue of transparency—that this is a responsibility of this House and of this Parliament to effectively extend the Minister of Defence’s time frames and rights. On that basis, I commend this particular amendment to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): This debate is interrupted and set down for resumption next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 19 November 2024.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 6.01 p.m.