Wednesday, 14 May 2025

WEDNESDAY, 14 MAY 2025

WEDNESDAY, 14 MAY 2025

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Karakia/Prayers

Karakia/Prayers

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

Obituaries

Peter Malcolm Hilt

SPEAKER: Members, I regret to inform the House of the death, on 19 April 2025, of Peter Malcolm Hilt, who represented the electorate of Glenfield from 1990 to 1996. He chaired the Government Administration Committee, was a member of the Justice and Law Reform Committee, and in 1995 became the last member to be appointed as Deputy Chairman of Committees. In 1996, he was the first to be appointed to the role of Assistant Speaker. I desire on behalf of this House to express our sense of loss and sympathy with the relatives of the late former member. I now ask members to stand with me to observe a period of silence as a mark of respect for his memory.

Members stood as a mark of respect.

Visitors

Association of Southeast Asian Nations—Secretary-General and Delegation

SPEAKER: I’m sure that members would wish to welcome His Excellency Dr Kao Kim Hourn—Secretary-General of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations—and his accompanying delegation, who are in the gallery.

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

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

SPEAKER: No petitions have been delivered to the Clerk. No papers have been delivered to the Clerk. No select committee reports have been delivered to the Clerk. The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of a bill.

CLERK: Legislation Amendment Bill, introduction.

SPEAKER: The bill is set down for first reading.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Finance

1. DANA KIRKPATRICK (National—East Coast) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has she seen on the Government’s fiscal position?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): There’s been some recent ill-informed commentary suggesting New Zealand’s fiscal position is strong and that our debt is not too high. I disagree. That view counts for New Zealand’s super fund as if it were available for day-to-day costs. It is not. It was confirmed this week that we’ll start contributing to superannuation from 2028. That money is already committed. The reality is our debt is very high by historic standards, we’re spending significant amounts on interest, and our ability to respond to future shocks is limited. Now is the time to rebuild buffers, reduce waste, and get the books back on a sustainable path, and that is exactly what next week’s Budget will do.

Dana Kirkpatrick: What is the scale of New Zealand’s debt problem, and why does it matter?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Between 2019 and 2024, Government debt increased by nearly $120 billion, rising from under $58 billion to $175 billion. Net core Crown debt reached 42 percent of GDP last year, the highest since the mid-1990s. The Government is still borrowing around $500 million a week, and that is not sustainable. Last year, we paid $8.9 billion in interest, and that is money that cannot go to health, education, or infrastructure. High debt limits our ability to respond to future shocks, increases our exposure to global risks, and places an unfair tax burden on future generations.

Dana Kirkpatrick: What is the Government doing to get debt under control while protecting essential services?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The Government is taking a responsible, balanced approach. We are not reducing essential services; we are re-prioritising existing spending towards high-priority areas. That means reducing low-value or wasteful spending and focusing on core services like health, education, and law and order. We’re also limiting the growth in new spending. The goal is simple: to deliver better results from the money already being spent, not just rely on more borrowing and more tax. By rebuilding fiscal buffers and managing spending carefully, we will put New Zealand in a stronger position for whatever lies ahead.

Dana Kirkpatrick: Has the Minister considered alternative approaches to fiscal and economic management?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I have seen some interesting proposals from “Planet La La Land”, including an $88 billion tax grab, and unlike some members opposite, I’m prepared to rule them out.

SPEAKER: I’m on my feet. I’m sure even the Minister doesn’t read documents from “La La Land”. If it’s the end of the question, we’ll go to Laura McClure.

Question No. 2—Education

2. LAURA McCLURE (ACT) to the Associate Minister of Education: What recent announcements has he made regarding school attendance?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Associate Minister of Education): Today, I announced, on behalf of the Government, that Budget 2025 includes a $140 million package of new spending to improve attendance at schools over the next four years. This includes around $123 million for the delivery of a new Attendance Service, and almost $17 million to support and strengthen front-line attendance services, with better information, better case management, and more efficiency so that children get back to school when they’re not attending.

Laura McClure: What reports has he seen about the existing Attendance Service?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: When I became the Associate Minister of Education, I asked the Education Review Office (ERO) to review the Attendance Service. The report found that the Attendance Service was ineffective. It found that the current system fails to consistently improve student attendance, because funding varies by provider. ERO and the Ministry of Education recommended substantial reform, and that is what we’re doing. For example, the Government’s attendance action plan will include a requirement for schools to have an attendance management plan aligned to the Stepped Attendance Response scheme, or STAR, and that new and improved Attendance Service will address all of the Education Review Office’s recommendations.

Laura McClure: How will the new Attendance Service be improved?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: We have listened extensively to principals, attendance officers, youth aid police officers, and social workers in a series of hui or round tables—

Hon Member: What about children?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: —up and down this country. We have also listened to children—for that member who is interested. What we have done through this consultation is ensure that new funding will mean increased capacity to take referrals for chronically absent and non-enrolled students, who will identify and address the reasons for their absence. Providers will be equitably resourced and will work with a range of social agencies. There will be clear expectations, and, altogether, we will see each community working in the way that the most effective communities that I’ve listened to operate now.

Question No. 3—Prime Minister

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

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: What changed between Nicola Willis saying National “fully supported the 2020 law change to provide better pay equity for women”, stating at the time “it establishes mechanisms which allow people to make claims where pay equity and equal pay principles are not upheld”, and yesterday, when the Government tried to claim that the law change they fully endorsed at the time was wrong?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As I said yesterday, the Minister—it was a priority for her from day one. As we went through the course of the last 18 months, it became apparent that we have a broken, unworkable, unaffordable system left to us behind by the last Labour Government.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: So was Nicola Willis wrong to describe the changes made in 2020 as “a National bill with a Labour sticker on it”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, as we said, we went through the last 18 months, as it became very apparent how broken the system actually is. I think the question for the member is actually: are you going to support the new, fairer, clearer system; or are you going back to the broken, unworkable, unaffordable Labour Act? [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Questions only come from one side of the House.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: When he says it’s unaffordable, is he saying the thing that changed between National fully endorsing better pay equity protection for women and their decision to repeal those extra provisions was that they found out it was going to cost more than they’d previously thought?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No. The system has got completely out of whack as a Labour piece of law, in practice. When you have librarians being compared to fisheries officers, when you have administration workers being compared to civil engineers, it needs some sorting out. We are deeply committed to pay equity, but the practice had become unworkable, unaffordable, and broken. We’re fixing it, like everything. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Before the member asks his question, if the House will just quieten down, and certainly reduce the amount of barracking during answers to questions.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he stand by the statement made on his behalf in question time last week: “We believe that a lot of settlements being made now are settlements that should not be made”; if so, which settlements does the Government believe should not be made?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, the point that we’re trying to fix up is a few things. One is the fact that we have comparators that aren’t realistic, and so we’re being very clear about tightening up the hierarchy of comparators. The second thing is that many of the claims have been very broad. There have been up to 90 different occupations that often come together in one claim with multiple employers. All we’re doing is going back to what was proposed in 2017, before Labour passed a law—took three years, did it under urgency, created a lot of flaws—and now we are fixing it up. And so the question for the member, again, is: are you with the new system or are you going back to the old system?

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. First thing: I think the Prime Minister is well aware that he can’t ask the Opposition questions, but he certainly can’t ask the Opposition questions when he hasn’t even answered the question that he was asked. The question that he was asked did have two parts. One was whether he stood by the statement that Winston Peters made on his behalf, and he hasn’t indicated whether he did. The second is: if there were specific claims that he didn’t think should have been made, which ones were they? He didn’t deal with either of those two things.

SPEAKER: Well, I think he was getting to it, but the Prime Minister may continue.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yeah, I’ll just say it’s not up to a Minister to determine the claims; we have a law to do that. We have changed the law, and under a new law, we expect pay equity claims to come forward, sadly. We’ve put money aside to actually pay and make sure those settlements can be delivered. Again, the question is for the member: which system do you support?

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why are primary school teachers eligible to lodge a pay equity claim under the new scheme but secondary school teachers are not?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, again, we’ve tightened up the criteria—going through, looking, making sure that there’s good evidence for a pay equity claim where there is sex-based discrimination, making sure that there is a relevant hierarchy of comparators, making sure that the claims are not broad, that they are specific, and there’s a good review period. You know, anyone—any individual, any union—can actually launch a claim under the new laws, and we encourage them to do so.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked the Prime Minister why it was that secondary school teachers can’t lodge a claim but primary school teachers can. He’s just said that any union can lodge a claim, when that isn’t true. He hasn’t actually answered the question of why one group of teachers can and another group of teachers can’t.

SPEAKER: Well, look, you may not be getting an answer the way you want it, but the answers the Prime Minister gives stand. If that leads to further supplementaries or some other course of action, so be it.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why does the Government think that women working in the funded sector—like Plunket nurses, palliative care nurses, aged-care workers, and midwives—should settle for less pay given his Government’s decisions not to fund pay equity in those predominantly Government-funded sectors?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, individuals or unions can make claims under the new legislation. The criteria is clear. We’ve changed the criteria—I understand that—to fix a broken, unworkable system, but individuals, unions may make new claims under the new law.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Is he not aware that his Government has made an explicit decision not to fund pay equity claims in the funded sector?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, I just say to the member: we have tightened up this legislation given how unworkable and broken it has become. We are making sure there is strong evidence for claims. If there’s evidence and merit for claims, go forward—if there is, in fact, a case around stronger, tighter comparisons on comparators, if there is actually a need for us to have a longer review period, and also to make sure that the claim is actually specific, not broad. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Good—good. We’ll just calm down.

Question No. 4—Transport

4. SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga) to the Minister of Transport: What announcements has he made regarding the Government’s crackdown on drunk drivers?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Transport): It’s Road Safety Week, and I’m pleased to confirm that our crackdown on drunk-driving is showing signs of success. Stats from 2024 show an almost 40 percent reduction in the number of road deaths where alcohol was a contributing factor. It’s fantastic news; it shows our plan to improve road safety is working.

Sam Uffindell: How is the Government tackling drunk-driving?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: We’re focused on improving road safety through road policing and enforcement, investment in new and safe roading infrastructure, and targeting contributors to fatal crashes such as drugs and alcohol. Police have really stepped up their efforts. In 2024, police delivered 4,118,159 breath and breath-screening tests—the highest number recorded in a calendar year, smashing their target which was 3.3 million breath tests per year. They also exceeded their target of focusing 65 percent of their breath testing on the highest risk times. We’re really proud of the police and we back them all the way.

Sam Uffindell: What impact is this focus on drunk-driving having on the total road toll?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: It is making a difference. In 2023, there were 92 alcohol-related road deaths; last year, 2024, down to just 57. There’s a steep reduction in alcohol-related road deaths; it’s the lowest in a decade. It’s also significant given the presence of factors that can drive up the road toll such as population increases, continued increases in the size of the vehicle fleet, and increases in the total vehicle kilometres travelled. Every avoidable road death is a tragedy. There’s always more work to do, but this is a step in the right direction.

Sam Uffindell: What other actions is the Government taking to reduce road deaths?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, alcohol is one substance that can cause danger and death on our roads. Drugs are currently going untested. That’s why the Government has passed, finally, Parliament’s third attempt at roadside drug-testing, which will come into effect later in the year. Around 30 percent of our road deaths have resulted from crashes involving drivers who have consumed impairing prescription or illicit drugs. This will be a big step forward and bring our drug-testing regime into line with our very successful breath-testing regime.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: On the question of road safety and alternative transport and drunkenness, does the Minister consider proposals to fund light rail right across Auckland, Wellington, and Christchurch for $11 billion in this document which I’ve got here [Displays Green Party document, with inserted picture of Soviet flag], when Auckland—

Chlöe Swarbrick: Keep advertising!

Francisco Hernandez: Thanks for the shout-out, Winston. Join the party—I’ll send you a membership form.

SPEAKER: Listen. I don’t want to send an entire party out but I will. When questions are being asked, regardless of whether you like them or not, you listen to them quietly.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does the Minister consider proposals to fund light rail across Auckland, Wellington, and Christchurch for $11 billion—in this document right here—when Auckland light rail alone would cost $15 billion, to be an example of the inebriated influence?

SPEAKER: Well, it would be a question that may stand, although you can’t use a Government question to attack an Opposition party.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I didn’t.

SPEAKER: I realise how skilfully you’ve put that; no question about that. The problem is the question is about drink-driving, not railcar driving. So we’ll give it a miss.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. The last supplementary question asked by the original questioner widened the scope of the subject, and the Minister answered. That gave me a chance, which I was waiting for desperately, to ask the question correctly. Thank you very much.

SPEAKER: Yeah, well there is always the problem of creeping scope on questions, and so a brief answer might be appropriate. It’d better be brief—like “No.”

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, Mr Speaker, I noticed the member holding up a copy of the hammer and sickle, and I think that says it all about the party’s plans he’s talking about!

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, sir. Thank you very much. Far be it for me to enter into an issue that involves another party, but there is actually an important principle here. The Deputy Prime Minister deliberately used that question to attack another party in this Parliament. He held up a document produced by that party. Now, that should have been enough clues to stomp down on the question. It should not have been allowed, regardless of what previous supplementaries touched on, and then the answer itself followed through with the exact thing that you tried to prevent.

SPEAKER: Yes, that’s true, and I’ll deal with that outside of this particular forum.

Hon Member: Why don’t you dismiss the whole party?

SPEAKER: Who spoke then? Question No. 5, the Hon Barbara Edmonds.

Question No. 5—Finance

5. Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of Finance: Noa’ia, Mr Speaker. Does she agree with Christopher Luxon, when describing FamilyBoost, that “Our view is it doesn’t cost much more to administer”; if so, how much has been spent on administering the scheme relative to the amount paid out?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Yes, in context, which in this case was a quote made in Opposition long before Inland Revenue (IR) had given any advice. To the second part, as the member will know from working at IR, there is always a cost to administer tax credits and rebates, especially with a new scheme. For FamilyBoost, it was important to have systems in place to ensure integrity, make it easy to apply, deal with phone calls, and provide support and education for parents to claim what they are entitled to. I don’t have information on actual administration costs, but IR received $12.1 million this year to administer FamilyBoost, reducing in future years. So far, more than 58,000 families have benefited from this payment, and I want to see many more benefit from it in the months ahead.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Have the admin costs of $14 million this year proven to be value for money since only half the number of families have taken up FamilyBoost, and only $48 million has been paid out?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I want to see more families benefiting from this scheme, which puts cash directly in the bank accounts of people with high early childhood education costs. That’s why I have asked Inland Revenue to provide me urgent advice on changes we can make to the scheme to ensure more New Zealand families can benefit from it, and I look forward to making announcements about that in June. The alternative, of course, is the approach that member proposes in which zero families would get a FamilyBoost payment.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: When she said, “I have told Inland Revenue I expect the cost to fall in coming years.”, does that mean she has instructed Inland Revenue to spend less than the $11 million she has already allocated for admin costs in the next year?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, it is wonderful to see that we are now finally agreeing that it is always appropriate to look for efficiencies and reductions in Government spending that aren’t driving value. That is my baseline expectation of every Government agency: look for efficiency; do it with less money if you possibly can—and I have exactly the same expectation of the Inland Revenue Department.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Can she confirm that any money that hasn’t been paid out to families for FamilyBoost this year will be returned to the Government, and Budget 2025 will reflect this?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Budget 2025 will be revealed on Budget day—just a few sleeps to go. What I have made clear is that the indications of the amount that we wanted to spend on the scheme remain my intentions, and what I want to see is many more families benefiting from this scheme. I want those dollars in the bank accounts of Kiwi families who are struggling with the cost of living. They like this scheme. We just need more of them to be eligible for it.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: When will the remainder of the 100,000 families she promised FamilyBoost receive it?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, as I’ve said, that’s subject to future announcements.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: When will she admit that this policy failure has let down working families just like she has let down working women across the country? [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Sorry, just ask the question again.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: When will she admit that this policy failure has let down working families?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, I disagree with several characterisations in that question, and I’d just say this: that member wishes to support women and working women. When she sees misogynistic terms of abuse used against—

SPEAKER: Just a minute.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: —women, she should—

SPEAKER: Stop there! The question is to answer from a Government perspective, not attack other members in the House, and that’s the final warning on that one. Is there another supplementary? Question No. 6, the Hon Marama Davidson.

Question No. 6—Prime Minister

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): E tautoko ana ia i ngā kōrero me ngā mahi katoa a tōna Kāwanatanga—sorry, to the Prime Minister. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Sorry, there’s a wee conversation going on over here. You’re obviously talking to me. What were you saying?

Hon Dr Megan Woods: No, no, no, I wasn’t, sorry.

SPEAKER: Oh, well, that’s something, then, you should keep very quiet, to yourself.

6. Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (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?]

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he agree that healthcare is a right and that access to it should not be determined by how much money you have?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We want all New Zealanders to have access to healthcare. Whether it’s in the public system, the private system, we want their outcomes and their health needs met.

Hon Marama Davidson: Is he aware that one in six adults in Aotearoa avoid seeing their GP due to costs, and, if so, what is he doing about it?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I just encourage the member to look at the health Minister’s recently announced primary care package, where he’s doing everything he can to make sure that overseas doctors that are here in New Zealand—that their qualifications are recognised so they can get into GP practices. The work that he’s doing to incentivise attracting nurses and support and GPs into rural practices—I just encourage the member to go look at that policy; I think there’s a lot of things that she would want to support.

Hon Marama Davidson: If improving access to GPs is a top priority, as said by his health Minister, then why has his Government not maximised GP training placements at Auckland and Otago universities?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: The places will be up over 100 over the course of this term; I think the member may have not followed some of the announcements that have happened since we’ve come to Government. But I think the other thing is it’s incredibly sad that the member didn’t actually support the Budget last year that led to $17 billion more going into healthcare.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he accept Victoria University research findings that show primary care spending has not increased in real terms since 2009, and will his Government continue this austerity approach or invest in this sector so it can deliver the care New Zealanders need?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What I can speak to is that this is a Government that has a record expenditure on healthcare. We spend close to $30 billion a year. We put another $17 billion in over the course of the last Budget, and the Minister of Finance has already confirmed there’ll be more money going to health this year. We have a lot of money going in. We’re doing some good work in expanding our workforce. We’ve got clarity about the targets that we expect patients to receive. We want to see a higher-performing Health New Zealand and the Minister’s doing a great job trying to get that performance improvement.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he agree with the New Zealand Initiative that “Lack of GP access forces patients to emergency departments, overwhelming them nationwide … a financial haemorrhage hiding in plain sight.”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, we know that there is huge pressure on our healthcare system that has built up over a long period of time. But I would just encourage the member to look at what we are doing in health because I think there are a lot of things the member would support. We’re putting more money in, we’re hiring more people, we’ve got clarity around the targets, we’re making sure things are patient-focused. We’ve got work to do to make sure we get a high-performing Health New Zealand, but we’re on to that too.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Supplementary question.

SPEAKER: Supplementary question, the Rt Hon Winston Peters. I’ll just say I do hope it’s a genuine question, not a dig at the Opposition.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does the Prime Minister agree that mining income and royalties will help out with paying for healthcare, and does he also consider that a proposal for mining royalties to increase from 2 to 4 percent in this document being an indication that—

SPEAKER: No, no—sorry. The Rt Hon Winston Peters, that’s an interesting topic for a speech. We’ve got the general debate coming up shortly; you can expand it there.

Question No. 7—Māori Development

RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): My question is to the Minister for Māori Development in absentia: does he stand by his statement—

SPEAKER: No—no. Start again. Sorry, look, the rules are very, very clear. You’ve got to present the question to the House as it’s on notice, and therefore as it’s on the drill sheet, so that everyone knows exactly—no adornments; nothing else. Please start again.

7. RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori) to the Minister for Māori Development: Does he stand by his statement that “Over the past 50 years, the Tribunal has made significant contributions to the Māori Crown relationship and informed the settlement of both historical and contemporary Treaty claims impacting generations of whānau across the country”? [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Right, we will wait for total silence as the Minister replies.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Attorney-General) on behalf of the Minister for Māori Development: Yes.

Rawiri Waititi: What problem is he trying to solve by reviewing the Waitangi Tribunal when it is doing exactly what it was originally set up to do and has been doing an exemplary job for the last 50 years, like that member?

SPEAKER: Just why the last bit in the question? It causes problems for everybody. The last bit was totally rhetorical and unnecessary.

Hon Members: Move on.

SPEAKER: Excuse me! Ask the question again without the flick at the end.

Rawiri Waititi: What problem is he trying to solve by reviewing the Waitangi Tribunal when it is doing exactly what it was originally set up to do and has been doing an exemplary job for the last 50 years?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: On behalf of the Minister, the tribunal has been doing a good job, but the problem is—they’ve raised this issue as well with the Minister—that after 50 years of doing the job and with the same legislation that they’ve had, they know that they have a lot of claimants who are waiting an extremely long time to have their matters heard. They want to be more efficient, and the Minister has received many complaints from claimants as well as the tribunal that they need to be able to do their job in a more timely fashion, and the Minister is cognisant that that is a good thing.

Rawiri Waititi: What accountability mechanisms, if any, are in place to ensure this review will not breach Te Tiriti o Waitangi or existing settlements, given this would normally be the role of the Waitangi Tribunal to determine?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: On behalf the Minister, I think it would be very odd to have the tribunal reviewing itself. It is actually much better to have an independent, technical advisory group, led by eminent KC Bruce Gray, with a small but very talented and experienced group of people working with him. The Minister is very aware this is a serious matter and not one for joking, and he takes it very seriously.

Rawiri Waititi: Is he aware of any other constitutional bodies being reviewed with the same level of scrutiny, or is it just the Waitangi Tribunal that’s been lucky enough to be singled out?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: On behalf of the Minister: he is a highly educated and experienced person—he’s fully aware that, from time to time, courts have been reviewed in their structures. He’s aware of the excellent work of the then Minister of Justice on the judicature review, which I think I may have had something to do with. He’s also extremely aware that every tribunal in every system of justice and constitution from time to time needs to be reviewed. But it’s great to hear that the member is so keen on exactly the same constitution that he’s often railed against.

Rawiri Waititi: Does he agree with the incoming Deputy Prime Minister that the Waitangi Tribunal has become woke and that, ironically, the Government is fast asleep?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: On behalf of the Minister, I’m sure the Minister has never heard the Hon David Seymour make those statements, but I do think that Mr Seymour agrees with the Minister very fully that this is a matter that needs to be reviewed. And when the Waitangi Tribunal’s made clear some of the issues that they’re having, of course the right thing to do is to consider a review and then to get on with it.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has the Minister come to the conclusion that for some, the only good thing about the 1840s was the 1848 Communist Manifesto?

SPEAKER: Now, look, I’m sorry, I have to say, in the world of three strikes and you’re out, you’ve used up your three strikes.

Question No. 8—Workplace Relations and Safety

8. Hon JAN TINETTI (Labour) to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: Does she agree with Andrea Vance, who said about the Equal Pay Amendment Bill, “It is a curious feminist moment, isn’t it? Six girlbosses—Willis, her hype-squad Judith Collins, Erica Stanford, Louise Upston, Nicola Grigg, and Brooke van Velden—all united in a historic act of economic backhanding other women”; if not, how is unilaterally stopping 33 pay equity claims not a historic act of economic backhanding other women?

Hon Shane Jones: Sir, I raise a very serious point of order. It’s quite clear in Standing Order 390(1)(c), it’s quite clear from Speakers’ rulings that it is not in order to quote in such a way you bring fellow members of the House into disrepute. How on earth this question got through your process—that’s something that obviously you can address. I’m aware that Speakers’ ruling 175 does enable a member to ask a Minister for matters that they’re responsible for, but any reasonable person watching today knows that that member is asking a question containing material derived from an article designed to bring my colleagues into disrepute.

SPEAKER: Well, I’ll thank you for firstly giving me the opportunity to review my own performance, and I will undertake that with some vigour. The first point is that Standing Order 390(1)(a) makes it clear that the bar for discreditable references is a very high one. Criticism of a Government policy—even if it is in the strongest terms—is permitted. That’s why we have a Parliament. The system of accountability that we have means that if a Government Minister has responsibility in a particular area, they can be questioned on opinions that might come from somebody in the media, as is the case here. On further reference, Speakers’ ruling 175/5—Ministers can be asked if they agree with the opinions of others, so long as the opinion is about something the Minister is responsible for. That brings this—although it’s uncomfortable and could be considered a little pointed—within the scope of the current Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings.

Hon Shane Jones: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Speakers’ ruling 175 has to be contrasted with 192. I’d like you to look very carefully at Smith’s ruling—Speaker’s ruling 192/5.

SPEAKER: I will certainly do that. Thank you for the advice.

Hon Chris Bishop: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to test with you the scope of what you’ve just ruled. Are you now saying—

SPEAKER: Now, I want to make it clear I’m quoting the Standing Orders and existing Speakers’ rulings.

Hon Chris Bishop: Is it therefore in order, sir, for the Government to find any old article about anyone in the House and ask themselves questions about the Opposition in order to respond to particular areas within their scope of ministerial responsibility? Because that has the potential—

SPEAKER: No, no, it’s not. That’s a ridiculous proposition because the Standing Orders make it very clear that a question in the House cannot be used to attack the Opposition.

Hon Chris Bishop: But there are lots of ways through that—

SPEAKER: No, no. Stand on your feet if you’re going to talk to me. If you can find some clever ways that get past me, good luck. If the Government wants to waste its time doing that, it’s perfectly acceptable.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Speaking to the point of order, I want to refer you to Standing Order 390(1)(c), which says “Questions must be concise and not contain … discreditable references to the House or any member of the Parliament or any offensive or unparliamentary expression.” That catches the provision that Mr Jones is complaining about.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Do you want a mirror?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: You wouldn’t know about the law.

SPEAKER: Sorry, what did you say—390-something? We may as well get it right. What was the—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: It’s 390(1)(c): “discreditable references to the House or any member of Parliament or any offensive or unparliamentary expression.” It says at the beginning “(1) Questions must be concise and not contain [that]”. So they’re caught, and I don’t know how it got through the—

SPEAKER: Yeah, well, the point is it says the “question” must not contain—the question itself is: does she agree with a comment made by someone else? I mean, how would a democracy work if there can be never any questions in the House about what people outside the House have to say—what people are reading in their newspapers, etc., etc. Why would you want to deny the Minister the opportunity to refute that?

Hon Chris Bishop: Speaking to the point of order. This question refers to “girlbosses” and “hype-squads”. How can that be consistent with Speaker’s ruling 192/5 about discreditable references to any members of Parliament and unparliamentary expression? I accept it’s in a quotation from a newspaper article, which many members found offensive. How can those references possibly be in order? [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Sorry, listen. We’re going to start again if people can’t do that. The next person that speaks during a point of order will be having an early afternoon.

Hon Chris Bishop: Primary questions and the purpose of question time is to elucidate facts, not to have a go at the Government Ministers by way of quoting offensive newspaper articles through quotations in primary questions. It clearly falls foul of Speaker’s ruling 192/5.

SPEAKER: Yes, but I’ve just ruled that it doesn’t. So that is the end of that and we’ll have Brooke van Velden answer the question.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It was hard to find a single sentence in Andrea Vance’s article I agree with.

SPEAKER: That’d be enough of an answer.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: Mr Speaker, point of order.

SPEAKER: No, there’s no point of order on this. You’ve answered the question. It’s a controversial question. I’m keeping order in the House. The member would be advised to take my advice, resume her seat, and take the next supplementary.

Hon Jan Tinetti: Does she believe that teachers are entitled to pay equity, and, if so, why did she say they don’t have a right to be angry at her changes?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: Mr Speaker, point of order. I was not given the opportunity to answer the second part of that question, so I did not answer the primary question.

SPEAKER: With respect, I ruled that you did answer enough of it, and I’m now telling the House that the first supplementary does not relate to the primary. So we’ll move on, if everyone’s ready?

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I actually agree with the Minister in the sense that in not being allowed to answer the second part of the question, fully accepting that the first part was answered, it then makes the supplementary question that was asked not relevant. If the second part of the question was addressed by the Minister, the supplementary was absolutely linked to the primary, sir.

SPEAKER: Yes, but you can’t suppose what the second part is. I’ve taken a simple view that the first part of the primary question asked that the Minister agrees. She said she doesn’t. There can’t be a second part beyond that.

Hon David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: A point of order—this better be something that’s really useful.

Hon David Seymour: I can assure you, Mr Speaker. We’ve got a Minister here who has been attacked by a very questionable question. I think the best thing that can happen right now—instead of everyone else interrupting—is she be given a full opportunity to respond the way she wants to.

SPEAKER: Well, thank you for your view. I don’t agree with you.

Hon Jan Tinetti: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: No, well, your first one was out of order.

Hon Jan Tinetti: So I can bring one into order.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I’m a strong woman and I can speak for myself.

SPEAKER: That’s good, and you only get to do that when you’re called to do it. This is a highly controversial question. You answered that you didn’t agree with anything in the article, and I’ve ruled there can’t be a further question on it. This question can attempt it, but I think we’re going to be moving on if it doesn’t meet the test.

Hon Jan Tinetti: How is unilaterally stopping 33 pay equity claims not “a historic act of economic backhanding other women”?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: I disagree with the comments made, and particularly the note of the use of the term “backhanded”, which refers to Andrea Vance’s article, which was quoted from this weekend. I do not agree with the clearly gendered and patronising language that Andrea Vance used to reduce senior Cabinet Ministers to “girlbosses”, “hype-squads”, references to “girl math”, and “c[unts]”. The women of this Government are hard-working, dedicated, and strong. No woman in this Parliament nor in this country should be subjected to sex-based discrimination. I’ll tell you who I do agree with: I agree with the former Minister for Women, Jan Tinetti, who said that misogynistic abuse against women in public office was “an indictment on our society.” I actually think it’s very curious—and it’s a very curious feminist moment—when a former Minister for Women repeats parts of a clearly misogynistic article in this House.

SPEAKER: Good. [Interruption] That’s enough. Just let me make it very clear that while the—[Interruption] Who’s speaking? Just let me make it as clear as I can: while the Minister was giving an answer that was quoting commentary from a news article, it may have been better to refrain from one word that was fully expressed.

Hon Jan Tinetti: Is her idea of a “robust and workable” pay equity system one that entrenches women being paid less than their worth?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: The whole point of a pay equity system is to find sex-based discrimination and stamp it out. That is what this Government is keeping. I have heard so many references from people across this Chamber to things that this Government is not doing. We are not cutting women’s pay. We’re not cutting equal pay. We’re not removing a pay equity system. We are making the pay equity system better so that we can find sex-based discrimination and stamp it out.

Hon Jan Tinetti: Was changing the threshold for female-dominated work from 60 to 70 percent a result of feedback and consultation, or simply the first number the Minister thought of?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: I can think of many numbers, and I would suspect that the Minister for Women should stop refraining from—

Hon Members: Former.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: Sorry. The former Minister for Women should refrain from any attempt to conflate those numbers with girl math, like Andrea Vance did.

Hon Peeni Henare: How about 8 percent? There’s a number.

Hon Jan Tinetti: Mr Speaker.

Hon Peeni Henare: There’s a number—8 percent.

SPEAKER: Just wait—just wait till your colleague has finished the rant.

Hon Jan Tinetti: Was saving Nicola Willis’ Budget worth gutting the future pay of 180,000 workers?

SPEAKER: No, you can start that question again. We’ve had people being very pedantic about how questions should be asked; that certainly doesn’t meet any test.

Hon Jan Tinetti: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Was saving the Budget—

SPEAKER: No, you can’t make that point on it.

Hon Jan Tinetti: OK, I will go into my next one, Mr Speaker. Was “saving” the Budget worth gutting the future of 180,000 workers?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: Nobody’s pay has been cut.

Hon Jan Tinetti: Does she believe that teachers are entitled to pay equity, and, if so, why did she say they don’t have a right to be angry at her changes?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: Anybody can bring a pay equity claim.

Question No. 9—Immigration

Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam): Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Immigration—

SPEAKER: No, just hold on. There are far too many conversations going on around the House—far too many conversations going on around the House. When we get a bit of quiet—Dr Campbell.

9. Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam) to the Minister of Immigration: What update can she provide about the recent changes to the Active Investor Plus Visa to attract more global investment to New Zealand?

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Immigration): Since the Active Investor Plus Visa opened on 1 April, we have received 100 applications. Sixty-three of them are new. For context, in just six weeks, we’ve received over half the number of applications that came in under the previous Government’s policy in 2.5 years. It’s not interest; it’s action. These investors have indicated they’ll be investing a minimum of $380 million into our business and economy—how’s that for “girl math”? They’ll also be bringing girl networks and expertise to New Zealand businesses to create real opportunities for growth. New Zealand is open for business, open for investment, and serious about unlocking our economic potential.

Dr Hamish Campbell: How does the new Active Investor Plus Visa differ from previous policy?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: The previous policy settings were restrictive and uncompetitive. We’ve replaced them with a modern, flexible framework featuring two clear pathways: growth and balanced. The growth category supports high-potential Kiwi businesses, while the balanced option allows a more conservative investment. Almost 80 percent of new applications are for the growth category, showing strong interest in active investments in New Zealand. We’ve also removed the unnecessary hurdles like the English language test and reduced physical-presence requirements. This flexibility is key to making New Zealand a top-tier investment decision.

Dr Hamish Campbell: What feedback has she received about the new Active Investor Plus Visa?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Licensed immigration advisers and lawyers that I’ve spoken to have been very positive. They’ve all told me that they’re seeing a significant increase in interest in the new visa, and some have advised they are recruiting new staff to be able to respond. Malcolm Pacific Immigration’s CEO, David Cooper, also noted the offshore market is ready for these changes, with significant interest from Germany, the US, Japan, and Korea. By attracting foreign investment, this Government will boost economic growth, create more jobs, and foster long-term partnerships to help us ensure a prosperous future for New Zealand.

Dr Hamish Campbell: Where are applications being received from?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: We’re seeing significant global interest in these new investment settings. Sixty-two percent of new applications are from the United States, with China and Hong Kong following, but applications have also been received from Germany, Singapore, Spain, Switzerland, Japan, Taiwan, and the Czech Republic. These investments will help grow businesses, create jobs, and provide new skills for young people. This is all part of our plan to grow the economy and provide higher-paying Kiwi jobs.

Question No. 10—Public Service

10. CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) to the Minister for the Public Service: What impact will recent changes to the Equal Pay Act 1972 have on public sector workers, particularly women?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister for the Public Service): The changes to the Equal Pay Act do not cut women’s pay or change their rights to equal pay. What they do is give women a system that focuses on the actual issue of sex-based discrimination. Equal pay is fully supported by the Government and remains protected in New Zealand law, as it has since 1972. Public sector workers can still make pay equity claims, but they will now have a much more robust, sustainable, and workable system. We expect that there will be additional pay equity settlements for further workforces under the Government’s improved pay equity regime. It was, by the way, a National Government that delivered the first ever pay equity settlement in New Zealand.

Camilla Belich: Has any public sector pay agreement been set at lower levels due to expected increases from future pay equity settlements?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well, I’m not sure whether or not they have. I haven’t heard that, and, certainly, as the Minister for the Public Service, I might have heard that, but I’m certainly not aware of that.

Camilla Belich: Is cancelling 33 pay equity claims consistent with the commitment to close the gender pay gaps in the public sector?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I am delighted to tell the member that the pay gap in the public sector is actually very low—it’s about 4 percent. Now, I actually think that of the particular claims that will be discontinued, nine are in the public sector and four are in the Public Service. These claims are still able to be raised under the new system, and further pay equity settlements are expected.

Camilla Belich: Is it consistent for the Government to claim it supports eliminating gender pay gaps while removing obligations to recognise pay equity and prevent gender bias, as proposed in her 6 May 2025 Cabinet paper?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I think it’s really important to realise that women actually do a brilliant job, as do most men, and I look at this and say that women just want to be treated in a fair manner. They don’t want to be patronised and told that if they do math, it’s “girl math”, or that they should not be able to stand up for themselves or else they are suddenly referred to by indecent names and treated unfairly. I have always hoped that all the women in this Parliament—and men—would like to stand up for women to be able to be treated in a humane and decent manner, and not reduced to foul names.

Camilla Belich: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I thank the member for her speech, but she didn’t actually address either limb of the question, which referred to a specific decision she’s made in a Cabinet paper.

SPEAKER: Oh well, if the Minister would like to add, that would be—

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: No, not really.

SPEAKER: No, well, I’m asking the Minister to address the specifics of the question.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well, she’d need to ask the question again, please, because I was so enjoying myself—

SPEAKER: Yes.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: —I forgot what her question was.

SPEAKER: Yes, everyone’s got plenty of time today.

Camilla Belich: Is it consistent for the Government to claim it supports eliminating gender pay gaps while removing obligations to recognise pay equity and prevent gender bias, as proposed in her 6 May 2025 Cabinet paper?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Yes, it is.

SPEAKER: Yeah, on balance, I think the question was answered, with all due respect. So that’s two goes at it. Have you got another supplementary?

Camilla Belich: If she supports the agreed gender pay principle that trust and engagement improve performance, how does bypassing consultation with affected women align with this?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well, I’m sorry; the question doesn’t seem to make sense to me. Perhaps if we could have it again?

Camilla Belich: Certainly. To the Minister: if she supports the agreed gender pay principle—which is outlined in a document on the Public Service Commission’s website—that trust and engagement improve performance, how does bypassing consultation with affected women who have pay equity claims align with this?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well, I think the fact is that the Government has to make decisions, and even though we certainly are consulting with women—because women are taxpayers; women are people who are going about their jobs—the fact is that the Government has to make certain decisions. The Government has made a decision because the changes brought about that we’ve inherited in the pay equity system made it unworkable, and it cannot be right to have civil engineers and librarians on the same level or treated as though they’re doing the same job. They’re quite different jobs.

Camilla Belich: Will axing current pay equity claims mean lower future pay for affected public sector workers?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well, I wouldn’t have thought so. They seem to have a very strident union that could assist them with collective bargaining. But I’d also say this, which is that everybody needs to be treated with respect, whether they’re on the centre or the right, or employer or employee, and there’s nothing wrong with treating people as humans and not using the sorts of terms as though suddenly these women, who are taxpayers, are not valued as well. I think: why don’t you just treat them with respect?

Question No. 11—Veterans

11. TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato) to the Minister for Veterans: What investments is the Government making to support veterans in Budget 2025?

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Veterans): The Government’s making significant investments to ensure that our New Zealand Defence Force remains a credible contributor here and overseas, but also looking after our people, past and present. That’s why the Minister of Defence, Judith Collins, recently announced in the pre-Budget statement that there will be a boost of $1 million additional funding for Veterans’ Affairs. This will specifically help to ensure that applications for the treatment they need and deserve will be processed in a much more timely fashion.

Tim van de Molen: Why is the Government making this investment?

Hon CHRIS PENK: It’s consistent with our efforts to improve public services across New Zealand, and that in turn must include that veterans have access to the timely services, such as treatment and rehabilitation, that they need. It’s been a priority for me and the Government as a whole to reduce the period of time that veterans must wait to receive the processing of their claims. That’s why last year, in fact, in the Budget, an additional $4 million had already been provided to ensure faster processing times.

Tim van de Molen: What progress has been made to clear the backlog of applications for veterans’ support?

Hon CHRIS PENK: Veterans’ Affairs faced, at the peak of the backlog, some 2,800 unresolved claims. That was clearly unacceptable in the context of these personnel having served New Zealand with pride and distinction. Through a combination of hard work and the additional resourcing from Veterans’ Affairs and the Government of the day, respectively, that backlog has been reduced to a little over 2,000 outstanding claims. That is still unacceptable. There is more work to do, but progress has been made and we look forward to continuing to make further progress in the weeks ahead.

Tim van de Molen: What other recent announcements has the Government made for our veteran community?

Hon CHRIS PENK: The Government’s also working to formally recognise more of our ex - New Zealand Defence Force service personnel as veterans in law. For those who’ve worn the uniform, that particular word speaks to pride and holds deep personal meaning accordingly. We also intend to establish a national veterans’ day, accompanied by an annual veterans’ service award ceremony. As we speak, we’re consulting with the veterans’ community and all its key players about when this day should be commemorated.

Question No. 12—Prime Minister

12. 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?]

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes, and I welcome the member’s support for our coalition Government’s support and use of gas. I notice in their alternative budget that they have $800 million set aside for securing gas supply and I think that’s a good idea.

SPEAKER: Good.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does he stand by his answer—

SPEAKER: Just a moment. You’re here to answer questions about the Government, not to inform the Opposition of their own policies.

Chlöe Swarbrick: I’m happy to debate the Green Budget.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Ha, ha!

Chlöe Swarbrick: Yeah, we can.

SPEAKER: No, no. Chlöe Swarbrick, you are trifling with the House. I’ll cut your question off if you do that again.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does he stand by his answer yesterday, “I am comfortable with the concept of profit” in the context of our country having among the world’s most expensive early childcare costs, clearly driven by profit motive?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I think there’s a lot of assumptions in that question. What I would say is that I’m against $44 billion in additional debt, I’m against $88 billion in additional tax, and that would be very worrying as an alternative Labour-Greens Government if that was followed through as real policy.

Hon David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker. How can that question be allowed when it makes an argumentation about the cost drivers of early childcare education, which may be the member’s ideological presupposition but actually has no basis in fact?

SPEAKER: We’ve had one of those days where people have said a lot of things that don’t strictly comply with some of the Standing Orders that it has been suggested I should be strictly following. I thought it was question No. 12, the House was in a quiet state, and I thought it was a question the Prime Minister could relatively easily answer.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Why does the Prime Minister think we have among the most expensive early childhood education costs for parents in the world, while we also happen to have among the highest Government subsidies in the world for early childhood education, if not for the profit motive in the middle?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, many commentators have observed that we’ve got high early childhood education costs, but we do have Government subsidies to support parents. One of those great programmes is FamilyBoost, and I encourage more parents to apply for support.

Chlöe Swarbrick: What would make the most difference for families in this country: his administratively expensive FamilyBoost, which just 249 families are receiving the full entitlement for, or publicly owned free early childhood education?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What would make the most difference to families in New Zealand is a Government that runs the economy incredibly well, that doesn’t waste money, that lowers inflation, that lowers interest rates, that gets economic growth going, and that gets people in jobs. That’s the work of this Government, you know; that’s what we’re doing. We want to lower the cost of living for New Zealanders and that’s because we’ve got good economic management. Fundamentally, if you care about working people, you run the economy well. Unfortunately, that didn’t happen in the Labour-Greens Government.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Should early childhood education be free for families; if not, why not?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, we have an early childhood sector that, actually, the Minister’s done some good work on, about taking out cost and compliance, by getting sensible regulation in place. Of course, parents have the support from Government with some subsidies and, also, as I say, the FamilyBoost programme’s a great one and I encourage parents to sign up for it.

Point of Order—Use of Quoted Material in Oral Questions

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): Point of order. Sir, I want to raise a tricky point of order, because we had the most extraordinary day of language in the House. Speakers’ ruling 188 deals with the acceptance of questions. We know—those of us who have been around for a while—that the Clerk’s Office has a great deal of influence and guidance as to the content and character of questions. But the final arbiter, sir, is you. Then we go down to Speakers’ rulings 191, where it makes specific reference to newspaper articles. When you go away, hopefully, and review today’s events, can I urge you to not make the same mistake we made today by enabling a quote to slip into a question which was guaranteed to lead to disorder, presumably because the architect had that in mind. It’s not good for the people in the gallery and it sure as hell ain’t good for the people watching at home.

SPEAKER: It’s also not particularly good for the member to tell me that I’ve made a mistake.

Question No. 10 to Minister—Amended Answer

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister for the Public Service): Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: A new point of order?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Yes, entirely new—thank you, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to correct an answer to an oral question from today.

SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection to that course of action? There appears to be none.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I answered a question from the member Camilla Belich regarding the gender pay gap. What I should have said was that the gender pay gap has decreased by 1 percent over the last year in the Public Service to 6.1 percent and that the pay has gone up 4 percent for men since 30 June 2023 and up 5.1 percent for women in that time.

SPEAKER: We come to the end of question time. Before I call on an honourable member to move miscellaneous business, those who need to leave for other activities, other commitments, please do so quietly.

General Debate

General Debate

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business.

Fundamentally, Budgets are about people and choices. We have already seen the choices this Government are making in this year’s Budget. For landlords: billions of dollars. For tobacco companies: hundreds of millions of dollars. For the New Zealand Defence Force: billions of dollars. For low-paid, hard-working Kiwi women wanting pay equity, they get nothing—“Get back in line” according to this Government. In fact, not just “Get back in line” but “Get to the back of the line and start again.” That’s the message from this Government and this year’s Budget for hard-working Kiwi women who have been fighting to be paid fairly. It says everything about this Government’s twisted priorities that they are looking to balance the Budget by taking billions of dollars away from our lowest-paid workforces.

There’s been a lot of contention in the last few days about the facts around pay equity, so let me just recap some of the facts that even the Government are not contesting. Fact number one: 33 existing pay equity claims covering 180,000 people, mostly women, have been extinguished. That is a fact that not even the Government are denying. Fact number two: not all of those 180,000 people are eligible to apply under the new pay equity regime that they have delivered. So some of those who are working through the process have found their claim extinguished, gone for ever; the promise of pay equity off the table for ever for them under this Government. Number three—which, again, the Government are not contesting: that this change has saved them billions of dollars. Billions of dollars. In fact, David Seymour was caught telling the truth when he said that it had “saved the Government’s Budget”. The Government saved their Budget at the expense of low-paid, hard-working New Zealanders, most of whom are women. That is how the Government have chosen to balance their Budget, and that cannot be contested. Four, and a very clear claim: those who do pursue new claims will almost certainly get less under the new formula that the Government has come up with.

Those are clear facts. What we’ve seen from the Government is gaslighting. I think New Zealanders know a cut when they see it, and this is undoubtedly a cut to the pay of hundreds of thousands of low-paid women in New Zealand, and they can see a cut when they are given one, and this Government has absolutely done that. Then we saw the defence from the Government, the myth that this was somehow a result of a flaw with the 2020 law. Well, let’s go back and see what the National Party said at the time. Nicola Willis stood in this House, not far from where I’m standing now, and actually said that the bill in 2020 “was all National’s work”. In fact, she claimed it was their bill. She said it was “a National bill with a Labour sticker on it”. And now she’s trying to claim that the bill was wrong, despite the fact that, at the time, she was trying to say it was all their idea. I think New Zealanders can see gaslighting when they see it, and that is exactly what they are seeing from this Government.

Then we have seen Chris Bishop jumping on his high horse and saying, “Labour needed to do better”. I can only say I hope he didn’t injure himself as he fell off his high horse when it was flying at breakneck speed in the opposite direction, because at the same time he was saying we needed to do better, his own party was posting artificial intelligence - generated images of me when he was saying that we needed to “raise the tone” of the debate.

Despite the best efforts of members on the other side, this isn’t actually about us; it’s about the low-paid New Zealand women who this Government are cutting millions of dollars from the pay packets of. They try and say, “that’s not a pay cut”. I think those who are now going to be paid less in the future because of the Government’s decisions, the Government’s choices, are going to feel like it’s a pay cut. If we legislate it in this House to take away the two pay rises that members of the House—including members opposite—are going to get over the next 18 months, they would regard that as a pay cut. Why should low-paid New Zealand women regard it as anything other than a pay cut when this Government legislate, change the law, to cancel their pay equity claim and take away billions of dollars that have been set aside to pay for fair pay for Kiwi women?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Housing): The “c” word’s been thrown around a bit in the last week. I want to read out some “c” words that I think apply to the Labour Opposition: callous, cruel, and cowardly. I’ll tell you what’s callous: callous is spending the better part of five years as the alleged progressive feminist movement on the Opposition crying about gendered abuse of female MPs and, when it’s doled out to women on the right, saying nothing. That is callous.

The standard you walk past is the standard you would set, and this week Chris Hipkins and the Labour Party senior MPs had an opportunity to stand up against misogyny and gendered abuse. In 2023, Chris Hipkins said there was “no question … women in leadership … [were] the subject of far more abuse and vitriol” and “I think we do have a responsibility as men to step up and to condemn that and to speak out against it.” I agree. Fast-forward two years, after a disgusting column on the weekend, widely condemned around the country, using the “c” word and other pejorative terms about senior women MPs on the right—fast-forward two years later, what does Chris Hipkins say? Oh, that’s just free speech: “I’m not going to tell them what they’re allowed to say.”, “I believe in the independence of the media.”, “What [they] choose to publish is a question for them.”

No one’s disputing they can publish that. The question is: is it right? And Chris Hipkins, the alleged progressive feminist who leads the party that like to tell us that they are the “party for women”—in fact, they spent much of the last week lying about that. He likes to tell us that they’re the party for women. He had an opportunity to condemn that column and the pile-on that resulted afterwards, and he chose not to—and I apologise, I shouldn’t have said that, Mr Speaker, I know you’re about to get to your feet. I shouldn’t have said that word that you’re not allowed to say.

SPEAKER: Then apologise.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: So that is callous. That’s a “c” word that applies to Chris Hipkins and the Labour Party. I’ll tell you what else is cruel, is the double standards and the misleading statements that have been put out by the Labour Party over the course of the last week. Because this debate all started because of the actions the Government took when it comes to equal pay, and we have heard all sorts of nonsense from the Opposition. They have said on Facebook that National is cutting women’s pay; that is not true. They have said that equal pay is being abolished; that is not true. They have said pay equity is being abolished; that is not true. They have said equal pay and pay equity claims can no longer proceed; that is not true. In fact, the Government has set aside more money for pay equity claims. The Labour Party really needs to do better when it comes to what they are saying about this controversial topic.

The other point that I would say would be callous and cruel would be the alternative budget released by the Green Party, to segue to something completely different.

Hon Marama Davidson: Sing it!

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: She says “Sing it”—oh boy, I’ll sing it. Here are the facts—here is what they’ve literally just put out in the last couple of hours: $44 billion in additional debt, taking debt to 50 percent of GDP. It’s already gone up by $120 billion, but, “No, no, no, no, no”, say the Greens, “We need more.”; $88 billion in additional tax—this is all in their budget; higher income tax rates, wealth tax, trust tax, inheritance tax, higher ACC levies, higher company tax, the private jet tax, higher mining taxes, and bringing back the tenant taxes.

Oh, well, ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the Labour Party’s coalition partner. Goodness me, the next 18 months are going to be a good time. Because here’s the question for the Labour Party: do they believe in all of these things? Because I can’t wait to hear them talk about income tax, wealth taxes, trust taxes, ACC levies, and don’t worry, here’s a really good one: reducing the prison population and closing the military academies to pay for it, and paying everyone on the unemployment benefit more money. What a prescription for New Zealand! Bring on 2026.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, sir.

SPEAKER: It’s a point of order; we’ll be quiet.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: So Hansard will recall that in response to Chris Bishop indicating that he said something that was unparliamentary that you said, “Well, apologise” and he did not. I believe if we are going to ensure that parliamentary standards are adhered to that he should at least withdraw and apologise even though he has acknowledged he shouldn’t have said it.

SPEAKER: Can I just—I would have intervened, but I heard it asked as a question, which brings it slightly into order. Same discussion I had with you a couple of weeks ago. But for the sake of order, it might be useful to withdraw and apologise.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I did say it in my speech, but I withdraw and apologise.

LAURA McCLURE (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. [Holds up image] This image is a naked image of me, but it is not real. This image is what we call a “deepfake”. It took me less than five minutes to make a series of deepfakes of myself. Scaringly, it was a quick Google search for the technology of what’s available. When you type “deepfake nudify” into the Google search with your filter off, hundreds of sites appear.

The rise in sexually explicit material and deepfakes has become a huge issue. As our party’s education spokesperson, not only do I hear the concerns of parents but I hear the concerns of teachers and principals, where this trend is increasing at an alarming rate. This worrying trend is becoming more prevalent with this available tech readily available to use—anybody can use it. In fact, I didn’t need to enter an email address; I just had to tick a box to say I was 18 and that it was my image and I could use it—which is pretty scary, to be honest. It wasn’t on an app that I downloaded, because the App Store has a pretty good filter to actually deal with quite a few of these things. It was just on our internet, not the deep dark web.

For the victims, it is degrading and devastating. It even gives me the ick having to stand here in Parliament and hold up a photo of myself—knowing that it’s not me, but that it looks exactly like me. This technology is getting better and better every single day. Creating and posting deepfake porn without consent is a form of image-based abuse. Vaughan Couillault, the president of the Secondary Principals’ Association of New Zealand, said, “It’s not as low level and as simple as the perpetrator might think it is. It’s not cheap entertainment, it’s life-damaging work.” Catherine Abel-Pattinson of Netsafe is quoted as saying, “Every day we answer the phone and we have suicidal people on the other end because stuff like this has been sent and it’s not them.”

While researching for this bill, I heard stories—mostly from youth and nearly always female. All talked about the lack of consequence or support for victims in schools for this type of bullying and abuse. In a news report last year, it talked about two schools reeling from the spread of social media of deepfake pornographic images of their students. Fifteen of those students were at a school in North Canterbury, quite close to me. Around 50 at another location have asked to not be named.

One story I have heard of this happening to is a migrant student, who not only was humiliated and degraded by it, it was also culturally crippling and devastating. This young girl went on to self-harm as a coping mechanism to deal with the effects of this trauma. Current legislation does not keep up with this tech and the world we live in. There is a grey area, and we haven’t defined the use of AI for synthetic, sexually explicit content, images, or content providing harmful intent without this clarification, and it needs changing.

I have a member’s bill, that is in the tin right now, that we could actually close this gap. I think that everybody across this House would find how alarming this could be. This may not be limited to just celebrities any more—or, potentially, politicians—this could be your child, this could be your colleague, this could be your friend, or anyone within your whānau. This Parliament, no matter what side of the political spectrum you come from, must act now to protect our most vulnerable.

This also leads me to the other issue currently being discussed amongst politicians, parents, schools, and our youth: it’s the possibility of a social media ban. As a parent, I find it extremely worrying the effects that social media may be having on my children. They, very thankfully, are not on social media. I really welcome this House to have a deep and thorough debate, and I think it’s important to see that today there is a select committee that is opening a type of inquiry into this. I think it’s extremely important that we all engage in this. What we want to do and what we must do is we must make sure that we get the right settings in place, that we don’t just act out of fear and concern and just rush in a piece of legislation that may not work. We need to think about how we can best protect our children, our youth, going forward. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Today, we released the Green Budget, which shows that we can have an Aotearoa where everyone has what they need to live good lives, where we protect our rivers and our oceans and our native species, and where we leave our mokopuna with a stable planet. We have enough. It just takes political courage to make the decisions. There is enough to go around, there is enough kai for no one to starve, and there is enough money for everyone to have a livable income. We do have what we need to mitigate and adapt to climate change. We have what we need to protect our rivers and our health.

The Greens are standing proudly behind our plan that shows Aotearoa that we can and must address the big issues that people care about. But for too long, the economic system has been rigged to benefit the rich at the expense of the wellbeing of everyone else and the wellbeing of our living systems.

Just last week in this House, we saw this Government urgently rush through law that means that low-paid women are bearing the burden of this Government’s tax cuts for the wealthy. Those are the types of economic choices that this Government chooses and that continue to bake in the inequities and the injustice of the uber-wealthy being able to hoard more wealth while the rest of the vast majority have to scrap over the crumbs. The Greens are proud of taxing wealth so that we can have free GP visits and free early childhood education and build more public housing and have livable incomes and protect our rivers and nurture our ecosystems. That is how we protect our economy—by building our own resiliency, because we have the people, we have the land, and Governments have the tools to make sure that our communities are building the skills that we will all benefit from, like in our green-industry plan.

It is insulting to hear this Prime Minister declare that New Zealand has been living beyond its means when so many families who are doing their best are struggling to make ends meet. Meanwhile, only 311 families have more wealth than 2.5 million of us. We can afford to pay workers, including women, what they are worth, but we cannot afford to keep propping up the super-rich. Unlocking the wealth we already have will help us invest back into the services that we all rely on, and I am proud of the Green Budget that we have released today.

During breast cancer treatment, I heard from women who had to go back to work after chemo infusion because our current ACC system does not provide for illness right at the time when their immunity is low and when they are feeling their crappiest, but they are worried about how they’re going to pay their rent and look after their whānau. The budget that we announced today would bring illness and sickness into the agency of comprehensive care to make sure that anyone diagnosed with illness can put their health and their whānau first and not have the stress of having to worry about going back to work when they are sick. I know how important this is. I know every single family in here and every single person has a story of when it is so unjust and unfair for people to just not be able to focus on their health.

Those are the sorts of decisions that we have made in our budget today. We look forward to getting out to communities and discussing what this would mean, the way it would improve our lives and the lives of our mokopuna to come. No one should have to return to work when they are sick, and not everyone has the support that everyone deserves. We can change that. We can choose for our lives to be made better. We can choose to take care of each other and our living systems for our mokopuna to come.

I am so proud of the work that we have done to share our Green Budget. I welcome all of the Government MPs talking about it the way that they are. Keep talking about it! We are going to keep talking about it. Kia ora.

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Revenue): Budget season has arrived, and we are now just eight sleeps away from the Minister of Finance revealing Budget 2025. But how could we forget one of the big announcements today, speaking of budgets. Of course we have seen Labour’s coalition partner, the de-growth Greens, come out with their alternative budget, which focuses on taxing people more and letting debt skyrocket. I think we call it green waste.

While the Government is focused on economic recovery, the Greens want to snatch more money out of the back pockets of hard-working Kiwis. While this Government is focused on getting the books back into surplus, that Opposition is thinking about skyrocketing debt and taking debt up by $44 billion, or over 53 percent of GDP. That is in stark contrast to what is required and that is not what you’re going to see from this side of the House.

Let’s reflect on Budget 2024. This Government promised tax relief and delivered it. We promised no new taxes and we delivered it. The first time in 14 years that tax relief has been given to hard-working Kiwis—$3.7 billion back into the back pockets of hard-working Kiwis, and the Opposition voted against it. Budget 2024 also allocated $116 million over four years to support Inland Revenue (IRD) to collect debt and improve the tax compliance system. We know no one really likes paying taxes, but most Kiwis do the right thing and pay it. Those Kiwis meet their obligations, and we as a Government expect others to do the same.

Under the previous Government, New Zealand’s tax debt rose substantially. For a party who loves taxes, the Greens and Labour aren’t particularly good at collecting them. By the end of 2024, New Zealand’s tax debt hit just over $8.5 billion. That is billions of dollars that could be used and devoted to fund front-line services like schools, hospitals, and our Police. That’s why we allocated in Budget 2024 more money for Inland Revenue to collect debt and to improve the tax system.

Let’s be clear: that investment isn’t about punishing Kiwis who are doing their best and doing the right thing. It’s about fairness. It’s about making sure that that small number of Kiwis who are not paying their taxes are being followed up and ensuring that those people who do pay their taxes aren’t being ripped off by those who deliberately don’t. It’s also about making sure that that money is used to fund the real things Kiwis need. These aren’t abstract issues. They are real threats to our tax integrity in our system and it undermines trust and fairness.

Take the hidden economy. It’s not just dodgy cash jobs; it’s people operating entirely off the books while using the very services like health and education like the rest of us who pay for it. Or take electronic suppression software tools which are used to delete transaction records. It’s deliberate action to avoid paying tax. We’re already seeing significant results from that Budget’s funding.

IRD has ramped up audit activity by 50 percent this year and uncovered more than 2.5 times the tax discrepancies. By March, $1.2 billion had been assessed from audits. That’s up $500 million from this time last year. Inland Revenue released figures on student loans yesterday. They collected more than $200 million in repayments since this time last year—a 43 percent increase in the same period. Twelve thousand borrowers have been contacted, 1,300 have entered repayment schedules, and nearly 1,000 as a result of that activity have now fully paid off their overdue taxes.

In conclusion, these efforts show what is possible when we take a firm but fair approach focused on compliance. If you think that you might have outstanding tax debt, don’t wait to be contacted by the IRD; they are there to help you. This Government is focused on delivering for Kiwis and every dollar we collect in those taxes is a dollar we don’t need to borrow.

Hon JAN TINETTI (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It was just over a week ago that we passed, through urgency, an egregious piece of legislation—egregious piece of legislation—which saw National cutting future women’s pay to balance their Budget, taking money out of women’s back pockets. It was said that it had to be rushed through—it had to be rushed through. Their justification was that they might see an increase in claims. Well, how disingenuous is that? We know that claims took a long time to process. And why did they take a long time to process? Because they were robust.

The process that was put in place after the 2020 amendment Act was a robust process that made sure that we were getting it right. It was a process that was agreed across the House. The reason they put this through in urgency was it silenced voices. It silences the opposition that was going to be seen against this bill. Did it silence those voices? No, because people refused to be gaslit by this Government. We saw huge turnouts across the country, at very short notice, to protest against this, and we will see more over the coming weeks. That side of the House tried so hard—so hard—and are still trying so hard to justify this.

The Minister of Finance said that she was shocked at how much these claims were costing when she came into her role. Was it that she was shocked at the cost of these claims, or was it that she was shocked at the extent of inequality across our society? Because that’s exactly the pay inequities. What they are showing in this country is the extent of the inequality between those workforces that are male-dominated and those workforces that are female-dominated. It costs money to rectify inequality, but when you do rectify inequality, there are social and fiscal economic benefits for all, and they will ripple right through the community. So people that believe in trickle-down economics should be right behind and go hard-out for these pay equity claims.

Amy Ross from the pay equity taskforce, who was the head of that before it was disbanded by that side of the House, said that they had conducted research that showed pay equity under the previous legislation, which they got rid of last week, reduced costs for Government through tax credits, income subsidies, and an increase on GST take. Money in communities revolved more. There was an increase in discretionary spending. But, most of all, people realised, and felt proud of the fact, that their work is being valued. Instead, what this Government has done is taken a short-term, rather than a long-term, look at this. They have made sure that they have put their priorities in finding money for tobacco companies, finding money for tax breaks for landlords, and finding money for tax cuts. That is what this is all about. Rather than taking a long-term look, they have taken the money out of the back pocket of women. Women are paying the price for their bad fiscal management.

Women and people around this country have had enough. They are tired. They are tired of talking about this like this is something that they will need to keep working for. This is a right. This is something that women should not be having to fight over, 50 years since the Equal Pay Act was first put in in the 1970s. The other area that I would mention is that they either have a misunderstanding or they are deliberately clouding the debate around comparators. They have said, “Oh, we’ve got this job and this job, and they do not add up.” The job-evaluation process is not about that. It examines the skill, the responsibility, the effort, the experience, and the conditions of work, and it is an extremely robust process that was happening. That is why it took so long. For them to misrepresent it is them misrepresenting the work that women have been doing for centuries and are being undervalued for.

I will go back to say that women and other people who are in those jobs have had enough. It is time we stood up as a Parliament. It is time that we said we will come together on this and not play short-term politics.

SUZE REDMAYNE (National—Rangitīkei): Boy racers are out of control across the mighty Rangitīkei, across New Zealand, and we are not alone; we’re absolutely over it. New Zealanders are saying the same thing everywhere: enough is enough.

We’ve had enough of the rise in antisocial behaviour, dangerous driving, illegal street racing, intimidating vehicle convoys, threats to police. Behaviour like this has left our communities fed up and fearful. I’m proud to support our Government’s decisive move to crack down on this behaviour with tougher laws, stronger penalties, and more powers for our police. The changes we announced over the weekend will give police more tools in their tool kit when trying to rid the streets of this kind of antisocial behaviour. More expensive fines to dish out, too; higher likelihood of offending cars being crushed—bring back “Crusher”!

The good people of Rangitīkei have seen and heard more than enough. In March, Feilding residents endured three days—three consecutive nights—of road closures, roaring engines, street racers turning Makino Road into a skid pad. “It makes your blood boil.”, one resident told me. Another told the local Manawatū Standard: “It’s just crazy. This is our intersection—it’s just littered with tyre rubber. They wreck the streets. It costs ratepayers money to fix it. It’s out of control.” She made 10 calls to 111. “The time for action is now,” she said, “before we face further destruction or even worse, a tragic accident.”

That’s exactly what happened last year in Himatangi: a spectator, a 16-year-old boy, lost his leg when a car went out of control. Gatherings of hoons and spectators routinely take over Halcombe Road near the Kākāriki Road Bridge, the Colyton Road turnoff at Kimbolton Road, and Mt Stewart Halcombe Road intersection. Suburban streets aren’t immune either. The problem isn’t just noise and roads and public safety; it’s the escalating lawlessness. In Levin, my colleague Tim Costley witnessed things turning violent, with reports of drugs, weapons, and intimidation. An event in June 2024 was described by one officer as the worst situation of its kind he’s ever encountered in his 26 years of policing. He said participants and spectators are displaying a new level of militancy and arrogance. It used to be that the boy racers would disappear as soon as they got wind the police were on their way. It’s now more war than hide and seek. They’re acting like “This is our patch and if we want to do burnouts, tough luck to you.”

Members of the public have even resorted to vigilantism, using tractors to charge at racers—not something I’d recommend. It’s Mad Max in Rongotea. While I understand the justified anger of the public, this is not the way to go. Our Government has acted to resolve these issues. Minister Chris Bishop and the Minister of Police, Mark Mitchell, are taking action. Under our new proposals, those caught fleeing the police, organising street races, or refusing to name drivers will face presumptive vehicle destruction. If you want to act like a hooligan, you can expect your car to be crushed.

There will be new powers to manage illegal gatherings, by closing roads and issuing instant infringements, and the fine for making excessive noise is going to go up sixfold. We’re backing our communities and backing our police with the tools they need to end this behaviour. We won’t tolerate this any more. The legislation will be introduced to the House in the next few months. We’re going to see it through all the way to the scrap metal heap. Our message to the people of Rangitīkei and the people of New Zealand is clear: we’re empowering our police and taking back our community roads. We’re putting these hoods on notice. To the boy racers: no more Fast & Furious. With this Government, reckless driving doesn’t get you a sequel; it gets you a sentence and a crushed car. If you put lives at risk; you tear up our roads; if you engage in intimidating, illegal, antisocial behaviour, you will face the consequences and you will face life without your car. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

HŪHANA LYNDON (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. I stand in the House, again, to talk about the fast-track legislation and the impact that it is having on local communities because this Government favours the ultra-wealthy big business over the voice of community. This Government has shut out the voice of community when we saw over 23,000 submissions submitted against the fast-track legislation and gave a hand up to 149 projects that saw those companies getting to the front of the line when developing across the country and shutting out us as te iwi Māori. Because, as te iwi Māori, we’ve got a limited purview—only 20 working days to respond to fast-track applications. That’s how narrow it is for us.

Now, in Tai Tokerau, we have zombie projects coming back into the rohe, like McCallum Bros, who were pushed out of Pākiri after 80 years of sand mining, are now sniffing around Bream Bay, and will get the opportunity through the fast track to mine and dredge across te whanga o Whangārei for 35 years, five days a week, six hours a day. And that’s coming into our rohe of Te Tai Tokerau.

The ultra-rich are the ones getting the hand up from this Government. When we look at Waipiro Bay, a current application which is live: 250-berth marina in the Bay of Islands. My kāinga. [Holds up map of Waipiro Bay] As I might share with the House, this is whenua Māori. This is called Orokawa. Over here is the area where Waipiro Bay marina is to be established, with 250 berths, retail stores, a petrol station, and hospitality, in the back blocks of the Bay of Islands. That’s my kāinga. This is where our people gather kai. This is the pātaka of Patukeha and Ngati Kuta. The community is being shut out of the fast-track process. Because that’s the thing: this Government favours the ultra-wealthy to build a 250-berth marina in Waipiro Bay, the Bay of Islands, and forgets about those most impacted—whenua Māori, Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act claimants, also our hau kāinga and marae and hapū and iwi—with only 20 working days to respond. There is going to be massive visual impact with 250 boats parked up in Waipiro Bay, just around the corner from Parekura Bay, Orokawa bluff, where my tūpuna and whānau currently live.

This is like a lived experience right now, and this is what the rest of New Zealand has to look forward to through the fast-track legislation. Because it’s not just the 149 projects; it’s those that were not listed and are coming through the front door right now, impacting upon communities, impacting upon iwi Māori. Now, Patukeha and Ngati Kuta are unashamedly working with community, saying, “No. We don’t want this development in our kāinga. We know that there’s going to be impact on our takutai moana.” The hapū is already under stress with the Caulerpa outbreak just around the corner at Omakiwi. There’s a can in the area where Waipiro Bay is proposed to be built. You’re meant to be protecting the takutai and yet, in the fast track, you’re going to degrade the takutai, because you’re going to be privatising takutai moana, locking out our customary interests as 11 hapū and iwi and intensifying development. Scraping up the takutai. Nine hectares of sand—of takutai moana—will be tutū-ed with by a company that is only there to furnish wealthy businessmen and landowners so they can park up their boats and yachts.

Tangata whenua have united with community, and today we have nearly 12,000 signatures on a petition launched only one week ago. That’s how important fast track is to community is that it is the voice of the people coming through. It is showing support for Patukeha, Ngati Kuta, and all of the tangata whenua impacted, and this is what this Government prioritises: the ultra-wealthy, the rich, compared to us as iwi kāinga, as community, shut out through a process that neglects the taiao and neglects the voice of mana i te whenua. Kia ora.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Last week, on 7 May 2025, this House took a step backwards for the rights of women when it unilaterally cancelled, without any notice and any due process, the pay equity claims for equal pay for work of equal value for 180,000 New Zealanders. This is a huge step backwards for our country, not only in relation to women’s rights but also in relation to human rights. But we on this side of the House know that we are on the right side of history by standing up against these unilateral decisions that take literally billions of dollars out of the back pockets of women.

Now, Budgets are a choice. It is a choice that the Government has to make, whether to build a future or to cut, and the National Party and the National-led Government, in this instance, are cutting what women are getting paid. They have managed to find hundreds of millions of dollars for tobacco companies, but at the same time, they give with one hand to tobacco companies and take with the other from the pockets of working women.

We’ve heard a lot about the particular scheme that was in place, and I would like to challenge anyone who has an issue with that law to provide evidence on any allegations that you make that it was unworkable. We have seen, since that last Act was passed, 10 settlements that have valued the historically underpaid work of working women. That shows that this process is working. Is it straightforward? No. Is it simple? No. Is it affordable and cheap and easy for the Government to find that money? It’s a challenge to be able to fully address the historic undervaluation that women have suffered. But does that make it wrong? No.

We’ve also heard about the impact of comparators, and I would like to ask, rhetorically: how do you assess historic undervaluation without the use of comparators? The bill that the Government has put forward will continue to require the use of comparators. They will continue to require the comparison of jobs that, on the face of it, look very different. This is how undervaluation is assessed—very, very carefully, very, very scientifically, in agreement, looking for the skills that underpin that. That is a part of this new law, and it shouldn’t be used as a reason to attack the law that was lost.

The rhetoric around this has been strong, and it deserves to be, but I want to bring the debate back to the people who are really affected by this. I have something to read out from one of those people who were affected, a library worker whose claim has been extinguished. She says, “The end of our claim is devastating to myself and my colleagues. We were so close to a result, and to see that stripped away is so incredibly painful. We will go on providing for our community. We will continue to help elderly patrons with their technology problems. We will keep on helping children to develop their love of reading. We will keep on assisting patrons with other requests that we get every day. It’s just now that we do it knowing that our Government does not value our work and in the knowledge that we will have to start our long fight for fair wages all over again. Our hearts are broken.”

That is just one example that I have time to read in this short call, but I can assure the House that it is not an isolated example. Every single one of those 180,000 people that stood to benefit from those pay-equity claims will have similar stories of hope and similar stories of heartbreak at what this Government has decided to do—similar stories of dreams for their family, of what they could finally do when their work was properly valued and similar stories of how those dreams have been taken away.

The Government has said that this was not about the Budget. No one believes that. They’ve said that it won’t make a big difference to women. No one believes that. They’ve said it was about improving the law. No one believes that. They’ve said that this pay equity, working for equal pay for work of equal value, was a grievance industry. That is simply not true. They have tried to blame those on this side of the House and tried to say that we are the ones at fault when they are the ones who are taking billions of dollars away from undervalued women in New Zealand today. This is a shameful week for this Parliament, and I do not doubt that, when we come back to look at this period of history, we will see who was on the right side—this side of the House—and that that Government was in the wrong.

RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to stand up in this general debate. The last time I had this awesome opportunity was late last year, and so much has happened to continue getting Takanini back on track that I’d love to share with the House, and with my husband in the gallery and with people listening from across these walls. But, first, I’d like to acknowledge our Anzacs, our veterans, and our Māori Battalion, particularly with Anzac Day just past a few weeks ago—lest we forget.

Just the day before Anzac Day, we had the pleasure of hosting Minister Chris Bishop, Minister Simeon Brown, and Minister Judith Collins in Takanini as, collectively, they announced that the New Zealand Transport Agency Board had endorsed the investment case for stage one of the Mill Road project, and this is Manukau to Alfriston. In my maiden speech, I spoke about Mill Road, and I, along with many other MPs, have been fighting for Mill Road to be done for a very long time. The previous Labour administration said that they would do it in 2017. They reneged. Then they promised they’d do it in 2020, and they reneged on that, again. But we’re getting it done, and I cannot wait.

Also in April, a few weeks ago, Minister Stanford, the Minister of Education, announced 18 extra classrooms—more rebuilds—at Ormiston Senior College, and this is just wonderful news for the teachers, for the students, and for the parents in my patch, in Takanini. Flat Bush is one of the fastest-growing electorate areas in the country. This is going to help so much.

In February of this year—it just keeps getting better for Takanini—Minister Bishop announced our Government’s plan to invest $200 million towards removing the train level crossings, most of which are in Takanini. This will mean less time in traffic, it’s safer for drivers and for pedestrians, and it will improve productivity, something that we love to improve on this side of the House.

This year has seen so many beautiful cultural events take place in my electorate of Takanini. We celebrated the Cambodian Buddhist New Year at the Cambodian temple in April. Thank you, Mr Lim and your team for the beautiful display of culture you put on.

In the first week of April as well, the PM and other Ministers were at Polyfest at the Manukau Sports Bowl, which is also in my electorate. I personally loved watching Alfriston College score on the Niuean stage, with their powerful and beautiful performance.

In February, there was the official opening of the Auckland New Zealand Temple for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Thank you to the elders for opening up the temple for those small few weeks so that we could have a fascinating tour and learn more about their practices.

There was also the Lunar New Year at Manukau Sports Bowl in Takanini; Holi, the Festival of Colours, at Barry Curtis Park in Flat Bush; and the Tamil harvest festival, or Pongal, at Bruce Pulman Park. I love being the member of Parliament for Takanini.

I’m very proud of the six students from Ormiston Senior College that were in the eight finalists for the Auckland region for the Race Unity Speech Awards competition. One of those was the ultimate national winner, and I’d like to acknowledge Jordyn Pillay from Ormiston Senior College for her outstanding speech. I’d also like to acknowledge the principal, Tim Botting, and his team for obviously instilling so much confidence and self-reflection in their students. I’d like to ask the House: what do we say to our young students about how to present themselves to the world as they embark on their futures?

If you don’t mind, Mr Speaker, although most of my speech was filled with happy thoughts, I will end with this. Where are our standards, and what are we saying to our young girls when the Opposition members across the House—not one of them has stood up and condemned the disgusting use of the “c” word from a disgusting journalist last week. They’re silent on the “c” word, but they’re not silent when it comes to manipulating a situation to harvest votes. It’s disappointing, and I encourage them to not manipulate the broken hearts—if they’re going to say there are broken hearts of people—to harvest votes, but to call out disgusting behaviour, just like we often do on other matters.

Mr Speaker, that’s how I will end this speech. Thank you for this opportunity.

RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. Tēnā tātou. The only “c” word that’s done more damage to us here in Aotearoa is “colonisation”.

This Government is committed to working against the needs of its people. They are committed to making aggressive and regressive changes to this country. And they are dedicated to blaming the system they inherited, to detract from how willing they are to keep the everyday people of Aotearoa suffering. What we are seeing is not hidden. What we are enduring is not subtle. It is blatant disregard for our people and it is unacceptable.

When Te Pāti Māori offer up transformative solutions or speak to an Aotearoa hou and what that will look like for our mokopuna, this Government is quick to scream “separatist”. They say “separatist”; we say “independent”. They say “radical”; we say “transformative”. They say “race-based”; we say “rights-based”. They say “divisive”; we say “restorative”. They say “special treatment”; we say “equal footing”. They say “grievance politics”; we say “justice”. They say “backward”; we say “honouring our tīpuna”. They say “identity politics”; we say “mana motuhake”. Does Government fear anything aspirational; anything that dares to dream beyond the confines of comfort for the 1 percent? What they call “separatism”, we call “self-determination”.

Self-determination is not divisive. It means Māori designing solutions for Māori, based on our own tikanga, values, and aspirations. It means a future where both Te Tiriti partners thrive in their own right and in mutual respect. This self-determination is not only for the benefit of Māori but for the benefit of all of Aotearoa. A Whare Māori that speaks to sovereignty and partnership. A Whare Māori is not a breakaway State; it is a constitutional commitment to shared power, as promised in He Whakaputanga and Te Tiriti o Waitangi. It supports localised solutions and economic justice. It’s about restoring what was promised under Te Tiriti o Waitangi: that Māori would have full authority over our lives, resources, and systems.

When we speak to a Māori tax system, this calls for economic autonomy. When we speak to a Māori health system, we are calling for oranga grounded in kaupapa Māori—models like Whānau Ora that are centred around wairua, whānau, and whenua, not just pharmaceuticals and profit. When we speak to Māori superannuation and ACC, we say that reflects intergenerational equity, where our needs, realities, and contributions are recognised. When we speak to Māori supermarkets, it is about feeding our people, controlling our supply chains, kai sovereignty, supporting Māori producers, and keeping profits in our communities. It is not exclusion; it’s economic liberation. It’s about creating a future where Māori are not an afterthought but a cornerstone of the society in Aotearoa. It’s about honouring Te Tiriti. It is about building a nation where equity comes from empowerment, not assimilation.

Often this kōrero is met with scoffs from across the room and heckles from those with the inability to think bigger, to think wider than the confines of Western colonial constructs. But Te Pāti Māori isn’t responsible to you and the inability for you to see the bigger picture. We are responsible for normalising what an Aotearoa hou can look like for our people.

What does an Aotearoa hou look like for us? We would welcome you—not just the landlords and the 1 percent but the unseen essential workers who work tirelessly to support this country, our takatāpui whānau, our whānau with disabilities, and our whānau who have immigrated and have so much expertise to offer Aotearoa. We would feed you proper school lunches, supporting kai sovereignty and alleviating the cost of living crisis. We will clothe you, not cut your benefits or subsidise prescriptions our kaumātua depend on. We will educate you on the history of Aotearoa and the partnership this country was founded on, under Te Tiriti. We would house you because housing is a right, not a business for profit at the expense of whānau living on the streets. Everyone should have the right to a constant, warm, secure home. We would manaaki you, not incarcerate you.

These are not radical ideas. So when you say “rule breakers”, we say “change makers”. They say “uncompromising”; we say “principled”. They say “disorderly”; we say “disrupting injustice”. You say “performative”; we say “unapologetic”. They say, “activist”; we say “protector of the people”. They say “too Māori”; we say, “We are good enough because our tīpuna made it so”. Kia ora tātou.

MIKE BUTTERICK (National—Wairarapa): Thank you, Mr Speaker. We’re a pretty welcoming bunch in the Wairarapa. We welcome all and sundry to come and enjoy our region, but we don’t want the idiots, the boy racers, because they are not welcome.

It’d be an understatement to say that the people in the Wairarapa have had a gutsful. For far too long, the people that want to come into our region and cause mayhem have felt they’re above the law. Well, guess what! It’s all about to change and I welcome the proposed changes for tougher penalties to deter antisocial and intimidating driving wholeheartedly, as do all the people I’ve spoken to since it was announced on Sunday. The landowners whose business is horses—they told me about the thuggery, the intimidation, fireworks, exploding tyres, putting themselves at risk and their animals. They also expressed concern at the danger that not only locals but also the police find themselves in. They told me that the idiots involved think they’re above the law and can do what they want. Well, we’ll see about that. They told me that they heard about the announcement the other day and it’s a really positive move. They did ask if they could push the button on the first car to get squashed.

The local council where that particular event took place is spending thousands to clean up the roads each year. In fact, one of the costs incurred for one intersection—one intersection—was $150,000. So not only do the ratepayers have to put up with the offenders, now they have to foot the bill to fix and change the roads. The council talked about threatening, intimidating behaviour, alcohol, mess, noise, mostly late at night, and the sheer frustration within the community.

I’ve talked to another resident that’s had to put up with idiots in their urban neighbourhood repeatedly and the sheer intimidation it causes, let alone the stress, and they’ve really been struggling.

I did a quick Google search on incidents in the Wairarapa. I ended up using half a tree to print out the articles. Here’s one: “Boy racers costing Carterton ratepayers thousands each month.” Local mayor: “These idiot racers, these clowns, are going to get it wrong and someone is going to get killed.” Johannes Ferreira: “It is a frustration when we have just resealed or remarked an area to turn up to go out every Monday and clean up tyres, tyre marks and damaged signs.” The mayor, again: “There are a number of elderly residents [at one boy racing hotspot] and there’s no way in Hades that an elderly couple are going to walk out there and photograph boy racers’ number plates or ask them to stop. The intimidation factor is just too high and it’s not worth the risk.”

Another one: “Violent attack sparked after driver’s car hit spectator”. “A boy racer who was attacked at a Wairarapa meet-up had ‘spun out and hit the crowd’ moments before the violence interrupted.” “I was just standing there and … all of a sudden this car comes out of nowhere, it had McDonald’s trays on the back wheels and it spun out into the crowd.” “The bystander said it was ‘gutting’ when a select few ruined the events for everybody else. The hosts and organisers that go to show off their skills, they just want it to be about skids—a way to practice for competitions, some of the spectators get in the way and get drunk.”, he said. “I think we need a spot to go where all the interested people can go and practise safely.”

Well, guess what! They’ve already got somewhere to go. It’s called the Masterton Motorplex. They’ve got a place for them to go. It’s safe for the drivers, safe for the spectators. Do they turn up? No. No, they don’t turn up. They prefer to intimidate our locals and damage our roads. I’ve got no sympathy for any of them. Go to the Motorplex if you want to burn a bit of rubber. If you don’t want to do that, don’t bother coming to our place; you’re not welcome.

Another one: “ ‘Horrific scenes’ at Wairarapa boy racer event”. “Wairarapa locals are outraged … Masterton District Council mayor Gary Caffell said the ‘rather horrific scenes’ were ‘really disappointing’ … the community was lucky to get away with nobody being seriously injured or killed as ‘that could’ve happened’ … What needs to be done is that we need to get really tough.” Another one: “Boy racers in Wairarapa hurl fireworks, rocks, and bottles at police.” Another one: “Boy racers leaving an unwanted mark”; “Wairarapa, a boy racer ‘epicentre’.”

We’re acting now, because we aren’t willing to accept unsafe, unacceptable behaviour on our roads, in our community. If you want to act like a hooligan and put people’s lives at risk, that’s where the real rubber hits the road. You can expect to face the consequences and get your car crushed. At the end of the day, you reap what you sow. You want to break the law? Don’t bother crying us a river of tears. You won’t get any sympathy. Bye-bye little car, it’s getting squashed.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Sittings of the House

Sittings of the House

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Deputy Leader of the House): I move, That the sitting of the House today be extended into tomorrow morning for the first reading of the Ngāti Hāua Claims Settlement Bill, the remaining stages of the Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Ranginui Claims Settlement Bill, and the first readings of the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Amendment Bill and the Financial Markets Conduct Amendment Bill.

Motion agreed to.

Appointments

Controller and Auditor-General

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Deputy Leader of the House): I move, That, under section 7(2) and in accordance with clause 1 of Schedule 3 of the Public Audit Act 2001, the House recommend to the Governor-General that Grant James Taylor be appointed as Controller and Auditor-General for a term not exceeding seven years, commencing on 3 July 2025.

Mr Taylor is a chartered accountant and licensed auditor with years of experience in both the Office of the Controller and Auditor-General and in the private sector as a managing partner for Ernst & Young. He will become our 21st Auditor-General in office, which was first appointed in 1846.

I also want to congratulate and thank John Ryan, the outgoing Auditor-General, for his great contributions.

GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): On behalf of the Labour Party, I would like to endorse the appointment of Grant Taylor as Auditor-General. This is something that only happens once every seven years, so I think it behoves the House to know a little bit about this job and how we’ve arrived here.

Like most members of Parliament, the first real understanding we have of the role is when we arrive and we go to select committee and we’re about to review the Minister or the ministry and all of a sudden, this mysterious organisation arrives and gives us some questions, tells us what we should be answering, and what we should be asking, more importantly. As a result, we understand the importance of an independent organisation reviewing Government spending.

The process of appointing this role is an important one. I have to congratulate my fellow members of the Officers of Parliament Committee, made up of members of all parties here.

Now, you might think that would perhaps risk a political decision. I can absolutely reassure the House that this was a search for the right person for this job as a result of an absolute understanding of the importance of the role. Chaired by the Speaker, I can actually give that assurance that we have arrived at a decision that has put the right person in this role for the next seven years, Grant Taylor.

The role itself—it’s quite a role. There are over 3,600 entities which are actually examined either directly or through the books of the Auditor-General’s office. Obviously, that work’s not all carried out by the office, but they ensure that the work is done, and they contract the work. In fact, Mr Taylor in his role at Ernst & Young (EY) was responsible for overseeing many of those audits. As a result—of course—he has a good knowledge of not only the role of the Auditor-General, but in fact the organisations which he has been auditing, many on contract on behalf of EY. In fact, he did actually work for the Auditor-General’s office early in his career.

In ensuring that we bring someone to this role, which is a key role in New Zealand overseeing Government spending, it is someone that has that innate understanding of how New Zealand works. Mr Taylor is certainly that man. One thing that did attract me from his CV is he’s a Naenae College boy—State house boy from the Hutt Valley. That, again, shows, I think, in appointing someone to this role that New Zealand still is a country where anybody can rise to the top if they’re given the right opportunity, and certainly Mr Taylor was given that.

On behalf of the Labour Party, I can stand and reassure the House and those who will be meeting Mr Taylor for the first time—particularly at select committees when he will be advising on how to make sure that Ministers are given the right questions and on behalf of their ministries—that I actually have total confidence that we have the right man for the job. Therefore, I am very pleased to commend this appointment of Mr Grant Taylor to the House as Auditor-General.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand to speak on the appointment of the Controller and Auditor-General. Like the previous speaker mentioned, the Controller and Auditor-General has a vital role when it comes to safeguarding the financial integrity of Aotearoa’s parliamentary system of Government, and the Controller and Auditor-General is someone who leads the team that supports a lot of the work that we do here in Parliament, particularly when it comes to select committees.

In terms of the appointment itself, the current Controller and Auditor-General is John Ryan, who began in 2018. Again, we would just like the opportunity to thank Mr Ryan for his many years of public service. Best wishes for his future. In terms of the appointee, Grant James Taylor, as the previous speaker has mentioned, Mr Taylor is already a chartered accountant and a licensed auditor and a former managing partner for Ernst & Young. Although from the private sector, he has worked and collaborated with the Office of the Controller and Auditor-General for many, many years.

Also, in terms of the process, again, I would like to thank all of the members of the Officers of Parliament Committee for the robust process that we had when we were looking to find the right person for the role. Again, like the previous speaker, Greg O’Connor, has mentioned as well, this is something that we do take incredibly seriously, and it’s something that all members of the Officers of Parliament Committee take very seriously and collaboratively to try and find the right person for this particular role.

With that, we do thank everyone who has expressed an interest in the Controller and Auditor-General. We welcome the appointment of Grant James Taylor, and we commend this appointment to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Offices of Parliament

Address to Governor-General

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Deputy Leader of the House): I move, That a respectful Address be presented to Her Excellency the Governor-General commending to Her Excellency the alterations to the appropriations for the 2024-25 financial year in respect of Vote Audit and Vote Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, and the estimates of expenses to be incurred for each appropriation in 2025-26 in Vote Audit, Vote Ombudsmen, and Vote Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment.

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

GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): Once again, on behalf of the Labour Party, I commend the appropriation. Again, I’ll commend my fellow members of the Officers of Parliament Committee where each—the Auditor-General, the Ombudsman, and the Commissioner for the Environment—came and gave us a good understanding of their roles, and certainly a justification for the spending and any adjustments required. So, with that, I’m very pleased to commend this motion.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Green Party of Aotearoa to also support the alterations to the 2023-24 appropriations for Vote Audit, Vote Ombudsmen and Vote Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment and the 2024-25 draft budgets for the Office of the Controller and Auditor-General, the Office of the Ombudsman, and the Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment.

Now, for context as well to the House, this particular collective and this particular group, we’re doing it in this way and going through the Officers of Parliament Committee to maintain the independence of such Offices of Parliament, and the Public Finance Act 1989 provides the funding for such. In terms of the submission also made by the three offices, we examined the submissions in conjunction with the Treasury, and I just want to take a little bit of time to go through the context for each one, starting with the Office of the Controller and Auditor-General.

I think the main thing to recognise in terms of the Office of the Controller and Auditor-General is that, to the best of their abilities, they try to operate in a fiscally neutral environment, but due to certain circumstances around the COVID-19 pandemic there has been the requirement of capital injection into this. I think, in this case, what we are looking at here is that we have received reassurance from the Office of the Controller and Auditor-General that they are on track to ensure that they go back into that fiscally neutral environment, with no additional capital injection required other than a transfer of funding from the 2023-24 appropriation into the 2024-25 Budget. That is one of the really interesting observations that I think, as a collective, as a committee, we have observed.

I think, in terms of the second office, when we’re looking at the Office of the Ombudsman, a couple of observations are, number one, what we have seen as a result of extreme weather events such as Cyclone Gabrielle. We have seen that there has been a triggering of a surge of complaints as a result, and in order for the office to both ensure that complaints are dealt promptly but also at the same time ensure that there’s a high level of retention of staff, which is one of the concerns that we did address with the Office of the Ombudsman, there is an additional budget being set aside in terms of the remuneration for staff when it comes to the Office of the Ombudsman.

It’s also noted that, although in terms of the particular type of performance payment that has been suggested, it is not necessarily something that was initially supported by the Treasury. But again, as a committee, we think that it is important for us, and particularly for the office, to be able to retain some of the staff. I think there’s another element of the funding that deserves mentioning in terms of the Office of the Ombudsman, which is the fact that the office is also seeking additional funding—which this committee has supported—around the office system upgrades to ensure that the system that the Office of the Ombudsman is using is robust and secure. This is particularly when it comes to things around cybersecurity and business continuity.

Finally, when it comes to the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, we are looking at, again, the Commissioner having not sought any additional funding for the time being. It is part of the baseline funding. It’s also important to note that the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’s baseline budget has not increased in the last six years, and it is something that they have signalled they might be seeking, an increase in funding in the next year round, in order for them to maintain the level of staff and also in terms of the rising costs and around the inflation. If that wasn’t being met, there might be some reductions in terms of the research budget and moving around some of the other budget. But, in terms of this year, they have not sought for any additional budget other than transferring funding of $50,000 from the 2023-24 appropriation into the 2024-25 Budget.

With that, we support the recommendations that have been made, and we commend this to the House.

Motion agreed to, and Address agreed to.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I declare the House in committee for further consideration of the Appropriation (2023/24 Confirmation and Validation) Bill.

Annual Review Debate

In Committee

Debate resumed from 13 May on the Appropriation (2023/24 Confirmation and Validation) Bill.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Members, the House is in committee for further consideration of the Appropriation (2023/24 Confirmation and Validation) Bill. This is the debate on the financial position of the Government and the annual reviews of departments, Officers of Parliament, Crown entities, public organisations, and State enterprises, as reported on by select committees.

There are 13 minutes remaining in this debate. New Zealand National has 17 minutes, New Zealand Labour has 13 minutes, Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand has 14 minutes, ACT New Zealand has no time remaining, New Zealand First has 16 minutes, and Te Pāti Māori has three minutes.

The Government has indicated that the Minister of Climate Change will be available today for the remainder of this debate to respond to members’ questions. The debate will be led off by the chairperson or another member of the Environment Committee.

Climate Change

CATHERINE WEDD (Chairperson of the Environment Committee): Thank you, Mr Chair. As the Environment Committee chair, I’ll just take you through some of the main points made in the Climate Change Commission’s annual review. The commission’s total revenue for the 2023-24 year was $18.56 million and total expenditure was $20.38 million, resulting in a deficit of $1.82 million. One of the commission’s statutory deliverables is to review the 2050 emissions reduction targets every five years. The current 2050 target reflects Parliament’s judgment of how much New Zealand should reduce its emissions to contribute to global efforts to limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. To achieve this, there are targets such as Nationally Determined Contributions and emissions reduction targets.

The commission emphasised that it is in New Zealand’s interest to reduce emissions. We heard that this is particularly so for the energy sector, where new technologies are already available, so that New Zealand can move towards being more energy independent. The commission told us that 80 percent of the markets New Zealand exports to by value have either got or are planning to require that emissions levels are disclosed. The commission said that accessing affluent markets is really important for New Zealand, because although there may be demand for New Zealand products, other countries may not be able to afford to buy them at the cost incurred to produce them. So we heard that adaptation to climate change is also about creating products and services that the world will value in the future.

According to the Government projections, the national sheep flock is declining, and that was alluded to during the annual review process, and the commission said that it is likely that that will continue. But the forecast for dairy cows is different. The commission said that emerging technologies will enable dairying to continue, while reducing the amount of biogenic methane emissions. The commission’s modelling suggests that a 35 percent reduction in biogenic methane emissions can be achieved, with no loss to dairy protein production.

Those were some of the main points that were touched on, as well as transport policy, heavy vehicles, industrial allocation, forestry offsets, and agricultural emissions pricing—and I’ll let the Minister of Climate Change talk to that. Thank you.

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I acknowledge the Environment Committee chair—Catherine Wedd—and the Environment Committee for their great work and contribution on what is a very important topic. I thought it would be helpful to offer some opening remarks before we get into some questions, just to remind those that are watching in terms of the work that is under way by this Government in regards to climate change. I want to make it very clear from the outset that as a Government we are committed to meeting out climate change goals while driving economic growth. We’re determined to meet our targets in a way that unlocks innovation, creates jobs, and also ensures that our businesses remain competitive.

I want to remind those of some of the key milestones which have been achieved so far, and also a bit of an outline of some of the work ahead. Last year, within the term of the review, I released this Government’s climate change strategy. This document provides a clear pathway for New Zealand in order to reduce its emissions and also, importantly, as we heard from the select committee chair, to adapt to the impacts of climate change. It is absolutely the reality that New Zealand is already dealing with the impacts of climate change. This year, which is obviously not part of the scope of the review, but it is important that we’re now moving into implementation, the strategy that we released focuses on clean energy, boosting innovation, and supercharging sustainable investment, while also ensuring our communities are well prepared for a changing climate.

New Zealand already has a very strong foundation to do this. We have abundant renewable energy potential, world-class innovators—particularly those within the agri sector—and one of the world’s most mature emissions trading schemes. We also released our second emissions reduction plan: a blueprint for reducing emissions for the second half of this decade. That is important because we do need a clear, robust, and practical plan in order to meet our targets. A plan that’s focused on actions in key sectors, including agriculture, transport, energy, waste, as well as the New Zealand emissions trading scheme and sustainable finance. Some of the key policies included within that are through enabling more renewable energy projects through Electrify New Zealand, recognising carbon capture utilisation and storage through the emissions trading scheme, targeting a network of 10,000 electrical vehicle charging points by 2030—and you would have seen more updates in regards to that recently—exploring partnerships between the private sector and Government in order to plant more trees on Crown land, and leveraging the Waste Minimisation Fund to enable resource recovery systems and infrastructure to process organic waste.

Our plan that we have released ensures and shows that we can have affordable and secure clean energy, we can have an efficient and competitive agricultural sector, and we can also have a booming economy while meeting our climate targets. With these policies, we are on track to meet New Zealand’s first and second emissions budget and could reach net zero as early as 2044. The Government is committed to our climate targets, and this includes the first Nationally Determined Contribution, NDC1.

During this term, the Government has delivered specific action, consistent with our commitment. Specifically, delivering the climate strategy, delivering reduced New Zealand units to the emissions trading scheme auction through auction settings in 2024, and delivering the second emissions reduction plan. In partnership with industry, this Government is increasing and has increased funding to accelerate the development of tools to reduce agricultural emissions. Consistent with the Government’s market-led approach, New Zealand businesses are leading in undertaking material levels of decarbonisation; for example, Genesis has committed to materially reduce and potentially eliminate coal from Huntly and replace it with torrefied biomass by 2028. We have also seen other initiatives through the primary sector to incentivise emissions reduction by the sector, which is important for farmers to reduce emissions overall.

We acknowledge that over the time, the gap between our projected domestic emissions and the NDC1 has reduced. When the NDC1 commitment was increased in 2021, the gap between our domestic emissions and the NDC1 was in the region of 149 million tonnes of CO2. If you now use projections from last year, and including the impact of policies that this Government has put in place and update the data based on the latest data available, the projections—[Time expired]

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I rise to take a call on behalf of the Green Party, and I’m really looking forward to interrogating the actions that this Government has done within the first review period. It was heartening to hear the Minister of Climate Change refer to the Government’s commitment to climate change, but, quite sadly, the rhetoric doesn’t match the reality of the situation. This Government has slashed and burned its way through the previous Government’s climate programme, leading to some very deep and very serious cuts in the climate change response. I’m going to concentrate my remarks in the area of transport and waste, and my colleague Scott will follow on and ask some questions around energy and agriculture within the review period.

It’s interesting that the Government mentions how committed they are. I’d like to start by asking questions about the independent advice that the Government received in April 2024 from the Climate Change Commission. Does the Minister agree with the Climate Change Commission that offshore mitigation should only be used in force majeure cases, that it should not be used domestically? Does the Minister agree with the commission that achieving emissions budgets will require “further electrification of light transport including [further] phase out of light internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicle imports … low carbon fuel alternatives and reductions in vehicle kilometres travelled … [and] increasing rates of active and public transport in urban areas.”? And if the Minister agrees, why has the Government pursued policies in total contravention of this?

One of the first things that the Government did when they came into office—and I wasn’t even a member of Parliament then—in December last year was repeal the Clean Car Discount under urgency, and also weaken the Clean Car Standards a few months later. Now, the cumulative effect of that, according to some independent modelling by Concept Consulting, is that by 2050, the impact of repealing these policies could have added up to 9.8 megatonnes of carbon equivalent avoided. Now, just for context, the current emissions profile of New Zealand in net terms is about 56 megatonnes. So we could have reduced one sixth of our current emissions just by keeping the Clean Car Discount and not weakening the Clean Car Standard as this Government did when they first came in.

One of the other things they did around the transport area which was regressive and deeply unhelpful was the general policy statement—a draft was released in March 2024 and finalised in June 2024. Now, according to analysis by Greater Auckland, the Minister ignored widespread concerns that these actions would actually decrease the amount of mode shift going to active transport and public transport, and overly prioritise road transport. So my question is: as the Minister of Climate Change, was he concerned by the general policy statement that came out, and does he agree with the officials who raised objections around the potential for these to actually decelerate the mode shift that was already happening?

I’ll turn my attention to the waste area because I only have a minute and a half left. We’ve seen the work that this Government has done. They’ve weakened the waste levy by reducing the de-hypothecation of it and making the funds available for landfill remediation and not just waste minimisation—worthy causes, but it should be funded by a separate pool. They’ve cancelled waste diversion policies such as kerbside organic collection and recycling. My question around the waste area is: to what extent have the changes in the waste levy shown up in the modelling, and what detrimental impact has that had towards this Government achieving emissions budget targets?

This is technically outside the review period, but since the Minister referred to it, I’ll also ask a question about it: to what extent did the changes in the second emissions reduction plan, including the improved projections of achieving the net target earlier, rely on methodological changes, and to what extent do those rely on assumptions about increased forestry? Thank you.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): Climate change is an inescapable reality. No matter how much some might like to escape it and might pretend it isn’t happening, no matter how much some on the Government benches might prefer to pretend it isn’t happening, no matter how much some businesses might prefer it’s not happening, it is happening to us. It’s a huge obligation that we need to admit.

It was gratifying to hear that the Government is committed to its climate change goals while getting economic growth, but it turns out that in the last year, New Zealand has dropped seven places to 41st in the global Climate Change Performance Index, which ranks countries based on their emissions, on their deployment of renewable electricity, on their overall energy use, and climate policy. Seven places down to number 41. In that context, how is it possible for the Minister of Climate Change to sit in the chair and say that they’re committed to action on climate change?

What exactly are the climate goals that this Government is committed to? We heard a series of tactics from the Minister, a series of actions that they might take, but what actually is the climate goal of this Government? Will the Minister state that this Government is absolutely committed to meeting the Paris Agreement? Will the Government state that it is absolutely committed to meeting the emissions budgets set out by the independent Climate Change Commission? Will it commit to ensuring that we have a just and equitable transition through climate change? Will it commit to ensuring that New Zealanders are equitably enabled to adapt to climate change? Could the Minister please state his commitments to climate change?

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change): I’m very happy to reinforce some of the points I noted in the opening statements, and I refer again to the Government’s strategy on responding to a change in climate—the Government’s climate strategy—and the headline there, as it states: “The Government will meet its targets to reduce the impact of climate change and prepare for its future effects.” As I noted previously in my contribution, the Government is also committed in regards to the targets, including its nationally determined commitment targets.

This Government has taken a number of steps in the period in which it has been in Government to put in place mechanisms in order to achieve its emissions reductions target. The question before raised waste minimisation, and that is a whole chapter in the emissions reduction plan that has been released by Government that outlines the mechanism and the processes for us to reduce emissions in that space. It is an important sector with plenty of opportunities to do that.

There was also a question in regards to methodology changes and assumptions. I think everyone will understand and be aware that forecasting involves assumptions and underlying changes. The prior Government made assumptions in regards to a number of aspects of policy, including such things as Tīwai Point and its utilisation of energy, or the role in which Huntly was going to play in the future. This Government has a different view on that, and those are examples of changes that have been reflected in the modelling.

I come back to the point: the plan that this Government is pursuing and this plan that the Government is implementing does put us on track in order to achieve net zero earlier than 2050—as early as 2044. Taking away the politics, we should celebrate the fact that this is a country that is on track, and we do need to undertake and make gross emissions reductions, in addition to using forestry as a removal tool. We’re committed to both of those mechanisms; they’re both critically important and it is also reflective, ensuring that we have a credible emissions trading scheme (ETS) to do the heavy lifting in regards to emissions reduction in this country.

This Government has spent a huge amount of effort in terms of ensuring we have a credible ETS and a credible policy position. Again, the actions speak louder than words in terms of the actions that this Government has undertaken on that pathway, and we do have a plan in order to meet our targets.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Just before I take the next call, I’ll just warn members that the debate will be completing at about 5.55 p.m. Just because members have times left in their party, that doesn’t mean the debate will go past 5.55 p.m.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): In light of what the Minister of Climate Change has just said, can the Minister then unequivocally say that his Government is committed to meeting the Paris Agreement? Not the nationally determined contributions, not the tactics, not the strategy. Is the Government unequivocally committed to achieving the Paris Agreement?

SCOTT WILLIS (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I have some questions about the short-, medium-, and long-term actions the Government has been taking on climate change over the period from November 2023 to June 2024. I am mindful that just about everything that the Government has been doing has been making things worse—from cutting the Clean Car Discount and opening up oil and gas and chanting the mantra of “growth” as if, once we’ve trashed this planet, we can all hitch a ride with Elon Musk to Mars and start over.

Last week, at the Antarctica Parliamentary Group meeting, we heard from Antarctica New Zealand about the global impacts of ice loss from Antarctica, in particular when the Thwaites Glacier gives way—and it is known as the Doomsday Glacier—it will raise the sea level by 0.8 metres, and it’ll trigger more ice loss from Antarctica—up to 4 metres of sea-level rise. This is something that is not really survivable for most societies, and it’s easy to despair, but we have it within our power to change this, because every fraction of a degree matters.

I want to know, from the Minister of Climate Change, where the Government is going to make up the 2 million tons of carbon, emitted out to 2050, that the Clean Car Discount was going to abate from, noting that the Clean Car Discount programme was fiscally neutral in the last six months of 2023. As we heard about the 10,000 fast chargers, I’d like to know how many had been funded and installed.

I also want to know what the emissions impact had been from the decision to cut funding from active transport—walking and cycling paths—in half at last year’s Budget. What’s the climate cost of entrenching fossil-fuel transport?

When flooding overwhelmed Civil Defence in Ōtepoti Dunedin in 2006, I rode across paddocks to rescue sheep that were drowning. Those flood events have happened on a regular basis ever since. We’ve had repeat after repeat after repeat. Homeowners have lost insurance. We risk climate ghettos. The South Dunedin Future programme has created a model for collaborative community leadership on adaptation, and it’s got exceptional buy-in from the community. But the Government—in a kick in the guts for the South—rejected an application from the Dunedin City Council and the Otago Regional Council for $132.5 million to support a buy-out of flood-prone properties to help that community—the most densely inhabited, the most at risk from climate change, the most impoverished community in Aotearoa—to help that with that adaptation effort, with the millions that have been invested so far. That was rejected. What other support has the Government provided for the South Dunedin Future programme over that period, if any? And, with the gutting of the Climate Emergency Response Fund in May 2024, what alternative complementary funding was the Minister able to provide for climate change - related initiatives outside of the main Budget allowances, if any?

I’m also interested in the more general actions the Government may have taken over this period. What immediate actions has the Government engaged in that are more visible and simple to evaluate, such as brokering partnerships with housing in flood-hazard zones to foster innovation and adaptive housing, like developing climate-safe housing? I can refer the Minister to this report from the National Science Challenge called Our City, Our Climate, a report dealing with how the community feels about adapting to those climate impacts.

I’m also interested in what the Minister might have to say on the other complementary programmes, such as the Warmer Kiwi Homes’ investment in home upgrades. Has the Minister paid attention to reports such as Aukaha’s Houses into Homes evaluation report on the home energy retrofit project, which has a recommendation in there that we need to resource solutions for whare beyond scope? Their recommendation is that, because there are houses that are being invested in by Government in flood-prone areas, that money is being wasted.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Thank you, Mr Chairman. I just have some quick questions for the Minister of Climate Change. I do remind the Minister that he hasn’t answered my colleague the Hon Dr Deborah Russell’s question about whether or not this Government is committed to the Paris Agreement, and whether that is a commitment that they will be adhering to.

My questions are around industrial process heat that was covered off in the work of the climate commission, and also in various Environment Committee questions that have been put there. One of the things that we know in terms of reaching our emissions budget is that it is heavily dependent on the fact that New Zealand Steel is performing better than first anticipated in terms of the emissions reduction that that conversion is incurring.

What I want to know from the Minister is: what work is under way to further accelerate industrial conversions away from fossil fuels, and how the Minister is tracking that; what initiatives are being put in place, and what mechanisms to track conversions that are happening? We know the Government’s withdrawing support by scrapping the Government Decarbonising Industry Fund scheme, but what have they replaced it with in terms of monitoring there? And whether or not the Minister is doing any work around industrial allocations, which in many ways has the perverse incentive of paying people to pollute and subsidising people to continue to emit, while at the same time objecting to partnering with businesses when they are reducing our emissions and reducing the burden on New Zealanders.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Mr Chair. A few questions from me about coal. One is: does the Minister of Climate Change realise that coal is a fossil fuel and not good for the climate? If so, why has this Government enabled coal mining through its Fast-track Approvals Act, which includes the Bathurst Resources Limited project and BT Mining Limited? Does he agree with the then Climate Change Commission chair, who presented in front of the Environment Committee, that those who promote fossil fuels are committing, “a crime against humanity”?

If he doesn’t have anything to say on coal today or to answer the other questions that have been put to him today, will he revoke the decision from his party’s members and other Government members on the Environment Committee to halve his time in his appearance at the Environment Committee?

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change): Sorry, members, I’m just conscious of time so I do want to be able to provide answers to the questions that have been raised. To directly answer the point noted by the Hon Megan Woods in the context of this Government’s commitments: I mean, I would remind the member that, actually, the commitments under the Paris Agreement include the nationally determined contribution, NDC, of which I’ve now said on three occasions that as a Government we are committed to meeting, and that was again reinforced as part of the Biennial Transparency Report submission that the Government has recently made, and other obligations in regards to that. As a Government, we are continuing to fulfil our obligations in regard to that commitment and we are committed to our targets and committing to undertaking the work in regard to that.

I want to answer the point also raised by the member in regard to South Dunedin. I think that is a very important aspect, and whether it’s South Dunedin or Tairāwhiti or Auckland or Westport, many parts of our country are impacted by climate change, and it is important, as the member knows, that we move and have a position in regard to a framework to deal with the impacts of climate change.

We did a cross-party consensus through an inquiry, and I acknowledge the members in the House who have actively participated on that. That is an important piece of work which this Government strongly supports, and we are working quickly to introduce legislation by the end of this year to support an enduring national adaptation framework which deals with the questions of: how do you share the costs, who pays, making sure that our citizens have the information and data to make informed decisions around where they buy and where they build and also dealing with citizens that don’t have any choice in terms of where they are and the impacts that they are dealing with and how they can transition to a different state.

They are very important questions for our communities, and they are important for, I think, the majority, if not all, in this House to come up with the answers. We are committed to working together with other members of the House to get resolution to that matter.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): In the context of living in a global community, we know that many of our trading agreements contain commitments to continuing to meet our climate and environmental goals. But given that our position in the world adaptation Climate Change Performance Index has dropped, has the Minister of Climate Change assessed whether any of our trade agreements are likely to be at risk because we are not meeting our climate goals?

SCOTT WILLIS (Green): I’d just like to return to the question of the different departments, the different ministries, that are working on programmes that might be impacted by climate. In relation to the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority, which funds the Warmer Kiwi Homes programme, we know that this programme really does help people in energy hardship, and it has great effect. But what we’ve also discovered is that many homes are actually beyond repair or are in areas which will be impacted in the future. So what work has the Government been doing on checking whether programmes are suitable and are futureproofed?

We have a recommendation here from the Otago home energy report that says that a proportion of whare are in such poor condition that energy-efficient upgrades to the existing structure are largely ineffective and may actually extend hardship at high cost. Some whare are exposed to flooding or sea-level rise and have a limited lifespan. In these cases, investment is needed and solutions need to be developed in collaboration with whānau and community in examples of new builds, climate-safe housing, etc. Has the Minister of Climate Change been working across Government and with the community sector to look at this? Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Members, the time for this debate has expired. The question is, That the report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the annual financial statements of the Government for the 2023/24 financial year be noted.

Motion agreed to.

Report noted.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question now is, That the reports of committees on annual reviews be noted.

Motion agreed to.

Reports of committees on annual reviews noted.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question now is, That clauses 1 to 9 and Schedules 1 to 3 be agreed to.

Clauses 1 to 9 and Schedules 1 to 3 agreed to.

Bill to be reported without amendment.

House resumed.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Madam Speaker, the committee has considered the Appropriation (2023/24 Confirmation and Validation) Bill and reports it without amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): This bill is set down for third reading immediately.

Bills

Appropriation (2023/24 Confirmation and Validation) Bill

Third Reading

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) on behalf of the Minister of Finance: I move, That the Appropriation (2023/24 Confirmation and Validation) Bill be now read a third time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 2)

First Reading

Debate resumed from 10 April.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to take a short call on the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 2). I want to start my contribution by just making a few high-level comments and observations. My view is that this bill is Government overreach because it will enable ministerial micro-management and the undermining of the teaching profession.

The bill is unnecessary and several of the amendments are already in practice. The bill removes some of the key parts of the Act that aim to promote and protect the rights of children and young people, such as those in Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the National Education and Learning Priorities (NELPs), and school strategic plans will no longer be required to be holistic approaches to educating children and young people from complex and diverse backgrounds.

The bill deprioritises Te Tiriti o Waitangi and removes local curriculum—removing local curriculum is a concern. Schools won’t see the immediate impact, but there is nothing good in this bill: the Teaching Council should be independent—National introduced the professional body—and it should not be politicised through ministerial overreach; attendance management plans are already there; and the National Education and Learning Priorities were collectively developed by schools and removing them will narrow the curriculum.

Those are some of my initial observations and thoughts about this bill. I want to spend some time, though, on noting for the House the fact that due to the rushed time frames for this bill, the regulatory impact statement (RIS) notes that they have not been able to undertake consultation on many of the proposals that are contained in this bill. Is anybody in the House surprised to hear that they have rushed the time frames and have not been able to consult with those that will be impacted by this legislation?

Hon Rachel Brooking: Oh, there is a RIS this time, lucky us!

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: I feel like, yeah, we should probably be happy there’s a RIS that at least states that and is honest about that because that’s not what we experienced last week when pay equity was rushed through in urgency.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Stick to the bill, please.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: It’s all relevant because, of course, the pay equity claims impact the teachers who this bill is about, doesn’t it? The House is well aware of that.

So we have here the regulatory impact statement for refocusing on the Government’s priorities, and it notes here, in the regulatory impact statement, that, really, the Act doesn’t allow for the small set of critical priorities of the Government to dictate what happens throughout the Education and Training Act. So they want to align the school’s statutory objectives with the Government’s priorities and reduce the number of mechanisms the Government uses to set these priorities. In here it notes that resourcing and timing constraints did not allow time to engage fulsomely on these proposals and the options did not consider non-statutory mechanisms for refocusing schools on the Government’s priorities. Really, it’s just giving effect to something that was in the coalition agreement. That’s what this is about. It hasn’t come from feedback that they have had from the sector on it.

Now we have the regulatory impact statement for “Improving accountability and transparency for standard setting and approval functions for initial teacher education”. This is supposed to be independent, but what we have here is the possibility for, and it’s noted here that there’s potential sector opposition because evidence shows “change is most successful when parties buy-in to the … process”, but they were not consulted, and consideration should be given how to “reassure”—but when it is being implemented, so after the fact. The “increased accountability will increase government and ministerial influence”. That should be a concern for everybody.

We do not support this bill, but I do look forward to the submission process and hearing what people have to say. But they should have been consulted.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Green Party of Aotearoa to oppose this particular bill, and I’ll give the reasons why we are opposing this bill. First of all, we’re looking at changes to section 127 of the Education and Training Act, which is the crux of this bill. Now, one of the things that we hear this Government talk about all the time is the dire situation that we are facing in terms of literacy and numeracy in Aotearoa. Yes, there are definitely issues that need addressing. However, none of the issues are addressed in isolation. You cannot split it out and look at just student achievement only using one particular criteria to look at the student achievement.

What we are seeing is an engineered crisis by this Government when it comes to education, and addressing and skirting around the edges and trying to do anything other than addressing the real issue around the systemic barriers that we have seen in our education system. That was being addressed by section 127 of the Education and Training Act. The reason we have those four priorities is because we realised the issues that are facing our students and our country and our future collectively and holistically. By removing or deprioritising three of them, and by removing the Statement of National Education and Learning Priorities (NELP), it signals to the country that this is a Government that doesn’t actually understand education. It is a Government that has never stood in front of a classroom and understood the needs of our ākonga in general, or just period. This is what we are seeing manifesting through this bill.

Now, if you’re looking at it more closely, during the consultation period, we had a document that says that, overwhelmingly, people did not support the changes to section 127 of the Education and Training Act. We saw 11 organisations—that includes the New Zealand Educational Institute, the Post Primary Teachers’ Association, the New Zealand Principals’ Federation, I believe the Teaching Council, and also Te Akatea; some of the most independent and most senior, revered, and well-experienced organisations in Aotearoa—coming out against any changes to section 127.

But what would that change manifest? This is something we would love to hear during the select committee stage. A couple of things: number one, the Minister of Education fundamentally does not understand what statutory interpretation means, and how do you interpret legislation? When you have paramount objectives and we have primary objectives, you need to fulfil the requirement of all of those. But when you push Te Tiriti o Waitangi down as a supporting objective of that paramount objective, it means that the school has the ability to determine and say that, “Complying with and upholding Te Tiriti is not something that we see as achieving that paramount objective. Therefore, we do not need to adhere to that.” That is what a supporting objective does, and that is what’s being proposed in this bill.

We’re seeing the same thing here when it comes to putting down the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (NZBORA) and also the Human Rights Act as a supporting objective, which is incredibly ironic because it challenges and contradicts the other section of this particular bill, around universities—“Yes, we believe in freedom of expression, just not when it comes to schoolkids.” That is what the changes to section 127 are signalling, because what we are seeing here is, under the current legislation, schools cannot, under NZBORA or the Human Rights Act, ask students to not wear certain items of clothing, and particularly taonga. But when we are seeing something like this being introduced, what does that signal to the community and to students on ensuring that they have a sense of belonging in our education system? It doesn’t, and that is a concern.

The Government is putting millions of dollars into truancy without actually addressing the fundamental levers of why our education system has not provided this kind of support to our students and to our future generations.

When it comes to the removal of NELP, which I have mentioned before, the removal of NELP also meant that we are fundamentally going to remove some of the action plans for certain communities that are much needed, including the action plan for Pacific students and Pacific education. Because of that, we will not support this bill, and will look forward to the select committee stage.

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m taking this call on behalf of ACT to support the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 2). I’m supporting this bill on behalf of ACT because this bill contains many initiatives that the ACT Party campaigned on for some time. It’s really great to see that this bill has come before the House. I know that this bill is going to be referred to the Education and Workforce Committee. As a member of that select committee, I look forward to working on this bill in the select committee process as well.

We know that education plays a very important role in shaping young peoples’ future. What we want to see is that, yes, while students achieve in their academic subjects, we also want to see that they are able to navigate the complexities of the world that we live in. That’s why one of the topics that I want to talk about in this bill is about freedom of expression at universities, because this is something that the Hon David Seymour has been campaigning for, for a very, very long time. So it’s really good to see that what this bill does is this bill imposes a duty on the council of a university to protect and promote academic freedom and freedom of expression. And also it requires that the university council, in their report, include how they have complied with this requirement and also the number and nature of complaints.

This is a very positive step, because what we have seen in so many cases at so many universities is that universities somehow have taken that kind of protective approach towards staff and students and they have been censoring some speakers from coming and speaking at university campuses. This kind of woke censorship needs to be reversed. That is what this bill will do and that is why the ACT Party is really proud to see that this policy is part of this bill.

We know that young people should be able to challenge views that they hear and they should be also prepared to be challenged for their own views. They can be prepared for these things only when they go out and hear what is happening out there and they get the exposure to different kinds of views which sometimes other people think are controversial kinds of views. So we are really looking forward to working on this bill. Of course, along with this, there are some changes to the school boards’ goals that this bill will make which are, again, positive steps, so the ACT Party supports this bill. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

ANDY FOSTER (NZ First): This a very good and very much needed bill. It is focusing education on education. We heard across the House there that it’s an engineered crisis. No, it’s not. The system is failing—it’s not delivering numeracy, it’s not delivering literacy, it’s not delivering attendance—and this is all about fixing that.

It makes educational achievement the paramount objective, which is a great thing. It requires school boards to pay a lot of attention to getting kids actually at school. They can’t learn if they’re not there—so monitoring that. It desires to lift teacher training standards, which we know is needed, and it imposes a duty on university councils to make sure that they protect and prioritise academic freedom and the freedom of expression, which is very, very important to this side of the House. I think it’s a great bill, and I commend this bill to the House.

SUZE REDMAYNE (National—Rangitīkei): I have great pleasure in commending this bill to the House.

Carl Bates: Madam Speaker. I think it’s me, isn’t it?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): I’m a bit confused about what’s happening here.

Tākuta Ferris: He aha?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): There is confusion because the Māori Party wasn’t available to take their call when that call stood up, but I understand that the speaker is withdrawing from that call. So if you are seeking the call, Mr Ferris—

Tākuta Ferris: Yep—kia ora. Tēnā koe e te Pīka.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): I call Tākuta Ferris.

TĀKUTA FERRIS (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tonga): Kia ora. Tēnā tātou. Ka tū au ki te whakapuaki whakaaro mō tēnei o ngā pire e mea nei ko te Education and Training Amendment Bill.

[Hello. Greetings, everyone. I stand to express some opinions about this particular bill called the Education and Training Amendment Bill.]

I just want to be really clear with the House, with the Minister of Education, and with the Associate Minister of Education that when it comes to Māori education, we do not need any help; we do not need any help from the Minister or any other part because, for decades now, te iwi Māori has championed their own independent education models, and for more than 50 years they have done outstanding work and now consistently produce outcomes that outperform the rest of the system. So, despite the many amendments and adjustments over time, the Māori-delivered, Māori - thought-up; Māori-directed; by Māori, for Māori, to Māori education has consistently done better than the central delivery of education for Māori.

It sort of begs the question: why are we continually fighting the battle to prove that Māori understand education for Māori better than the Government, better than the centre? This is not a thing that’s being debated; the experience over the last 50 years clearly demonstrates that the way forward for successful education for Māori children and adults is through Māoridevised, delivered, monitored, -re-imagined delivery of education.

The bill that’s before us is an unfortunate continuation of a particular type of thinking when it comes to education, inasmuch as the ultimate aim for it is to reorder the bill—particularly the Treaty clause—to give predominance to the idea that culture, identity, language, these types of things aren’t really necessary in educational delivery, when the experience of te iwi Māori is the exact opposite. Also the fact that there is no evidence around that would support the idea that language, culture, and, indeed, the ways of the people are not important in the delivery or in the experience of education by them—be they tamariki, or all the way through to adults—when it is.

In the Ministry of Education’s own publication, entitled He whakaaro | Educational Insights, it clearly states that the connection between language, identity, and culture has a positive impact on NCEA results for ākonga Māori.

Now, this is not a new discovery; it’s not a new idea. The people who have championed Māori education for the last 50 years and produced amazing results have known that for a very long time. So why we’re back reconsidering what the legislation looks like—not to just forget about the other actions that have taken place by the Government—we really have to consider: well, where to from here for te iwi Māori? And this move by the Minister to, effectively, demote Te Tiriti o Waitangi in the legislation is quite simply just a continuation of the attack on all things Māori that the Government has been undertaking for 18 months. Those things include the demotion of te reo Māori to a second-class language in our own whenua, the defunding of Te Ahu o te Reo Māori—one of the most successful professional educational development programmes in education in Aotearoa—the removal of funding for Māori resource teachers, all the way down to here.

Here we are now, considering how to water down or deprioritise the place of Te Tiriti o Waitangi in the legislation. Indeed, with the removal of the Statement of National Education and Learning Priorities, which basically requires that the education system include instilling in each child and young person an appreciation of the importance of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and te reo Māori, what else are we to think? What else are we to think and where does it leave us? Well, it leaves us with a Government who are trying to frame their changes as clarifying the role of Te Tiriti, when all it is doing is eroding the mana of Te Tiriti and continuing the identity erasure of the education policies of the 1800s and 1900s. We do not commend the bill.

CARL BATES (National—Whanganui): One of the things that this bill supports is this Government’s focus on attendance targets—something that I know members of the House will be particularly interested in! I commend this bill to the House.

SHANAN HALBERT (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. A Government that is focused on the things that matter in this country isn’t a Government that is focused on the things that are in this bill. Tell me a university or a tertiary institution in this country that says that this is a priority. Tell me where a university or tertiary institution in this country has said that they want the Government meddling in their business, overreaching and making a decision about who can speak at their university? There is none. I have travelled around institutions across the motu, and universities don’t agree with this legislation. They don’t agree with this Government; they don’t agree with the ACT Party. And where is the Minister for Universities speaking on this bill? It’s because he doesn’t agree with it either.

This is an unnecessary Government overreach into our tertiary institutions and universities. Universities are independent institutions that can absolutely manage themselves. They need the ability to make decisions on health and safety—this is what they tell me when I go and visit. When they host speakers, it’s not a decision about freedom of speech; it’s whether they can actually host an event safely for their students, staff, and the public—do they have the right venues in place, and what are the risks that they have to manage? And what we’re finding is that some far-left or far-right speakers that are hosted in institutions create a number of protests—hundreds of people, in many instances, that will turn out. As a result, universities sometimes have to make the difficult decision not to host events. One of those reasons is because it’s an expensive exercise. This Government expects universities to foot the costs to host speakers and events because the Government is meddling and they’re overreaching in their business. That is unacceptable for a Government and an ACT Party that believes in organisations making their own decisions and making their own choices.

Hon Rachel Brooking: Some irony there.

SHANAN HALBERT: It is ironic—isn’t it ironic?

But this is this Government. This is, when, within the last 24 hours, the Minister for Vocational Education has launched legislation to replace Te Pūkenga too and hasn’t actually addressed the critical issues that confront the tertiary sector. It doesn’t address the funding issues that the sector faces. It doesn’t identify whereabouts institutions fit in that.

So I come back to my starting point: this is a Government that isn’t focused on the issues that matter, that isn’t focused on what New Zealanders are asking for from them. Particularly, it isn’t a Government that is focused on what tertiary institutions, universities, and wānanga are asking of them. Most of all, they need help to address the funding inadequacies that we experience in the sector. That’s what they want the Government to put on the table, not an overreaching piece of legislation that isn’t necessary at the moment. They want to know how they can support learners within their institutions, and how they can address their pay inequity issues—particularly for women, if we’re speaking about librarians; support staff that this Government has shafted by taking away their right to put a pay equity claim forward. They’ve removed that opportunity.

But I come back to this piece of legislation—universities don’t want to be micro-managed. They’re actually big enough, academic enough, intelligent enough, and independent enough in their own right to be led by their councils, to be led by their vice-chancellors, and to be trusted that they have the best interests of their learners, their staff, the public, and Aotearoa alike—to be taken care of within their jurisdiction. The point here is that it’s a duplication of provision. This request that’s put forward can already happen. It’s an overreach and it’s just unnecessary.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): While the public of New Zealand wait in vain for this Government to focus on the things that they really care about, like fixing the public health system, like getting more houses built, and by creating jobs at a time of high unemployment, what is the House’s attention being directed at tonight? Stoking an imported culture war to satisfy some kind of negotiation that ACT have carried out in the coalition agreement to change the rules and impose an unnecessary burden on our tertiary institutions and our universities, who—at first glance, looking at this bill—are going to have to undertake a heavy bureaucratic reporting regime on freedom of speech.

Carl Bates: That sounds like something you’d like.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, it’s not the kind of thing I like to see, Mr Bates, because I believe in academic freedom. And there have been a number of cases in recent years where our universities have found themselves in the middle of some pretty intense debates about who should and shouldn’t be allowed to speak on university campuses. If you care about academic freedom, then you would realise that it’s something that needs to be carefully looked after and nurtured. It’s not a simple one-dimensional thing where anyone with any view and with anything to say should be given the space, particularly in a public institution, to express those views.

There’s no shortage of people out there peddling disinformation and of people preaching hate. My concern is that if the effect of this legislation would be to tie the hands of our tertiary institutions, forcing them to provide their public facilities to people who are preaching hate against, for instance, the trans community, to people who are Islamophobic, and to people who are Holocaust deniers, then I think that would be damaging for our democracy.

Universities need to be given the academic freedom to make those decisions. I’m a believer in free speech. I want to see a wide variety of views discussed and debated in our institutions. But, if the effect of this legislation is to tie the hands of universities and prevent them from exercising their judgment to protect freedom of speech in our tertiary institutions, then I think that would be a very backward step.

As my colleagues have noted, this is a bill that is full of examples of ministerial overreach and micro-management. It’s clearly pushing a political agenda, and I look forward to unpicking that and subjecting it, at select committee, to the kind of scrutiny that it deserves. Thank you.

Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise in support of the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 2). This is a sensible bill that makes 11 proposals, mostly aimed at increasing attendance, to improve the outcomes for the children of our country. I commend this bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 2) be now 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.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is, That the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 2) be considered by the Education and Workforce Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Education and Workforce Committee.

Instruction to the Education and Workforce Committee

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Deputy Leader of the House): I move, That the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 2) be reported to the House by 16 September 2025.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 2) be reported to the House by 16 September 2025.

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.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I declare the House in committee for further consideration of the Social Security Amendment Bill.

Bills

Social Security Amendment Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed from 6 May.

Part 1 Amendments to Social Security Act 2018 (continued)

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, the House is in committee on the Social Security Amendment Bill. Members, when we were last considering this bill, we were on the debate on Part 1. Part 1 is the debate on clauses 3 to 58—“Amendments to Social Security Act 2018”—and Schedules 1 and 2. The question is, again, that Part 1 stand part.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. So, yeah, we resume on Part 1, and I want to acknowledge that this is a complex bill with quite a few insertions into the Social Security Act.

I wanted to pick up on new section 236A, which is being added to the Social Security Act under this bill, under clause 15, particularly around the sanctions for first failure, report job search failure “without good and sufficient reason to meet requirements”. I wanted to ask whether the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) had developed guidelines already to ensure people know how, and to what kind of jobs, to apply. Where has MSD gotten so far with developing these guidelines? So, for example, if you have, let’s say, somebody who never pursued a degree and then is applying for a lot of jobs where, clearly, the person’s qualifications are not matched with the jobs—like, would the person then be deemed to have met the requirements under the job search non-financial sanction?

If so, I’m just keen to get the Minister for Social Development and Employment’s update on how she thinks this could be actually operationalised in a way that meets the intent or the desired intent from the Minister. In some ways, part of the reason why I think section 236A and the broader components of the report job search can end up becoming unworkable is that people can end up applying for jobs that clearly do not match the skills or even, for example, could be applying for jobs that are really, really far away but then they can’t access things like the Transition To Work Grant to allow them to then relocate, etc.

The other question I wanted to ask in this call was in relation to new section 236H, inserted by clause 15B, in relation to upskilling. I noticed that there doesn’t seem to be a definition of “upskilling”, and so I wanted to ask whether she thinks that’s a bit of a gap. I say this because the way that this sanction is laid out—and I note, by the way, that this is one of the sanctions that didn’t end up getting any public scrutiny via submissions because it was introduced later down the line, so the public did not get to submit on it. But I wanted to understand, as well: how will MSD end up defining “upskilling”? If people are just required to attend specific workshops, for example, and comply with and participate in those for a prescribed minimum of hours, how then will MSD ensure that those actually are upskilling people—right? It’s different to just require people to attend seminars for the sake of attending seminars, but whether they’re actually meeting the intent of upskilling. Has MSD developed guidelines to ensure that the prescribed workshops actually meet the intent of upskilling people?

I once again wanted to check why there is no—in relationship to upskilling, but I guess this could apply to other sanctions, but specifically on here, why is there a prescribed minimum amount of hours laid out in the legislation but no maximum amount of hours? Is the Minister concerned that this could be utilised in the wrong way by a Minister or future Governments to then lay out a really unrealistic amount of maximum hours? I note that the status quo in so far as what we’ve seen in the public is that the intent is to have a minimum five hours in one week for four weeks.

I want to take this opportunity as well to speak to some amendments under my name that touch on clause 15, and those are Amendment Papers 279 and 285. I haven’t talked about those two amendments. The first one, 279, would delete new section 236A to remove “money management”; and 285 would delete the new sections 236B, 236C, and 236D to remove “community work experience”. We believe that these two financial sections in particular are the most harmful. I wonder if the Minister would be open to removing the most harmful parts of the legislation.

Otherwise, I’m quite keen for the Minister to address the other questions I laid out. Thank you.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): There was a lengthy discussion last time the committee sat around the job search, so I’m not going to repeat things that have been covered. In terms of the upskilling, the guidance will be developed in the next couple of months—the go-live is not until October. In terms of the hours limit, we do still expect that people will be looking for a job.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour): Just further to that kōrero, I think one of the major worries we have is the impact on whānau. That being the case, we’re putting up amendments to help the Minister for Social Development and Employment in that regard, and so we have just provided a couple of amendments there. But we have to remember that in that March 2025 quarter, job seekers have increased—209,839 people, in terms of receiving a jobseeker benefit. This is an increase of 22,000 people or 11.6 percent compared to the same time last year.

That being the case, we had a look at replacement section 236, inserted by clause 15. After replacement section 236, after paragraph (p), we’re wanting to insert that an assessment is completed within 10 working days on the impact of cancelling the main benefit on a person’s family, because from what we see, there’s no obligation on the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) in terms of follow up.

So, again, the concern is, well, what about the kids? The whole punitive approach puts aside the obligations to the wider whānau, to the kids. So I would like the Minister to consider that that be inserted, that an assessment is done within 10 working days on the impact of cancelling—what that will have in terms of the impact on the whānau.

I also want to add another clause there that MSD considers the welfare of the client to ensure that the client has the support they need to pay for food and rent. I ask the Minister to answer what consideration is given to that wider whānau and the impact that cutting the main benefit has on the kids and wider whānau. The children and partners surely shouldn’t have to go without if the parent is sanctioned and I think that we have to put some thought into that strategy. What happens to the client after being sanctioned? This has been a constant question through this process. Can she explain where they are meant to go?

Also, in relation to my inclusion of subparagraph (d), ensuring there is not enough funds for food and rent, could the Minister clarify how that will be delivered? We could consider the utility for food banks and budget advisers to support the client and whānau. So I’m just asking, in this amendment, as I said, the earlier one, an assessment done within 10 working days on the impact that cancelling the main benefit will have on the family, and then that MSD must consider the welfare of the client and to ensure that the client has the support they need to pay for food and rent—would the Minister consider that?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I’m not going to cover ground again that we’ve already covered in terms of non-financial sanctions as they are and restrictions on sanctions on households with children.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): I move, That debate on this question now close.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I’m not going to take that question, but I think we are getting close. Some of those issues have been well canvassed. We’re looking for new material.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to point out to the Minister for Social Development and Employment that we have four distinct non-financial sanctions. Those have distinct effects on people. They deserve to be evaluated on their merits, and each of them insert different sections to the Social Security Act.

I really take issue with the Minister describing her bill as “simple” when the person who was subbing in for her earlier, when we were last debating, couldn’t even adequately define a relationship as the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) defines it.

Anyway, so moving on to clause 17, which we haven’t touched on. That’s the insertion of section 239 into the Social Security Act, “Reduction or suspension of reduced benefit”. I specifically want to touch on the continuation of sanctions following the regrant of specified benefit.

What I want to seek clarification on—and I also ask this because of the additional section 239(1)(a)(iiia) and then (iiib), report job search and upskilling, which, as I said, didn’t get adequate scrutiny at the Social Services and Community Committee because those were added later, even though a Cabinet paper actually noted that the Minister intended to insert them and then didn’t publicly announce them.

I wanted to ask the Minister whether in this new section she foresees that, if the benefit is cut and then regranted and people were subjected to a non-financial sanction, will the minimum time that they’re required to comply with then reset, or whether—for example, in the report job search, if they had complied for those three weeks, then their benefit was cut then regranted—they would only then have to do their report job search sanction for one more week? Because even though the language in this bill says that, for example, in the new section 239(2)(a) and (b), there’s no clarification of that minimum amount of time. So I wanted to get clarity from the Minister as to how she sees that new section 239 working in practice.

I say this because I think that clarity is kindness. So far, what we do know is that people on the benefit, many of them who are struggling to survive on a daily basis, do not have the time to be going through the Social Security Act to understand, for example, the implications that if their benefit is cut then regranted whether they’ll need to re-comply with that amount of time. So I’m keen to understand this.

I also wanted to understand, then, what this could mean in practice in relation to the new section stated in clause 17 of this bill, for something like community work experience. I ask this because, for example, if you have someone on the benefit who was, say, two weeks into their community work experience non-financial sanction, had their benefit cut then regranted, then is deemed to then have to continue complying with the community work experience, does the Minister believe that it would be easy for that person to then participate once again with that same organisation and whether that would be feasible? If that organisation says, for example, “Yep, this beneficiary was working with us for two weeks. Their benefit got cut so they didn’t have to attend. We actually don’t have capacity to take them any more.”, what would happen then?

This clause 17 just adds a blunt reintroduction of the sanction without adding any new ones to the reality that in practice it’s a lot easier said than done, particularly for the community work experience sanction that involves a third party here—an organisation. Equally, with upskilling, you could argue that that one also has a third party in the case of a, sort of, community organisation as well that MSD may be OK with the beneficiary working with. That’s a question that I think is really important to get clarified.

I also want to ask whether MSD had developed, for example, any communications in plain language around how this would work in practice. What are the portals that people would then be able to access to understand with clarity what this new clause 17 adds and the provisions that it touched on?

I’m yet to take a call on clause 18, by the way—so this is around section 242—but if the Chair allows me, I may just, for the benefit of time, continue with clause 18, unless the Minister’s keen to answer my previous questions. So this one is on adding section 242, “Failures that cannot be counted”. I wanted to ask, particularly with clause 18(1) and then (2), whether MSD had worked since the report of the select committee on any projections on people having their benefits cancelled as a result of the changes to the failure count moved from 12 months to 24 months. If so, has she got any projection around, for example, how this specific clause—I want to get clarity around how she thinks this could help meet her goal of reducing the number of people on the jobseeker benefit by 50,000. Specifically, I’m curious to know: how far does she think clause 18 takes her towards that goal and does MSD have any information that could help elucidate us on this?

Since I’ve got 4½ minutes remaining, I’m going to move to clause 19. So that is around the new section 243AAA. This is the exclusion of sanction for first or second failure, if not failure to accept offer of suitable employment, and timely recompliance occurs. I wanted to ask about this new section that’s being added, particularly the new subclause (a) that reads: “the failure is not a failure to comply with the work-test obligation to accept any offer of suitable employment”. I wanted to ask why not just allow people to re-comply, basically, because I’m worried that this will end up being a bit of a blunt tool.

I also wanted to ask how MSD will define suitable employment under this new section. For example, is MSD thinking of suitable employment under this new section being work that meets caregiving arrangements, proximity to home, if somebody is on the jobseeker medical—like whether, for example, the disability that someone has with their health conditions will be factored around the definition of suitable employment. I think this is particularly salient with the new job search sanction that is being added, because then people under those sanctions will be required to apply for a number of jobs. Do all those jobs have to be considered suitable employment? Because what if somebody under job search applies for a job that is actually not suitable and then they don’t take it? Will they be subjected to the provisions that are added under this new section 243AAA?

Then I’ll move us to—actually, I’ll just let the Minister answer that one before I move to clause 19 and further.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): As I said, I’m not going to repeat myself. The intention of this bill is all aimed at supporting more people into work, which is aligned with our target: making sure that job seekers know what their requirements are and that they fulfil them. If they have a non-financial sanction, of course they will need to complete that sanction, and these are non-financial. It’s fairly straightforward.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. With respect to the Minister for Social Development and Employment, I don’t feel that she’s adequately answered some of the questions that we’ve had around some of the kaupapa Māori strategies that we’ve talked about over the last few days. Given the disproportionate amount of the Māori population, sadly, who are on benefits and are high in these statistics, I would ask the Minister to consider some of this kōrero with regards to working with Māori; by Māori, for Māori solutions; by Māori, for Māori strategies. I want the Minister to explain how Māori and other culturally appropriate interventions are being accommodated when sanctioning clients.

We all know, particularly with Māori, that when you create an environment conducive to the needs of Māori, their whānau and community will see better outcomes. I’m looking at clause 15, replacement section 236C, just for the Minister’s benefit. Also in relation to replacement section 236D, what other culturally appropriate interventions are being considered to support our Pasifika communities who are sanctioned, and can she explain how this is going to be prioritised so we can ensure they’re not left on the streets with nothing?

So I just want some response here from the Minister with regards to this kaupapa Māori area. I have a couple of amendments there to clause 15, replacement section 236C: “In clause 15, section 236C(2), after subparagraph (c), insert—(d) MSD must provide culturally appropriate interventions (e) When the client is Māori, that a marae based option is provided” or a pan-tribal strategy is put in place. So I think if the Minister could come back to us with regards to that, it would be very helpful, because I don’t think we have traversed the Māori area adequately enough, given the high statistics in terms of Māori, sadly, in this area.

While I’m up, too, I would like to go to my next part, which would be Part 1, clause 36, “New section 280A inserted (Cancellation of young parent payment and incentive payments for continuing failure to comply)”. So my amendment is clause 36, new section 280A, to delete clause 36, because it’s far too punitive—far too punitive—in terms of young families. I want the Minister to consider that. This amendment is about ensuring that a young parent is not punitively sanctioned.

It is important that young people—particularly our young mums—are not left in vulnerable situations. Sometimes, through no fault of their own, they’re put on their own to work things out and it’s so hard looking after their tamariki, their whānau, let alone filling out forms. So I think a better way forward would be just to cancel out clause 36, new section 280A, and delete clause 36 altogether. We know with the young mums, if they’re not supported financially, it leaves them in a vulnerable situation in terms of exploitation from partners. They could be in a domestic violence position situation—not a good position for any young mum to be in. So why does the Government have to be so punitive in this situation? Why can’t there be a more embracing, aroha-type strategy that is employed by this Government. It’s a complex situation here, I understand that, but the section as it is currently written is too simplistic and too blunt of an instrument to adequately address this issue.

So I would ask the Minister to consider this in terms of going forward. I think that my amendments will be very helpful: clause 36, new section 280A, deleting clause 36. And going back to the other amendment that I had in clause 15, replacement section 236(4)(c): “that an assessment is done within 10 working days on the impact of cancelling the main benefit”—what will that have on the whānau and is the punitive approach being adopted by the Government really the right approach at this time? I would ask the Minister to consider that and the amendments in front of her. Thank you, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Before I take another call, can we talk to Part 1 as a whole. This is not a clause by clause debate. Some of the contributions have become very repetitive. So we’ve got the messaging, but we need questions for the Minister about the detail in the bill.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. That is exactly what we’re trying to do—at least here in the Greens. I just want to make it clear to the Minister for Social Development and Employment because I have heard from the Minister that she has answered questions already, but she actually hasn’t really touched on the substance of the sanctions she’s introducing, including some that didn’t get adequate select committee scrutiny. While I note that is not a clause by clause debate, I’m saying the clauses to aid the Minister in knowing what to respond to.

I want to talk about the new section 252A around “MSD must give notice of non-financial sanction”. The Government is hoping to introduce a whole area that sets out how notice of non-financial sections have to communicated. One of the things I don’t know that is present here is the means in which that notice must be given. So, for example, right now, the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) can use different ways of communicating with people—literally from correspondence to MyMSD portal, to text, phone calls, etc.—but I’m concerned that, if there isn’t a responsibility for MSD to use specific, or at least try to use specific, avenues to contact people, what I foresee will happen, as it has with the financial sanctions—and I say this from my own experience in the front line—is that we have people who, for example, don’t have access to a phone and have lost access to MyMSD, people who have been chronically homeless, who MSD may have thought that they had communicated that somebody was going to have a non-financial sanction applied, but that person is literally homeless and hasn’t received adequate support to then be on the receiving end of that communication.

The way that the proposed section to the Social Security Act is laid out doesn’t specify what the steps are that MSD needs to take in terms of the means that that is communicated. I don’t believe that’s been something the Minister has answered. I know she talked about the intent of the bill and supporting people to employment, but MSD then also has, in other commentaries, said there’s no correlation with sanctions and employment. So I’m also keen to understand whether MSD’s recent comments that they have said to the public actually aligned with what she just said. But, yeah, I’ve got a question there specifically to new section 252A being added.

I also wanted to ask about clause 28 that amends new section 261 around how a person may re-comply after failing to comply. Again, the reason why I wanted to ask this is that there seems to be a very specific note of the drug-testing obligations here. I wanted to know whether the insertion of it is specifically with the intent of ramping up the use of drug testing within the welfare system. Right now, we have this obligation in place. It’s rarely used. People are rarely sanctioned with it. It’s kind of like a leftover of previous Governments that had intended to use it, and it just became a bit of a scaremongering thing. But, in practice—at least in the front lines—I rarely have seen people who have been subjected to it, and it just seems like it’s stuck in legislation without getting used. Does the Minister intend to ramp up the use of sanctions in relation to drug-testing obligation; if not, what does she think is the use of adding it under the provisions of clause 28? Is it because of, I guess, the requirements on some jobs to go through drug testing, for example? I’m keen to get some clarity on this. This is because in clause 28(2), we do have a specific mention of the “report job search”.

I want to remind the Chair that these were added without proper scrutiny from the Social Services and Community Committee due to the lateness in which the Minister brought them to the committee. So this is the first time we actually have the ability to scrutinise the Minister on those two additional sanctions she decided to introduce late into the process.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you, Madam Chair. I picked up an Amendment Paper that I hadn’t been aware of before. It’s an Amendment Paper on the Table which includes a change to clause 50 and it seems to be about circumstances where someone dies while money management’s imposed. I think this is a new Amendment Paper. I’d like to know whether it is. It looks like it’s a situation where a person dies and then it goes through a number of amendments that talk about what will happen in those circumstances. I would like the Minister for Social Development and Employment to just explain why this Amendment Paper has come up. It looks like, to me, that there has been a consequence thought through and that there are amendments to change things to remedy that.

I’m not suggesting that there’s anything particularly wrong with this amendment—I simply don’t know. But if I could just have it explained to me what the point of these amendments are, why they’ve come up, and have they just come up. Is this what’s happened, that they’ve just been put on the Table? I don’t remember these being on the Table last time. So can I please have an explanation of those amendments?

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, the time’s come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break. The committee will resume after the dinner break at 7:30.

Sitting suspended from 5.58 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Good evening, members. When we suspended for the dinner break, we were on the Social Security Amendment Bill. We were debating Part 1. I want to be very clear that we are hearing some quite repetitive things at this point in time, and I am looking for a bit of record of what’s been asked and I’m looking for completely new questions.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you, Madam Chair. I did ask some fresh questions just before I went, about an amendment that had been put and that I wanted to know about, but I’d like to add a question that’s absolutely fresh. There’s an amendment on the Table that is about the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) considering the welfare of the clients, and I wanted to know from the Minister for Social Development and Employment whether she would consider an amendment which at least considered the welfare of the child involved. This is about having an assessment, 10 days in, on the impact of cancelling someone’s main benefit, and my understanding is we’re also cancelling the accommodation allowance in those situations.

It’s a pretty serious situation, but we also have an issue that often it’s children in this family that are going to suffer the most. So would she consider an amendment that simply took this amendment and looked at having a 10 - working-day review where there are children involved, and then MSD is having to consider the welfare of the child.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yeah, can I—

HELEN WHITE: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Can I just make a comment. I’ve been checking my tracking sheet, and that question did come up on Thursday when I was in the committee of the whole House, and it has subsequently been asked. So we are—

HELEN WHITE: The welfare of a child?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yes—yes, it was definitely asked. It has been asked a couple of times, actually, but it definitely did come up on Thursday. So I think we are starting to traverse things, and, you know, when there’s a weekend in between, sometimes we get different people in the Chamber, so—

HELEN WHITE: I certainly haven’t asked that, and I—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): No, I—

HELEN WHITE: Yes, I appreciate it.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I appreciate you haven’t, but it has been asked.

HELEN WHITE: Yeah, thank you for the advice. The questions I asked before dinner were about an entirely different amendment, which was all about the death of someone and the impact on the benefit. Have we had those questions before?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’m going to check, but if you’ve asked it before dinner, it’s on the sheet.

HELEN WHITE: Yes, it’s on it; it just hasn’t had an answer.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): OK, thank you.

HELEN WHITE: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’m going to call Ricardo Menéndez March just while I’m checking on this, but I am serious about new questions.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Yeah. And I’d just like to alert the Chair as well: I am trying to note the clauses that I am referring to. I know that this is not a clause-by-clause debate, but hopefully by moving through the clauses and having individual questions I can demonstrate to the Chair that we are approaching this with good faith.

I wanted to move us to the provisions around automated decision-making, so these are clauses 52 and 53, and I particularly wanted to ask the Minister for Social Development and Employment around my amendment to delete those clauses. We haven’t really devoted much, if any, time to automated decision-making, but definitely not to my amendment to remove those clauses. Advocates on the ground have highlighted concerns around the expansion of the use of automated decision-making, and particularly when they come to the relation of application of sanctions and the expiry of benefits. We’re really concerned that the application of sanctions should not be administered by computers without human interaction, and that even opening the scope to allow for that to be possible is really, really dangerous, particularly when we know that the Ministry for Social Development’s accuracy rate when it comes to the application of, for example, benefit entitlements is not adequately applied in almost half of the cases.

I’m interested to know whether the Minister would support my amendments to then do some more work around the actual scope, and define the scope of automated decision-making in a much more narrower sense, to ensure that we don’t have these provisions that then enable any future Minister to broaden the scope. And I’m also seeking guarantees from the Minister, because I don’t believe that she has given many public guarantees at all around where she thinks, in her term as Minister, she will broaden or limit the scope of these provisions in clauses 52 and 53 in relation to automated decision-making. Can she make any commitments right now around the areas she’s not willing to go into when it comes to broadening the scope of automated decision-making? And if she can’t make those commitments, I would recommend that she supports my amendment to then do some further work, so that the public has clarity about the intention she has in relation to expanding the scope.

In relation to that, I’m also interested [Interruption]—Madam Chair, Madam Chair—I think I have, like, two minutes—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Ricardo Menéndez March.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: Thank you. I’m also interested to know, in relationship to the expansion of automated decision-making in clauses 52 and 53, how she intends to communicate that specific expansion to clients. I’m also interested to know whether MSD is preparing—for example, having provisions that let clients know when a decision has been taken by a human, or when, for example, something has been taken by the way of automated decision-making. How will a recipient of a benefit know when something is triggered as a result of the provisions in clauses 52 and 53, as opposed to a case manager? I think, without having benefit recipients having certainty about whether a decision was made by a person or automated decision-making, I think then it creates even more confusion around, for example, if a beneficiary is to do a “review of decision”—so, for the committee, “review of decision” is a paper you can fill out to challenge a decision made by Work and Income that can lead to a Benefit Review Committee; the Benefit Review Committee can decide on an outcome and that can even be further challenged by the Social Security Appeal Authority.

I guess my question is, if automated decision-making is expanded, and somebody wants to challenge that, what’s the level of accountability, then, in terms of when we have a Benefit Review Committee hearing, when someone is challenging a decision being made by automated decision-making? How does the Minister expect that to work? When we know, for example, as well, that the wait times for Benefit Review Committee hearings, when people are challenging decisions—and this bill is introducing more decisions by MSD by nature of introducing more sanctions—there’s a huge delay to get a hearing. There’s reports from advocates that the balance of those hearings is very skewed towards MSD, and there are also long wait times and lack of resources to then go to the Social Security Appeal Authority. The provisions in clauses 52 and 53 concern me because I do think they will make the Benefit Review Committee hearings far more complex, confusing for benefit recipients, and there will be less clarity around who made the decisions. So any assurances on the scope, how that will be communicated when a decision has been made by automated decision-making, and how people can challenge decisions that are made through automated decision-making, would be greatly appreciated, as this has been an area of concern for many people at the front lines.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): The answer has been given multiple times before. The whole concept of non-financial sanctions are only given by a Ministry of Social Development staff member who can take into account the individual circumstances of a person who has breached their obligations. It is why we are introducing non-financial sanctions, and a person, a human, who is at the front line, providing service to beneficiaries will be making that decision.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Helen White, did you have a question about death? I said to you before, I thought it had been traversed and I can’t find it. Just really quickly, what was your question?

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you. There was an Amendment Paper on the Table that seemed to be all around where a spouse had died—I suspect—and it went through and it talked about the different treatment of a person in those situations. I was asking for a plain English explanation of what the amendments were.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): It’s in the Amendment Paper, so if you just read it in plain English. You didn’t actually have a question before.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Apparently the explanation—the Minister’s just answered: the explanation’s in the Amendment Paper so I think the explanation’s already there.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Point of order. Helen White was on her feet making a speech, and the Minister, quite outside of the Standing Orders, simply stood up and interrupted her. In your comment now, you seem to endorse that behaviour. Now, I accept that you can interrupt a member who you think is wandering off topic, but for the Minister—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yeah, thank you, Dr Duncan Webb. That is a relevant point, that members—including Ministers—should wait to be called. But I do deem now that the Minister has answered—

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Speaking to the point of order. I’m seeking some guidance in relation to that interruption, more importantly around the content of the interruption, because throughout this debate, we have been told by the Minister time and time again that questions have been answered. I would challenge that. And I’m asking how are you, as the presiding officer, taking guidance to ensure that the Minister is not factually incorrect when it comes to her assertions that specific questions have been answered?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Look, it’s not my role to judge what the answer to the Minister’s question is. The Minister has been taking calls, and it is not the job of the presiding officer to enforce that the Minister answers your question in a way that you will be satisfied, either. So what the Minister’s answers are, are the Minister’s answer and that’s as far as our job goes.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): I move, That debate on this question now close.

A party vote was called for on the question, That debate on this question now close.

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.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s amendments to Part 1 of the Minister’s Amendment Paper 263 set out on Amendment Paper 279 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendments to the amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s amendments to Part 1 of the Minister’s Amendment Paper 263 set out on Amendment Paper 285 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendments to the amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s amendments to the Minister’s Amendment Paper 263 set out on Amendment Paper 284 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendments to the amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 263 be agreed to

Amendments agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Mariameno Kapa-Kingi’s tabled amendment to insert new clause 3A is out of order as being outside the scope of the bill.

The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to delete clause 5 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s amendments to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 265 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Willie Jackson’s tabled amendment to clause 10, new section 183A(1)(c) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s amendments to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 266 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s amendments to clause 10 set out on Amendment Paper 281 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s amendments to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 283 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Willie Jackson’s tabled amendment to clause 12, new section 233A be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Willie Jackson’s tabled amendment to clause 15, new section 236(4) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s amendment to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 269 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Willie Jackson’s tabled amendment to clause 15, new section 236A(3) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s amendments to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 276 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s amendments to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 264 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s amendment to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 270 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s amendments to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 271 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s amendment to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 272 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Willie Jackson’s tabled amendment to clause 15, new section 236C(2) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s amendment to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 268 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s amendment set out on Amendment Paper 280 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s amendment to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 267 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s amendment to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 278 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s amendments to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 282 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s amendment to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 273 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s amendment to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 274 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s amendment to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 275 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s amendment to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 277 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 1 as amended be agreed to.

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.

Part 1 as amended agreed to.

Part 2 Amendments to Social Security Regulations 2018

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, we now come to Part 2. Part 2 is the debate on clauses 59 to 71—“Amendments to Social Security Regulations 2018”—and Schedules 3 and 4. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you so much, Madam Chair. I wanted to start this debate by addressing the provisions in clause 60, particularly subclause (1)(ab). There is language that is reflected in other types of sanctions here, and I am particularly interested in the prescribed minimum amount of time. I think it’s really interesting that in the regulations we’ve only set out a prescribed minimum but not a prescribed maximum.

I want to know whether the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) have any guidelines to ensure that case managers don’t act in a vindictive matter to then set out an unreasonable amount of hours that people are expected to comply with, for example, community work experience. Without those regulations creating a maximum, what is to stop a case manager saying to someone, “I’m expecting you to do 50 hours a week.”, for example? There’s nothing in the regulations that literally sets that out. Yet, we do have a minimum, which seems to me like the Minister for Social Development and Employment has chosen to ensure that beneficiaries are complying with a bare amount of hours, but nothing to protect beneficiaries from case managers who may have not received adequate training, who may want to act in a vindictive matter to set an unreasonable amount of time.

This matters because the Minister has just outlined that one of her priorities is getting more people into employment. If a case manager acts in a vindictive way because of the lack of provisions in the regulations to lay out a maximum number of hours, what is to then, you know, create the conditions where somebody is engaging in community work experience for, say, 40 to 50 hours a week, and then is unable to actually find the time to find work? I guess to me that is really concerning. Like, how will the Minister create safeguards around this? If there’s no safeguards in the legislation, can she at least give us assurance that the staff will be given guidance on the maximum amount of hours?

I also wanted to ask about subclause (2). This is after regulations 163(ab). There’s a line here that talks about training programmes: “employment-related training programmes or courses that MSD considers are suitable, for the non-financial sanction called upskilling;”. I wanted to ask whether MSD had already developed a suitability framework in relation to the language and the regulations that talks about suitability, because we don’t have the language in here more granularly defined. How will MSD ensure that they are assessing the suitability of this in a way that it is accurate, and doesn’t lead to discrepancies between offices across the country? So any guidance on whether MSD had already developed these for staff so that the implementation of the upskilling non-financial sanction does not lead to potential harm—people being placed in courses and programmes that are not suitable.

In the spirit of making sure that I am adding new content, I will move on to clause 61. This is around the community work experience, and I probably will have a range of questions around this because I’m really concerned that in the regulations there’s been a prescribed language around, for example, people having to participate in community work experience for an amount of time, you know, for having to be there in one or more positions. But there is nothing about how participation will be measured and who is responsible for actually, for example, reporting on participation in relation to community work experience. Like, where does the onus lie?

This is concerning because, for example, I can see that MSD could decide that the onus on reporting the participation, laid out in this new section 163B, may fall on the beneficiary. If it falls on the beneficiary, then will the portal be created? Will the beneficiary self-report how many hours they have attended in community work experience? Does this fall on the community organisation? What are the tools that will be given to those community organisations to ensure that they can actually adequately report on the number of hours and days that the beneficiary is participating in community work experience?

Will the onus on counting the amount of hours fall with MSD, and, if so, what are the staffing resources allocations that will be used by MSD to ensure that the number of hours and days that people participate in community work experience are adequately reported and that the beneficiary actually has that information available to them? Will the beneficiary be able to track those number of hours in a portal? How will the beneficiary make sure that they know how they’re tracking and the compliance with the community work experience?

If it is the community organisation that is in charge of tracking compliance, what are the safeguards that the Minister is putting in place to ensure that, for example, you don’t have community organisations that, for example, could say, “I really like this person on the benefit. I kind of don’t really believe that this person should be participating here, but I want to give them a free pass, so I’m just going to let them participate.”—basically, you know, count their participation, but they’re not actually attending.

Will there be anything to ensure that she can actually enforce the community work experience sanction and the organisations that she’s engaging with are actually engaging in good faith? Because we know a lot of these organisations have responded really negatively to this non-financial sanction. Some of them could say “I’m going to opt in”, but then not really follow through with complying with what’s out there. So what will the Minister do to ensure that this works as she’s intending it to? Right now, the regulations that she’s laid out only prescribe the amount of weeks and hours that someone has to participate in, but there’s genuinely nothing here around measuring participation.

Equally, on clause 61A, on new regulations 163C and 163D on “report job search”, I’m equally interested in how participation will be measured. But this is different, right? Like, community work experience participation is somebody literally going into a place—report job search is literally someone saying, “I have applied for this many jobs.” Has MSD developed the tools to ensure that, for example, somebody can report on MyMSD? Will that be verbally? Will that be over the phone? I think this is really important because those regulations are really high level. A lot of it will fall on how that is operationalised, and without giving clarity to people on this, how will we as legislators know that the operationalisation of these regulations is actually going to work at all? We have been given so few details on the job search activity side of things in particular, which is why I’m really interested in knowing whether the ministry has developed any guidelines around this.

Finally for this call—to give the Minister a chance to respond, because otherwise I think we’re not going to get a decent engagement—I wanted to move on to clause 65. These are where we replace regulation 189 with a range of other conditions in which section 334 of the Act specified benefit does not expire under section 332 of the Act.

I particularly wanted to point to (a), where it says that “the beneficiary is a patient in hospital care with the meaning of section 4(1) of the Health and Disability Services (Safety) Act 2001:”. Basically, this means that if somebody is in hospital care, their benefit does not expire. But at the same time, we know that the health system is particularly overburdened, people are being discharged a lot sooner than they should be. The hospital doesn’t have the capacity to adequately care for people, so we could have, for example, somebody being discharged from hospital care and yet still being in really ill health and not receiving the care that they deserve. Yet because they’re not deemed to be within hospital care, their benefit could still expire.

Does she think that actually the wording of “the beneficiary is a patient in hospital care” is adequate or whether language, for example, around “the beneficiary is a patient who is in ill health” or just to kind of broaden the definition so it’s better suited to actually take into account the state of our health system? I think this is important. These are regulations, which means they’re easier to modernise to ensure that they’re fit for purpose for current circumstances.

Also on this one, I also want to touch on section 189(e), which is around kind of giving a broader range of circumstances. For example, the second part of the sentence says “or may be affected by any exceptional circumstances other than those prescribed by paragraphs (c) and (d).” Is there guidance to staff around what counts as “exceptional circumstances”, or are we just leaving it to the discretion of case managers? If the Minister would be able to elucidate on the guidance that she’s aware that is given to staff to ensure that people’s benefits do not expire if they’re facing exceptional circumstances, that would be really valuable.

I think that would also be valuable to have it on the Hansard so that people on the benefit listening to this debate have clarity around how she intends to apply these so-called “exceptional circumstances” under clause 65.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I’ll go through some of the queries that the member raised but I do want to say, as I have answered in the previous part of this debate, the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) is in the process of issuing guidance for their staff, which is very normal after any piece of legislation is introduced and passed in the House. So I’m not going to answer questions around the guidelines again, because that’s MSD’s job to prepare them.

Ricardo Menéndez March: So no guidelines have been developed on anything?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I have said they are going to be prepared in time for the bill to be enacted and for the second two—

Ricardo Menéndez March: It’s pretty soon.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: It is October, so I’m not going to keep repeating myself in this committee. I have huge confidence in the MSD front line and the case managers. They get enormously excited—

Ricardo Menéndez March: Half of their decisions are wrong.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: —when they see someone who’s on the jobseeker benefit actually get a job.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Are we listening to the answers?

Ricardo Menéndez March: I am.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Thank you.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: So in terms of community work experience, it’s stated on page 31, the prescribed number of minimum hours per week is four. That is because, as I said in my answer to a question in the earlier part, people are still expected to be engaging in their obligations to look for and prepare for and apply for jobs. So five hours is a reasonable minimum for someone to participate in community work while they continue their job search.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): It’s interesting, the Minister for Social Development and Employment addressed the issue of having a minimum number of hours but completely omitted the reality that she has not set out a maximum number of hours, which means there’s nothing stopping a case manager actually acting in a vindictive way to set out requirements that would actually prevent people from seeking employment.

I also wanted to ask whether, if she’s saying that none of those guidelines have been fully developed and they’re under development—is it her expectation that front-line caseworkers will be able to feed into those guidelines being developed? I ask this because we have heard again from the front lines that—well, we have heard from the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) that the front line is over capacity. Is MSD actually consulting with the front line to ensure that the guidelines reflect the current experiences and capacity that they’re under, and who else is MSD consulting with when it comes to development of these guidelines?

She talked about how some of this won’t come into effect until October, which actually could give MSD ample time to, for example, consult with community organisations or even do a survey of people on the benefit to ensure that these guidelines reflect the experience on the ground. I want to understand the level of resourcing it’s utilising to develop these guidelines and who is actually being consulted, if anyone, in the development of these. I think this is the best opportunity to ask the process that MSD is undertaking in the development of those guidelines. I think people should not be left in the shadows around how these are developed.

I think the reason why asking about the process to develop these guidelines is really important—before becoming an MP, working at Auckland Action Against Poverty, I did an Official Information Act request around, for example, the training modules around MSD’s caseworkers being able to assess whether someone’s in a relationship in the nature of marriage. What we found, for example, at the time is that they were encouraged to prod people with questions about their intimate sex lives, and that was really concerning. People raised concerns about the process that MSD used to investigate people and how staff were enabled to do this, and that triggered a whole response by the Privacy Commissioner, who did a whole inquiry into benefit investigations. So, you know, if the Minister is not giving us robust answers on the processes that are being constructed around these guidelines, I really worry that staff will be left with really poor training modules.

I also wanted to ask whether she expects that MSD staffers will have to at some point re-sit any of the training modules that I’m assuming will be created to ensure that staffers have the tools to implement these non-financial sanctions. We know that the training modules exist, but there is little clarity about how often people are asked to re-sit these training modules to ensure that they just don’t have to do it, for example, at the beginning of their work and then assume that they absorbed all the information and therefore they can apply these non-financial sanctions accurately and as laid out in the legislation. So does she expect that the guidelines developed by MSD will require staffers to constantly be refreshed on these, and, if not, why not?

I wanted to move on to clause 66 now. Here we’re talking about new Regulation 190C, the “Requirements completed in 20 working days starting on expiry date”. I’m going to go to subclause (2), “MSD must regrant the person’s specified benefit if MSD is satisfied that— … (b) on and after that expiry date, and unless exceptional circumstances prevented the person from doing so, the person continued to meet … eligibility criteria for that benefit.” In terms of that, I hear that some guidelines are being developed; is MSD reusing any previous modules or documents to then create these ones as laid out in that very specific regulation?

I will go back to my earlier questions, just to recap: who is being consulted in the development of these guidelines? Will staff be required to sit through training modules more than once to make sure that they are equipped with the tools to apply these sanctions accurately? How does she expect, as a Minister, safeguards to be put in place so that, for example, we don’t end up having community organisations reporting that someone is attending community work experience when they may actually not be doing so? And what are her expectations around how organisations will report on compliance with these non-financial sanctions?

STUART SMITH (Senior Whip—National): I move, That debate on this question now close.

A party vote was called for on the question, That debate on this question now close.

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.

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

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.

Amendments agreed to.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Ricardo Menéndez March’s amendments to Part 2 of the Minister’s Amendment Paper 263 set out on Amendment Paper 279 are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

Ricardo Menéndez March’s amendment to Part 2 of the Minister’s Amendment Paper set out on Amendment Paper 285 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 2 set out on Amendment Paper 263 be agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Ricardo Menéndez March’s amendment to Part 2 set out on Amendment Paper 276 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s amendment to Part 2 set out on Amendment Paper 267 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s amendment to Part 2 set out on Amendment Paper 273 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s amendment to Part 2 set out on Amendment Paper 274 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s amendment to Part 2 set out on Amendment Paper 275 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Willie Jackson’s tabled amendment to clause 16, new regulation 163A be agreed to.

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

55 Ayes

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

68 Noes

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

Amendment not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 2 as amended be agreed to.

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.

Part 2 as amended agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 1 be agreed to.

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.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Ricardo Menéndez March’s amendment to Schedule 2 set out on Amendment Paper 283 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 2 be agreed to.

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.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 3 be agreed to.

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.

Schedule 3 agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 4 be agreed to.

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.

Schedule 4 agreed to.

Clauses 1 and 2

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, we come now to our final debate, clauses 1 and 2. This is the debate on “Title” and “Commencement”.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. Before I go into the title, I want to talk about the commencement. I think there’s a few things to note here, and that is because we have different parts of the bill coming into effect at different times. We’ve got three different dates: 26 May, then we’ve got 1 July, and then we have provisions that would be coming into place on 20 October 2025. I wanted to ask the Minister for Social Development and Employment: in the previous parts of the debate, we have heard about how guidelines and the operationalisation of some of these non-financial sanctions are still being developed, yet we’ve got, basically, three different dates. Can the Minister tell us to what extent some of these guidelines on operationalising this piece of legislation have been developed?

It seems to me like there was no sort of sense of information being given to us, when I asked about the guidelines that are being developed by the Minister in relationship to the non-financial sanctions. Because the report job search and the upskilling non-financial sanctions were added quite late into the piece, I am assuming that is why we have that 20 October 2025 date—that is, to give the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) an adequate amount of time to prepare guidelines, because the Minister just dumped those in the select committee quite late into the stage, even though she flagged it in a Cabinet document really early and then told no one. Compared to upskilling and the report job search, how much work has already been done in developing training modules, guidelines—you know, changes to the MyMSD portal or otherwise—for the provisions that would be coming into force on 26 May and 1 July, compared to the provisions that would be coming into place on October 2025?

I also wanted to know what level of consultation was done with MSD and who was consulted in MSD to ensure that 20 October 2025 was a good enough date to ensure that adequate guidelines were being developed for the upskilling and the report job search. Again, we did not really get much clarity around who exactly is being consulted around these guidelines, when I asked that in the debate on Part 2, so I am trying to seek clarity on this in the commencement parts of the debate.

The other question I had was also in relation to the provisions that will come into effect on 1 July. This is relatively soon, and so I wanted to ask: to what point have we got, in terms of not just developing guidelines for MSD staffers but the websites that are going to be created to communicate the changes to people on the benefit? With the traffic light system, there was, you know, quite a lot of communication that came through to people on the benefit to explain these changes. Obviously, those changes were not legislative in the traffic light system; these are, and there are real, material consequences attached to these non-financial sanctions. For the tranche of changes that are coming into effect on 1 July, what forms of communication will she be using to ensure that benefit recipients are able to have the information that they need? And will she be communicating to people on the benefit before 20 October around the changes that are incoming? Because there’s ample of time before 20 October.

I’m assuming that the more time she gives people on the benefit to understand these two non-financial sanctions that are coming into effect, the more people will be able to comply with them. Otherwise, if there’s not ample time being given to explain how those will work in detail, I’m assuming there will be more people who could end up being subjected to these non-financial sanctions and actually unable to comply with them. Any clarity on this would be appreciated.

Just to not conflate issues, I’ll take some questions on the title itself in a moment, but I’ll give the Minister a chance to answer any of my questions on commencement.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Well, the member Ricardo Menéndez March has laid out the different implementation dates, so he’s clearly aware of what they are. How those guidelines are developed is an operational matter for the Ministry of Social Development. They’ve been working hard, and I’m confident they’ll have them ready and they’ll communicate it in the way they need to.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour): I want to talk about, obviously, the title, Social Security Amendment Bill. I think we’ve probably agreed, on the side, that a better title would be “Social Security (Boot the Beneficiaries) Amendment Bill”. We think that’s a much better title. Given the outrage from many of our people in the community who just don’t think this is a fair response to their plight, and the punitive actions that have been taken by this Government, not representing the depth of feeling in the communities. We have huge concerns, and that’s why this bill isn’t labelled lightly.

“Boot the Beneficiaries” seems a very reasonable title, given the extreme work, now, that our team at the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) will have to undertake. We’re talking about huge pressures now at the front line for MSD, and, of course, there’s been a loss of over 700 jobs. So you’re talking about a loss of over 700 jobs in terms of backroom staff there, and yet they’ve got this huge workload, so we don’t see how they’re going to cope. They’ve got an extra 30,000 more people that they’re going to have to cope with. It is beyond us here on this side of the Chamber how they’re going to cope with this. So penalising them with sanctions that remove the agency of spending money with a money management scheme that makes it impossible for beneficiaries—that’s what they’re saying. Thats what they were saying throughout the select committee stage. The money management scheme makes it impossible for beneficiaries to pay for rent, power bills, and their ability to buy school uniforms. Are we listening to our communities? This is what this is.

I wasn’t on the Social Services and Community Committee myself, and Helen White’s been speaking on this, but reading through—we’re new to the committee, but that’s what they were saying: “You are penalising us with sanctions, and you’re making it very difficult in terms of looking after our whānau, looking after our family, and looking after our communities.” So I asked, looking over there at Shane Jones—it’s sad that he’s now on this punitive style; he once worked with me in terms of getting young people off the couch. That was his thing. Now he wants to push them through the couch. I don’t know what’s happened to him. You know, it’s a total change from Shane Jones and the aroha he used to show when he was with the Labour Party. He’s changed since he’s moved to the other side, and he’s become so punitive, and now he wants to bury his own relations and push them through the couch.

We don’t require a punitive approach here, Minister Jones. We need you to go back to where you were a few years ago, but sadly you’re not there. We all have problems with these beneficiaries. We all have problems. Some of them are our relations, some of them are our friends, but they’re part of us, so constantly punishing them is not the way, is not the strategy, going forward. We must have a more embracing aroha approach, which is what was the case under the previous Labour Government.

I ask the Minister for Social Development and Employment to think about that as we go forward with regards to this, in terms of doubling the time and making it tougher for whānau, damning this kaupapa with needless bureaucracy that will be managed by a faceless AI program. I mean, that was one of the major concerns, and you’re talking about disabled people who have to try and traverse their way through this type of kaupapa—incredibly difficult. So from our community and from all the responses that have come forward, it is quite clear that the title of this kaupapa is incredibly misnamed. I think you just drop in the “Social Security (Boot the Beneficiaries) Amendment Bill”, and this side of the Chamber would be very, very happy going forward, because I think that encapsulates what our community is saying, a community that’s been left out, that has not been consulted properly, that doesn’t really know where they stand at the moment, and that needs more consultation going forward. So that’s my kōrero with regards to this title. Kia ora.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you so much, Mr Chair. While I take the point of the Minister for Social Development and Employment that she has confidence in the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) developing these guidelines, I’m keen to know whether she has sought any briefings or advice or updates on the development of these guidelines since this bill finished at the select committee stage. So far, I haven’t seen the Minister engage with the substance of this. I’m concerned she’s just fobbing it off as operational issues when, actually, these are material issues for our communities—the stuff in this piece of legislation could literally deprive people of the means to survive. She doesn’t need to believe me; she can just see the report and the evidence and the advice from MSD.

I want to go on to the title. I want to ask the Minister whether she came up with such a bland and nondescript title because she hadn’t finished writing the bill. I wonder if whether that’s the reason she had to come up with a title that does not accurately reflect what’s in the bill. Most other bills from this Government actually have names that often do reflect the intent of the Government in the bill. What we’ve seen so far throughout this debate is the Minister constantly just either adding bits to this bill, in the name of two extra financial sanctions, or, for example, putting Ministers in the chair who were completely out of their depth and unwilling to engage accurately on the provisions of this bill. She may want to check the Hansard, but, for example, James Meager couldn’t even accurately describe what a relationship was, in relation to the welfare system. So I recommend that she may want to talk to her colleagues around engaging both with the substance of what she’s doing and the broader welfare system to ensure that we have a bill and a debate that accurately reflects what is happening.

With that in mind, I was wondering whether the Minister may be open to adopting some of my amendments on the title, which I do think accurately describe in a neutral way what is happening with this bill. For example, amendments that would just simply describe that this is adding more benefit sanctions and other matters—you know, for example, she could add to the title: Social Security “(Four Additional New Benefit Sanctions)” Amendment Bill. I do think she may want to also consider titles that accurately describe the impact on people, which is that this bill will push more people into poverty. This is the end result of the so-called non-financial sanctions, particularly with compulsory money management. So I am just curious as to why she decided to name this bill the Social Security Amendment Bill—such a bland, bland term—without actually describing the impact of the bill and its title.

I think this is also particularly important because members of the community will just see the Social Security Amendment Bill becoming law, and the problem is that if you’re the everyday person and you’re not really engaging with the Minister’s low social media following, I think it’s going to be hard to understand, you know, what the actual impacts are of this piece of legislation just by looking at the title. I think good lawmaking should include accurately naming bills. I do think the Minister has an opportunity here to describe the legislation for what it is: an attack on the poor, an attack on people on the benefit; a bill that does not have any evidential basis, that does not support people into employment, and, if anything, will more likely overburden the front line at MSD who already told us that they’re oversubscribed. So I do think the Minister should, in good faith, take some of my amendments that I genuinely think better measure and describe what she’s trying to do.

I also think that she may want to take up the opportunity to describe this bill as simply taking measures to reduce people receiving income support by 50,000, because this is ultimately what it will do. It’s not about supporting people into employment. There’s nothing in this bill that actually does that. What it does is create new mechanisms for people to be stripped of income support—which, yeah, does help her meet her target of having 50,000 fewer people on the benefit, but it does not support, you know, anything to help people have decent incomes.

I think she may also want to consider whether a better name for this bill could be something along the lines of “Measures to Increase Child Poverty”. We’ve already seen that under her watch, food insecurity and material hardship for children is increasing. I think this bill will just contribute to that. I did try to ask in previous times, in the annual review debate, whether she thinks any of her policies will increase and exacerbate these issues. This is a bill that will do that. So why not just say it, own it, and name it for what it is: an attack on the poor and some of our most vulnerable families, who she actually made unemployed and are now receiving income support. So I welcome the Minister’s engagement on why she chose this title.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you. I was wondering whether the Minister for Social Development and Employment would consider a name that is more accurate in terms of what this bill is to do—something along the lines of the “Blame Anybody Else and Distract from our own Failings Bill”. We have the situation at the present time where unemployment is up—it hasn’t been this high for years—and what this Government has done is it has spent its precious time putting through a bill where we are blaming and sanctioning people for their state of unemployment.

Now, I made an earlier comment in the first part about the relationship between this and other bills that have gone through this House. Late last year, we had a bill where we changed the law so that the Reserve Bank governor no longer had to take into account a maximum sustainable employment goal, because this Government wanted more unemployment. It wanted more unemployment because that would lead to wages going down as there was more supply in the market, and that would stop inflation on the back of good wages, of higher wages.

Now, that’s fine if you own a house. It absolutely kills you if you’re an ordinary New Zealander, many of whom can’t own a house, many of whose wealth is not through that source. What we really need in this country is full employment, and we had it. We had really good employment. While that’s difficult in terms of inflation, that’s a really important value of mine that we do that. Yet in this climate what we’ve got is growing unemployment, and what does the Government do? It brings in a law which talks about sanctioning beneficiaries.

We know some of those beneficiaries are the good people of Kinleith who have worked really, really hard all their lives. What’s the Government done to help them when manufacturing has got into trouble in this country? Where’s the Government for the people of Kinleith? Where’s the Government for people in our manufacturing sector? Where’s the Government when it comes to supporting our workers in New Zealand on low pay who have been impacted by pay equity issues? Out the door. They’re all just going to have their wages reduced and if they’re made unemployed, that’s really a good thing because it’s going to bring down inflation. That seems to be the logic—that that is the kind of trickle down.

This bill where there’s not really any need for it, where we’ve got 5 percent unemployment, where our greatest sector of people who are unemployed are our youth. The youth rates of unemployment are through the roof under this Government. That’s not because they’re all lazy. That’s because there are pockets of our population that are not able to find employment in a market this Government is responsible for.

So what do we do? We bring about a bill like this, which is all about blaming those people and saying that they’re slackers. Well, they’re not slackers in Kinleith, and they’re not actually slackers who are unemployed at the present time, because they weren’t unemployed under a Labour Government; they were employed. The numbers have gone up.

Rather than spend our lives distracting from the state of the economy—which has been engineered to have higher unemployment—we could actually concentrate on turning around the situation and concentrate on full employment. The Reserve Bank governor might again consider maximum sustainable employment as one of the objectives of an economy that is trying to bring wellbeing to most New Zealanders.

Perhaps the Minister would reconsider the name of this bill, and this bill could actually be reflective of the calculated distraction away from what’s actually going on, which is higher unemployment not through the fault of people all slacking around on the couch and needing money management.

I just wanted to turn for a minute to the issue of budget services, because this bill contains a money management tool, when in fact people are getting about 300 bucks a week. You try it. I would say you try to manage your money when you’re getting $300 a week. What did we do? We cut budget services because we were trying to save money. Apparently, it was a waste of money to spend it on our budget services. Yet we are asking for money management here. I would ask that the Minister consider—

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

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I have a question—well, I have a series of questions—for the Minister for Social Development around the commencement, and one of the things that is immediately noticeable is the three variations when it comes to the commencement date. The first one is the Monday after the Budget, and then 1 July—that’s understandable—but having a third commencement date is really puzzling for me, because there seems to be this arbitrary date when it comes to 20 October 2025, and, understandably, that is on the basis of the two new sanctions that the Minister has introduced as part of this bill. However, one of the things that we are seeing when it comes to this bill is a Government that has put forward more “blue tape” for people to be able to access benefits, to be able to access the support that they wanted, and to create as much of a bureaucratic and convoluted system as possible so that the least number of people are able to access the support that is needed.

I think that that is clearly reflected here in the commencement date, and let’s just go to the first part, because the thing is when it comes to this series of commencement dates, one of the things that is also quite noticeable—for example, in new Part 14 of Schedule 1 of the Social Security Regulations 2018, in Schedule 4 of this bill—is that there are also retrospective elements when it comes to certain dates being allocated. So I think that in terms of the actual date itself, it doesn’t affect the purpose of this bill all that much. However, what it does affect is the implementation of this bill.

Now, the Minister has mentioned that that is an operational matter—that’s what the Minister has said. However, I actually don’t think that in that case, it’s a convincing enough argument for two reasons, and I’ll just give two examples of that when it comes to why just simply referring to having the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) be able to implement this on the basis of these commencement dates is not viable. The first one is that what we don’t know and what we haven’t anticipated, but let’s say that as part of Budget 2024, what we did see was the severe cuts to the Public Service, and there have been a number of cuts to MSD, as well. Therefore, what MSD is possibly telling the Minister now may not be reflective of what is going to happen in a month’s time, or, indeed, in a couple of weeks’ time. So I don’t know if the Minister actually, when we are looking at the commencement dates, has taken into consideration, when MSD is giving advice to the Minister on the viability of those dates, the potential changes to the structure of MSD as a result of anything that is upcoming, which, I’m sure, is of Budget sensitivity.

The other example that I would just like to give is something that is actually very topical right now, which is the announcement that was made in the 2024 Budget around FamilyBoost. It was at that time, as well, that it was considered an operational matter that it was reliant on IRD to be able to implement it really smoothly, like the Minister is now saying that she has faith in MSD to implement these sanctions on the basis of the commencement dates that we see here. However, what we do see when it comes to FamilyBoost is that the Government has overestimated the capacity of IRD to do that, and what we’re seeing is $14 million being put towards the administration of it. Now, I don’t know if the Minister is able to advise on the basis of the commencement dates here that we are able to see this similar blowout when it comes to admin costs in order to implement these sanctions, and that is something that we have not heard the Minister articulate clearly throughout the entire committee stage.

My question to the Minister in this case is: would the Minister consider my current tabled amendment, which actually removes a lot of the clutter that we do see under clause 2 of this bill? It is removing subclause (1A), removing subclause (1) and subclause (2), and removing subclause (3), and making it nice and easy and simple to say that this Act, in its entirety, comes into force on 20 October 2025. Now, that would give reassurance not only to the communities but also to MSD that any changes as a result of the upcoming Budget will likely have petered out by October and that any structures that may change internally or organisationally may be able to adjust as a result of the Budget announcement.

I would very much like to hear from the Minister if she would consider—I’m not saying to remove part of the sanctions or part of the bill. All I’m asking for is to make it simple and to extend the bill’s commencement date to 20 October 2025, in its entirety.

DAVID MacLEOD (National—New Plymouth): I move, That debate on this question now close.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): I will take another call from the Opposition, but just a reminder that this is the debate on the title and commencement. It is a narrow debate, so if people can keep it narrow; we don’t want to hear general debate speeches. The time for that is not now.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour): Yeah, Mr Chair, just further on the title and the commencement date. I did put up a very reasonable title before, as I’m sure Mr Meager—I’m sure he agrees with it, because as we all know, he’s got prime ministerial aspirations and so he’ll agree with anyone to advance his career. But anyway, coming back to the title [Interruption]—I just had to refer to that, because we know that National’s in a lot of trouble at the moment, as we all know.

I thought, given the impact that this kaupapa has on our communities, given the impact that the reapplication every 26 weeks has in terms of trying to get a benefit, that that is every reason why the commencement date should be extended for another 12 months. I think we all want to be reasonable here, we don’t want to be too punitive, do we? Do we? I look back at the Welfare Expert Advisory Group, who recommended the 52-week reapplication requirements be removed, citing that “There is little evidence in support of using obligations and sanctions (as in the current system) to change behaviour; rather, there is research indicating that they compound social harm and disconnectedness.” I think that that type of kōrero, from people who know our communities, is every reason that we have to be careful when we make change. As a Government, we did not advance all the recommendations from the Welfare Expert Advisory Group, but we certainly took a lot of what they said on board. They also recommended that money management be abolished, and yet we have a Government ignoring that type of kōrero.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): I think some of this are enjoying this history, but can you link it back to the title and commencement.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I’m citing these examples because I think that we should not be implementing these types of punitive strategies immediately. I think that we should be working with our communities, working with our community organisations, our different groups, and working these things up. Mind you, we’re totally opposed to them, but we have, through the whole process, heard from our people that they totally reject and resent the application of this kaupapa. So, that being the case, surely we should be postponing what we should be doing. On that basis, we are saying that let’s put this off for another 12 months, maybe 24 months—that would be better—and have a look at it again.

On top of that, we have a Government who is cutting services. The Ministry for Social Development (MSD) really does not have the capacity to deal with the projected changes, and—so many examples: the regulatory impact statement (RIS) highlights the consequences that MSD will have to direct more resources towards compliance—that’s what it says—and they’ll be required to put less resources into helping beneficiaries into work. So if that’s not a warning that these types of changes are far too soon, I don’t know what is. Research cited in the RIS highlighted that “Sanctions may increase mental and physical health problems”, including substance abuse and poverty. So wouldn’t a caring Government want to try and put that type of change off to way, way down the track? The RIS highlights that previous work on reapplications show that cancellations of the benefit as part of the reapplication process often led to a new application, suggesting procedural denials rather than ineligibility. I think that the other side should have a think about this as they want to make changes. I think that a better strategy would be to have a transition-type strategy over the next year or two, rather than implement a very punitive strategy on communities who, at the moment, hate this Government very much. Thank you, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Ricardo Menéndez March—a contribution focused on the title and commencement.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): I will be adding new points on the commencement dates. Thank you very much, Mr Chair, I do take your guidance quite seriously on this.

I wanted to ask about the staffing capacity in relationship to the third tranche of policies coming into effect on 20 October. Was there a reason that the Minister for Social Development and Employment also added 20 October as a direct result of the staff not having capacity to implement this policy; if not, what was the reason, other than that? Because so far, in the public realm, we mostly just have statements from the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) saying that the traffic light system has now really overburdened them. There are programmes for things like preventing homelessness that have now been put on pause as a result of that and so I’m asking whether that’s the reason why there’s the 20 October date.

Additionally, I’m curious to know whether the Minister has requested, since introducing those two additional sanctions to, for example, Cabinet, to increase the resourcing for staff and to expand the number of staff working at MSD at the front lines to ensure that she can adequately implement the second tranche of sanctions coming into place on 20 October. I know that she mentioned earlier that she had confidence around the setting up of the guidelines, but MSD has, in my view, in my opinion, not expressed confidence around the capacity they have to continue implementing the current set of programmes to the point that some are now being dropped. So my new point was around the staffing capacity and whether that was the rationale for having the 20 October date as well.

My other question would be on whether she expects, in the commencement sort of period that we have, that she’ll continue developing—or she expects MSD to continue developing—for example, modules and/or communications to clients around the benefit sanctions coming in 1 July. So between 1 July and 20 October, whether she expects there will be ongoing work to develop communications on the implementation of compulsory money management as well as the obligation failure count.

We haven’t really talked about the obligation failure count in relationship to the commencement date, and I wanted to ask whether the obligation failure count extensions—that is, the fact that obligation failures will now be accumulated for twice as long than before, whether those will start accumulating basically at the commencement date of 1 July or whether she thinks that beneficiaries should be given a bit of a sort of reprieve to just be aware that this is coming into place; whether she expects communications to come before 1 July around the obligation failure count. Because I could see that, for example, if her intent is that people are complying more with the obligations laid out in legislation, having those communications come out before 1 July would, again, ensure that people are not accumulating more failure counts, assuming that they’ll reset in a 12-month period as opposed to twice as long as it is being now laid out in this piece of legislation.

I worry that without those clear communications being put out before 1 July, that people could end up assuming that those obligation failures will reset in a specific period that they assume would have been the case, and so I’m hoping to seek clarity on how the Minister seeks to mitigate any adverse consequences that may come from the staged process that she has.

The other thing that I want to speak to, and this is in relation to my colleague Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendment, is why not just have everything come into place in October? It just makes sense to me—right?—that, like, we have this one bill with one commencement date that enables both the MSD front lines to prepare and for the people who are receiving income support to adequately prepare for these new punishments that are being added, as opposed to having a much more convoluted process that just, again, as others have outlined, increases the bureaucracy that people have to go through.

To recap for the Chair, I’m asking as to whether the lack of staff capacity factors in it all in setting the date of 20 October, and, if so, what steps is the Minister taking to increase that capacity so that we don’t have other work programmes being dropped like we have seen as a result of the Government initiatives?

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

A party vote was called for on the question, That debate on this question now close.

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.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Mariameno Kapa-Kingi’s tabled amendment to clause 1 to change the title to “Social Insecurity Amendment Act 2024” is out of order as merely being an attempt to criticise the bill.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi’s tabled amendment to clause 1 to change the title to “Social Devastation Amendment Act 2024” is out of order as merely an attempt to criticise the bill.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi’s tabled amendment to clause 1 to change the title to “Kick us while we’re Down Amendment Act 2024” is out of order as being merely an attempt to criticise the bill.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi’s tabled amendment to clause 1 to change the title to “Social Deprivation Amendment Act 2024” is out of order as merely an attempt to criticise the bill.

Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 1 to change the title to “Social Security (Pushing People Into Poverty) Amendment Bill” is out of order as merely being an attempt to criticise the bill.

Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 1 to change the title to “Social Security (Making People Reapply Twice as Often and Other Matters) Amendment Bill” is out of order as merely being an attempt to criticise the bill.

Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 1 to change the title to “Social Security (Additional Barriers to Continue Receiving a Benefit) Amendment Bill” is out of order as being merely an attempt to criticise the bill.

Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 1 to change the title to “Social Security (Measures to Increase Child Poverty and Other Matters) Amendment Bill” is out of order as being merely an attempt to criticise the bill.

The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 1 to change the title to “Social Security (Additional Benefit Sanctions and Other Matters) Amendment Bill” be agreed to.

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

Ayes 49

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 1 to change the title to “Social Security (Four New Benefit Sanctions and Other Matters) Amendment Bill” be agreed to.

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

Ayes 49

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 1 to change the title to “Social Security (Measures to Reduce People Receiving Income Support by 50,000) Amendment Bill” be agreed to.

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

Ayes 49

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 1 be agreed to.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 49

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.

Clause 1 agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to clause 2 set out on Amendment Paper 263 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 49

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.

Amendments agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s amendment to clause 2 set out on Amendment Paper 282 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 49

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Mariameno Kapa-Kingi’s tabled amendments to clause 2 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 49

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.

Noes 68

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

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendments to clause 2 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 49

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.

Noes 68

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

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Mariameno Kapa-Kingi’s tabled amendments to clause 2 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 49

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.

Noes 68

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

Amendments not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 2 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 49

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.

Clause 2 as amended agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment.

House resumed.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Madam Speaker, the committee has considered the Social Security Amendment Bill and reports it with amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the report be adopted. Those of that opinion will say Aye, to the contrary No. The Ayes have it.

Ricardo Menéndez March: No, the Noes have it. Party vote.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Are we sure we want to have a vote on procedure? Can I ask that question again?

Ricardo Menéndez March: Sure.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

Bills

Racing Industry Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries) on behalf of the Minister for Racing: I present a legislative statement on the Racing Industry Amendment Bill.

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

Hon SHANE JONES: I move, That the Racing Industry Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

This bill amends the Racing Industry Act 2020. I want to traverse a number of the points, for affirmation and reinforcement, that were made in the first reading. Quite simply, it’s designed to safeguard the sustainability of our racing industry, which is almost fully funded by the TAB. This industry should not be underestimated, generating $1.9 billion to our economy in 2022-23, employing 13,500 fulltime-equivalents across the country.

Let it be known that less than 8 percent of the horses in group 1 races in Australia are from New Zealand but, consistent with the renown and the prestige associated with this incredibly important domestic industry, nigh on 22 percent of all races at an elite level are won by our horses. So we have an opportunity to grow the racing industry, both domestically and in terms of international exports, and, in turn, grow the returns in terms of what we believe this industry is capable of generating—an industry that sadly has been overlooked, neglected, at a time where marginal concerns threaten to overwhelm animal industries such as this one. The current system needs to be futureproofed, and we need to do better so that we generate the surplus and every horse or every service that generates overseas income shows that this is a contributor to doubling our nation’s exports.

The legislation will retain betting revenue in New Zealand and enable us to do particularly well given the industry has faced a host of other threats in terms of people being able to engage in betting activity without the nation State collecting a fair return.

Now, let us focus just for a moment on the Governance and Administration Committee’s scrutiny of the bill. This committee—and we have to acknowledge the people who have served on the committee—have recommended that it be passed. There were 101 submissions on the bill, and the select committee showed a great deal of diligence and professionalism in addressing the issues raised by these various submitters. The House should note a vote of thanks for the thoroughness in terms of the submissions process and acknowledge the people who made the effort and came and spoke to this committee of our Parliament. To do what? To improve the quality of the bill. It’s a timely reminder that there are many of us in the House who should always pay attention to what can be learnt through the select committee process, where a select committee process is appropriate.

The committee recommended various amendments, and no doubt they will be addressed in the committee stages, but one or three are deserving of mention. Most provisions in the bill will come into force after Royal assent. Clauses related to the repeal of the point of consumption charge will take effect two years after Royal assent, enabling any outstanding charges to be collected from offshore operators on bets that were placed before the monopoly comes into force. The committee correctly recommends an amendment that would allow this repeal to take place sooner, rather than in two years, by Order in Council if the cost of collecting the charges outweighs the remaining money to be collected. There’s an expansion of ministerial powers to be able to request information from the TAB, and the chief executive of the department shall be empowered to request info from the TAB. Provisions for regulation-making powers relating to harm minimisation and consumer protection will be provided for. And we understand the committee was generally satisfied such powers were broad enough to deal with the kinds of regulations that could be made in the future to ensure that we do not encounter difficulties of an ultra vires nature.

The committee recommended amendments to the regulation-making powers to provide more certainty, given the nature of the requirements that could be placed on the TAB in the future. The committee’s recommendations are sensible changes—however, with one caveat. We give notice of our intention to place and table an Amendment Paper during the committee of the whole House. The committee heard concerns from submitters regarding potential misuse of TAB’s ability to refuse bets without reasonable cause. Therefore, the committee recommended this ability be removed, and the legislation limits its ability to refuse a bet. It is understood this was to ensure that if the TAB is going to refuse an individual’s bet, it should be on reasonable grounds—not, for example, on the basis that an individual is simply a successful punter. We appreciate the good intent this represents, and we are committed to ensuring adequate consumer protections, as this could have unintended consequences for this important industry—i.e., racing and sports.

It will also restore clause 8 to how it was drafted when the bill was introduced. Thus, this will make TAB New Zealand’s ability to refuse bets subject to regulations made under the consumer protection provisions. The Amendment Paper moves the changes at select committee into regulation-making powers, giving us more time and flexibility.

The bill is a positive step towards protecting the future of this industry—something near and dear to the leader of my party, the party we belong to—and it builds on our global reputation as a leading racing nation. Once again, we thank the Governance and Administration Committee, people who made the submissions, and officials for their work. Mr Speaker, thank you. I recommend this bill to the House.

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

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Kia orana, Mr Speaker, meitaki maata. It’s a pleasure to rise on behalf of the Labour Party and speak in the second reading of this bill. I want to pick up on some of the aspects that the Minister the Hon Shane Jones has just noted in his second reading speech. But before I do, I think it’s important to note that this does continue a suite a work that was initiated under the previous Labour Government. The reason for that is because, as the Minister himself has alluded to, this is an industry that is vital and important to New Zealand’s economy, and the sustainability, protection, and support that this House can offer the industry is very, very important indeed.

I think we all have our own reflections on race meetings that many of us may have been to over the course of our lives, and over the course, perhaps, of the last 12 months, whether it’s a meeting at Wingatui or Addington or whether it’s some of those other meetings like the Golden Kiwi, which, actually, my colleague Lemauga Lydia Sosene and I were able to go this year. There are prime examples within the industry, and that is just one snapshot of what happens, of that $1.9 billion value-add that actually is contributed to the New Zealand economy from this very important industry. So the Minister is correct when he says that it’s an industry that should not be underestimated, and certainly one that should not be overlooked and neglected, and that’s exactly why Labour in Government sought to kick-start this suite of changes to do exactly that. So it is pleasing to see that the racing Minister has picked that up and has carried that mantle on.

The number of individuals that are employed and engaged in this industry—I know the Minister has touched on that, but it does lend itself to the numbers—and not just around fulltime-equivalents but the number of volunteers and others that are associated with this industry, is in excess of 40,000 people domestically. That naturally leans into the fact that we are a global leader when it comes to that sense of racing excellence, whether it be breeding or whether it be those that are involved in ownership, training, or others parts of the system as well.

We supported this to the Governance and Administration Committee. It went through a number of changes that the Labour Party were very happy to support, and we will be supporting it at second reading this evening. I want to acknowledge the work of the Governance and Administration Committee. My colleague Camilla Belich chairs that committee, and prior to her was Rachel Boyack. Both of those chairs have navigated this bill through the process. I do want to also acknowledge the many submissions that were received and the submitters that took time to work through that, and also the officials that were part of that process as well.

What this will do is, basically, strengthen the legislative net of the around $180 million a year annually that, effectively, goes offshore from New Zealand in the form of online betting for sports and for racing. Ensuring that that legislative net provision is put in place to, basically, capture that $180 million—I’d suggest that that’s a conservative estimate at the moment—will ensure that that injection of cash or revenue into the industry is maintained domestically to continue to grow the industry and make it strong as well.

One of the changes that the select committee did pursue was around the nature of the TAB being able to, basically, refuse a bet and the circumstances that exist within which the TAB could do that. Now, what we heard from submitters was quite an element of concern that there doesn’t seem to be any guidance or any framework around the decisions that may be taken by the TAB. Certainly, we heard about a lack of communication in terms of, once that decision had been taken by the TAB, often a punter not knowing the reasons behind that. So the Labour Party very clearly supported the change in the legislation to insert particular criteria upon which the TAB could only refuse a bet, and, subsequent to that, to ensure that there was a provision for that to be communicated to the punter in a reasonable time frame so that they knew, actually, that their bet was not going to be accepted and the reasons for that.

I know that the Minister has already tabled the Amendment Paper that has been referred to this evening. The position of the Labour Party—we will no doubt get through that when we get to the committee of the whole House stage—is that there must be legislative provision within this bill for those changes to be made so that the TAB follow through on that and also that they communicate with punters.

So whilst it is pleasing to hear from the Minister in the House this evening that the movement of that from the primary legislation to secondary legislation in the form of regulations is what the Minister and the Government are seeking, the reason for that is to provide the time and the flexibility to do that. So we will have some questions in committee about how that could be achieved to ensure that it does give support and does honour the intention of the select committee who were unanimous around wanting that change.

The other disappointing fact that we did deal with is the Government’s position that there was not going to be any movement on the TAB’s current—they currently hold a number of class 4 gaming licences; these are, effectively, your pokie licences. What the Labour Party, supported by the Greens, in our differing view—or comment in the report—clearly indicated is that this was part of a conversation when the former Government was initiating this change. We would have liked to have seen that commitment honoured so that in exchange, effectively, for the TAB receiving a guaranteed legislative net of money—so revenue—they would, effectively, give up their ownership to the class 4 licences. It’s disappointing that that has not flowed through. Yes, we hear that the TAB is a gold standard operator and all of those sorts of things, but this is also about harm minimisation, which is also incorporated in the bill. That is pleasing to see.

There are a number of other changes that I’m sure we will refer to at committee stage, but, on this side of the House, we support the industry. As I say, that is why we initiated these changes. It’s pleasing to see that the Government have picked that up and have continued on with that. Along the way, I guess the provision to give the Minister and the Department of Internal Affairs more powers so that they can provide a little bit of incentive around information being forthcoming as well is something that is important. So on this side of the House at second reading, we commend this bill to the House.

CELIA WADE-BROWN (Green): E te Māngai o te Whare, tēnā koe. I rise today on behalf of the Greens to speak in support of the Racing Industry Amendment Bill; a bill that, while on the mechanics of who controls online betting, in truth sits at the intersection of racing, sport, and gambling harm in Aotearoa New Zealand.

In many ways, this bill is much less about horse racing and much more about gambling in the digital age, and they’re deeply intertwined. Look, for some people, gambling is a fun and social day at the races; I certainly enjoy the Wellington Cup at Trentham—despite having to buy a new hat every year. For others, though, more seriously, it can be an addiction. It’s one that leads to real harm, broken relationships, and financial ruin.

Let’s be clear: without gambling, the horse racing industry as it currently stands would not be viable. TAB New Zealand contributes over 90 percent of the annual income for New Zealand’s racing codes—that’s a staggering figure. But it doesn’t really end at the track, because gambling on sports now makes up an increasing share of TAB New Zealand’s revenue. Popular codes: rugby, rugby league, cricket, football, basketball, and tennis. In fact, Tennis New Zealand reported that roughly a third of its annual income comes from TAB New Zealand. Over 30 sporting codes also benefit, which is a sign of how deeply gambling has become woven into the financial lifeblood of sport in Aotearoa.

Now, you can compare that to some other countries. China, despite a black market in gambling, only has lotteries. In India, betting even on cricket is illegal—though no doubt it happens; there is a large underground market. Singapore permits betting on only horse racing and football. I remember my grandmother doing the football pools in England. Japan restricts legal betting to a really interesting mixture: horse, motorboat, and bicycle racing—not between them; separately—and some motorsports. It could be fun. But, look, are we really comfortable with making sport so reliant on gambling, particularly when sports that have got really healthy participation but don’t have those bet-able moments don’t score in the same way? Are they going to be supported as much? Again, this is a question of where our collective taxes are going and whether online gambling is letting us off the hook.

In their submission, New Zealand Football highlighted this very tension. They wrote: “The Racing Industry Amendment Bill is … critical for the future of sport in this country, with class four funding [declining], sponsorship opportunities [falling,] and a collapsed domestic broadcast market, sports profits from wagering via the TAB have never been more important.” Mind you, they further noted the lack of transparency in how sports funding is allocated by TAB. I’d ask, particularly: why is every sports allocation confidential?

The bill doesn’t resolve those questions, but we agreed that some of those concerns are worthy of future scrutiny. And while we recognise the financial role that the TAB plays for sport and racing, it’s crucial to acknowledge what’s not being adequately addressed: the global virtual betting market is forecast to quadruple in the next seven years, from US$118 billion to US$448 billion. That’s happening while our environment is being degraded and children are going hungry. That’s the context in which we debate this bill.

Another concern is that funding for harm minimisation is quite a small percentage of the profits. Reducing and preventing gambling addiction remains woefully inadequate. If we’re going to continue depending on gambling revenue, then we must take far stronger action to mitigate its consequences.

I’d also like to reflect briefly on the process. The Governance and Administration Committee received—I thought it was 91 submissions, but maybe the Minister for Racing found another 10. Despite a less-than-ideal consultation period—we’d never have done it at council—running over the December-January holiday, some significant voices were heard, and while the scope of the bill was narrow, there were many important issues raised.

One aspect I was pleased to see clarified is that remote gambling, while illegal in most cases, does not criminalise the individual gamblers, so it doesn’t contribute to extra harm for them, but the rules in this bill prohibit any operators other than TAB New Zealand from offering online racing or sports betting to New Zealanders. It’s interesting how, in this whole House, we’re all supporting, in this case, a monopoly. It’s a pragmatic and just approach.

I was concerned to learn, to my colleague’s point about class 4 gambling machine licences—I didn’t know until after submissions had closed, because, unfortunately, I don’t think any of the submissions mentioned it—that the previous Government had floated the idea of taking away the class 4 gambling machine licences in exchange for that online betting monopoly. Class 4 gambling is the most damaging form of gambling with pokies outside of casinos. We learnt a lot about that on council; we all have our gambling venues policy.

When I was mayor in 2015, we did limit the number of gaming machines, and then in 2021 they did a better job and adopted a no-new-venues policy, a sinking lid. I mean, we’re talking about pokies outside casinos. Some here will remember some debates about establishing a casino in Wellington. Andy Foster will remember the 1990s proposal by Casinos Austria. It never went ahead, partly due to central government placing a moratorium. Good old former mayor Mark Blumsky changed his stance after seeing overseas casinos up close, and he joined some of us in concluding that the social harm outweighed any financial benefit. I’m pleased to see no such proposal has gained traction since.

But coming back to this bill, the select committee process was limited in scope. We didn’t address broader questions around the class 4 venues, direct funding for sports participation, increased animal welfare in racing, or comprehensive protections from gambling addiction. These are all issues that matter deeply, and the Green Party will continue to push for them.

I want to close with a statement quoting from TAB New Zealand’s submission itself: “[The Racing Amendment] Bill seeks to catch up with the digital transformation that has occurred this century, and accelerated [over] the last five years, to protect the original intent of [the] TAB”. So, yes, this bill updates the law to reflect a digital reality, but it also leaves many complex ethical, social, and public health questions unresolved. As virtual betting, fantasy sports, and novelty gambling continue to grow, we must remain vigilant. We must ask not just what makes money but what kind of society that money builds.

CAMERON LUXTON (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m glad to get a chance to rise and pass some remarks in the final stages of this House’s nocturnal activities. The ACT Party supports this Racing Industry Amendment Bill. The racing industry is a hugely important part of New Zealand’s economy; our employment base, as we’ve heard; and also, in a way, our national pride, as the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries alluded to with New Zealand bloodline successes over the Tasman, and also a shared experience that New Zealanders have.

I’d just like to pass a quick story about my son. A couple of years ago, when he was about five, he came running into the house and said, “Mum, mum, can you spot me $20 for the ponies?” That was his grandfather who’d put him up to that. And I thought we all know what that lingo—

Tom Rutherford: Not Lucko!

CAMERON LUXTON: Yeah, Lucko. We all know what that lingo means; what a punter means. It’s part of the New Zealand culture and it’s an important part of our economy and also it needs to be supported.

In this second reading, as reported back from the Governance and Administration Committee, I’ve taken our chance to stand up and say something on this because the ACT Party doesn’t have a permanent member on that committee. So I think the initial comments we’ve had about monopolies and monopolistic power and other things—we’ve got an amendment that I think the committee did a good job highlighting in the process, and I’m glad that the Minister for Racing has tabled an amendment to actually address those concerns. It’s something that I’m looking forward to hearing the Minister address further in the committee stage, because when you’re going to start having section 92s, where you can refuse any bet, you’re going to have to do something about making sure that that’s restrained. So moving it into regulatory powers, I hope that’s the right thing to do. I’m looking forward to hearing the Minister get some questions on that. But I’ll leave it at that. ACT supports this bill. Thank you.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): This debate is interrupted and is set down for resumption next sitting day. The House is suspended and I will resume the Chair at 9 a.m. tomorrow for the extended sitting. Pō atarau, pō mārie.

Debate interrupted.

Sitting suspended from 9.57 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Thursday)

WEDNESDAY, 14 MAY 2025

(continued on Thursday, 15 May 2025)

Business of the House

Business of the House

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The House is resumed for the extended sitting: Government orders of the day, continued. Members, in accordance with the determination of the Business Committee, the House will debate the first reading of the Ngāti Hāua Claims Settlement Bill, to be followed immediately by the remaining stages of Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Ranginui Claims Settlement Bill.

Bills

Ngāti Hāua Claims Settlement Bill

First Reading

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

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave has been sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is none, and leave has been given. The legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: I move, That the Ngāti Hāua Claims Settlement Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Māori Affairs Committee to consider the bill.

Tākiri mai te ata, ka ao, ka ao, ka awatea. E mihi ana ki a koutou kua tau mai nei i runga i te karanga o te rā.

E ngā mate, haere, haere, haere ki te pō. Ki a tātou te hunga ora, tēnā tātou.

Tihei mauri ora!

Ka mihi au ki ngā mana o ēnei whenua, ko Te Ātiawa, ko Ngāti Toa Rangatira, tēnā koutou katoa. Ko te Kāwanatanga tēnei e mihi nei ki te kaupapa o te wā. E Ngāti Hāua, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Dawn breaks, it lightens, it brightens, it is day. I acknowledge you who have come here in support of the call of the day.

To the dearly departed, rest in peace, go into the night. To us, the living, greetings to all of us.

It is the breath of life!

I acknowledge the authorities of these lands, Te Ātiawa and Ngāti Toa Rangatira, greetings to all of you. The Government hereby acknowledges the undertaking of the day. Ngāti Hāua, thanks and greetings to you all.]

In March, I was welcomed on to the Ngāpūwaiwaha Marae in Taumarunui to sign Te Pua o Te Riri Kore, the Ngāti Hāua deed of settlement. It was a great occasion, and I’ll never forget it. The sun was shining in Taumarunui and I received a warm greeting. I want to thank the members of Ngāti Hāua who have gathered to watch the bill being read for the first time, both here in the gallery and online across the motu. You have shown great strength and determination in coming to this point.

It was a special occasion. I did make the mistake of deciding to drive myself from Auckland to Taumarunui and I got a ticket on the way back, but that’s by the by. I’ll set that aside. Today marks a significant milestone in the shared history of Ngāti Hāua and the Crown, and it’s a testament to the commitment of everybody involved that the Ngāti Hāua settlement journey has been a long one, and it’s important today to remember and pay tribute to leaders and the many whānau members who passed on before they could see the fruits of their efforts.

One significant leader was the late chair of the Ngāti Hāua Iwi Trust Eugene Taupene, who passed away in 2020 in the midst of the COVID-19 lockdowns. I personally didn’t have the honour of meeting Eugene, but his rich legacy has guided these negotiations. I want to acknowledge and thank the Ngāti Hāua negotiation team for their collective effort—the chair Graham Bell and his team: your wisdom, patience, and determination were critical in achieving this settlement, which truly promotes reconciliation.

On the Crown’s side, I acknowledge the work of my predecessors, the Hon Christopher Finlayson and the Hon Andrew Little. I particularly want to acknowledge the work of the Chief Crown Negotiator, Dr John Wood. I want to thank my ministerial colleagues, Crown agencies, local authorities, and members of Parliament who are here today to mark this occasion.

Today’s speaking marks another milestone for Ngāti Hāua in their settlement journey. Negotiations started in 2017 but Ngāti Hāua have been looking for justice for generations. As Ngāti Hāua negotiations manager Aaron Rice-Edwards said, “We’ve been an iwi that has been pushed in the shadows but we’ve always been a tough fighting iwi. We never give up. It’s taken us over 160 years to come to this point, to realise that vision of riri kore (no more fighting.)”

The settlement is grounded in the Crown’s acknowledgments and apology for its many breaches of Te Tiriti. I formally delivered the Crown apology to Ngāti Hāua at the signing of the deed of settlement in March. During the ceremony, we all felt the enduring hurt of Ngāti Hāua. The day was a poignant reminder of the importance of the Crown recognising and acknowledging its wrongdoings. At the ceremony, I also spoke of the statutory pardons for Ngāti Hāua tīpuna and Mātene Ruta Te Whareaitu and Te Rangiātea, which are facilitated through the Ngāti Hāua settlement. Alongside the deed, this bill records the Crown’s treatment of Te Rangiātea and Mātene and the resulting intergenerational stigma and mamae experienced by their uri and by Ngāti Hāua. This bill will enact long-overdue statutory pardons for these Ngāti Hāua tīpuna who were treated so harshly by the Crown.

In recognising the harm caused, we’ve worked with Ngāti Hāua to build a redress package that addresses these grievances. It provides for the return of 64 sites of deep cultural significance to be transferred as cultural redress, including sites that will be jointly vested with some other groups; a cultural revitalisation fund; and recognition of the innate connection of Ngāti Hāua to their rohe, and their obligations as tangata tiaki, through a range of mechanisms such as Te Pou Taia—a joint management committee—relationship redress with many Crown agencies, and financial and commercial redress of $19 million for the right to purchase a number of commercial properties.

The deed of settlement also recognises the importance of Te Pou Tikanga to Ngāti Hāua, the innate values that underpin Ngāti Hāua’s aspirations for Treaty settlement, and the vision for a restored relationship with the Crown. It’s my hope that this settlement will mark the beginning of a strengthened relationship between Ngāti Hāua and the Crown, based on mutual trust, cooperation, and partnership.

Madam Speaker, friends: no settlement can fully compensate for the loss and prejudice that Ngāti Hāua people suffered. Through this settlement, the Crown hopes to restore its honour and alleviate Ngāti Hāua’s deep sense of grievance. Today is about looking forward to the future, while acknowledging the long and difficult journey it’s taken to get there.

I believe that the settlement lays the cultural and economic foundations for Ngāti Hāua to reestablish their connection with their rohe, strengthen their identity, and provide for a stronger cultural, social, and economic future for generations to come.

I think there are huge opportunities in the decades to come for Ngāti Hāua—particularly the new generation coming through—to thrive and prosper and build on the opportunity that is provided here, and to restore particularly economic prospects. I acknowledge that this is the first reading of three to support the passage of this legislation through the House, and my preference is that the bill should proceed without delay to the Māori Affairs Committee so that we can progress this settlement as soon as we can. I commend this bill to the House. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

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

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. Ko te mihi tuatahi ki te Atua nāna nei ngā mea katoa. Ko te mihi tuarua ki te Whare e tū nei, tēnā koe. Āpiti hono, tātai hono, te hunga mate ki te hunga mate. Āpiti hono, tātai hono, te hunga ora ki te hunga ora.

Ki ngā uri o Ngāti Hāua, tēnei te mihi maioha, tēnei te mihi whakamānawa ki a koutou. Nō reira tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, huihui mai tātou katoa.

[Thank you, Madam Speaker. The first greeting is to God to whom all things belong. The second greeting is to the House that stands here, greetings. As the lines of descent connect us all, the deceased come together. As the lines of descent connect us all, the living also come together.

To the descendants of Ngāti Hāua, affectionate and venerated greetings to you. And so, thanks and greetings to you, to all of us gathered here.]

Today marks a significant moment in the House; one of reflection, one of long overdue recognition, and one—hopefully—of hope, as well, for the future. I’m humbled to be able to speak today in the first reading of your bill, the Ngāti Hāua Claims Settlement Bill, that gives legislative recognition to Te Pua o Te Riri Kore, the deed of settlement between the Crown and Ngāti Hāua, signed on 29 March at Ngāpūwaiwaha Marae in Taumarunui.

This is not the beginning of the Ngāti Hāua story, nor is it the end. It is a chapter that, I believe, carries a great weight—a chapter built on strength of the generations of your uri whānau, hapū, and the leaders who never gave up pursuit of justice, truth, and tino rangatiratanga.

Your rohe encompasses the Upper Whanganui River, stretching from the slopes of Mount Ruapehu to the townships of Taumarunui, Ōwhango, and National Park as well. In the early 19th century, some Ngāti Hāua hapū also settled in Heretaunga in the Hutt Valley, where I hail from now. Their history is one of connection, connection to the whenua, to the waters, to the taonga, and the natural world, as well as one another. But it is also a history that is marked by systemic marginalisation and profound breaches of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

From the 1840s onwards, the Crown failed Ngāti Hāua in its most fundamental responsibilities as a Treaty partner. In 1846, when conflict broke out in the Wellington region, Ngāti Hāua tūpuna were targeted and punished not for wrongdoing but just for their presence, for their resistance, and for their identity. Te Rangiātea was sentenced to life imprisonment and died behind bars. Mātene Ruta Te Whareaitu was hanged. Five others were exiled to Australia. These were the actions of a Government not seeking peace; they were acts of domination, they were acts of fear, and they were acts of injustice.

This set in motion decades of Crown aggression in Whanganui, in Taranaki, and in the Rohe Pōtae of Ngāti Hāua that stood beside the Kīngitanga in times of war. You stood to protect what was rightfully yours, your culture, and your rangatiratanga, and yet the Crown continued to meet Ngāti Hāua with force, with confiscation, and with legislative trickery. From the 1860s onwards, the Native Land Court used much of this to individualise and alienate Ngāti Hāua land. Much of this was done without any consultation, without informed consent, and with no fair compensation. The Waimarino Block was awarded in hearings where many Ngāti Hāua never knew it was even happening, and was quickly purchased by the Crown, including lands where kāinga once stood. Promises made during the construction of the North Island main trunk railway were not kept.

This is an opportunity for some of these injustices to be addressed, for what is contained within this bill to enable Ngāti Hāua to move forward. I want to say today that I look with hope for this to be moved ahead, and I wish to acknowledge all of those who have come here today for the passage of the first reading of this bill today.

He mihi mahana ki a koutou katoa. Nō reira tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, huihui mai tātou katoa.

[Warm regards to you all. And so, greetings and thanks to you, to all of us assembled here.]

STEVE ABEL (Green): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. Kia ora, Ngāti Hāua in the gallery. It is always tough reading, but it particularly strikes me, reading your settlement bill—and I commend the size of it and the scale of it—that, from that first decade since the signing of our founding agreement, Te Tiriti o Waitangi, Ngāti Hāua has been mistreated by the Crown, and in every subsequent decade from 1840, when the tūpuna were wrongly killed and five exiled to Australia, to Tasmania, with the specific instruction that they be treated poorly. “Treat the prisoners harshly” were the instructions of the Crown.

In the 1850s, Hāua joined the Kīngitanga movement, a movement to defend the lands of iwi Māori from invasion by the British. They were at Parihaka; they supported that protest. When the Crown invaded, in 1881, they arrested Hāua people and destroyed their property. In the 1860s, they were labelled as “hauhau” and “rebels” by the Crown and have suffered the stigma of that labelling. Then, through to the 1880s, the Northern Main Trunk Railway was put through their lands. The Crown used public works legislation, and when we speak in this House, to this day, about the problem of public works acquisition of Māori land, here it is; it begins during the colonisation of Aotearoa and the Main Trunk Line. Further, land was acquired for dams, the Taumarunui native township, the Crown establishment of the Tongariro National Park, without consulting Hāua—incident after incident, in decade after decade. It is a means of understanding the unrelenting mistreatment by the Crown of this iwi.

Ngāti Hāua are virtually unable to exercise kaitiakitanga over the forests, waterways, the kāinga, and the wāhi tapu of the rohe, and have suffered poverty, poor housing, low educational achievement, and lack of opportunities for social and economic development. This, in turn, has damaged the spiritual and cultural wellbeing of the iwi and led to the dispersal of the Ngāti Hāua population to urban centres. They have persistently called for the maintenance and recognition of their rangatiratanga, and here today, in this House, it is our purpose, as the representatives of Pāremata, this Parliament, to take that step towards restoration of the rangatiratanga of Ngāti Hāua. I am very glad to be speaking in support of this bill, which takes that step.

I read the accounts of the court martialling and sentencing of Te Rangiātea, an elderly and sick and immensely unwell man, who was confined for life, and Mātene Ruta Te Whareaitu, to be hanged by the neck until dead, and the grisly and exceptionally harsh behaviour of the Crown. At the time of his hanging, the commanding military officer said it was “a most sanguinely display of vengeance”—vengeance? This is the nature and the character of the British invasion and theft of Māori land in our history, in this country, in this place. Here we must stand, in this House, and acknowledge it and make good. I want to say that this bill pardons Te Rangiātea and Mātene Ruta Te Whareaitu for their convictions and recognises their character, their mana, and reputation as well as that of their uri, and we stand in support of that recognition.

We stand in support of that pardon, and we thank you for your presence here, because you, by your presence here, are in fact going some way to restoring the honour of the Crown. Kia ora koutou. I commend this bill to the House.

CAMERON LUXTON (ACT): Thank you, Madam speaker. A bill that has been a long time coming has been introduced to the House today by the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, who has reflected on the experiences he’s had in Taumarunui when the deed of settlement was signed. This is another step on the journey that this Minister is continuing on behalf of the Crown, on behalf of this Government, on behalf of this Parliament, and on behalf of New Zealand, to seek, as Ngāti Hāua has done, a meaningful relationship with the Crown in a peaceful way—a journey that Ngāti Hāua has been on for a long time—and this bill is recognising that.

Putting down the historical context of it, the stories, as we’ve just heard, the extreme martial law—extrajudicial—the way the British and the Crown acted over decades and decades has been put down on paper, and we’re trying to find a way forward as one people in this country, with our own pasts and histories and things to look back at, things to look forward to, but we need to make amends as best we can and seek forgiveness as best we can. That’s what this apology and this settlement is trying to do, on behalf of the Crown, today.

Thank you, Ngāti Hāua, for your patience and your persistence. Thank you to your representatives, who have come here today; I’m sure we will see many more of your iwi coming to this House as this bill progresses through the House. We need to accept what’s happened in the past and make amends as best we can; that’s what this bill is doing. The ACT Party supports this bill. Thank you.

DAVID MacLEOD (National—New Plymouth): Kia ora e te Māngai. Ruapehu Maunga, Whanganui Awa, mai i Te Kāhui Maunga ki Tangaroa, ko au te awa, ko te awa ko au. Ngāti Hāua iwi, Ngāti Hāua tangata e tū, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou.

Ko Taranaki Maunga e mihi nei, ti’ei mauri ora.

[Thank you, Madam Speaker. Ruapehu mountain, Whanganui river, from the Alpine Clan to the sea, I am the river and the river is me. The people of Ngāti Hāua, the citizenry of Ngāti Hāua that stand here, greetings to you and to us all.

Mount Taranaki greets you, it is the breath of life.]

I am pleased to talk, as the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee, in this first reading of the Ngāti Hāua Claims Settlement Bill. This bill gives effect to matters contained in Te Pua o Te Riri Kore, the Ngāti Hāua deed of settlement of historical claims. Te Pua o Te Riri Kore was signed earlier this year by the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations on 29 March 2025, between the Crown, the Ngāti Hāua Iwi Trust, and Te Whiringa Kākaho o Ngāti Hāua. The bill contains provisions related to redress that require legislation for their implementation. Other aspects of the settlement are provided for only in Te Pua o Te Riri Kore, as they do not require legislative authority.

I believe that anyone living in New Zealand cannot fully understand the place where they reside without the knowledge of its history, and a great place to start is the historical account contained in local Treaty settlements. When reading the historical accounts within this bill, you realise that breaches of Te Tiriti o Waitangi began immediately after its signing. The historical account illustrates the many occasions where the Crown did not meet its obligations as a Treaty partner. Of all the travesties that are accounted for in this bill, tūpuna losing their lives is a poignant one for me. One tūpuna—Te Rangiātea—was sentenced to confinement for life, and died soon thereafter in prison. Another tūpuna—Mātene Ruta Te Whareaitu—was sentenced to death and was executed by hanging. This all occurred in the 1840s, where there was a conflict over land in Heretaunga between the Crown and Ngāti Hāua. During that conflict, a number of tūpuna were captured, including Te Rangiātea and Mātene. But other tūpuna were captured and exiled to Australia as well.

As the case is with other historical accounts contained in Treaty settlements throughout New Zealand, the Crown caused numerous wrongful conflicts. From the late 1850s, Ngāti Hāua joined the Kīngitanga movement and supported their whanaunga in fighting the Crown in Taranaki. In 1865, the Crown confiscated land in Taranaki, which included land in which Ngāti Hāua had interests. That same year, the Crown ordered an attack on the Kīngitanga at Ōhautahi Pā. Ngāti Hāua supported the peaceful protest at Parihaka against the Crown’s attempt to enforce land confiscations. In 1881, the Crown invaded Parihaka, arrested Ngāti Hāua people, along with many others, and destroyed their property, along with other great travesties. Since the 1860s, Ngāti Hāua have endured the intergenerational stigma of being labelled hauhau and rebels by the Crown. The amount of land that Ngāti Hāua were dispossessed of by the Crown is immense, from land for the North Island main trunk railway to the very large Waimarino block, to lands on the banks of the Whanganui River, or to the Taumarunui native township, all occurring with various wrongdoings by the Crown.

One cannot change the past, but you can change the future. This settlement contains a redress package that returns culturally significant sites. It has a cultural revitalisation fund, financial redress, and statutory pardons for the two tūpuna who were tried under martial law and treated with exceptional hardship, who I spoke of earlier. Settlement packages never go far enough in the minds of many, but I do truly hope that this settlement bill provides opportunities for a better future for a very proud iwi, which is Ngāti Hāua.

Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. I commend this bill to the House.

HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE (Te Pāti Māori—Hauraki-Waikato): Tēnā rā koe e te Māngai o te Whare, otirā tēnā rā tātou. E tū ana ahau ki te tuku i ngā whakahōnore ki tō tātou ariki nui, Kuīni Nga wai hono i te po, te whare kāhui ariki whānui tonu, rire rire hau, pai mārire.

E ngā mana whenua o Ngāpūwaiwaha, e Ngāti Hāua, Ngāti Hāua ki te rangi, Ngāti Hāua ki te nuku, Ngāti Hāua e tū ake nei.

[Thank you, Madam Speaker, indeed greetings to us all. I stand to offer recognition of the honour of our great monarch, Queen Nga wai hono i te po, the wider royal family, peace and goodwill to all.

To those with authority over the land of Ngāpūwaiwaha, Ngāti Hāua, Ngāti Hāua on high, Ngāti Hāua on the land, Ngāti Hāua who stand here.]

I stand here sharing threads of hononga as an uri of what once was called Hauhau and Pai Mārire faith, and also as a member of the Māori Affairs Committee. Tēnei te mihi ki a koutou mō tā koutou hīkoi roa, mō tō koutou hokinga mai ki te ūkaipō. Tēnā rawa koutou.

[I hereby acknowledge you for your long journey, and your return to the homeland. Many greetings to you.]

Let us be clear: today is not a celebration of justice delivered. It is a solemn recognition of mamae endured, of rangatiratanga undermined, and of whakapapa forced to conform to a Crown-controlled process.

We mihi to Ngāti Hāua. We acknowledge your strength, your persistence, and all that your iwi have endured to reach this point. Ngāti Hāua have arrived here not just bearing the weight of raupatu but the burden of being forced to negotiate their identity through a framework not of your making.

The settlement signed at Ngāpūwaiwaha Marae on 29 March represents both the potential of redress and limitations of a system that remains fundamentally colonial. This Treaty settlement process is Crown controlled. We know the Crown sets the rules. These processes are determined by the Crown and often limit discussion, limiting an equitable redress. We know settlements are capped at representing 1 percent of what was lost, and the future generations will come back to 99 percent. “Full and final” for Māori, but never final for the Crown, who retain the power to legislate and override, forcing iwi to into Western legal entities—they must form Crown-approved legal structures.

Settlements create division: a process that fractures whakapapa, forcing our people into artificial legal entities, and a process that creates division, sometimes, and not unity among whanaunga. Let us not pretend this is justice. This is a political process, not a just one. It is what the Crown is willing to concede, not what Ngāti Hāua are truly owed. Still, within the constraints of this framework, Ngāti Hāua have carved a path forward. The statutory pardons for Mātene Ruta Te Whareaitu and Te Rangiātea are powerful. They restore the mana of two rangatira wrongly convicted for defending their people. These were not just isolated acts of injustice. They were calculated attacks on an iwi defending its whenua, its oranga, and its tino rangatiratanga.

The return of 64 culturally significant sites, including Makakote Pā, Ngā Huinga, Whakapapa Island, and the guardianship of Hikurangi Maunga alongside Maniapoto—these are more than land parcels. They are reciprocities of identity, whakapapa, and wairua. The $6 million cultural revitalisation fund and $20.4 million in financial redress, while a fraction of what was lost, may support Ngāti Hāua in rebuilding the economic and cultural foundations endured by colonisation. The creation of Te Tātairango o Te Karauna provides a platform, though imperfect, for ongoing engagement.

But let us be clear: partnership was promised in 1840. It should not require a settlement to begin. This is not an end; this is a beginning, but one born not from justice but compromise. Ngāti Hāua iwi deserve more than an apology. They deserve full rangatiratanga. The Crown must now go beyond symbolic acts. It must stop weaponising legal processes and start honouring the full process and promise of Te Tiriti.

Ngāti Hāua, uri of warriors and orators, your mokopuna will stand taller because of what you have reclaimed. Ka tika a muri, ka tika a mua—when we put things right, when we put the past right, we clear a path for the future. Te Pāti Māori stands in support of this bill in its full entirety.

Mā te tika, mā te pono ka tū te mana motuhake. Tēnā rawa koutou katoa.

[Through truth and integrity will self-determination be realised. Many greetings to you all.]

SUZE REDMAYNE (National—Rangitīkei): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Tēnā koutou katoa. Ko Ruapehu te maunga, ko Turakina te awa, nō Rangitīkei ahau. Ko Dossor Redmayne tōku w’ānau, ko Suze tōku ingoa. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. Haere mai ki te Whare Pāremata.

[Greetings to you all. Ruapehu is my ancestral mountain, Turakina is my river, I am from Rangitīkei. My family is Dossor Redmayne, Suze is my name. Greetings and thanks to you all. Welcome to Parliament House.]

Today we celebrate Ngāti Hāua. One of the tangata whenua tribes of Te Kāhui Maunga, Ki Tangaroa—the mountains to the sea. The work to reach this day, the first reading of the Nati Hāua Claims Settlement Bill, spans decades, with resilience, persistence, and aroha passed down through your kaumātua, your negotiators, and your whānau.

There are many to acknowledge and thank: Graham “Tinka” Bell, chair of the Ngāti Hāua Iwi Trust, and vice chair Lois Tutemahurangi, who couldn’t be here today due to the recent passing of her brother Keith Rama—ngā mihi; Brett Anderson, Aaron Rice-Edwards, Joey Allen, Louise Wahapa, Piki Taiaroa-Whatarangi. Ngā mihi to all those trustees past, too, who have played a significant role: Jim Anderson, Rumātiki Henry, Teresa Hall, and others. And finally, to those who are no longer with us, but on whose giant shoulders this mahi started: Eugene Topine, Hikaia and Celia Amohia, Titi Tihu, Archie Taiaroa, Kevin and Flo Amohia, Ngaire Amohia Etana—just to name a few.

I want to acknowledge you all, Ngāti Hāua: your strength, your dignity, and your unwavering pursuit of justice. For generations, your people have carried the weight of the Crown’s actions. Today, the Crown acknowledges and apologises for its breaches of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. You suffered extensive harm as a result of unjust and unlawful Crown actions. This included warfare, the unlawful deaths of your tūpuna, the confiscation and wrongful purchase of lands, and the erosion of your tribal structures and leadership. These actions tore at the fabric of your iwi. They caused deep intergenerational trauma and enduring loss of tūpuna, of land, and of your reo.

Today, the Crown seeks not to erase history but to recognise it, to apologise for it, and to look to a shared future. The settlement includes both financial and cultural redress as a means of restoring the Crown’s recognition of the mana of Ngāti Hāua and enabling a new era of prosperity and self-determination. It recognises Ngāti Hāua’s deep and enduring connection to your whenua, your awa, and your taonga tuku iho. But more than redress itself, this is a foundation. It’s a platform from which Ngāti Hāua can continue to grow on your own terms, in line with your aspirations and grounded in your tikanga.

Tinka, I am truly grateful for having got to know you over the last couple of years. Your determination and commitment is infectious; your kōrero wise and inspiring. During our most recent conversation last week, while you were sitting on the side of the hill in a bush, you talked about Minister Goldsmith’s commitment to this process. You were gracious and grateful. He turned up and fronted up, you said. As did you, Ngāti Hāua—96.6 percent of your members agreed to the settlement package and post-settlement arrangements. I know you’re excited about the future, Tinka; excited about creating a powerful and revered region for all whānau, for Māori and non-Māori. I could feel your energy for the name of your post-settlement governance entity, what it symbolises, and the mana it carries, which lives in your heart and the hearts of Ngāti Hāua.

Te Whiringa Kākaho o Ngāti Hāua takes inspiration for its name from the whakataukī “Whiria ngā kākaho, e kore e w’ati”—“Weave together the kākaho reeds, they become unbreakable”. Your name emphasises strength and unity. Ngāti Hāua, you knew before the Crown acknowledged it: unity is a key driver of any collective endeavour. Te Whiringa Kākaho o Ngāti Hāua reflects and celebrates this kaupapa. To the people of Ngāti Hāua, thank you. Thank you for your generosity in engaging in this process. Thank you for holding to your mana and for walking a path that was never easy but always principled.

As we look ahead, may this settlement be a stepping stone to renewed prosperity, cultural strength, and enduring rangatiratanga for Ngāti Hāua. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. Ki a koutou, Ngāti Hāua, kua tae mai nei i tēnei wā, e mihi ana ki a koutou. E mihi ana ki a koutou i whakarangatira i a mātou i tēnei wā. Rawe. Rawe ki te kite i a koutou, ngā kaumātua, ngā rangatira. E mōhio mātou ki ā koutou mahi ki te kōkiri i tēnei kaupapa. E mihi ana ki a koutou. Waimārie ana mātou i tēnei wā ki te kite i a koutou. Nō reira tēnei te mihi ki a koutou katoa.

[Thank you, Madam Speaker. To you, Ngāti Hāua, who have come here at this time, I acknowledge you. I thank you who have honoured us at this time. Great. It is great to see you, the elders, the leaders. We aware of your work to progress this endeavour. I acknowledge you. We are fortunate at this time to see you. And so, I hereby greet all of you.]

After that mihi, Tinka, I’m a bit worried about you and your National Party affiliations—a bit too close there, I thought! I thought you were with us there for a few years, when you were with Te Puni Kōkiri, but clearly you’ve changed sides, as we have to in this changing world. But I want to mihi to our last MP who put that kōrero out there, because that’s what it’s all about: getting to work with Governments, whoever they are. So ngā mihi nui ki a koe, Tinka.

You know, sometimes I feel I’m part of you, too, you know? As you know, I’ve got a long relationship with Taumarunui. That bloody Archie Taiaroa used to drive me crazy. He used to tell me I was an urbanite who was lost and needed to find my way home, and my mother used to tell him to shush up. And she used to tell Shane Jones to shush up too, because he was the chairman of the fisheries commission. We remember Archie Taiaroa well, don’t we, Shane? He was such a rangatira in terms of this kaupapa.

Archie sort of set the base, didn’t he? I think of him sometimes when I’m back in Taumarunui with my Auntie Chrissy, who always has pakangas with you too! She tells you she should be running the tribe and running Ngāti Maniapoto, and then can’t get on the Ngāti Maniapoto board, you know?

I feel so much a part of Taumarunui, given my grandparents had a farm just outside of Taumarunui, at Matiere, and I played rugby down there. I should have made the King Country team, I thought. So I look at you today and I mihi to you and I acknowledge all the people. I think about all the people from that time—our people who know how to work with Governments.

So I just want to join in all the praise. I was going to get a bit negative—I feel in a bit of a negative sort of space—but I watched our Minister this morning, Minister Goldsmith. You know, it’s a funny time for us in te ao Māori, as we see what’s happening around us, and I’ll get on to that a bit later in the day—

Hon Shane Jones: Ha, ha!

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: We’ve got Shane Jones, as you know—

Hon Shane Jones: Kia ū ki te kaupapa, e kara.

[Stay on topic, my friend.]

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: “Ū ki te kaupapa” [“Stay on topic”]—that suits Shane Jones right now. I want to get on to his kaupapa at the tribunal, but I might save it for another time.

But this is a time to celebrate. It’s time to celebrate, and sometimes we have to say that, well, we got here. But we had some challenges from Ngāti Ranginui about our rangatahi—you know, “Who’s going to inspire us?”, they said, and I want to get on to that. But I think that’s one of the challenges for the tribe, particularly in Taumarunui, because you’re sort of in the middle of nowhere, right—I mean, Taumarunui is not exactly the most exciting town in Aotearoa. So how do we pass on the benefits of this settlement and inspire some of the rangatahi around Taumarunui, so that when they go to Auckland, they are representing Taumarunui?

You know, we hear all the kōrero from these Ngāpuhi that “Oh, I’m from Ngāpuhi.”, or we might hear “I’m from Ngāti Porou.”, but we don’t have enough of them talking about the tribe. But they should do, given the proud legacy that’s been put in place by Archie; by you, Tinka; and by you, kaumātua. You want them to carry the kaupapa all the time. You want them to say—you know, some of us can’t even say the tribe’s name well enough, you know?

We need to teach our rangatahi all of these sorts of things, because that’s part of being part of a settlement, isn’t it? It’s not just about the pūtea; it’s carrying the name, it’s carrying the iwi, it’s carrying the tīpuna, and I think these are the lessons from these settlements.

Long ago, we gave up on seeing justice in terms of the pūtea, because we all know in the House that the pūtea can never represent the justice. But the apology does mean something. The apology does mean something, and it gives us a chance to think, “Well, where to now?”

So I say today, and I mihi to you all and to the House for this acknowledgment. I look forward to the next steps in terms of this settlement and where you go as a tribe in terms of your inspiration with rangatahi, and, again, to you, Tinka—even though you’ve changed sides—mihi nui ki a koe, koutou katoa i tae mai nei, tēnei te mihi i a koutou, tēnā anō tātou katoa. Kia ora.

[Big congratulations to you, to all of you who are in attendance. This is my greeting to you, greetings to you all. Thank you.]

CARL BATES (National—Whanganui): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa. Ko Ruapehu te maunga, ko W’anganui te awa, nō W’anganui ahau. Ko Carl Bates taku ingoa. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Greetings and thanks to you all. Ruapehu is my ancestral mountain, W’anganui is my ancestral river, I am from W’anganui. My name is Carl Bates. Greetings and thanks to you all.]

Welcome, Ngāti Hāua, to te Whare Pāremata. Welcome to your House, to our House. Welcome to this very special day in your journey.

Suze Redmayne, my colleague and friend, spoke to me after the deed of settlement was signed on 29 March earlier this year, and spoke to me about how significantly and how profoundly the morning had touched her and the kōrero and the stories and the engagement she had that morning. Willie has just spoken—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Willie Jackson.

CARL BATES: Willie Jackson has spoken about who would like to go to some rohe around this country. Madam Speaker, I’m sure I can speak for you, as a member of Parliament in that area; my colleague Suze Redmayne; and, of course, myself as the member of Parliament, the mema Pāremata, for Whanganui—that we all love coming to Taumarunui to engage with you and see you. I’m looking forward in my future role—as the rohe that I am responsible for expands a little, maybe after the next election—to spending a little bit more time engaging and getting to know you.

Suze spoke about the significance of the statutory pardons for the tūpuna Te Rangiātea and Mātene Ruta Te Whareaitu when she spoke to me after the signing of the deed of settlement. It was interesting that just late last year, I’d been reading a book, because the Prime Minister, in his wisdom, had added me on to the Justice Committee. I’m an accountant, not a lawyer. I’m the better of the two professions. I know how to look after the pūtea. But I thought I’d better learn a little bit more about the journey that New Zealand has been on, and I read a book, Fragile Foundations: The Application of English Criminal Law to Crimes Committed in New Zealand between 1826 and 1907. It spoke about the story of your tūpuna as one of many stories like theirs across the country, and the way in which the application of British law in New Zealand had been challenged and how we had these fragile foundations on which justice in New Zealand was built.

When I joined this House and had my maiden speech, I spoke about the story of Taranaki Maunga and its journey down the Whanganui awa, up the coast, ultimately settling to where it is now, and the tears that it left behind that create the awa that we all live by and are part of. When I shared that story and shared how I’d learnt that at primary school, I never thought in that moment that I’d be referencing that story so many times in such a short period of time I’ve had the privilege and the honour of standing in this House. I hope that through each settlement that I’ve had the privilege of speaking on as a member for the rohe that we all love and is close to our hearts—that each settlement that goes through this House breathes more life into our awa and enables all people who live by our river, by our awa, to look forward to what, in this case, the post-settlement entity is going to provide as an opportunity for your people. I look forward, in my role, to working with you and being part of that journey.

Today is a special day, and there are members who I think are probably more qualified than me to kōrero this morning who are going to be part of the journey as this bill is taken through the Māori Affairs Committee. But it really is a recognition, I think, from this side of the House that we have our local members of Parliament that represent the rohe in which these settlements relate speak on the bill, and hopefully be part of a positive journey where we can have a few less tears go down our awa in the years to come. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

Rt Hon ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. Otirā e tū tautoko ana ahau i te mihi ka tukuna atu e Te Ātiawa ki a koutou, ki a tātou, Ngāti Hāua, i tēnei ata. Nō reira nau mai, haere mai, whakatau mai rā.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker. Indeed, I stand in support of the greetings offered to you, to us, Ngāti Hāua, by Te Ātiawa this morning. And so, welcome, welcome, welcome.]

Rightfully so, today, Hansard will record the names Rangiātea and Mātene Ruta Te Whareaitu in the records of today’s Hansard. I say that because I can’t imagine how difficult it has been. Ngā uri of these two kaumātua have had to carry the burden of what happened to their tūpuna, and it’s right that this House acknowledges the incidents that happened under martial law in Aotearoa. It should never have happened. It should never happen again.

I want to acknowledge all of the uri of these rangatira for carrying that burden. I won’t say the word, but they were labelled. It wasn’t right that they should be given labels, and they paid the ultimate price for standing up for their rights in our country. There have been many mentions of those who’ve been involved. I won’t name all of them, but I can’t help but think that uncle Archie Taiaroa will be happy today. I want to acknowledge everyone that has carried this kaupapa to this day.

I also want to encourage all of the members of Ngāti Hāua to submit to the Māori Affairs Committee. We heard from the chair, David MacLeod. I am absolutely certain that he will manage the process of getting this bill through the committee—every part of it—in a way that, hopefully, we see the second reading before the end of the year. I would so enjoy if we were able to pass this bill before Christmas, and it is possible. I’m saying to all other parties that we in the Labour Party will work collaboratively to make sure that that happens.

I want to also just highlight a recent report from the Controller and Auditor-General. The name of the report is How public organisations are fulfilling Treaty settlements. I encourage the leadership of Ngāti Hāua to have a read. It’s my sincere hope that the issues that have been raised in that report will not be a burden on Ngāti Hāua. If you read the report, you will see how the implementation of Treaty settlements have been impacted basically by the inability of public organisations to be able to deliver on the settlement. I’m not speaking out of turn here. It’s well documented that there are agreements that have come through this House that still have not yet been delivered on.

So there are a lot of mechanisms within this Treaty settlement that we’re about to finish the first reading on. I encourage Ngāti Hāua to have a look at it and to be vocal: tell the Government, tell the Crown—no matter who it is—that your expectation of delivering what’s in the settlement actually gets delivered—because no amount of apology will ever satisfy any of us if we don’t deliver on what we say we’re going to—so that this Parliament never ever impacts on Ngāti Hāua in the way that it has that’s recognised within the settlement.

Nō reira ki a koutou, ko te tūmanako kia uhia mai e te Runga Rawa āna manaakitanga ki runga ki a koutou, o Ngāti Hāua. Tēnā rā tātou.

[And so, to you, the hope is that the Most High covers you, Ngāti Hāua, with his care. Greetings to us all.]

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): E kara, e Atawhai, maranga wairua mai. Tēnei anō te rangi i whakaritea, ka kitea kua oti te whakaea, kua oti te whakatutuki ngā tūmanako i wahā mai e koe i ō hīkoinga maha ki Te Ūpoko-o-te-ika. Tēnei anō hoki te rā i whakaritea hei whakamihi mā te motu, hei whakamihi mā te Whare Pāremata ki te ngoi, ki te werawera, ki te kaha, ki ngā roimata i tukua kia taea ai e tō iwi, e tō hanga a Ngāti Hāua te whakatutuki i tā rātou i ohia ai i te wā i a koe e matomato tonu ana.

Nā reira e te iwi, koutou kua tatū mai ki Te Ūpoko-o-te-ika, tēnei te Whare e tū nei a mātou, he pononga nā koutou. Ko te kawa o tēnei wāhi, ka pau te toru tau kei a koutou te rangatiratanga me aha wēnei tuari, wēnei pononga wā koutou. Nā reira ko tā mātou he tautoko i roto i te pānuitanga o tēnei pire i tēnei rā. Te ngako o roto, ngā tikanga kua whakapūmautia ki te kapu o te pepa, me te wahanga i oti i tō koutou wā te whakaea.

He wā anō e haere ake nei, mā āpōpō anō āpōpō e kōrero. Māku, me tōku rangatira, a Winitana, me tō mātou pāti e kōrero mō tēnei wā tonu. Engari tukua māku anō tētahi kupu e whakatakoto ki tō koutou aroaro: ko te tau 1976, ahau te kaikōrero i te Manu Kōrero i tō mātou kura, i Tīpene. Ka meinga mātou kia haere ake ki Taumarunui. Kātahi te wāhi anuanu ko tēnā, koia ko Taumarunui.

Engari tokomaha noa atu ō mātou mātua o Ngāpuhi i heke ki reira, mahi puhi ai. Ko taku taokete tētahi, a Jim Reihana me tana wahine, te kaihana a Archie. Nō rāua te whare i te taha tonu o te marae i te pokapū o te tāone, i Taumarunui. I reira mātou, ngā poi o Tīpene, koia te wā i tūtaki ai ahau ki a Tiki Pāreti rāua ko Titi Tehu. Mēnā ō koutou kaumātua, nāna mātou ngā poi o Tīpene i whakatau. Ko te wā tērā i ākona matātingia ai mātou ki te hītorīa i tērā wāhi, me te whakapapa o tērā wāhi ahakoa 17 noa iho ngā tau.

Nā reira tēnei tūnga ōku he tuohu me te mahara ake ki ō koutou mātua. Nā reira tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[My friend, Atawhai, rise in spirit. This is the day that was determined to see the conclusion of the resolution and achievement of the hopes that you carried on your many journeys to Wellington. This is also the day that was decided on for the nation and Parliament House to acknowledge the energy, the sweat, the strength, and the tears that were expended so that your iwi, your people of Ngāti Hāua, would be able to accomplish what they desired while you were still with us.

And so, to the iwi, you who have arrived in Wellington, to this House of ours that stands here, it is your servant. The protocol of this place is that once three years are up, you then have the authority to decide what these servants, these attendants of yours are to do. And so, what we are doing is supporting the reading of this bill today. The essence of it, the procedures that have been enshrined on the surface of the paper, and the burden whose realisation was brought to completion in your time.

At a future time, it will be up to tomorrow to speak for tomorrow. It is up to myself and my leader, Winston, and our party to speak of this time. However, allow me to offer one more word before you: it was the year 1976, I was the speaker in our school, in St Stephen’s, in the Manu Kōrero speech competition. We were then made to go to Taumarunui. What a cold place that was, Taumarunui.

However, many of our parents from Ngāpuhi moved there to work in the forestry. My brother-in-law was one, Jim Reihana, and his wife, Archie’s cousin. The house right beside the marae in the middle of the town, Taumarunui, was theirs. If they are your elders, they were the ones that welcomed us, the St Stephen’s boys. That was the time at which we started to be taught the history of that place, the genealogy of that place, even though we were only 17 years old.

And so, this speech of mine is a bowing of the head in remembrance of your forebears. And so, greetings to you, indeed to all of us.]

Naturally, we stand and speak in support of the Ngāti Hāua Claims Settlement Bill. As I said in our Māori language, we acknowledge the generations that have gone on, and one of them I have already done in an earlier speech in my career: read into the record the tohunga of this broad area of Ruapehu, Whanganui, Taumarunui, ā Titi Tihu, and also his fellow traveller, the descendant of the trader Barrett, known on the marae up at that area and a feature of the Kaitupeka Marae of the 1970s: Tiki Parete.

Now the task lies with those who will carry the settlement forward, and it’s a timely reminder how onerous, from time to time, that responsibility will be. It’s important that all of us take note of the recent report of the audit department that reminds each Government that these are ongoing obligations. The focus of giving effect to the Treaty will gather momentum when seen in the context of what did the Crown commit itself to do in relation to individual, specific settlements. I have no doubt in my mind, as further refinements go forward with other work pertaining to the broader Treaty debate, this is an area that will remain of high importance.

So, to the broader whānau of Archie Taiaroa, to the current leaders, to the community of Taumarunui: a place to shelter—I hope that this settlement represents a piringa, a place to shelter, in times of adversity in the future. Kia ora tātou.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is, That the Ngāti Hāua Claims Settlement Bill be considered by the Māori Affairs Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Māori Affairs Committee.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Permission has been granted for a waiata, and we’d love to hear your voices, please.

Waiata—“Koia Nei”

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): We’ll just wait until people leave the gallery—and perhaps other people are making their way in—before we take the next call.

Tēnā tātou e te Whare. E mihi kau ana ki a koutou i tau mai i tēnei o ngā rā. Ko te āhua nei ko te rahinga o koutou i tae mai. Heoi anō e taka ana te wā.

Ko tēnei te pānuitanga tuarua. Ka mutu tērā ko te committee of the Whole House. Ka mutu tērā ko te pānuitanga tuatoru. Kāre au e hiahia kia noho roa koutou, nō reira me tīmata tātou ināianei.

Nō reira nau mai, haere mai, whakatau mai ki tō Whare.

[Greetings to the House. I greet you who have come here this particular day. It appears that most of you have arrived. Anyway, time is passing.

This is the second reading. Upon its conclusion, it will be the committee of the whole House. Once that is concluded, it will be the third reading. I do not want you to be sitting for too long, so we should begin now.

And so, welcome, welcome, welcome to your House.]

Bills

Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Ranginui Claims Settlement Bill

Second Reading

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I seek leave to present a legislative statement on the Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Ranginui Claims Settlement Bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Leave has been sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is none. That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: I move, That the Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Ranginui Claims Settlement Bill be now read a second time.

Tihei mauri ora!

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

Ka mihi ki ngā maunga kōrero, ki ngā awa rangatira, ki te whenua taurikura o ngā hapū o Ngāti Ranginui, e ngā kāwai rangatira, tēnā tātou katoa.

[The breath of life!

The House that stands here, the Beehive, greetings. The land outside, greetings. The mandated authority of this region, greetings. The dearly departed, farewell, farewell, farewell. Farewell to the land of the ancestors. To the living, greetings to you, to all of us.

I acknowledge the storied mountains, the noble rivers, the bountiful land of the hapū of Ngāti Ranginui, the lines of noble descent, greetings to us all.]

This bill gives effect to the deed of settlement signed by Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Ranginui and the Crown in June 2012, which settles all the historical Treaty settlement claims of Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Ranginui. It is a privilege to welcome everybody here this morning to Parliament to host you for the final readings of the bill, and it was a wonderful opportunity to meet earlier and to have some kai together.

Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Ranginui is an iwi based in the Tauranga region, one of three Tauranga Moana Iwi alongside Ngāti Pūkenga, and Ngāi Te Rangi. Their area of interest extends from Ngā Kuri o Wai Whare, north of Tauranga, inland of the summit of Mount Te Aroha, extending south-east along the Kaimai range to Pūwhenua and reaching south into the Mangorewa River.

Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Ranginui are hapū-centric and this is the source of great pride to them. The primary hapū affiliated with Ngāti Ranginui are Pirirākau, Ngāti Taka, Wairoa hapū, Ngāti Hangarau, Ngāi Tamarāwaho, Ngāi Te Ahi, Ngāti Ruahine, and Ngāti Te Wai.

According to the 2023 census, 9,967 people, precisely, affiliate to Ngāti Ranginui, and their historical claims relate to the war and raupatu in Tauranga, Crown purchasing of the Te Puna-Katikati blocks, and the operation and impact of the native land laws and land loss. The quantum in the financial commercial redress is $38 million.

I draw members’ attention to the Order Paper and note that the third reading of the bill is scheduled to come next, when we’ll speak more about the hapū and the significance of the settlement. In this reading, I just want to focus on the relevant procedural matters enabling the bill today.

The bill had been part of an omnibus bill, along with the Tauranga Moana Iwi Collective Redress Bill, which was introduced into Parliament in November 2015 and read a first time in April 2016. In 2016, the omnibus bill was considered by the Māori Affairs Committee, which included public submissions. The committee received and considered seven written submissions and three supplementary submissions and reported back, but Parliament did not consider it because Ngāti Ranginui asked for the progress of the bill to be paused to enable them to address overlapping claims with the Hauraki iwi.

In late 2022, Ngāti Ranginui approached the Crown about finalising their Treaty settlement as soon as possible. This proposal was discussed with the other two Tauranga Moana Iwi who are party to the omnibus bill—Ngāi Te Rangi and Ngāti Pūkenga—and they agreed that the omnibus bill could be divided so that Ngāti Ranginui could proceed while the Tauranga Moana Iwi Collective Redress Bill continues to be held for a second reading. The previous Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, Andrew Little, agreed to propose the division of the omnibus bill to Cabinet so that Ngāti Ranginui could move to the second and third readings and on to enactment, and in September 2023, Cabinet agreed to this. I’m pleased to be able to pick up this work and to progress this bill today.

Two Amendment Papers were drafted by the Parliamentary Counsel Office, one to divide the omnibus bill and the other to make minor technical changes required to reflect changes that have occurred since then. I want to thank the Parliamentary Counsel Office for doing that. On 21 March 2024, I moved a motion in the House to discharge the omnibus bill from the second reading and to refer it to the Māori Affairs Committee to consider Amendment Papers. The Māori Affairs committee has considered those Amendment Papers and reported the omnibus bill back to Parliament as two separate bills: Tauranga Moana Iwi Collective Redress Bill and Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Ranginui Claims Settlement Bill. The committee has agreed to their recommendations and updates technical terms.

The most substantial change over time is the relationship redress in cultural and heritage sector agencies. Up to 2016, the Crown offered a taonga tūturu protocol which was solely with the Ministry of Culture and Heritage. In 2017, a collective relationship agreement, Whakaaetanga Tiaki Taonga, was developed to provide a relationship with the wider range of cultural agencies, and the Amendment Paper makes these changes. I thank the committee for its consideration.

Ngāti Ranginui has worked tirelessly with my officials to bring the settlement to this point. I look forward to speaking about the particulars and the details of the bill in the third reading speech coming up soon. So, Mr Speaker, I commend this bill to the House. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Kua tāngia tēnei tauākī ā-ture i raro i te mana o te Whare, ā, ka kitea ki te paetukutuku a te Pāremata. Ko te pātai kia whakaaetia te mōtini.

[This legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be seen on the Parliament website. The question is that the motion be agreed to.]

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

Ko tēnei te mihi ki a koutou o te iwi, ngā hapū o Ngāti Ranginui. He mihi mahana ki a koutou katoa i tēnei rā whakahirahira. Nō reira tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, huihui mai tātou katoa.

[The first acknowledgment is to God, to whom all things belong. The second acknowledgment is to the House that stands here, greetings. As the lines of descent connect us all, the deceased come together. As the lines of descent connect us all, the living also come together.

I hereby greet you of the people, the hapū of Ngāti Ranginui. A warm greeting to you all on this important day. And so, greetings and thanks to you, and all of us assembled here.]

I stand today to speak on the Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Ranginui Claims Settlement Bill, a bill that marks both an end and also a beginning. It marks the end of a long and painful chapter in a history that we need to acknowledge, and that is part of what we are doing today. Also, I would like to think, and I hope, that it’s a beginning in a new relationship between the Crown and Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Ranginui—one grounded in acknowledgment, one grounded in redress, and also one grounded in a hope for a better future for both parties to this agreement.

The suffering endured by Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Ranginui was not incidental. It was not accidental. It was systemic, it was targeted, and it was unjust. This is reflected accurately in the Waitangi Tribunal’s report, Te Raupatu o Tauranga Moana. It lays out clearly the devastating impact of the Crown’s actions. Actions that stripped over 290,000 acres of land from hapū, undermined hapū authority, and led to generations of marginalisation. These breaches of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, especially article 2, which guaranteed tino rangatiratanga, were profound.

The raupatu of Tauranga Moana followed the Crown’s aggressive military campaign. It included the infamous battles of Gate Pā and Te Ranga. Under the shadow of the Crown’s New Zealand Settlements Act 1863, the Crown labelled the people of Ngāti Ranginui as “rebels”, as it tried to justify the seizure of their whenua. But history shows us clearly that these were not the actions of what the Crown called “rebels”. These were the actions of a people defending their homes, their whakapapa, and their sovereignty. In this bill, the Crown formally apologises for those actions. That apology is not symbolic; it is a necessary act of recognition, and without that acknowledgment, there can be no hope of reconciliation. Without truth, there can be no justice, and this bill reaffirms both.

Labour has long upheld Te Tiriti o Waitangi as the foundation of our land, our country. Not just historically, but as a living, breathing document. It is a covenant. Te Tiriti speaks not just to the rights of Māori but also to those responsibilities of the Crown. Those responsibilities were clearly broken for Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Ranginui, and this bill seeks to redress some form of justice.

In doing so, we must recognise the context from which it has emerged. Originally, part of the Tauranga Moana Iwi Collective Redress and Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Ranginui Claims Settlement Bill, this settlement was designed to address the shared and overlapping interests of Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Ranginui, Ngāi Te Rangi, and Ngāti Pūkenga through collective redress. But as the process evolved, it became clear that unity did not equate to uniformity, as often is the case with the Treaty settlements process. Each iwi and hapū has its own kōrero, its own priorities, and its own pace. The decision to divide the omnibus bill, made by the Māori Affairs Committee after careful consideration, allowed the bill to proceed independently, reflecting the readiness and the mandate of Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Ranginui to move forward. This was the right decision. No settlement should be delayed because of complexities elsewhere, and every hapū has the right to see its own journey to justice recognised on its own terms.

This bill has been shaped by many years of negotiation and refinement. It reflects not just the endurance of Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Ranginui but also advice, advocacy, and the courage of all those who have worked to bring it to this point in time. I would like to acknowledge the negotiators, those who worked in the Office of Treaty Settlements, and all of those whānau and individuals who have supported behind the scenes, whether it be preparing kai, organising papers, or doing all of the endless hours of work to bring this claim to this point in time.

The Treaty settlements process is far from perfect. It does not even equate to a drop in the bucket to what has been taken and lost. But I genuinely hope that this process paves a way of hope, opportunity, for the next generation to take this land of ours and to make it into something that recognises who you are, what you can become, and what we can share together.

Nō reira, he mihi mahana ki a koutou i tēnei rā. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[And so, warm regards to you all today. Greetings one and all.]

STEVE ABEL (Green): Kia ora, Mr Speaker, and kia ora, Ngāti Ranginui. We stand in these settlement speeches to acknowledge the harm caused to your iwi in the process of colonisation and raupatu—the injustice of the way that the Crown treated Ngāti Ranginui and the people of Tauranga Moana.

I have some of my earliest memories of travelling with my parents down from Tāmaki-makau-rau, in a little Mini, on gravel roads, through the Karangahake Gorge, to Tauranga, where my grandmother lived. She lost her first husband in the Hastings-Napier earthquake in 1931 and travelled with two young children to Tauranga to start a shop in Cameron Road—a florist and antique shop. When I was a kid, I didn’t know the meaning of this word “Cameron”. We now know the weight and gravity of the history associated with that name and the impact on your people and the people of the Waikato and the people of the Bay of Plenty.

My mother was born in 1938, in Tauranga, and she spent her childhood raised in the Bay of Plenty. On her deathbed her older brother John called me—she’d lost her ability to speak—and he said, “Recall to your mum how, when we were kids, we would take the horses down to Pāpāmoa Beach, and we would take off the saddles and the bridles and we would ride them bareback into the breaking waves, and we’d shriek with laughter. The horses loved the sea, and we loved the sea.” I recounted that story to my mother, and she smiled, and she wept—that was her memory of her childhood, her most precious memory.

We, as tangata Tiriti, me as a Pākehā, come to understand that the blessing of the life that we enjoy in these lands, and the “haere mai, haere mai, haere mai” that we were offered when our ancestors first arrived—that is what we must make account for, in understanding the atrocities and the horrors of the history that led to our presence in these lands, that led to my mother’s childhood in Tauranga. Here today, for us to account for that history and to make good that history in so far as we can—because there is no recompense, there is no compensation, there is no satisfactory acknowledgment of the impact of the raupatu and the loss of lands and the loss of the ability to exercise self-determination and the rangatiratanga. But here, today, the purpose of this bill and the settlement is to take that step towards fulfilling the ability of Ngāti Ranginui to express their rangatiratanga as mana whenua, as mana tangata, as mana moana of your part of the world.

I bumped into a gentleman that I met down in the Bay of Plenty, in Tauranga, actually, in the resistance against the Petrobras oil drilling. I was part of Greenpeace, and we stood with Te Whānau-ā-Apanui and Ngāti Porou and other iwi of the Bay of Plenty against that drilling there. Ngāti Ranginui sang a version of “In the Ghetto”, I believe, but changed all the lyrics to be about resisting the desecration of the customary waters of the peoples of the Bay of Plenty with oil drilling, and that resistance was effective. I would say that, in this reading, in this history, in this account, in this bill, we see the incredible resilience and dignity of Ngāti Ranginui, in your holding on to your rights of tino rangatiratanga in your rohe, in your lands, in your waters.

The infamous image of the kuia giving water to Booth at the Gate Pā battle. That image of the dignity of Māori in expressing aroha, even to their assaulter—this is something that we, as a nation, must recall. We must remember that it is tangata whenua Māori who have shown the generosity that embodies the core spirit of what makes Aotearoa what it is to this day.

I acknowledge the raupatu and the confiscation of the Tauranga district lands, that it had a devastating effect on the welfare and the economy of Ngāti Ranginui hapū and deprived those hapū of wāhi tapu, access to natural resources, and opportunities for development at Tauranga, and prevented Ngāti Ranginui from exercising mana and rangatiratanga over land and resources within the Tauranga Moana—a scorched-earth policy. Shameful—a shameful history. We thank you, Ngāti Ranginui, for being here today, because you go some way to restoring the honour of the Crown by your presence, so thank you for that.

As tangata Tiriti, we must account for this history, we must understand it, we must seek to step into it, and we must open our hearts to the generosity of the likes of Ngāti Ranginui in seeking reconciliation. But that must take serious account of the impact of colonisation. I echo the feelings of my colleague from the Labour Party that these settlements are never sufficient. They are, in a sense, less than a 1 percent offering of what is lost, and we, as Te Pāti Kākāriki, do not accept the principle of a full and final settlement. Whilst this settlement is that—because that is the current legislative structure, and we will be supporting this bill—we do not accept the principle as correct. The relationship between tangata Tiriti and tangata whenua is a living and eternal relationship. Te Tiriti o Waitangi is a living agreement. It is a binding contract which is the founding of the relationship with tangata whenua Māori and all those who came since, whether we are Pākehā or tauiwi. So the idea that we would settle the relationship makes no sense—it has no logic to it.

Hoki whenua mai [Land return] is a deeply held principle by Te Pāti Kākāriki. If we recognise that in the essence, the sordid land grab, in the words of Cameron himself—the sordid land grab—that was the raupatu in the Bay of Plenty and the Waikato and Taranaki, well, the obvious amends is to give back the land—return the land—and I’m glad to see that this bill goes some way to returning some of that land. But we must recognise and we must be welcome to step into the truth, that for us to truly make amends for colonisation and the impact of it, we must be prepared to return more land and allow tino rangatiratanga, in the terms of tangata whenua Māori—in their terms—to be expressed, as was the contract, as was the agreement that we, my ancestors, signed up to in 1840.

We today commend this bill to the House. We thank you, Ngāti Ranginui, for being here, and we acknowledge your dignity and your mana. Kia ora koutou katoa.

CAMERON LUXTON (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Ranginui, Ngāti Te Wai, Pirirākau, Ngāti Taka, Ngāti Rangi, Ngāti Pango, Ngāti Kahu, Ngāti Hangarau, Ngāi Tamarāwaho, Ngāi Te Ahi, Ngāti Ruahine, and all your tīpuna and all your ancestors that you represent here today and your descendants to come.

I have stood and spoken in this House on behalf of the ACT Party on a few Treaty settlement bills. In the 18 months since I’ve been elected, I’ve been privileged to speak on the Whakatōhea Claims Settlement Act—close to home—and, recently, the Te Ture mō Ō-Rākau, Te Pae o Maumahara 2025/Ō-Rākau Remembrance Act 2025, the history of which touches deeply in some of the history outlined in the Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Ranginui Claims Settlement Bill.

This is, for me, an emotional moment to speak on such a bill. I am a child of Pāpāmoa. I come from the Bay of Plenty; this is where I am from. I read about the history, and it’s history that I know quite well—as much as one who didn’t descend from it and live part of it can hope to know. These acknowledgments are long overdue. When I was a young fulla—I actually said something similar in the Ō-Rākau Act—I probably spent too much time wagging school, but I was doing some things. At one point, I drove over to the site of the Battle of Ōrākau by myself when I should have been at school, because I was interested in the history. But that history stemmed from a story that I have shared with some people, some who are even in this gallery today, where I went about trying to understand the history of my own area because I didn’t feel like I was learning it properly. I remember one day I left school—probably during English class—and got my way over to Pyes Pā and went looking for a battle site that I’d read about but didn’t know anything about and wasn’t being taught about.

Actually, first I should say, growing up, my generation started learning about Gate Pā, better known as Pukehinahina. We started learning about that, and it was talked about the way the toa and the wāhine treated with their enemy—there was a declaration on the way that Māori toa were going to treat with their enemies. I found the great line “If thy enemy hungers, feed him; if he thirsts, give him drink.” to exemplify what I’m trying to talk about here.

Pukehinahina was a known battle. It was sat there as a monument with an Anglican church on it, and we all knew it was there, but we didn’t know about Te Ranga. I went looking that day for the battle site. I had old maps that I’d found—God bless the internet for giving information out. I was trying to track the topography of the land and the rivers and the road, trying to find this place. So imagine a 15-year-old—myself—bashing through a bramble bush on the side of the road and finding this concrete plinth with old writing on it that could barely be understood. You know, it was not a well-kept mark of the site. But, for me, I could start to see the way things happened there, and it was deeply emotional for me sitting there—I mean, remember, I was 15 years old; this was quite a shocking thing to try and discover for oneself.

I’m glad and proud that today that site has been taken care of, acknowledged, and shown to the people of Tauranga and the people that travelled that road between Rotorua and Tauranga. But I recognise also the deep pain of the battle of Te Ranga, and the way that pain has carried on through the generations probably reflects why it was not in the state that it is now. It is a good thing that it is now being looked after, but I can completely empathise with those who would rather have just looked away and not thought about that particular site.

The raupatu and confiscations are something that Tauranga was—you know, reading Victory at Gate Pā?, Buddy Mikaere’s book, you can see the constraints on the descendants. You know, moving into areas like Judea, in Tauranga—“Ju-daya”, I suppose, if anyone else is reading it—how that was marginal land, and how they no longer had access to places like Kōpūrererua and the fertile places around to harvest kai and grow. It was not a great—“not great” is an understatement; it was a horrible, horrible situation for a century, for decades and decades. But today, this House starts to recognise, by going through the motions of passing into law, the deed of settlement. That has, as we’ve heard, been a long time coming back from the splitting of the Tauranga Moana Iwi Collective Redress Bill.

Also, I note that in some of the settlement, there is land to be returned. A lot of people outside of the Bay of Plenty know about Mount Maunganui—Mauao—know about the hill that sort of sits there and is the symbol of our area and a sacred hill to Ngāti Ranginui. There’s also hills like Pūwhenua and Ōtānewainuku getting returned in this settlement in a way—still with access to the public, but returning.

Talking to my wife this morning, I asked, “What are you doing today, darling?” She said, “I’m going to go and get the bloody stoat that I’ve heard is running around in Ōtānewainuku right now.” So as I stand here speaking about the settlement and how Ōtānewainuku is being returned, my wife is currently out there trying to eradicate pests on that very piece of whenua, and I felt that was quite a poetic situation to find myself, and ourselves, in.

My children are being raised in the area. They’re learning about where all the reefs are. They learn where the hills are and the rivers. I don’t shy back from telling them about the history of Tauranga, but I also tell them that this is their place. This is where they’re from. This is where they’ll always be able to come back to. We know the rivers, as much as I can discover them and my family can discover them. We know the waters, the hills, and the bush as much as we can. It probably was a bit too much as a young fulla trying to get out and go places that perhaps weren’t always public access, but I wanted to experience everything that our beautiful rohe, your beautiful rohe, has to show.

Tauranga was supposed to be a safe harbour. It was discovered by Tamatea-arikinui and the waka Tākitimu, eventually opening up for your people to settle. Te Awanui, Tauranga Harbour, was supposed to be—and it is—a safe harbour. Te Awanui was supposed to be a safe harbour and it was not. The Crown ships came in, opened up another front of the Waikato Wars, and that’s where this pain starts. Today, we’re not finishing the pain but we’re taking another step on that path of sorting it out. I thank you very much for listening to me ramble on. Ngā mihi. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister): Kia ora. Tēnā koutou katoa. Forty-five years ago, in a meeting of the National Party caucus, a then young MP with a Māori background, one of only four who had won a European seat since 1854, raised the contrast of Arthur Allan Thomas getting a $1 million while the Māori in Tauranga were being offered $200,000. There are some people here who remember that.

The reality is that we were the beneficiaries of the representation from the Tauranga Māori of a man called “Ed” Morgan, a brilliant legal scholar from Oxford University who spent four years in Changi prison and yet went down to Tauranga to practise law and acted for the Māori at the time. He came before the then select committee and he said this to the members of Parliament representing this issue, in which a pittance was being paid to the people of Tauranga. He said to the members of Parliament: “You sit here in the seat of princes. May you treat this matter in a princely fashion.”

Well, that did not happen. It’s the last thing that happened. But times move on and, four years later, someone who had a connection because some of his relations are buried at Matakana Island became, in the snap election, the MP for Tauranga.

Hon Members: Who was that?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: And happily said, in all those years, “I’m entirely happy to be the MP for Tauranga”, as all sorts of aspersions were being flung at us. So this is a great day, delayed though it may be, but one should remember the facts of the matter and how sometimes one is able to help. Do you remember: it’s 1990—one—and we have a situation where the kiwifruit ownership by Māori in Tauranga is over 10 percent of nationwide and it’s indebted to the tune of $92 million, all occasioned by Treasury and the Ministry of Māori Affairs making the decision and not the local Māori themselves. Then, the MP for Tauranga, as you will recall, started an action against the Minister of Finance, saying, “You have failed to exercise a duty of care, and we’re going to take you to court.” Well, they caved in and that $92 million was written off. Sometimes things do work out.

Can I say to the people of Tauranga that it’s great to see you here today and, so late in the piece nevertheless, in a settlement that is much more acceptable. I didn’t come down to speak today until I was watching on television and I saw you all here, and I thought I’d better get down and put this story right. The last thing is that you are in the area where one of the most significant ports coming into the future still remains to be Tauranga. Could I just say, from this far away still, don’t let that be sold to someone else. Make sure it remains in local control. It will be far more valuable in the years to come if people have the foresight to see the shape of transport and shipping in the future, going forward. It will be seriously, seriously important, and at a critical time, as I’m watching from this far away, I see that some want to sell it. Make sure, whether you’re European or Māori in Tauranga, that that doesn’t happen.

Kia ora tātou. Thank you very much.

TĀKUTA FERRIS (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tonga):

Tau ake au ki te tau nei ko Rua-tipua ko Rua-tawhito

Ngarue i runga, ngarue i raro

Ngarue i Te Iho a Tāne, Te Iho a Tāne ko taku waka ko Takitimu.

Rere mai te maramara, ko Ihinui, ko Ihiroa, ko Te Āwhiorangi

E ko wai kei runga nei, e tū pā-whaiake

E ko au ko Uenuku, e tū pā-whaiake.

E Rata, e Rata! He aha tāu e hanga, e tū pā-whaiake

Inumia te kawa—tākina te kawa!

Te kawa tūānihinihi te kawa

Te kawa tūārangaranga te kawa

Te kawa o wai? Te kawa o Takitimu

Inumia te waka o Tīrari, inumia te waka o Tīrara

Inumia te waka o Rongokako, inumia te waka o Tamatea-ariki-nui

Turuki turuki, paneke paneke

Turuki turuki, paneke paneke

Haramai te toki, haumi e, hui e, tāiki e.

[I recite the recitation, it is Rua-the-powerful, Rua-the-ancient

Reverberation above, reverberation below

Reverberation upon the essence of Tāne, the essence of Tāne, my ancestral canoe is Takitimu

The woodchips fly, it is Ihinui, Ihiroa and Te Āwhiorangi

Who is this above me, launch the canoe

It is I, it is Uenuku, launch the canoe

Rātā, Rātā! What have you constructed, launch the canoe

Internalise the ceremony—recite the ceremony!

The ceremony is one of breadth

The ceremony is one of turbulence

Whose ceremony is it? It is the ceremony of Takitimu

Internalise the canoe of Tīrari, internalise the canoe of Tirara

Internalise the vessel of Rongokako, internalise the vessel of Tamatea-ariki-nui

Advance, advance, progress, progress

Advance, advance, progress, progress

The adze comes forth

It coalesces, it assembles, it is bound.]

Nō reira kei ngā hekenga o Tamatea-ariki-nui, heke rawa mai ki a Rongokako, ki a Tamatea-pōkai-whenua. Rere iho nei ko Ranginui tōmua, ko Kahungunu tōmuri. Haere mai, haere mai, haere mai.

Whakatau mai ki roto ki tēnei Whare. Kawea mai ngā nawe o rātou mā hei whakatutuki i roto i tēnei rangi. A rau mahara, a rau manako, ngā hiahia o te hunga kua ngaro nei i a tātou. Hoki nei ōku mahara ki tērā pāpā o koutou, he pāpā nō mātou, ki a Te Huikākahu mōna i tohe roa kia toitū te rangatiratanga o Ranginui, o Tauranga Moana ki runga ki te mata o te whenua.

Kei ngā mātua tīpuna i te pō, e ara. E ara, hoki wairua mai i roto i tēnei wā. E whai nei ngā mokopuna i te ara i parangia e rātou i roto i te wā i a rātou, kīhai rātou i eke ki te toi ora kia tae ki tēnei wā. Hoki wairua mai, hoki wairua mai, hoki wairua mai.

Kawea mai tō rātou ihi ki roto ki tēnei rā kia āta whakarongo ki ngā kōrero a tēnā, a tēnā, a tēnā i roto i tēnei Whare. Kāre au mō te tōwai i ngā mahi kua oti kē i a koutou te whakatutuki i roto i ngā rau mahara, i ngā tau maha. Tēnā koutou i ā koutou mahi.

He mahi ka haere ao te pō, pō te ao, whakatipuranga atu, whakatipuranga mai ka ea te kōrero, “hinga atu he tētēkura”; kua tae mai te tētēkura o tēnei rā. Haere mai rā.

Haere mai rā me te tini tūmanako mō te āpōpō. Kawea mai ō mokopuna i roto i tēnei rā kia titia te whatumanawa, te ngākau, te pātukitanga o te whakatipuranga ka heke mai, ka heke mai, ka heke mai.

Me tō tātou mōhio, tēnei tohe a te iwi Māori, e kore e oti i te rā nei. Ahakoa tērā taha o tēnei kōrero, e mea nei au ki a tātou i roto i tēnei rā, tauāraia te pō, tītoko ko te ao mārama. Kia whitikina ā tātou tamariki, ā tātou mokopuna ki ngā hihi o Tama-nui-te-rā, kia kaua rā e noho nei ko tātou i roto i te kupenga a te Kāwanatanga, engari kia ū tātou ki roto ki te kupenga o ngā mahi a ngā mātua tīpuna, tatū iho ki a koutou o Tauranga Moana i roto i tēnei rangi.

E hika mā, kia tika te whakahua o ō koutou ingoa i roto i tēnei rā. Māku te rārangi. Nō reira kei ngā hapū katoa o te rōpū whakamana i ngā hapū o Ranginui, arā ki a Pirirākau, ki a Ngāti Taka, ki a Wairoa hapū arā Ngāti Kahu, Ngāti Rangi, koutou tahi me Ngāti Pango, Ngāti Hangarau, Ngāi Tamarāwaho, Ngāi Te Ahi, Ngāti Ruahine, koutou tahi, tātou me kī, me Ngāti Te Wai. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā rā koutou katoa.

Kotahi taku kōrero ki te Whare ki te reo Pākehā.

[And so to the descendants of Tamatea-ariki-nui, descending to Rongokako, and to Tamatea-pōkai-whenua. Flowing on to Ranginui first and Kahungunu later. Welcome, welcome, welcome.

Welcome into this House. Bring with you the grievances of those who have passed on to be resolved today. The many memories, the many hopes, the desires of those who have been lost to us. My memories return to that patriarch of yours, a patriarch of ours also, to Te Huikākahu, who fought for so long so that the sovereignty of Ranginui and Tauranga Moana would remain on the face of the earth.

To the forebears and ancestors in the darkness, arise. Arise and return to us in spirit at this time. The grandchildren are following the path that was blazed by them during their time, they did not reach the pinnacle of health in order to be here at this time. Return, return, return to us in spirit.

Bring with you their enduring power today to carefully listen to the comments of each of us in this House. I will not repeat the actions that you have already completed through the many memories and many years. I congratulate you on your work.

It is a job that continues by night and by day, and with each successive generation the saying is embodied, “as a leader passes”; the leadership of today has arrived. Welcome.

Welcome to you and your many hopes for the future. Bring with you your grandchildren today so that it may be embedded in the bosom, the heart, the heartbeat of the generations to come.

And we are aware that this struggle of the Māori people will not end today. Despite the opposing side of this discussion, I say to us today cross the threshold of darkness, the world of light rises. That our children and our grandchildren may be illuminated by the rays of Tama-nui-te-rā, so that we do not remain within the net of the Government, but we instead engage in the net of the actions of the forebears and ancestors, and including you of Tauranga Moana today.

My friends, let your names be pronounced accurately today. Allow me to list them. Therefore to all the hapū of the mandated authority of the hapū of Ranginui, that is to Pirirākau, to Ngāti Taka, to the Wairoa hapū of Ngāti Kahu, Ngāti Rangi, you along with Ngāti Pango, Ngāti Hangarau, Ngāi Tamarāwaho, Ngāi Te Ahi, Ngāti Ruahine, all of you, I should say all of us, with Ngāti Te Wai. My thanks, congratulations, and greetings to all of you.

I have one comment to make to this House in English.]

To the Government: this apology is in your name. I hope that from today, this afternoon, and every day into the future, you treat Ranginui with the respect, the sanctity, the honour, and the mana that is in this apology. E te Pīka, tēnā koe.

BENJAMIN DOYLE (Green): E te Māngai o te Whare, nei rā te mihi ki a koe.

Ki te hunga mate, koutou ngā tūpuna o Ngāti Ranginui kua rere atu ki tua o te ārai, koutou i patua ai e te Karauna i te pakanga o Pukehinahina me te pakanga o Te Ranga, moe mai, moe mai, moe mai rā.

Ki a koutou, ngā hapū o Ngāti Ranginui kua tae mai i tēnei rā, kei te rere ngā mihi maioha ki a koutou katoa. Kua roa te haere engari kia mataara, kei te tata tonu te whakatau, kei te tata tonu te iti Kahurangi.

[Mr Speaker, I acknowledge you.

To the dearly departed, the ancestors of Ngāti Ranginui who have gone beyond the veil, you who were killed by the Crown in the battle of Gate Pā and the battle of Te Ranga, rest in peace.

To you, the hapū of Ngāti Ranginui who have arrived here today, warm regards flow to all of you. It has been a long journey but remain alert, settlement is close, the valued treasure is close.]

I wish to acknowledge the descendants of Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Ranginui, those who have made the long journey today to be here, whether in body or in spirit. I wish to acknowledge those who did not make it, those who began this long journey many, many years ago, and who now watch from above as stars in the great cloak of Ranginui. They have returned to the final resting place of our ancestors but their legacy and their spirit lives on.

It is my great pleasure as always to rise in support of a bill such as this. Of course, the passing of legislation is a crucial step in the process of redress, as is the issuing of a formal apology by the Crown, an accurate historical record, a recognition of the Crown’s failings and violence, a return of lands, and a payment of compensation, but it could never truly be enough to compensate for the immense loss and pain suffered at the behest of the Crown.

As long as the web of colonialism exists in Aotearoa and around the world there is little justice for indigenous peoples. This means there is still work to be done to transform our society into one which recognises the unique place and experience of tangata whenua in Aotearoa as the original custodians and descendants of this land.

This day marks a milestone in that journey for the Crown and Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Ranginui. But we still have so far to go. Nā reira, e tika ana te kōrero i ō tātou tūpuna “Titiro whakamuri, kōkiri whakamua”.

[Therefore, the saying of our ancestors is true “Look back, go forwards”.]

I commend this bill to the House.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): Tihei mauri ora!

E ngā mana, e ngā reo, e ngā iwi, e rau rangatira, mā tēnā koutou katoa. Te Whare e tū nei tēnā koe. Te papa e takoto nei tēnā koe. Kei ngā mate haere, haere, haere. Nau mai haere mai ki te Whare Pāremata.

Ko Dan Bidios tōku ingoa. Ko Tainui te waka, ko Waikato te awa, ko Kakepuku te māunga, ko Ngāti Maniapoto te iwi. Ko Ngāti Huia te hapū. Ko Te Kauwae te marae. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[’Tis the breath of life!

To the esteemed, the many voices, the people, and the distinguished leaders, greetings to you all. The House standing, greetings to you. The ground we are upon, salutations to you. To our departed, farewell, farewell, farewell. Welcome here to the Parliament.

My name is Dan Bidois. Tainui is my canoe, Waikato is the river, Kakepuku the mountain and Māniapoto is the nation. Ngāti Huia is the subtribe. Te Kauwae is the marae. Thank you all.]

It’s a pleasure to speak in what is the second reading of the Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Ranginui Claims Settlement Bill. I wish to acknowledge the journey that Ngāti Ranginui has been on for 161 years to get acknowledgment from the Crown, from this House, for the wrongs that have been done and to redress for those wrongs, and, most importantly, to pave way for the future. It is a great privilege to speak in this debate.

I don’t have a direct connections to the Tauranga, Bay of Plenty area, but my tūpuna do. Often I get asked if I’m related to the Bidoises of Te Puna, and I have to say, “No, unfortunately, I’m not.” I am actually related to the Bidoises in Te Puna, but the Bidoises that came from France had 14 children, so we all go back to that strand of one of those 14 children.

It is a fantastic part of New Zealand, a fantastic part of Aotearoa, and a great privilege to have played a small part in this bill in my role when I was on the Māori Affairs Committee. This bill has been backwards and forwards some times since it was originally introduced in 2012. One of the first steps that the Māori Affairs Committee did was to divide this bill from the Tauranga Moana collective redress bill. It is great to see the willingness of the iwi to move forward. I certainly look forward to hearing the Tauranga Moana Iwi Collective Redress Bill in its final reading, as well.

This is an important day. It is a good day for the hapū and the iwi of Ngāti Ranginui. I will be speaking again in the third reading. So I will save a more fulsome debate around the purpose of the bill and our aspirations and our willingness to engage for the third reading. So I commend this bill to the House.

Hon JAN TINETTI (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. E papaki kau ana ngā tai. He tai wiwi, he tai wawa he tai ki uta he tai ki waho. Ko tēnei te tai o te tangata e tau nei ki konei. Aku nui, aku rahi tēnā koutou katoa.

[The coast is clapping. They ascend and descend to the shores and out to the ocean. Here are the waves of people whom have arrived here. Dear esteemed, dear noble people, greetings to you all.]

I’ve often sat here in Treaty settlement bills and heard the readings and I’ve loved the experience, and I’ve often thought, what would it be like—what would it be like to see my friends in the gallery? I look up there and I can see so many of you up there today, and I’m getting emotional already and I’m still going to get through a third reading speech yet. But it is just so wonderful to see you here and to be part of the redress but also the celebrations and the moving forward at the same time, and I am so grateful that I have got the opportunity to talk with you, to talk around what’s happening in this process, but also to be part of your journey as well.

Now, I want to talk about my connections to Ngāti Ranginui, and I’ll start with where you came from. Ngāti Ranginui descended from Tamatea Arikinui, captain of the Tākitimu Waka, and when the Tākitimu Waka arrived at Tauranga, Tamatea Arikinui conducted rituals and ceremonies on Mauao to open the whenua for occupation. One such ritual which I have a deep connection with was the establishment of the two altars of Ahurewa. These were developed to establish centres of wānanga of learning. These were Rehutai on Mauao, and Hikutai on Tutara wānanga, and it’s the Tutara wānanga where my connection goes to, and I am for ever grateful that you wrap your arms around me in my journey when I was so fortunate to have the opportunity to have an impact on the lives of your mokopuna and your tamariki and your rangatahi.

I’m actually going to extend that a little bit: my husband Dave and I are forever grateful. I acknowledge that Dave is now at the Merivale Community Centre, and I’m doing a shout-out to them to get them on Hansard but also because they’ve got a watch party going on there today because they are so excited, and many of them couldn’t come down, but they are so excited to see this reading coming through.

The second reading of a bill is often around the process; the “what has happened to date?” This has been a long process, and settlement bills are a long process, but this one more so in many cases because there was the omnibus. There was the Tauranga Moana Iwi Collective Redress, and now we’re talking to the Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Ranginui Claims Settlement Bill, so that’s been part of that long journey as well. No journey and no redress is ever going to make up for the hurt and the long history of hurt that has been experienced, but, as I know, Ngāti Ranginui are resilient and are strong and fight their corner—gosh, do I know that really, really well—and that is why it’s just such an honour to be here speaking in the House today.

As many of the speakers have said here so far, we have the third reading coming up, and the third reading is where we will talk a lot more about some of the people in the journey along the way and some of the hurt that has happened in that journey along the way. But this, as I said, is a long history that you have had in the Tauranga Moana region, and that long history is being recognised here today. No longer are people now saying Tauranga is quite a new city; we are actually recognising you as the mana whenua, alongside the other two iwi of Tauranga Moana. You are being recognised here today, and we will talk further about that in the third reading.

I look forward to sharing that journey, and I look forward to hearing more of that. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): I rise today to speak in support of the Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Ranginui Claims Settlement Bill during its second reading. As the member of Parliament for the Bay of Plenty, I have the privilege of representing a region rich in history, culture, and significance to many iwi, including Ngāti Ranginui.

This settlement is not just words on paper or numbers on a ledger. It represents generations of patience, perseverance, and the pursuit of justice. The journey to this moment has been long and challenging. The original omnibus bill, the Tauranga Moana Iwi Collective Redress and Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Ranginui Claims Settlement Bill, was introduced in November 2015, nearly a decade ago—I had only just finished school at that time. It was considered by a select committee in 2017 and had been awaiting its second reading in the House since then. In 2022 Ngāti Ranginui approached the Crown about finalising their Treaty settlement as soon as possible. I’m pleased to note that the other iwi who are part of the Tauranga Moana Iwi Collective, Ngāi Te Rangi and Ngāti Pūkenga, agreed to the bill being divided so that Ngāti Ranginui legislation could proceed independently.

On 21 March last year, the House agreed that the omnibus bill be referred to the Māori Affairs Committee for consideration of two Amendment Papers, and after careful consideration the committee divided the bill on 3 April, allowing this Ngāti Ranginui settlement to progress while issues with the Tauranga Moana Iwi Collective continue to be resolved. This approach speaks to the balance we must strike in these matters, respecting the unity and shared interests of iwi while also acknowledging the autonomy and unique circumstances of each group. I commend the Ngāti Ranginui Settlement Trust and their negotiating team for their enduring commitment through what has been a lengthy process.

Today, as we debate this bill, we must reflect on the profound significance of what we are addressing. This settlement acknowledges the deep mamae, the pain and suffering, carried by Ngāti Ranginui since the raupatu of 1864. The Crown’s actions during this period, the unjust war, forced land takings, and scorched earth campaign undermined the mana and connection to whenua of these hapū. According to the 2023 census, 14,928 affiliate to Ngāti Ranginui, and 57 percent of them are under the age of 30—sorry to my friends Tamati Tata and Turi Ngatai, who are in the public gallery and who fall just outside of that age range.

Ngāti Ranginui’s historical Treaty of Waitangi claims relate specifically to war in Tauranga, Crown purchasing of certain land, the operation and effects of native land laws, Māori land legislation, and public works taking in the 20th century. These are not distant historical footnotes but lived realities that continue to shape communities in our electorate today. I acknowledge the hapū, who have maintained their tikanga despite generations of alienation and marginalisation in their own rohe. Your resilience is remarkable, and this settlement represents not just recognition of past wrongs but a foundation for future prosperity.

When I walk through the Bay of Plenty, I see the legacy of these historical injustices, but I also see the strength and determination of tangata whenua, who have never surrendered their connection to place and identity. This settlement, while it cannot undo the past, provides meaningful acknowledgement and redress. The bill before us includes significant elements: financial and commercial redress of $38 million, which will provide economic opportunities for current and future generations; the return of five sites of cultural significance; two properties of cultural significance vested jointly with other iwi; and relationship redress with key Crown agencies. The settlement also includes the vesting of wāhi tapu and a right of first refusal over certain Crown lands.

I’ve had the privilege of speaking with kaumātua and rangitahi from Ngāti Ranginui. What strikes me most is how they speak of this settlement not primarily in terms of financial compensation but as a platform for cultural revitalisation, a language-land connection identity and tino rangatiratanga.

I had so much I wanted to say. I have so many friends sitting in the gallery today who have rightly come to see not just the second reading but the third reading and this bill becoming law. I support this bill, not just as one of the Bay of Plenty MPs but as someone who believes deeply in the importance of addressing historical injustices. The passage of this legislation will mark a significant milestone for Ngāti Ranginui, for the Bay of Plenty region, for our nation. It demonstrates our commitment to honouring the Treaty of Waitangi and building genuine partnerships based on mutual respect and understanding. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

SHANAN HALBERT (Labour): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. Rapua te huarahi whānui hei ara whakapiri i ngā iwi e rua i runga i te whakaaro kotahi. Tihei mauri ora! Kei aku nui, kei aku rahi. Ngā tāngata o te motu. Takitumu waka, ngā uri o Tamatearikinui, Ngāti Ranginui, tēnei te mihi ki a koutou i tēnei rā. Tēnei te mihi mai i ōku iwi Ngāti Whitikaupeka ki a koutou i tēnei rā, he rā whakahirahira mō koutou katoa. Nō reira tēnā koutou tēnā koutou, mauriora ki a tātou katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker. Pursue the pathway that brings us two people together under the one thought. Greetings all. Dear esteemed, dear noblemen. The people of the land. Takitumu canoe, and the descendants of Tamatearikinui, Ngāti Ranginui, this is my greetings to you today. I acknowledge you on behalf of my people of Ngāti Whitikaupeka. This is a big day for you all. And so, thank you, thank you thank you, good health to us all.]

Whānau mā, can I acknowledge each and every one of you in the gallery today: those that can be with us and, of course, those that cannot be with us today. I want to acknowledge the Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Ranginui Claims Settlement Bill in the second reading here in te Whare Pāremata before us all today.

At the moment, it’s a bittersweet moment as we look back to the past and we look at where we are now. We also acknowledge the difficult and tumultuous times of the last 18 months. Today, we make an apology. We make an apology on behalf of the Crown to yourself, Ngāti Ranginui, but it doesn’t stop here. The values, the kōrero, that we all put into this House today, stand true. Those values are a way forward for all of us to acknowledge, to honour Te Tiriti o Waitangi, the partnership and the commitment that our whānau, Māori, and Pākehā alike signed up to back in 1840 in a kaupapa that we must honour now.

I’ve seen today, and as I look across the House, whānau, friends, ngā hononga katoa [all the relationships]. Whāea Ngāreta e mihi ana ki a koe, ki tō whānau hoki. Matua Turi tēnā koe i muri rā.

[Whāea Ngāreta, I acknowledge you and your family. Matua Turi, greetings to you at the back there.]

But, particularly, I think of many of my friends and hononga back to Waipapa Taumata Rau and Te Wānanga o Aotearoa. My friend Rohario Murray messaged me this morning because she’s stuck at the airport. She sent me some words that I want to put on record today for Hansard, because the small thing that we can do as members of Parliament is to represent those that we love, those that we have connection with in this House on their special day.

She said, “These words acknowledge that the Crown unreservedly apologises for not having honoured its obligations to the Hapū o Ngāti Ranginui under Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and regrets its failure to acknowledge the mana and rangatiratanga of Ngāti Ranginui for many generations. The Crown deeply regrets that, over time, its actions severed Ngāti Ranginui hapū from their traditional lands, deprived them of opportunities for development, caused significant harm to the social and economic development of Ngāti Ranginui, undermined the wellbeing of the iwi and its hapū, damaged the autonomy and ability to exercise customary rights and responsibilities, and marginalised them within their own rohe.” Rohario goes on to say, “E te whānau, the work doesn’t end today, but the vision carries on, brighter, bolder, and grounded in whakapapa.”

Tēnei te mihi ki a koutou katoa Ngāti Ranginui i tēnei rā. He kaupapa nunui he kaupapa roroa. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, mauriora ki a tātou katoa.

[This is my salutations to you all Ngāti Ranginui. This is a big day and a long day for you. thank you, and good health to us all.]

SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga): Ki ngā hapū o Ngāti Ranginui, nau mai haere mai ki tēnei Whare Pāremata. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[To the people of Ngāti Ranginui, welcome to the Parliament. Thank you, thank you, thank you all.]

I want to acknowledge everyone here in the gallery. It was great to be here with you this morning for the mihi whakatau and some kai. I also want to acknowledge everyone who can’t be here: elders, tīpuna passed, and also everyone back home in Tauranga Moana. Kia ora to all of you on this historic day. It’s so good to have you here to be able to address the past wrongs that were done to your hapū and your iwi: the historic breaches of Te Tiriti, the confiscation of land, the loss of cultural sites, the loss of mana, the marginalisation—this is a step towards addressing all of that.

It is also an opportunity for all of you to move forward. We heard this morning about wanting to look forward. Acknowledging the past, yes, but also taking the opportunity of the future to build economic opportunities for you and your whānau. This is the launching pad for that, so I want to acknowledge that.

I want to also say that as the MP for Tauranga, I will work to engage as constructively as I can, not only with Ngāti Ranginui but with the other two iwi in Tauranga Moana, so I can filter back what you need from us and, also, to know that I am always there for you.

Look, there is so much more I want to say, and I will have that opportunity in the third reading. We do need to get this done because I know you will want this third reading to get done by 1 p.m. today, so I will leave it there. Kia ora.

Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. Kāti kia whakamārama atu ki wōku rahi, ki ōku tini whanaunga o Ngāti Ranginui hei te pānuitanga tuatoru ka whakaranea ake ahau i waku mihi me waku kōrero mō tēnei kaupapa te pire kei mua i a tātou. Me te mea anō hoki kia ea te amuamu a tōku matua a Willie Jackson he aha te take kāore kei a ia tētahi kāmeta kia kite atu ki runga i wā tātou hoa mahi ki roto i te Whare?

[Thank you, Mr Speaker. And so allow me to explain to my relations of Ngāti Ranginui that on the third reading I will elaborate my acknowledgments and my speech pertaining to this bill before us. And also to satisfy the arguments made by my uncle Willie Jackson. Why does he not have a camera to see our work colleagues above in this House?]

However, I do want to take a very quick opportunity in the second reading—as I scan the House, there are four members who were here at the reading of the bill that was done about 10 years ago with respect to the Tauranga Moana Iwi Collective, and here we are with Ngāti Ranginui.

What I observed this morning with Ngāti Hāua—who were the first bill this morning—was something I hadn’t seen before in my 12 years in the House. While I accept that the Business Committee is the way to look towards how we might finesse this tikanga of ours as we’ve all accepted with respect to Treaty settlements, I do want to put it on the record and on floor of the House for consideration of parties as we get to the Business Committee that what we normally do is five-minute calls for the first reading, 10-minute calls for the second reading, and 10-minute calls for the third reading.

I wonder if perhaps there is scope and if there’s a will in the House to flip the second and first reading calls as the first reading is an important one where our tribes and our whānau who come here to start of the process of the bill—I think that deserves the time of a 10-minute call for members across the House while the negotiations after the select committee continue with officials, the Minister, and of course the tribe. By the time we get to the second reading—and I support this bill—what’s here in the Amendment Paper and bills of this nature are already complete. What we do here are just some technical minor changes if that’s all that’s required. Then we go into 10-minute calls for the third reading.

I leave that thought on the floor of Parliament whereby if we could for this particular process in the future flip the second reading time frame for the first readings, and the first reading time frame into the second reading, so that we can honour the mahi that we do here today and the work that so many have done to make sure that this particular kaupapa—and many other kaupapa like it—progress into the future.

Nō reira e te Māngai o te Whare ka waiho ēnei kōrero ki te pātū o tō tātou Whare. He pito kōrero ka whakahokia.

[Therefore, Mr Speaker, I’ll conclude my speech here within the walls of our House. I stand down.]

RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): It really is a privilege to stand up and make my contribution to the beautiful kōrero that’s taking place this morning. We’re in the second reading of the Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Ranginui Claims Settlement Bill, and I’m absolutely privileged—and I thank the House for this privilege, and the people of Takanini that put me here—that I’m the deputy chair of the Māori Affairs Committee. In front of me is the chair, my good friend David MacLeod, and I’ve got Dan Bidois, my good friend who helped shepherd this bill as we went through the changes.

We’ve heard some very profound and detailed accounts of what’s involved in this settlement bill, so if you don’t mind, as the last speaker on the second reading, what I would like to do is maybe just a few acknowledgments. I’d like to acknowledge the attendance of the Rt Hon Dame Patsy Reddy, our former Governor-General. Thank you for being here, and thank you for your tautoko for this important mahi. I’d like to also acknowledge our kuia and our kaumātua across the House in the gallery. Thank you for making the journey here, and thank you for teaching the generations that come after you how important this type of kaupapa is as well, and to never give up.

I’d like to also acknowledge the presence of my good friend Matt Winiata, the chair of the Manurewa Local Board—and I’m so pleased to see your father here. Mr Ranginui David Winiata, thank you for raising your son to be the person he is. Matt was on the news a few months ago for shedding tears when he gave a kōrero to the Auckland mayor saying, “Manurewa has a lot of vulnerable communities. Please, please make sure that pūtea”—money—“comes to Manurewa.” So thank you for being here today. Thank you for the love that you give South Auckland communities, Matthew.

We’ll go towards a third reading now. I commend this bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): The Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Ranginui Claims Settlement Bill is set down for committee stage immediately. I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Ranginui Claims Settlement Bill.

In Committee

Part 4 Preliminary matters and settlement of historical claims

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, the House is in committee on Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Ranginui Claims Settlement Bill. The bill was divided from the Tauranga Moana Iwi Collective Redress and Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Ranginui Claims Settlement Bill. Parts 4 to 6 and Schedules 4 to 6 of that bill were divided into Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Ranginui Claims Settlement Bill. We therefore begin with the debate on Part 4. Part 4 is the debate on clauses 76 to 92, “Preliminary matters and settlement of historical claims”. The question is that Part 4 stand part.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 4 set out on Amendment Paper 288 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Part 4 as amended agreed to.

Part 5 Cultural redress

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, we come now to Part 5. This is the debate on clauses 93 to 152, “Cultural redress”, and Schedules 4 and 5. The question is that Part 5 stand part.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 5 set out on Amendment Paper 288 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Part 5 as amended agreed to.

Part 6 Commercial redress

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, we come now to Part 6, the debate on clauses 153 to 197, “Commercial redress”, and Schedule 6. The question is that Part 6 stand part.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 6 set out on Amendment Paper 288 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Part 6 as amended agreed to.

Schedule 4

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Schedule 4: the question is that the Minister’s amendments to Schedule 4 set out on Amendment Paper 288 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Schedule 4 as amended agreed to.

Schedule 5

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Schedule 5 stand part.

Schedule 5 agreed to.

Schedule 6

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Schedule 6 stand part.

Schedule 6 agreed to.

Clauses 1 and 2

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, we now come to our final debate, clauses 1 and 2, on the title and commencement. The question is that clause 1 stand part.

Clause 1 agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that clause 2 stand part.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment.

House resumed.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Mr Speaker, the committee has considered Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Ranginui Claims Settlement Bill and reports it with amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

Third Reading

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I move, That the Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Ranginui Claims Settlement Bill be now read a third time.

E rere tonu atu ngā mihi kua mihia ki ngā uri o ngā hapū o Ngāti Ranginui. Tēnā koutou. E ngā kāwai rangatira, tēnā tātou katoa.

[I’d like to add to the acknowledgments made to the people of Ngāti Ranginui. Greetings to you, dear esteemed leaders, greetings to you.]

I had the privilege of moving the Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Ranginui Claims Settlement Bill earlier today, and it’s now my honour to see this bill reach its third reading; a significant occasion, as it draws to a close the individual settlement journey for Ngāti Ranginui, which has been a long time coming. In fact, it was all the way back in 2012, when the late iwi leader Colin Bidois said, “We are coming out of a long tunnel, the job had been done and now was the time to pass the baton to the next generation.” It’s an honour to be here to carry that baton to the finish line on behalf of this Parliament and to mark this particular occasion.

I begin by acknowledging Ngāti Ranginui, who have joined us in the House, many who have travelled long distances to witness this occasion. I’d like to welcome those who are tuning in and watching or listening on live stream or on the radio today. I want to thank Stan for giving me this scarf that came from Maharaia Winiata’s visit to Edinburgh, and I’m wearing it with pride today to acknowledge this occasion. I pay tribute to the tūpuna and kaumātua who took the first steps to seek justice for Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Ranginui, who had a clear vision of what they wanted to see for their people. I deeply regret that many are no longer with us to witness this momentous occasion, where the vision of achieving redress for the iwi has become reality. I spoke this morning about the long history, and going back, way back, to the 1860s, when appeals were made to rectify things, decade after decade, and today, finally, we have the acknowledgment.

I acknowledge the representatives of the Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Ranginui Settlement Trust, the post-settlement governance entity that will receive the settlement’s assets on behalf of Ngāti Ranginui, and will represent the iwi in its ongoing relationship with the Crown. I thank the settlement trust and the negotiating team for their enduring efforts; I particularly want to acknowledge Te Pio Kawe, Kimiora Rawiri, Rob Irwin, and Huikākahu Brian Kawe, who championed the settlement. When I met with the group, they advised me it had been a long journey, and all the kaumātua who presented the claims at the Waitangi Tribunal had, sadly, passed on. To honour these tūpuna, Kimiora Rawiri made the deliberate decision to be present in Tauranga Moana today, to be with the people who made this day possible.

Ngāti Ranginui acted honourably and reasonably in its negotiations with the Crown, with dedication and hard work into completing this. So I want to acknowledge the two previous Ministers, Christopher Finlayson and Andrew Little, as well as the Government agencies and local authorities that worked hard to make this happen. I want to extend my thanks to Dame Patsy Reddy, who I saw up in the crowd there, who was the chief Crown negotiator for these negotiations, ably supported by officials from the Office of Treaty Settlements and Takutai Moana: Te Tari Whakatau.

As we gather here today for this important day, we also look back on the past and recognise that the Crown severely wronged Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Ranginui in the years following. The settlement and the Crown acknowledge its historical breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi, including that it was ultimately responsible for the outbreak of war in Tauranga in 1864, in which Crown troops killed members of the hapū and wounded others in the battles of Pukehinahina and Te Ranga. The Crown has acknowledged that the raupatu of lands in Tauranga and subsequent Tauranga District Lands Acts 1867 and 1868 were unjust and a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi. In the subsequent bush campaign, the Crown inflicted the scorched earth policy, destroying villages and cultivations, which forced many to flee. The policy had a devastating effect on the welfare and economy of the Ngāti Ranginui hapū.

The Crown has acknowledged the conduct was unreasonable and unnecessary, and was a breach of the Treaty. The raupatu, along with the purchase of the Te Puna-Katikati block soon after, and the operation impacted the native land laws, flaws in the Crown purchasing and the acquisition of Ngāti Ranginui, and, in a number of different ways, left Ngāti Ranginui without sufficient land for their present and future needs. This contributed to the many hapū enduring long periods of social deprivation, and the historical account goes into great detail about that.

The Crown has acknowledged that it failed to deal in a satisfactory way with the grievances raised by successive generations of Ngāti Ranginui, and recognised that those grievances were sound, were real. On 21 June 2012, at the signing of the deed of settlement, the Crown apologised to Ngāti Ranginui for its actions and omissions, and expressed profound regret for its breaches. I regret the time has taken so long for the apology to be enshrined in law, and I’m thankful that it will be rectified by the passing, imminently, of this bill today.

The settlement provides redress that will recognise traditional cultural, spiritual associations of Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Ranginui in their rohe, which includes vesting 15 sites with significance, and two sites jointly with other iwi, and a wide range of relationship redress with Crown agencies. That includes financial and commercial redress of $38 million, which will provide Ngāti Ranginui with an economic foundation to build a durable settlement. Of course, no amount of settlement can ever fully compensate for the losses suffered, but it does represent a commitment to establish a partnership that begins to restore the Crown relationship with Ngāti Ranginui, and starts a new journey towards reconciliation and prosperity. I note this journey will include the Tauranga Moana iwi collective redress and natural resources arrangements over Tauranga Moana. Mr Kawe has reminded me that Ngāti Ranginui will not see the completion of their claims without that redress, and it will be provided for in future legislation.

I heard the challenge this morning to inspire the rangatahi. That is the job not just of this Parliament but, of course, of all of us here in the House, and you on the marae, in your schools, in your homes, to inspire the next generation going forward. Our Government, of course, is committed to growing our economy so we can attain high living standards, by restoring law and order so people can feel safe in their communities, and to deliver great public services such as education, ensuring that our kids are going to school, getting a world-class education, and being prepared to succeed in the modern world. This, genuinely, I believe, is a land of opportunity. Sure, it’s not perfect, but show me a country that is. And, yes, we’ll have disagreements going forward—of course we will. But the good thing is that we can talk to each other still, civilly, live in peace, and work through the challenges that we face.

So I firmly believe that the opportunity here is for Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Ranginui to enter a golden age in the years ahead. I commend this bill to the House. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Ki a koutou Ngāti Ranginui i tae mai nei i tēnei wā, e mihi ana ki a koutou. E tika ana ki te maumahara ngā rangatira kua hinga. Nō reira moe mai moe mai moe mai rā. Ka nui tēnā.

Ki a koutou te hunga tae mai nei, e mihi ana ki a koutou. E mōhio ana tātou katoa ki te mahi tinihanga o te Karauna. Me maumahara tēnā. Engari ko tēnei te wā ki te whakatikatika tērā kaupapa. Nō reira tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[To you, Ngāti Ranginui, who have arrived here today, greetings to you. It is important to remember our esteemed leaders who have passed. And so, farewell and rest in peace. That’s that.

To you the people who have arrived here, greetings to you. We understand the deceiving act made by the Crown. Lest not forget that. But this is a time to rectify that. And so, greetings to you all.]

It’s good to have everyone here, and you would have heard all the kōrero today supporting the kaupapa—apart from Winston Peters, who went off on another tangent. I’m not sure what kaupapa he was talking about today, but it certainly wasn’t the bill. It was lovely to see him, though. He was a wonderful Tauranga MP, wasn’t he? He was a wonderful Tauranga MP, and I had a bit of a kōrero with him out there, but he certainly wanted to get that kōrero out.

I want to acknowledge Dame Patsy here, for your tautoko for our various kaupapa and for being tremendous through the years, and our rangatira who are here today. It’s really good to see you.

Kiritapu Allan and Mita Ririnui, both former Labour MPs—hopefully, still Labour MPs. It’s good to see them, and they’re here because of a very serious kaupapa, a kaupapa that is repeated time and time again in terms of what has happened to our people. Scorched-earth policy, the denial of the opportunity to advance tino rangatiratanga—it’s all the same. The theme is all the same, and you hear it time and time again.

That’s why it’s good to hear that kōrero coming through, but I really did enjoy that kōrero from—who was our young man this morning? Te Pio, was it? He wasn’t so young, actually, when I looked at him—he looked a bit older than me! But he was asking for inspiration in terms of housing, health, and—you know, “Inspire us: housing, health, education.” I thought it was a good kōrero. Well, have I got the party for you! And guess what! It’s not the Māori Party; it’s the Labour Party.

But I thought it was a great kōrero, to get up after our whaikōrero and challenge us about what the kaupapa are going forward, because there’s only so much you can do. With these pūtea or with a transfer of properties, there’s only so much you can do. You can’t have Governments who say, “Well, there’s the Treaty settlement, Māoris. Now, go away.” I heard that kōrero this morning. It was a challenge we had to deal with when I was a Minister, when Kiritapu Allan was a Minister, and when Mita Ririnui was a Minister—it’s that “Hang on, it can’t be just a Treaty settlement.”

I thought that was a tremendous kōrero this morning, and that’s why I’d put it to the Minister: what are we going to do in terms of housing, what are we going to do in terms of health, what are we going to do in terms of education? That’s what the people were saying—that’s what you’re saying now.

But we all come to these types of hui and we all behave and we don’t put down challenges. Well, I’m not one of those ones who behaves. I’ve got to put down a challenge, too, to this Government over here, because the sad thing is we’ve got a nation of Māori under attack—let’s not forget this. And I know that everybody says, “Oh, kia whakakotahi mō te kaupapa” [unite for the cause], but, hang on, we’ve got a Tribunal under attack, we’ve got Māori health under attack.

Joseph Mooney: Not true.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: “Not true”—“Not true”! We’ve got a Treaty under attack, and shortly you’ll hear from a party who are under attack—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Right, Mr Jackson—the bill.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: This is the bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): The bill.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: This is the bill. I’m talking about the bill and the ramifications coming from this bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): The bill.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I’m talking about the bill. I’m talking about what’s happening in terms of our people and what the flow-on is happening in terms of the bill. This was put on the floor this morning by our people. They put this on the floor in terms of: what is the future, where is the investment from the Government, and where are we going? It’s only right—I know what you’re saying, Mr Speaker. You’re talking about a bill, but what is the flow-on in terms of Māori society and what is the future for our people?

Now, what I’d say today is that you can’t just apologise for the past and forget about what’s happening now, surely—surely, Mr Speaker—and that’s what our people are saying. So if you’d heard the kōrero this morning and the challenges this morning, the speakers in te reo Māori and in English—I’m only translating what I heard. I’m sure the audience here would reiterate that, and they’re saying, “This is all good and well, but what about our input? What about some investment? What about some follow-up? What about what’s happening politically in this Parliament, in terms of certain members?”—that was in the kōrero today. [Assistant Speaker gestures for member to resume seat]

No, I’m not sitting down—I’m not sitting down. I’m not sitting down. You don’t walk over our kaupapa as it suits you, Mr Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Leave the House, Mr Jackson. [Interruption] Leave the House, Mr Jackson. Leave the House, Mr Jackson.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): No, there will be no point of order. Mr Jackson, in light of the—[Interruption]

Hon Willie Jackson withdrew from the Chamber.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): Point of order, Mr Speaker. This kaupapa is about Te Tiriti. That is the only way that this settlement has come into the House. You should not be using this power to stop kōrero e pā ana ki tā tātou Tiriti—Te Tiriti nō te tino rangatiratanga [speaking about our Tiriti—Te Tiriti in regards to tino rangatiratanga]. This is not an expertise that this House has. There is no grounds to be using your power to silence the voices of those who are here to tautoko this kaupapa today. That is out of line.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Thank you.

STEVE ABEL (Green): It’s a very unfortunate occurrence that’s just happened, Mr Speaker, because you can well understand what it feels like for tangata whenua Māori when they come into this House, which is a House built only through the possibility of the agreement between tangata whenua Māori and the Crown in 1840. Every board in this House and no board in this House could stand but for that agreement. And you understand what it must feel like for Māori when one of their people is ejected from the House for speaking the truths that we all know to be true about the need for us to make proper amends for colonisation. And the purpose of this bill—I believe it is utterly relevant to the bill; I agree with Debbie Ngarewa-Packer and I agree with Willie Jackson. We are speaking to the bill when we speak about what the future holds for Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Ranginui.

What I wanted to say was that when I talk to people who are not New Zealanders, who have not had the privilege and the blessing of being raised in the bosom of this land and at the generosity of tangata whenua Māori, I try to explain to them what Māori culture is and I say it is a host culture—it is a host culture. If you show up on a marae, despite all the horrors of what has been done to Māori by colonisation, you will still get haere mai, haere mai, haere mai—welcome, welcome, welcome—and they will give you a cup of tea. First of all, they will hongi you. The hongi is an extraordinary greeting because it is where people touch faces—the most intimate greeting. It’s extraordinary as a cultural form; we share the breath of life, tihei mauri ora. They give you a cup of tea, they feed you more than you can eat, they sing you songs, and then they offer you a bed in the belly of their ancestor, in the wharenui.

This is the generosity of tangata whenua Māori that we all, as tangata Tiriti, are the beneficiaries of. This is the generosity of Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Ranginui in their coming here today to assist in restoration of the dignity of the Crown. But we must assist in that restoration.

It’s New Zealand Music Month this month, and I think one of the most important songs written in the last 25 years was written 20 years ago by a guy called Dave Dobbyn. It’s a song called “Welcome Home”, and the opening lyric is:

Tonight I am feeling for you

Under the state of a strange land

You have sacrificed much to be here

There for the graces I offer my hand

Welcome home

Later in the song he says, “You’ll find most of us here with our hearts wide open”—you’ll find most of us here with our hearts wide open. And then he also says:

There’s a woman with her hands trembling

Haere mai

And she sings with a mountain’s memory

Haere mai

This is the kaupapa of tangata whenua Māori across this land. My mother, raised in Tauranga, was raised in the bosom of that love and generosity of the Tauranga Moana peoples, and I am eternally thankful for that blessing.

One of the kaumātua today said that—my paucity of understanding of te reo Māori, but I did pick up one thing he said: ngā kaupapa Papatūānuku and te whenua [the subjects about Papatūānuku and the land]. I recall that in 2011, shortly before the struggle against the Petrobras drilling in the Raukūmara Basin, I went down to the beach of Pāpāmoa, where my mother had swum as a child, and we scraped the oil off the beach from the Rena oil spill, with the local iwi.

It is my hope and my dream for our nation that we stand together and we stand for the restoration of Papatūānuku, and that we recognise that together we are stronger. That is the pact and the bond of love, I believe, that was made in 1840 in the signing of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and we must restore the true meaning and sense of that agreement to work together in mutual respect.

In the words of Moana Jackson, that Treaty is a profound and visionary base upon which to build a country, and here, today, this settlement bill is about upholding Te Tiriti o Waitangi. It is about stepping us towards that profound and visionary nationhood. It is only possible in acknowledging the truth and the darkness of our history. It is only possible in us being with our hearts wide open and listening and paying attention and genuinely wanting to hear. Because Te Tiriti is a pathway to the relationship, but the relationship is the living thing. So we must uphold that relationship through listening and through respect. I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora koutou.

CAMERON LUXTON (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise and take this call for the third reading. You all saw my second reading speech, so I won’t go on too long; I’ll be respectful of the time and make sure we can get on to the planned activities afterwards.

At my second reading speech, I talked about my experience and touched on the history a little bit, and the present state of affairs. But what I actually do want to talk about is the future of Tauranga. Tauranga is an amazing part of New Zealand. It’s the export hub. We have the port. We have the beaches. We have the people. We have a growing population of people who are outward-looking, who want to do well, who want New Zealand to be a thriving place and want the beating heart of the—I call it the upper central North Island. Like we, in Tauranga, are where the future will be for New Zealand. But we have to get some things right. We have to get our incredibly expensive housing under control. We have to get our infrastructure sorted. We’ve got a lot of things to fix when it comes to the public services in our area.

Moves like this to recognise past wrongs, make amends, and set up post-settlement entities that are committed to the area to be brought in financially, brought in culturally, brought in spiritually, brought in as a community—that’s how we’re going to grow and create a future for our people, of all stripes and whatever time they arrived. The only way we can do this is by being future-focused and thinking about where we’re going.

The city has got a bright future. We have dark clouds; we have issues come through every now and again, but moves like this set up for the future is what we need to be doing. If you want to stand up and do a speech, as I’m sort of touching on now, you should save it for a general debate speech. But what I’m saying is that Tauranga with Ngāti Ranginui, with what you have come today to hear the Crown apologise for—recognising the past and make settlements and plans for the future, is what we are trying to do. We are trying as a country, as a Parliament, to put New Zealand on the path to where we want to go.

I thank you for coming to this House today to hear our korero, to hear the Crown and every member of this House from every party stand up and talk to it. I thank you for the forgiveness that you’ve shown, the welcome, and what you’ve given to the people of Tauranga, including my family, and I commend this bill to the House.

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): Hei tīmata ko te reo Māori.

E te iwi koutou kua tau mai ki te aroaro o te Whare Pāremata ki te pae o te Whare Pāremata nau mai haere mai. I roto i ngā mihi i puakina ai i te wā tuatahi o tēnei tohe o tēnei hīkoi o koutou i whakaingoatia ai ko te ingoa o tērā manukura o te wā nō ōku mātua a Maharaia Winiata. Me whakahua e au te ingoa ō tō koutou mārohirohi a Maharaia. Me tana whakatauki “Inā aro pai ngā tāngata ki ngā mea papai ka taea ngā mea papai”. Me whakaū e tātou i a tātou e kōrero ana mō te rā āpōpō, me pēhea rānei te pai me pēhea rānei ngā hua, me pēhea rānei he tauira hou e whakarānea ai mā roto i tēnei whakataunga kua oti i a koutou ka whakaeangia i tēnei wā. Nā reira tēnā koutou Ngāti Ranginui. Tēnā koutou Takitimu waka, tēnā koutou Mātaatua waka, tēnā koutou Arawa waka me te mahara ka wehe atu a Kahungunu i a mātou i roto i te Tai Tokerau ka noho ka awhiawhi ka hapū kō wai rānei, nā ko koutou ngā uri.

[I’ll start my kōrero in the Māori language.

To you people who have arrived here to Parliament, to the debating chamber, welcome. During the first debate pertaining to this bill I spoke about that esteemed leader of yours, Maharaia Winiata. I shall make mention of that bloke of yours, Maharaia. And his saying as well: “If people focus on the good in things they will inherit good benefits”. We need to instil this as we speak about the future and its benefits, its outcomes, and also what are the new possible avenues we can look in to within this settlement as it comes to fruition. And so, greetings to you Ngāti Ranginui, Takitimu waka, Mātaatua waka, Arawa waka and to also remember the eponymous ancestor Kahungunu who once lived in the northern region and slept around with who knows, and hence we have you the descendants.]

I want to join and remind New Zealanders, remind the House, that this has been a very long journey for this particular tribe from Tauranga Moana. Hailing from Tai Tokerau, there are many connections in relation to this part of te ao Māori, but this day belongs to you people. This is a group of Māori leaders, whānau, who made a decision, pragmatically, within the confines of what successive Governments have been prepared to stand up for. We will craft together, we will agree, to an endowment to take us forward.

As we must say at every single reading: this is only one step of the journey. We are a nation of 5 million - odd people—and, by the way, I belong to a party that doesn’t like the notion of a big population—I would remind everyone that these settlements, an act of pragmatism, settled, however, with the best of intentions, integrity, represent a tūāpapa—a platform—to go forward on.

I don’t really want to recite the various elements of the history of Tauranga Moana from a Māori perspective, because that’s been done. I want to talk a little bit about what needs to carry on. I look forward to working with the leaders of Tauranga Moana over a future for Pukehinahina, working with my colleagues, with the blessings, hopefully, of the senior members of the other side of the House, so those iconic sites are portrayed, are promoted, are accepted, as a key feature of what it means to belong to our country and recognise the past of our country in the context of that particular part of the Bay of Plenty.

I also want to remind the House that there are quite a few marae down there that were the recipients of the Provincial Growth Fund. But the hapū up there [Points to the gallery] forgot rule No. 1 in Māoridom. Reciprocity: nāku te pūtea mā koutou te pōti—engari horekau koutou i pōti mōku [we have the money, you have the votes—although you didn’t vote for me].

I’m sure that the members that hail from this part of our motu know that there is an enormous amount of work to be done, but we are focused on upgrading infrastructure. Recently, I had the privilege of going and standing in that area with Waitaha and related people around the broader Tauranga area to ensure that, when Tauranga grows, when this area prospers—because it is in the “golden triangle”—that integrated and central to that journey are tangata whenua. That is why a Treaty settlement does represent leverage.

I don’t want to broaden our discussions beyond that, because, really, we should celebrate the fact that one of our smaller iwi—and I too come from a smaller iwi: Ngāi Takoto and Te Aupōuri—have made a courageous decision to move on from a chequered past which represents an imperfect history of our country. But our greatness lies in front of us, and with settlements of this nature, with willing fellow travellers, don’t underestimate what we can do; and we need to do it together, because we are a small cork bobbing around in a broad, huge world, and unless we work together, unless we commit to share the responsibility of enriching our nation, the rest of the world does not owe us a living.

Ki te hunga taketake koutou kua tatū mai ki roto i te Whare i te rangi nei, ngā mihi ki a koutou. Tāria te wā mātou ka puta ā tinana atu ki waenga tonu i a koutou tū tahi, mahi tahi, kia ea i a tātou tētahi tauira hou e taea te whakawhanake ā-ngākau, ā-tinana, ā-wairua hoki. Kia ora tātou katoa.

[To you who have come to this House today, salutations to you. In due time, we will come to you in person to stand together and work together to implement new solutions so that you develop physically, wholeheartedly, and in spirit as well. Thank you all.]

RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave from the House to plead for another five minutes as I whakapapa to this iwi, and as their Māori representative in Parliament.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): I’ll put the leave. Leave is requested for a five-minute extension for Te Pāti Māori. Is there any objection? Yes, there is. So it’s a five-minute call.

RAWIRI WAITITI: How miserable. Mōrena tātou. Ka tangohia taku pōtae.

[I take my hat off.]

I wear this pōtae in this House as an acknowledgment of my tūpuna that went to World War II—Ngā Kaupoai [the Cowboys]—as I see this place as the trenches of a modern-day war. Today, as our people sit in the gallery, the war comes to a halt as I acknowledge the years of sacrifice by this iwi. I’m not going to call you a small iwi or a big iwi; you are an iwi with mana and you stand in that in your own right, as we do in this House.

I find it difficult today, as this will be the final speech before I also am ejected from this House. They continue to eject us from the House. Te Tiriti was a promise of kāwanatanga over their own people. Article 2 was the assertion of our pre-existing rights to be undisturbed of our full and exclusive rights to our whenua, to our moana, to our kāinga, to our taonga.

You will receive 1 percent of your total due, and be told that this is full and final. This must never be full and final. The other 99 percent—the door must be left open to our mokopuna to continue to fight.

I will never apologise for what I do in this House, but I feel an apology to my people—that you will be silenced for 21 days, when one of the most ruthless legislations will hit this House next week and a Budget that will ignore you. We don’t need promises from any party in this House. We need economic autonomy. We need economic sovereignty. We need to be left alone to do what we need to do, to be undisturbed of our full and exclusive rights.

Tika tonu ngā kōrero a Willie. E kī e kī kua panāia ia ki waho. I hāmenetia ō tātou mātua tīpuna. Kei te hāmene tonu tātou i tēnei rā. Tāhae whenua, tāhae moana, tāhae mokopuna. Me pēhea rā tātou e whakaatu ki te ao te mana kei a tāua te Māori. Ranginui maranga mai, maranga mai.

[What Willie said was correct. What a shame he has been ejected. Our ancestors were punished. And we are still punished today. Confiscating our lands, our waters, and our grandchildren. How are we to show our mana Māori to the world? Ranginui, rise up, rise up.]

This Treaty claim mustn’t be in vain of the many that didn’t see this claim go through. Our mokopuna who are not yet born, we must declare to them that we will never be silent in this House and that haka is an elevation of our voice and the voices of our ancestors that have gone, our voices today, and the voices of our mokopuna that are to come.

Kia kaua tātou e wareware ki tērā. Nō reira e ngā uri o Te Rangihouhiri tēnā koutou tēnā koutou, kia ora tātou katoa.

[Let us not forget that. And so, descendants of Te Rangihouhiri, salutations to you, thank you all.]

BENJAMIN DOYLE (Green): E te Māngai o te Whare, tēnā koe. E te whānau whānui o ngā hapū me ngā uri o Ngāti Ranginui tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. Ki te whenua, ki te moana, ki ngā māunga ngā awa ngā ngāhere hoki o Tauranga Moana karanga mai, karanga mai, karanga mai. E tū ana nei he uri nō te Tai Tokerau. Nō Ngāpuhi nui tonu ahau.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker. Greetings to you the extended tribe and descendants of Ngāti Ranginui. To the land, the ocean, the mountains, the rivers and the forests of Tauranga Moana, call upon us. I stand, a descendant of the Northland tribes. I am from all of Ngāpuhi.]

The first time I visited Pukehinahina and Te Ranga Pā, I was taken there by Matua Tamati Tata, a kaumatua from Ngāi Tamarāwaho of Ngāti Ranginui. On that day, our ope stood silently in the rain, the tears of Ranginui soaking our cheeks as Matua Tamati shared testimony of what the land and its descendants had witnessed. I can recall with perfect clarity the crack of thunder, like the explosion of a cannon, punctuating our contemplation and fracturing time to transport us back a century and a half earlier to the so-called Battle of Gate Pā, as though the atua were demanding that we never forget that place or the people who belong to it or the theft of lands and lives at the hands of the Crown. Nothing can undo that mamae—the pain and loss. No compensation will ever be enough, and for that I am so sorry.

Today, Parliament will pass the Treaty settlement bill for Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Ranginui, and of course it is my great honour to stand on behalf of the Greens to express our support for its passage. Professor Joanna Kidman, of Ngāti Maniapoto and Ngāti Raukawa, and Dr Vincent O’Malley wrote that “public and State memory can be fickle in settler nations and is often at odds with tribal memory”. Iwi and hapū histories must be honoured and told, not whitewashed or denied. Tangata whenua, through the ongoing machinations of colonisation, are continuously being gaslit into believing that our stories do not matter, when in fact they have been stolen and warped and sold to us as a lie or myth or shame.

The passing of this bill represents the remembering, reclaiming, and retelling of Ngāti Ranginui histories, by and for not only them, but for those who came before and those who are yet to arrive. It will restore ingoa Māori to places whose original names were erased or written over—Te Whāngai-a-Tamarāwaho, Te Hopuni, Huharua, and Te Wharepoti, to name a few. But the Crown will only return a fraction of the land ripped away through raupatu and the compensation offered could never match the mauri of the whenua which Ngāti Ranginui always were, rightly are, and will always be true descendants and custodians of.

Today does not mark a conclusion but, rather, the reset of a relationship between the Crown and Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Ranginui—a commitment which, unless actualised and honoured, is mere lip service. That is why we, as representatives of the Crown, must always uphold our obligations and commitments to this relationship, as for over a century our predecessors have failed to do.

To the descendants of Ngāti Ranginui who have gathered here or are listening from afar: thank you for your patience, your fight, your love, and your incredible grace. You have demonstrated what it means to lead with heart and spirit.

I wish to conclude with the words of Dr Maharaia Winiata, who reminds us to hold on to the aspirations of our ancestors for something better and in doing so knowing everything is possible: “Inā aro atu ana te oranga ki ngā mea pai, ka rere te wairua, ka taea ngā mea katoa.”

[“If life is focused on the good things, the spirit will fly, everything becomes possible.”]

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): Thank you, Mr Speaker. E te Māngai o te Whare, kia ora koutou katoa. One of the great aspects of Treaty settlements is the lack of partisanship shown in this House. All parties, as far as I know, have voted for and supported all Treaty settlements that have gone through this House—all 102, if I’m not mistaken. I have felt this this bipartisanship most acutely on the Māori Affairs Committee. Today is a day for this House to continue the spirit and tradition of non-partisanship, to pass the Ngāti Hāpu o Ngāti Ranginui Claims Settlement Bill, to acknowledge the wrongs of the Crown, and to begin a process of reconciliation, healing, and renewal, and to realise the promise of the people here today, the people of Ngāti Ranginui, for our nation and for the promise of the Treaty of Waitangi—to uphold and to live up to the articles in the Treaty.

A lot has been said today about the atrocities of the past. Today, it goes on record that this House acknowledges those atrocities. Part of this process is a redress package, which includes $38 million. I acknowledge what other speakers have said: no amount of redress can make up for the mamae and the loss that this iwi have felt over 161 years. But this redress will enable them to move forward, to begin that process to look to the future. What does that future look like? Well, that future certainly, as I understand, is about the revitalisation of te reo, the revitalisation of Māori culture, the social development, and economic development.

We have had speaker after speaker speak about the opportunities in the great area of Tauranga, of the Bay of Plenty, for the people of Ngāti Ranginui. It is our hope, at least, collectively, that they can turn their attention to the future. I’ve heard Ministers in this House say that they look forward to working with the iwi on their shared goals and aspirations.

I wish to acknowledge a number of people in this House. The first are Ministers Finlayson, Little, and Goldsmith. I also wish to acknowledge the local officials and negotiators as part of this process—and Dame Patsy Reddy, it’s nice to see you here today. Local MPs past—Winston Peters—and present. We’ve got a number of local MPs—my colleague Sam Uffindell, Tom Rutherford, Rawiri Waititi, and those past as well—and my colleagues who were on the Māori Affairs Committee to look at this bill and examine it in more detail.

This is a good day. This is a good day where we acknowledge the past and make amends for that so that we can move forward together as one people and as one nation. It is on that basis that I commend this bill to the House. No reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

Hon JAN TINETTI (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and kia ora anō. My colleague sitting beside me—Shanan Halbert—mentioned in his second reading speech that one of the jobs that we can do as politicians during these settlement bills is actually talk about some of the people and get their names on the Hansard. Somebody that I want to talk about a little bit here today has had, or had had, a long history of unifying Ngāti Ranginui over time. So I want to talk about a dear friend, a confidant, and leader, Dr Morehu Ngatoko Rahipere, who, along with many leaders of Ngāti Ranginui, was a catalyst for the shepherding of this claim.

Morehu was a driving force for the unification of Ngāti Ranginui in his time. He was a gentle and wise kaumātua whose guidance to me is something that I will always remember. I remember coming into my job as tumuaki at Merivale. I wondered for a bit what I’d come to. But I remember the first meeting with Morehu, and I remember him giving me the OK—“You’ve got this. You’ve absolutely got this.”—and I will never forget that. I’ll never forget the gentleness and the wiseness, but I’ll also never forget how strong he was as well and how he could make many of our parents quiver in their boots as he would just walk through our carpark. He was an amazing man.

I also remember when he found out that there had not been a pōwhiri or welcome for me at Merivale and he ensured that that was going to be rectified. So he arranged for a pōwhiri to happen at the Huria Marae because that was the first time that I had been there. I think, Graham, that was the first time he saw you and he said, “You’ve brought someone really impressive along with you.” So there’s a lot that I remember very fondly from him.

He was a descendant of Paraone Koikoi, whose son Ihakara was killed at the Battle of Gate Pā. It was Paraone Koikoi who was forcibly taken to Te Papa following the battle, to witness his land’s confiscation. It was cut up and given to soldiers and surrendered Māori. Whilst it was clear that this deeply hurt Morehu, and the scars of this remained throughout his time, he had the fortitude to see the best in people, and his demeanour meant that if you were in his presence, you felt the impact beyond the words he expressed; more so the wairua he exuded.

Morehu is the example of the potential for change, for the understanding and most certainly for tolerance, and I honour his family, his hapū, his marae Huria and Wairoa, and his iwi that are here today as we finally deliver and participate in the second reading and third reading of the Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Ranginui Claims Settlement Bill.

That hurt that happened all those years ago is felt strongly throughout Tauranga Moana today. I saw that hurt. I saw so many young people who had lost touch with their identity and their whakapapa. I saw the result of that. I saw that those young people had lost hope in many ways of their future. But I also saw an iwi that were standing up and wanting to do the best going forward.

I do credit my time at Merivale as the best experience of my life. We knew that we had young people that had, through the hurts that happened so many years ago, lost their way a little bit. But we had a community there who worked alongside iwi to ensure that we could turn that around, and that is still happening within Tauranga Moana today. The settlement that we see here today is another step in the direction.

What we want for our mokopuna, our tamariki, and our rangatahi is a positive, bright future going forward, and I see that. I see that with the young people that we see coming through, and it is wonderful to have them here as part of this celebration—this acknowledgment of the hurt but this celebration of this milestone of heading forward. But as we’ve heard here today, this is not the end of the journey. This is still right near the start of the journey: the acknowledgment by the Crown of the hurt that has been caused, the redress and the work towards really supporting the iwi to become the amazing people that the world will see—that we know they already are—and to have that support of all of us around you.

I still go through Tauranga and I go to events that happen, such as the commemoration of the Battle of Gate Pā on 29 April every year. I always make sure I go to those events, because every single year I hear more about that history and more of that understanding, and I strongly believe that the more that we acknowledge the history, the more that we acknowledge the true history of what has happened, young people will have a different future because they’re acknowledging the wrongs and the hurt that happened in the past and they take that into their brighter future going forward.

I am happy to say that that is one of the things I’m very proud about—the Aotearoa history curriculum. And I will say that the Tauranga Moana iwi coming together and influencing the delivery of that in schools in the Tauranga Moana region is second to none. The work that you have done to facilitate that and support that is a shining example to the rest of Aotearoa.

Ngāti Ranginui, I speak humbly to you. You were written out of the history books for an uncompromising and staunch stance to protect your land, your language, and your culture. Despite generations of legislation passed in this House, and in local government buildings in your whenua, you have survived. You have planted and ignited that fire within your tamariki, your mokopuna, many of whom are here today. The mana and the mauri are there to be defiant, to be Māori, to be proud, and I salute you. You have a vision for your people to actively participate in all aspects of Tauranga Moana as mana whenua, in partnership with many others, including the Government, with a clear view to realising the dreams of your tīpuna, distant and recent, like Morehu.

Let this day, this moment, this legislation provide you with that extra bit of respiration of your story to be etched in your memory for ever. But you don’t need this House to give you that permission; in fact, we already know that you have never wavered.

Morehu, I remember and honour you. I shed a tear today, knowing you are smiling from ear to ear, seeing this day finally arrive. E te ngaro e te ngaro Ranginui, ka kitea ka kitea ka kitea—Ranginui, who was, who is once lost by the hands of others is seen, is heard, and is present. Kia ora.

SPEAKER: I call on Dan Bidois—oh, my apologies. I call on Sam Uffindell.

SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga): Thank you, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Just a slight height difference there!

SAM UFFINDELL: E ngā iwi, e ngā mana, e ngā reo, e ngā karangatanga maha.

[To the authorities, to all the voices and the many involved.]

It’s an honour to be able to rise and speak in favour in the third reading of the Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Ranginui Claims Settlement Bill. I want to, once again, acknowledge everyone up here in the gallery: this is your day. To all of the elders here, this is a very special day. I know that there are a lot of people who won’t be able to be here, they may have passed, they may be back home in Tauranga—and kia ora to everyone there as well. I want to give a mention to the chair of Ngāti Ranginui, Charlie Rahiri, and to all of his whānau and to all of the different hapū that are here for this claims settlement. And also, too, some of our elders that we see around the moana a lot: I won’t call you out by name, but it’s very good to have seen you here in the gallery and to have seen you for breakfast in the mihi whakatau earlier today.

As I mentioned earlier, this is long overdue. I remember last year, with the Hon Jan Tinetti, we were there at St George’s church, where they had the 160th commemoration of the Battle of Gate Pā (Pukehinahina). It’s quite incredible to think that everything that happened back there—the confiscation of land, the loss of mana, the loss of the ability to make a living on the land—it has taken 160 years to get us to be here in this House where the Crown is apologising and making redress for what has happened. While that is likely not to fulfil the damage or the hurt that did occur, it is, hopefully—as was called out at the breakfast this morning—an opportunity to start to repair and also to move forward and to take the opportunity that is, hopefully, there through this settlement.

As part of the settlement, it does call for cultural redress, reserve management. There is a financial compensation of $38 million, a return of 15 sites of cultural significance, and also a redress of the relationship with Crown agencies. And as was called for, there is a desire that it doesn’t just end here but there is a desire and a commitment to improve the relationship between the Crown and the Government and the hapū and iwi here today. As I mentioned in the second reading, I give you my pledge that I will do more than what I have already done to help to build those relationships and to be closer to you, to learn more about what has happened, and to bring your voice back here into Government, as the member for Tauranga.

There are some significant economic opportunities. When a member rose to speak at the breakfast, they said that your iwi want several things, but there was a quest for better education, a quest for better housing, and a quest for economic development opportunities. Those are three things that we all want. We need our young people to be educated so that they can have the best chance that they can have in life. We need more housing. We know in Tauranga how unaffordable housing is. It is the most expensive major city in New Zealand. And we need to make sure that we do a lot more, that that housing is provided and accessible for you and your families and your children so that they can have a proper shot at living a life of dignity and fulfilment.

And then there are the economic opportunities. I note that we have significant opportunities in the Bay of Plenty around kiwifruit. I was talking earlier today with Whetu Rolleston—one of many Rollestons, no doubt, here in the gallery—around the opportunities with kiwifruit, and Māori have a very vested interest in making sure that those can be realised. I do acknowledge that there have been some real challenges in Māori raising equity to upgrade or purchase orchards, because it constrains how Māori land is viewed, and that there is an existing inequity there that does need to be addressed. But there are big opportunities there.

There are big opportunities in the seafood space around Tauranga Moana. I heard the former member from Tauranga—the Rt Hon Winston Peters—talk about the Port of Tauranga and the considerable opportunities. I would echo his wish that divestment by Bay of Plenty Regional Council is picked up and kept in local hands as much as possible. I’m glad to see some nodding heads in the audience on that.

Look, I want to acknowledge everyone who has helped make today happen. Dame Patsy Reddy has also been mentioned a number of times already. The previous Ministers Finlay and Little, and today the Hon Paul Goldsmith, and all of the rangatira here today that have fed into this process to make it a reality. This is your day. This is an historic day for Tauranga Moana; for Ngāti Ranginui, for your hapū, and for your iwi; and, as I see the pictures up there being held in the gallery, your tūpuna—I’m sure that they would have wanted to be here and I’m sure they are here in spirit to see this settlement occur.

Look, it is an honour to be able to speak in favour of this bill. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Kia ora e te Māngai o te Whare.

Ka tangi te titi ka tangi te kākā ka tangi hoki ahau, tihei mauri ora.

Ko tēnei te mihi ki a koutou ngā hapū o Ngāti Ranginui, he mihi mahana ki a koutou katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The titi cries, the kākā cries, and so do I, ’tis the breath of life.

This is the acknowledgment to the people of Ngāti Ranginui. A warm greeting to you all.]

As we come together today in this third and final reading of your bill, it is good that we discuss, as well, the claims that you bring within this bill, what that represents in the Treaty relationship going forward, and, as this House continues to grapple with what that Treaty relationship looks like, in the way our tikanga plays out in the Whare and how we bring this House into being also a marae of ways—that’s how I consider it.

When this House is considering Treaty settlement bills, we take on a different āhua, we take on a different way, and we accommodate, as much as we possibly can, in the constraints of what we are, to provide a forum where two peoples can come together to understand and connect. We’re still evolving as we grapple with that, but I think it is important to note that that is part of what the ongoing Treaty relationship is. It is understanding and working together as much as we possibly can, and it is having that door open to ongoing conversation which I believe is the ongoing Treaty relationship, which will always continue to be a struggle but it is having that door open, it is having that dialogue available, and being able to openly talk to each other, which embodies the Treaty relationship and how it will go forward.

As part of that, I think it is important that we are able to discuss not only the historical claims that are a part of this bill but how they impact on the future, in those contemporary claims, such as what housing will be provided for your iwi, what the job opportunities are, and what are the hauora services that are going to continue to work within your communities. Those are just as relevant today as the historical claims that are in this bill.

I would like to acknowledge that, yes, this bill is important for the redress it carries—the financial redress of $38 million, the cultural redress of those name changes, those wāhi tapu, those important elements, and also the apology from the Crown. But what is that apology if it does not have a genuine commitment to an ongoing Treaty relationship—that is how we conduct ourselves in this House, on this day, and how we take ourselves forward into the next steps. Because it is on our shoulders right now in terms of how we create a future for the future generations of Māori and Pākehā and everybody else in New Zealand. It’s on our shoulders right now how we conduct ourselves to pave that way forward for the next generation.

I’m so proud to be here today. I’m humbled to be part of this chapter of history. But there is a long way for us to go—a long way. I wish you all the very best, from the bottom of my heart, and all the best in your future ongoing endeavours and aspirations—wawata katoa. He mihi mahana ki a koutou. He mihi aroha ki a koutou. Nō reira tēnā koutou tēnā koutou tēnā tātou katoa.

[A warm greeting to you all. And a heartfelt greetings to you all. So then, greetings, greetings, greetings to us all.]

RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise as we enter in the final stages of the third reading of this very important kaupapa today, the Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Ranginui Claims Settlement Bill. Thank you to the House for giving me this opportunity to make my contribution to what is a historical day, as we’ve heard.

Just a recap on what’s going to be going forward after today—the main provisions of the bill: there are provisions for cultural redress; financial and commercial redress of $38 million—nowhere near what you’ve lost, but it’s something; the return of 15 sites of cultural significance; two properties of cultural significance vested jointly with other iwi; and relationship redress with Crown agencies.

Mr Speaker, a colleague from across the House earlier read out part of the apology, and, if you don’t mind, I’d also like to read part of it as well, the apology in the bill. It says: “Through this apology the Crown seeks atonement for the wrongs of the past and to establish a new relationship with the hapū of Ngāti Ranginui based on mutual trust, cooperation, and respect for … the Treaty of Waitangi”.

I’d like to draw the attention of the House very briefly, if I may, to a public hearing that took place yesterday as part of our Māori Affairs Committee mahi. It was the report of the Controller and Auditor-General with respect to how public organisations are fulfilling Treaty settlements. I’d encourage members of the public to read this, especially in light of when we’re talking about going forward with our Treaty settlements and the obligations. It was quite confronting and quite damning, if I’m allowed to say that, Mr Speaker. And I know that members of the committee were determined to help and to do whatever we can to make sure that obligations are met going forward.

My colleague Tom Rutherford, the MP for the Bay of Plenty, who is sitting beside me—very young but very wise—in his second reading speech spoke about the patience, thanking our Tauranga whānau here today for your patience. When we think about this patience, what are we talking about? We’re talking about over 150 years of patience. And if I was to think of a picture, it’s almost like you’ve been chiselling away—chiselling away at a sculpture where the medium making up the sculpture is your tears, and the tears of those before you. It’s almost like it’s been bound together with immense heartache. I’m so sorry. I’m sorry that you came here today for just a little bit of closure, and yet what you saw was a shameless display of disrespect for what you’ve been through, and theatrics.

Thank you for constantly teaching me, a person that was born in Australia to parents from Lebanon, who has my own issues with countries around Lebanon that have tried to overtake Lebanon and crush our language and our culture. Thank you for teaching me patience and thank you for teaching me that forgiveness is actually never ending, because that’s constantly what I feel with every Treaty settlement that we try to progress. Yes, there’s a lot of flaws, as we can see by this report, but I know that I and a lot of my colleagues are trying.

So God bless you as you go forward, and God bless the other two iwi with their progression in gaining some type of settlement. And I pray for all of you going forward that your mokopuna can reap some rewards from what’s happening today.

I commend this bill to the House.

Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour): Kāti e te Whare, kua wāwāhia e ōku tuakana e Charlie e tōku pāpā e Tāmati ngā whakapapa here o ōku rahi o Te Tai Tokerau ki roto i a koutou o Ngāti Ranginui. Nō reira e mihi kau atu ana ki a koutou, otirā ki a tātou katoa kua tau iho mai ki runga i te kaupapa kua whakakāhui ai tātou i te rā nei.

Ka huri atu ki a koe kei taku pāpā e Turi. Me taku tangi mōteatea ki tō pāpā, ki a Kihi kua roa rawa e takahi nei i te nukuroa ki roto i au o Te Tai Tokerau. Me tāna kōrero ki ōku iwi, ki ōku rahi, “Kia ū ki te mana motuhake o te hapū. Tirohia ki ngā painga o tēnā whānau, o tēnā whānau kia tū pakari mai ai ko ngā hapū ki roto i ngā mahi kei mua i te aroaro.”

E taku pāpā, e Kihi, hoki wairua mai ki roto ki wēnei kōrero. E taku tuakana e Frank, ka rere ngā mihi me ngā roimata ki tō pāpā, ki a Huikākahu. Te hunga nā rātou tēnei kaupapa i kōkiri ki roto ki ngā tau maha kua pahure ake nei. Nā rātou ngā mamae me ngā kōrero a ngā mātua tūpuna i kōkiri kei mōnenehu ki te pū o mahara, kia korikori tonu nei ki runga i te rae o tēnā, o tēnā o tātou e tau nei.

Nō reira te hunga wairua, te hunga mate ki a koutou, haere, haere, haere.

Nā ka whakahokia mai ngā rārangi kōrero ki a tātou me tā tātou kaupapa, e te iwi.

I a au e rangahau ana i ngā kōrero e pā ana ki tēnei kaupapa, kaua mō te kawenga o te kerēme mō ngā tau tata kua pahure ake nei, engari ka hoki waku mahi rangahau ki roto ki te taima o tōku tupuna o Tau Henare. Nā i te tau 1927, i puta mai te ripoata e kīia nei ko te Sim inquiry. Nā i taua taima ko tōku tupuna a Tau Henare he mema o tēnei Whare. Ka tū mai taku tupuna me tāna kōrero e pā ana ki tērā kaupapa i rangahau i ngā tūkinotanga a te Kāwanatanga ki runga i a koutou o Tauranga Moana.

Anei te kōrero a tōku tupuna, a Tau Henare. Hei tāna, “Ko ngā kino o te Kāwanatanga anō nei he waikura; ka kore e moe, ka kore e mutu.” Ne? Ka waiho atu au i tēnā kōrero ki runga i a tātou katoa i te rā nei. Nā ko taua tau rā, anā, ko te 1927. Anā, anga mai ki tēnei wā tonu, te tūnga mai o tana mokopuna tuarua ki roto i tēnei Whare, kua kitea kei te pērā tonu. E tika ana wāna kōrero ki tēnei Whare, otirā ki te katoa i taua taima, i te tau 1927.

Nō reira e aku rangatira, tēnā, kua kōkirihia nā koutou i tēnei kaupapa kia ūngutungutu i ngā ō ngotongoto kia pakari ai ngā hapū katoa o Ngāti Ranginui ki roto i ngā tau maha kei mua i a koutou.

Koinā tāku e hari nei; koinā tāku e pōuri nei. E pōuri nei. Kua rongo atu koutou katoa ki te āhuatanga o ētahi o ngā kōrero kei roto i tēnei Whare. E hoa, ko te mahi a wētahi hei wāwāhi i ngā take Māori kia noho ki tēnei pouaka, ki tērā pouaka. Engari o te ao o te Māori, e tika ana te kōrero, anā, ko ngā kokonga o te whare ka kitea, engari ko ngā kokonga o te ngākau ka kore e kitea. Nā i te rā nei kua rongo koutou i te ngākau o ētahi o mātou e hāngai pū atu ana ki ngā kaupapa e kōkirihia nei e te Whare i te rā nei, anā ko tā koutou take kei mua i te aroaro o te Kāwanatanga.

Kei te kapo ake au i ētahi o ngā kupu i rangona e māua ko taringa i te ata nei. Anā ko te kī a tōku tuakana, a Te Pio i te rahi i tae mai ki mua i te aroaro o Te Ātiawa i te ata nei, me tana hiahia mā tēnei Whare ētahi mahi hei whakaohooho ake i a tāua te Māori, hei whakaihiihi ake i ā tātou rangatahi, i ā tātou tamariki mokopuna.

Heoi anō ka tūohu tēnei Ngāpuhi ki mua i a koutou, me te kī atu e ngā hapū katoa o Ngāti Ranginui, e hoa, ko koutou kē ēnā i whakaohooho nei i a au, whakaihiihi nei i a au. Kia tiro atu anō au ki roto i a au anō o Te Tai Tokerau kei te anga pēhea mātou ki hea? Nā, koutou tēnā i takahi nei i tēnei huarahi, para nei i tēnei huarahi mai i te wā o ō tātou mātua tūpuna tae noa ki tēnei wā. E kara e Te Pio, e mihi atu ana ki a koe me ō kōrero hei whakaaweawe, hei whakaohooho ake i a tāua te Māori ki ngā mahi nui kei mua i te aroaro o tēnā iwi, o tēnā iwi, o ngā hapū katoa o Ngāti Ranginui i te rā nei.

Nō reira e ōku rangatira, kua kite atu ahau i te āhuatanga o ētahi o ngā wāwāhitanga ki roto i te pire, me taku hari kua whakahokia atu ngā wāhi whenua ki a koutou.

I rangona e māua ko taringa i te rā nei te kōrero a tōku matua, a te Hōnore a Shane Jones, e pā ana ki te whenua rā, i tau te pakanga ki runga o Pukehinahina, me tana tono mai ki tēnei taha o te Whare, anā ko ngā mema matua, ngā mema teitei o tēnei taha o te Whare hei tautoko atu i ngā whāinga o koutou, me tana tautoko ake i te kaupapa o Pukehinahina.

E te Whare, i kō atu i te 10 tau ki muri, ko au te heamana o te kaupapa Homai He Rā. Ko au te heamana i kōkiri i ngā take katoa e pā ana ki ngā wāhi pakanga i te wā o ō tātou mātua, ō tātou tūpuna. I taua wā tonu ko au te heamana o te pā pakanga, a Ruapekapeka, i Te Taitokerau. Anā, i noho tahi mātou katoa ko koutou, te hunga o Ōrākau, o Pukehinahina me ngā wāhi huri, huri noa i te motu whānui.

I reira mātou, ka kōkirihia te kaupapa, me te kōrero, āe, me tautoko tonu te whakahokinga mai o te whenua, ka tahi. Me te whakapakari ake, me te hahu ake anō i ngā kōrero a ō tātou mātua tūpuna, ka rua. Anā me ū tonu ki te tapu me te mauri o aua wāhi mō ā tātou mokopuna tamariki ā taihoa ake nei. Koia ko ngā whāinga i taua wā, arā, koia ko ngā whāinga tonu i tēnei wā.

Nō reira kia kapo ake ahau i ngā kōrero a taku pāpā, a Shane Jones, arā ki tō tātou Whare me te wero mō te āhuatanga ki a Pukehinahina.

Kāti e aku rangatira, kua roa rawa tā koutou hūnuku mai i te nukuroa kia tau iho mai ki runga ki tēnei Whare, kāre e kore he nui tonu ngā mahi kei mua i ō koutou aroaro hei oranga mō ā tātou tamariki mokopuna ā taihoa ake nei. Engari kei te tika ngā kōrero a ētahi o mātou o tēnei Whare.

Mō te āhuatanga ki te Tiriti o Waitangi, ka kore e oti noa, ka kore e pau i te wera o te rā, engari ka ū tonu ki te ngākau me te whatumanawa o tēnā, o tēnā o koutou; o tēnā, o tēnā o tātou. Nō reira me pērā tonu ka tika.

Ka mutu ka tiro atu ahau ki te toenga o taku taima, nā kua kōrero atu ahau mō te āhuatanga ki te kāmeta: ka kitea ki tērā taha o te Whare, engari ka kore e kitea ki tēnei taha o te Whare. Kei te mōhio a Turi ki taku whakapapa ki a koutou. Tēnā pea ko te huarahi tika kia tīkina atu e Peeni tētahi kāmeta mōku, anā ki roto i taku poraka whenua kei roto i te ingoa o tōku tupuna, a Tāpeka, mō āna hea kei roto i ngā poraka whenua kei roto i a koutou.

Tēnā pea te huarahi tika kia tīkina atu e au taku kāmeta hei kawenga ki roto i tēnei Whare me ngā kaupapa maha huri, huri noa.

Kāti, e aku rangatira, me pēnei pea taku kōrero whakamutunga ki a tātou katoa i te rā nei: ko ēnei kōrero ka whakairihia ake rā ki te tāhuhu kōrero o Ranginui e tū nei, ka poupoua ki roto i a Papatūānuku e whārikihia nei. Ka tirohia ki ngā pae maunga, ki ngā awa whakatere taniwha, ki ngā awa me ngā tapuwae a ō tātou mātua tūpuna hei paraninga ki te rae mō te hunga o nāianei me te hunga o āpōpō. Ka whītikina ki te ora, ka whītikina ki te oranga tonutanga o tāua te iwi Māori, o ngā hapū maha o Ngāti Ranginui.

Turuturu ōwhitiwhiti, whakamaua kia tina. Haumi e, hui e, tāiki e.

[Well, to the House, my senior Charlie and my uncle Tāmati have already opened the genealogies that bind my people of Northland to you, Ngāti Ranginui. Therefore I greet you, indeed all of us that have arrived here on the item that has brought us all together today.

I turn to you, my uncle Turi. We should grieve for your father, for Kihi, who journeyed across the land to my people, to Northland, for a long time. And his statement to my iwi, to my people, “Hold fast to the self-determination of the hapū. Look to the advantages of each family so that the hapū may stand strong in the endeavours before you.”

To my uncle Kihi, return in spirit to these discussions. To my senior Frank, condolences and tears flow to your father, to Huikākahu. To those who progressed this initiative for so many years past, those who pushed through the anguish and progressed the words of our forebears and ancestors so they are not relegated to the memory banks, so that they remain in motion across the front of mind of each of us here.

And so, to the souls of the departed, rest in peace.

Let the focus of my statements now return to us and our work, people.

As I researched the information regarding this subject, not for the passage of the claim in recent years past, but my research efforts within the time of my ancestor Tau Henare. Now, in 1927, the report was produced that was known as the Sim inquiry. Now, at that time my ancestor, Tau Henare, was a member of this House. My ancestor stood to speak on that initiative to research the abuses of the Government on you, Tauranga Moana.

Here is the speech of my ancestor Tau Henare. According to him, “The evils of the Government are like rust; they don’t sleep, they don’t end.” Right? I will leave that statement for all of us today. That was on that day—i.e., in 1927. Now we address this particular time, and the rising of his great-grandchild in this House, it can be seen that things are just the same. His comment to this House is true, indeed for all of that time, in 1927.

And so, to my noble leaders, you have progressed this work so that delectable fruits may cascade to strengthen all the hapū of Ngāti Ranginui over the many years before you.

That is what pleases me; that is also what saddens me. Saddens me. You have all heard the nature of some of the comments within this House. My friend, what some would do is split off the various Māori issues to sit within this box and that box. But the world of the Māori, the statement is true—i.e., the corners of the house can be seen, but the corners of the heart are never seen. And so today you have felt the heart of some of us regarding the work being progressed by the House today, and your issue that is before the Government.

I will take some of the words that my ear and I heard this morning. That is the comment of my senior, of Te Pio, when many of you arrived before Te Ātiawa this morning, and his desire that this House might endeavour to rouse us, the Māori people, and energise our young people, our children and grandchildren.

However, this Ngāpuhi bows before you, and says to all hapū of Ngāti Ranginui, my friend, you indeed are the ones that rouse me, and that energise me. Let me take a look at myself, at Northland, where are we heading to? Well it has been you that walked this path, and that blazed this path since the time of our forebears and ancestors right up until this time. My friend Te Pio, I acknowledge you and your comments that inspire and arouse us, the Māori people, for the great endeavours before each of the iwi and all of the hapū of Ngāti Ranginui today.

And so, my noble leaders, I have seen the nature of some of the sections within the bill, and I am happy that land assets have been returned to you.

My ear and I heard today the speech of my uncle the Hon Shane Jones regarding that land, where war came to Gate Pā, and his appeal to this side of the House—i.e., the senior members, the prominent members of this side of the House to support your aspirations, and his support of the initiative of Pukehinahina.

To the House, over 10 years ago, I was the chairperson of initiative Homai He Rā. I was the chairperson that progressed all of the issues regarding the battle site in the time of our forebears and ancestors. At that particular time, I was the chairperson for the battle fortress Ruapekapeka, in Northland. Now, we sat together with you, the people of Ōrākau and Pukehinahina and similar sites all across the country.

There we were, progressing the initiative, and discussing, yes, and supporting the return of land, in the first instance. And also strengthening and resurrecting the narratives of our forebears and ancestors, in the second instance. And also maintaining the sanctity and life force of those places for our grandchildren and children in the future. Those were the goals at that time—i.e., those remain the goals at this time.

Therefore, I take the statements of my uncle Shane Jones—i.e., to our House and the challenge with respect to Gate Pā.

Well, noble leaders, you have been traversing the length of the land for a long time now to come to this House, without doubt there is much to be done before you for the benefit of our children and grandchildren to come. However, the statements of some of us of this House are true.

With regard to the Treaty of Waitangi, it will never truly end, it will not be burnt up in the heat of the sun, but it will remain in the heart and soul of each of you, of each of us. And so it is appropriate that it be so.

Furthermore, as I look to the remainder of my time, I have spoken about the factors surrounding the scarf; it can be seen on that side of the House, but it can’t be seen on this side of the House. Turi knows my genealogy to you. Perhaps the right pathway for Peeni to access a scarf for me, now, is through my land block in the name of my ancestor, Tāpeka, and his shares in the land block amongst you.

Perhaps that is the right pathway for me to access my scarf to carry within this House and the many initiatives surrounding it.

Well, my leaders, perhaps my closing statement to all of us this day should be this: these are the discussions that will be suspended on the apex ridge of heaven above, and embedded within the earth spread out below. Look to the mountain ranges, to the rivers of our spiritual guardians, to the rivers and the footsteps of our ancestors and forebears to be immortalised in memory for those of today and those of tomorrow. To be bound by wellbeing, to be bound by eternal health of us, the Māori people, and the many hapū of Ngāti Ranginui.

Let it be realised, let it transcend, and be bound tight. It coalesces, it assembles, it is done.]

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I look up to my friends in the gallery and I reassure you that I’m the last speaker. I’m the last politician you’re going to have to hear from today, talking before we actually see the action. And so I say: thank you so much for sitting in the gallery for the last nearly three hours, listening to the debate, speaking about your home, what this means, what it means for you going forward. So I say: thank you so much for putting up with all of us and coming to spend time with us, and I’m the lucky last. I hope they’ve saved the best till last, but you’ll be the judge of that—you’ll be the judge of that.

I do rise to speak on the Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Ranginui Claims Settlement Bill, now at its third and final reading. I just want to quickly thank Neil Te Kani, who is watching from Tauranga and sent me a text and thanked me for my speech in the second reading. And I say thank you to Neil because I wear a pounamu every day that he gave to me and blessed for me. So thank you, Neil, for doing that on my behalf.

It’s a privilege to witness this momentous occasion, the culmination of a journey that began long before this legislation was first introduced nearly a decade ago. In my speech during the second reading, I outlined the history of this bill and the significance of the settlement for Ngāti Ranginui. Today, as we prepare to pass this legislation into law, I want to reflect on what it means for our region and for New Zealand.

First, I wish to acknowledge once more the representatives of Ngāti Ranginui who have journeyed to be with us today, and those who have worked tirelessly throughout this lengthy process. Your patience, persistence, and commitment to your people has brought us to this moment. The settlement we are finalising today addresses historical injustices that have shaped our region for generations. The raupatu of 1864, the undermining of hapū authority, and the systematic alienation of land—these actions by the Crown violated the Treaty of Waitangi and created wounds that have endured across generations.

As the bill completes its passage through Parliament, we’re not just transferring assets or making financial redress; we’re acknowledging the truth, restoring mana, and creating opportunities for genuine healing and development. For the 14,928 people who affiliate to Ngāti Ranginui, more than half who are under the age of 30, the settlement represents not just closure for historical grievances but a platform for future aspirations. The $38 million redress, the return of culturally significant sites, and the establishment of meaningful relationships with Crown agencies will establish Ngāti Ranginui to build on their vision for cultural revitalisation and economic development.

Throughout the progress of this bill, I’ve been heartened by the spirit of kotahitanga, demonstrated by all involved. The agreement of Ngāi Te Rangi and Ngāti Pūkenga to allow the settlement to proceed independently speaks to the mutual respect and the understanding among the iwi of Tauranga Moana. The unanimous support from the Māori Affairs Committee and the broad cross-party backing for this legislation reminds us that Treaty settlements transcend political divisions. When we work together to address historical injustices, we strengthen the foundations of our nation.

With the passage of this bill, the Crown’s formal apology will be enshrined in law, acknowledging the specific breaches of the Treaty and expressing genuine remorse for the suffering caused. As one of the Bay of Plenty MPs, I’ve witnessed the profound impact that unresolved Treaty claims have had on our communities. The finalisation of this settlement removes a significant barrier to progress and creates space for new opportunities. I’m particularly excited about what this means for the hapū of Ngāti Ranginui, and others, who have maintained their strength despite generations of challenges. The settlement provides tools and resources to support their cultural, social, and economic aspirations.

While this settlement marks the end of a long legal process, it truly is a beginning. It establishes a foundation for the future relationship between the Crown and Ngāti Ranginui, one based on partnership, respect, and shared prosperity. As we conclude the legislative process, I acknowledge those who have contributed to bringing this settlement to fruition: the negotiators, the trustees, Crown officials, parliamentarians past and present, and the many community members who have supported this journey.

The settlement is a testament to the enduring strength and vision of Ngāti Ranginui. It’s also a reminder of our collective responsibility to honour the Treaty of Waitangi and to build a more just and equitable New Zealand. It’s with great pride that I support the third and final reading of the Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Ranginui Claims Settlement Bill. May it serve as another step towards healing, reconciliation, and shared prosperity for all New Zealanders. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Waiata—“E rongo”

Haka—“Te haka o Ranginui”

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): The House is suspended, and will resume at 2 p.m.

The House adjourned at 12.58 p.m. (Thursday)