Tuesday, 4 November 2025

TUESDAY, 4 NOVEMBER 2025

TUESDAY, 4 NOVEMBER 2025

The Deputy Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Karakia/Prayers

Karakia/Prayers

MAUREEN PUGH (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 peace and welfare of New Zealand. Amen.

Amended Answers to Oral Questions

Question No. 1 to Minister, 23 October

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Deputy Prime Minister): Madam Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation to correct an answer.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is not.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: On Thursday, in an answer to an oral question, I said I’d been advised that only one breakdown had delayed a fire truck arriving at a job. I’ve subsequently received an apology from Fire and Emergency New Zealand that that information was based on a miscommunication. I’d like to withdraw that statement.

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

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

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

CLERK:

Petition of Sam Troth on behalf of The Road to Healing Aotearoa requesting that the House implement a minimum sentence of eight years for sexual offending

petition of Stephen Lincoln requesting that the House urge the Government to advocate that an ultimatum be given to the Israeli Government to stop the genocide in Gaza and the West Bank to allow UN aid back into Gaza and to negotiate the release of all captives

petition of Aaron Livingston requesting that the House urge the Government to change New Zealand's foreign policy from supporting a two-State solution in Israel and Palestine to supporting only Israel's sovereignty and recognising Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Those petitions stand referred to the Petitions Committee. Ministers have delivered 16 papers.

CLERK:

Government response to the petition of Laura Daniela Vargas Salas

report of the Petitions Committee on the petition of Miryam Denny

2024-25 annual reports for

Antarctica New Zealand

Criminal Cases Review Commission

Law Commission

Māori Language Commission

Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission

New Zealand Green Investment Finance Limited

New Zealand Lotteries Commission

New Zealand Police

Public Trust

2025-29 statement of intent for the

Māori Language Commission

Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission

2025-26 statement of performance expectations for the:

Māori Language Commission

Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission

Ministry for the Environment’s 2025 Report on Reasons for Difference between Prescribed NZ ETS Limits and Price Control Settings for Units and the Climate Change Commission’s Advice on these Settings.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Those papers are published under the authority of the House. Fourteen select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.

CLERK:

Reports of the Education and Workforce Committee on the

Education and Training (Early Childhood Education Reform) Amendment Bill

Employment Relations (Termination of Employment by Agreement) Amendment Bill

reports of the Environment Committee on the

briefing on the Climate Change Commission’s reports and upcoming work programme

report of the Controller and Auditor-General, Managing conflicts of interest in the Fast-track Approvals process

reports of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, Estimate of environmental expenditure, 2022/23, Estimate of environmental expenditure, 2023/24, and Estimate of environmental expenditure, 2024/25

report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the Overseas Investment (National Interest Test and Other Matters) Amendment Bill

report of the Māori Affairs Committee on the Ngāti Hāua Claims Settlement Bill

reports of the Petitions Committee on the:

petition of Ann Chapman: Amend the HART Act to allow more flexible time frames for embryo/gamete storage

petition of Brian Webb: Adjust jury fees to align with the minimum wage

petition of Helen Duyvestyn: Micronutrient supplements for people with mental health disorders

petition of Liam Roach: Introduce a study wage for all tertiary students

petition of Robyn Cain: Remove all court and legal costs to ensure free access to justice for all

petition of Theresa Zame: Amend the Therapeutic Products Bill to allow importation of medication

report of the Primary Production Committee on the Valuers Bill and report of the Attorney-General under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 on the Valuers Bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The bills are set down for second reading. The briefing and reports are set down for consideration. The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of bills.

CLERK:

Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu Claims Settlement Bill, introduction

Fast-track Approvals Amendment Bill, introduction.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Those bills are set down for first reading.

Points of Order

Oral Questions—Amended Answers

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition): Point of order, Madam Speaker. Thank you, Madam Speaker. When Ministers give incorrect information in answers to oral questions, there is an onus on them coming back to the House and doing what David Seymour has just done and stating that they gave incorrect information, but there is also an onus on them to provide the correct information.

David Seymour has just made it clear to the House that he provided incorrect information, but he hasn’t done the second part of that, which is to discharge his responsibility for correcting incorrect information; it is to provide what the correct information actually is. So he has indicated that the Fire Service were disrupted more than once by having faulty equipment in responding to calls, but he hasn’t told us how many times.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. Does the Minister have the answer on hand? If not, the possibility is either now or at the earliest opportunity.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Deputy Prime Minister): Well, I’m sorry, but the Leader of the Opposition’s assertion is incorrect. You do have an obligation to address questions, which I did at the time, and to correct any incorrect information, which I have. There’s no further obligation.

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition): Point of order, Madam Speaker. David Seymour sought leave to correct an answer, and on that basis, the House unanimously gave him leave to do so. He didn’t seek leave to withdraw information; he sought leave to correct information. He has not done that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: So the advice I have is that if the Minister knows the answer, he should give it to the House, and if he doesn’t, he should give it to the House as soon as possible.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Deputy Prime Minister): Well, with the greatest of respect, the problem is that there may not always be an answer. Therefore, you can’t always be—that’s why you’re required to address the question; not answer it.

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition): Point of order, Madam Speaker. If the Minister does not know the answer, then how would he have corrected the answer? He must know the answer; therefore, he is obliged to tell the House what the answer is, given that the previous answer he gave was incorrect.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Deputy Prime Minister): I just really hope that this is not how Labour Party logic works every day, because the simple fact is that while the statement made has been advised—[Interruption]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Quiet—the Minister is speaking.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: —to be incorrect, that does not mean that a correct answer is available. It may be that the answer given was simply erroneous. That’s why it has being withdrawn, and with the incorrect part removed, the answer is now correct.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Minister is saying that he doesn’t have an answer available—

Hon David Seymour: You guys are simple.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: —so, yeah.

Hon David Seymour: Simple, simple.

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition): Point of order, Madam Speaker. That isn’t what he’s saying; he appears to be saying he’s not willing to give it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, that’s not what I heard. I heard him say—

Hon David Seymour: Simple, simple man.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: —there wasn’t an answer available. That is what he just said to the House.

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition): So, a further point of order, Madam Speaker. If it, therefore, becomes clear that David Seymour has been advised what the number is and he has chosen not to give that information to the House, will he still be in breach of the House, as he would have been had he not corrected it?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Deputy Prime Minister): Speaking to the point of order, maybe I can help the member out. I’ve been advised that a number is not currently available, so therefore it’s not possible to answer the question—which is what I’ve been trying to get through to the simple man over there this whole time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yeah, that’s fine. There’s currently—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: A further point of order, Madam Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’m accepting that there’s not currently an answer available that the Minister has at this point in time—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Yep, I’m accepting that, too.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That’s what he said.

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition): You’ll note that this is a serious matter, where a Minister has to seek leave to correct an answer in order to not breach the privileges of the House. I have raised the issue with you correctly and appropriately.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes.

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I haven’t insulted the Minister.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No.

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Multiple times in his answers to that, he chose to insult me and attack me in breach of the rules of the House. What would the consequence of that be for him?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Look, I will follow up and have a look at the Hansard because I didn’t pick up insult. I know there was a bit of to-ing and fro-ing coming from the Minister, but I didn’t pick up the insult, and so I will look at the Hansard and I will come back to you.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Prime Minister

1. 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: If the economy has turned the corner, as he’s repeatedly claimed, why have record numbers of New Zealanders been applying for KiwiSaver hardship withdrawals in the past 12 months?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, as I’ve explained to the member before, it’s no doubt been a very challenging time for the New Zealand economy. The previous Government drove up spending, inflation, interest rates, put the economy into recession, and people lose their jobs as a consequence of that. But there are good signs. It’s good to see that job ads are up 3.5 percent. It’s good to see that building consents are up 12 percent just in the last quarter.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Is he aware that under his leadership, hardship withdrawals from KiwiSaver have outnumbered first-home withdrawals from KiwiSaver month after month, when previously it only happened once in 10 years?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, as I said to the member in my answer to his first question, it has been a difficult time for the New Zealand economy. We inherited a recession that was probably the worst in 35 years. There was a long COVID hangover, thanks to the previous Government being the second biggest spending Government in the Western world—spending $66 billion that no one seems to know where it went to. The reality, though, is that things are getting better: exports are up 4 percent; interest rates are down 300 basis points.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Has increasing the cost of doctors visits, home insurance, public transport, car registration, the price of going to a pharmacy, and student loans during a cost of living crisis made things better or worse for everyday kiwi families?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I acknowledge that many of those things that drive inflation, and particularly electricity but also, most importantly, council rates—that member opposes council rates. If he wanted to tackle that problem, he would come on board with the Government’s initiative to put a cap on rates.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Is the Government considering a law change to ban homeless people from central business districts; if so, why?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Our Government’s doing everything we can to support people who are in homeless situations, and that’s why you’ve seen 300 more places made available through Housing First. A hundred of those 300 homes and accommodation have already been built; 200 in Auckland. But, of course, our Government, our Ministers, will work with lots of people to see what we can do.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Madam Speaker. It was a very straight forward question: is the Government considering a law change to ban homeless people from central business districts, if so; why? I didn’t ask the Prime Minister, what does he think about homelessness; I asked him specifically whether they’re considering a change to the law to ban homeless people from CBDs.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Prime Minister did say that the Government will do what they can. I would like to know if the Prime Minister could elaborate on that to answer that specific part of the question.

Rt Hon Christopher Luxon: I’m quite comfortable I’ve answered one of those legs of those two legs in that question.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Is the Government considering a law change to ban homeless people from central business districts?

Rt Hon Christopher Luxon: There have been no Cabinet decisions or discussion on that topic.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Has the Cabinet discussed a law change to ban homeless people from central business districts?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: In answer to the answer I just gave the member for his last question: no.

Chlöe Swarbrick: When, if ever, will the Prime Minister finally respond to my many invitations to walk the streets of Auckland Central and meet the people, including the children, who his Government’s policies have made homeless?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, no disrespect to the member, but when she was part of a Labour-Greens Government and had one of her members as the minister for homelessness we saw a billion dollars spent on emergency housing and a 37 percent increase in homelessness. This Government’s record on housing I would line up against Labour, Greens, Te Pāti Māori any day of the week. The great Labour Prime Ministers of their era must be rolling in their grave with the legacy of Labour—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: OK, that’s enough.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: If booting people out of emergency accommodation has fixed the homelessness problem, why is the Government now considering changing the law to ban homeless people?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I reject the characterisation of that question, because here’s the deal on housing: this Government has delivered housing affordability for people who want to purchase a house or to rent a house. This is the Government that took 6,000 people off the State house wait-list while that member increased fourfold over six years. This is the Government that took 3,200 households out of emergency housing. This is the Government that is doing a lot to help homeless support. [Interruption]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Quiet, please. Is this a supplementary question? Minister Jones.

Hon Shane Jones: To the Prime Minister: is the Prime Minister aware that a capital gains tax leads to complications, complexity, and administrative dead weight?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It’s not—well, it is relevant to the lead question, so I’ll let the Prime Minister answer that.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I thank the member for raising that issue, because I’m saying taxing Kiwis and their houses and their KiwiSaver accounts is not the way forward to help people with the cost of living. It’s just adding cost, adding tax. On this side of the House, we believe in low taxes, we believe in backing people who want to make something happen, not taxing everybody in sight.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Question number—quiet during questions, please.

Question No. 2—Finance

2. CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour) to the Minister of Finance: What is the Government’s revenue strategy?

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Revenue) on behalf of the Minister of Finance: A revenue strategy is required by the Public Finance Act. The current Government strategy, part of the 2025 Fiscal Strategy Report, states that a good tax system is one that, among other things, “finances public expenditure in a fair and efficient way”, “encourages effort and investment”, and “has low compliance and administrative costs”. It goes on to say, “The Government will operate a stable, predictable revenue system”, and it adds that the Government “is committed to public engagement in the design of tax policy”.

Cameron Brewer: What does the strategy say about future revenue and expenses?

Hon SIMON WATTS: On behalf of the Minister of Finance, the strategy recognises that Government spending is currently greater than revenue, meaning the operating balance is in deficit. Revenue and spending need to be brought back into balance. Crucially, the strategy states, “Spending restraint is the Government’s primary lever for achieving these goals. With prudent control of spending, the Government does not intend to seek”—nor does it need to seek—“major additional sources of revenue.” I would also note that a tax increase, announced alongside spending increases that it matches dollar for dollar, does absolutely nothing to improve the operating deficit or Government debt.

Cameron Brewer: What has the Government done to encourage effort and investment through the tax system?

Hon SIMON WATTS: On behalf of the Minister of Finance, in last year’s Budget the Government increased personal income tax thresholds. These had not been adjusted in the previous 14 years, despite significant wage growth. We also increased the in-work tax credit, which helps low- and middle-income working families with children, and expanded eligibility for the independent earner tax credit. Working people in this country now get to keep more of the money that they work so hard to earn. That is reward for effort, and it is delivered within tight Budget operating allowances. An estimated 727,000 households benefit by at least $75 a fortnight, and members opposite voted against it.

Cameron Brewer: What—[Interruption]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Quiet during questions, please.

Cameron Brewer: What else has the Government done to encourage effort and investment through the tax system?

Hon SIMON WATTS: On behalf of the Minister of Finance, study after study has identified that, compared to other countries, New Zealand has a low level of capital investment per worker. To raise productivity, lift incomes, and drive long-term economic growth, New Zealand needs businesses, big and small, to invest in machinery, tools, equipment, technology, vehicles, industrial buildings, and other capital assets. In this year’s Budget, the Government launched Investment Boost, a tax incentive for New Zealand businesses to make these sorts of capital investment. As a consequence of this policy, we expect to see a lift in New Zealand’s capital stock, a lift in GDP, and a lift in wages, again delivered within tight Budget operating allowances, and again opposed by members on that side of the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That answer was quite long enough. I’d like them to be a bit briefer, please.

Cameron Brewer: What sort of tax would be ruled out by the Government’s revenue strategy?

Hon SIMON WATTS: Well, on behalf of the Minister of Finance, it would be one that, according to an Australian expert report—and I quote—“is a tax which in any administrative form must be complex and difficult and produce some abnormalities and inequalities of its own. There is no doubt whatsoever that any revenue it raises could be more cheaply and easily raised in other ways.” In addition, if that tax discouraged effort and investment, such as an investment in small-business premises, and if it gave preferential treatment to certain groups—for example, people that inherit—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Right, I think that’s a long enough answer. Thank you.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Madam Speaker?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sorry, is this a supplementary or a point of order?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: It’s a supplementary, because this is supplementary time. Can I ask the Minister: looking around the world, is there any comparative equality in terms of the policy advocated by the Labour Party when it comes to the question of capital gains tax? Is there any example, anywhere in the world—

Hon Willie Jackson: What a dumb question.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, it’s only dumb if you don’t understand tax.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Quiet during questions, please.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: This is not mirror time for Willie; this is time when you pay attention.

Hon Willie Jackson: Oh, get to the question.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: With the greatest respect, this guy could take some education about taxation.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. With respect, the question should have been ruled out by now. The minute the Minister asked his colleague for opinions on a Labour Party policy, that was out of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The reason the question hasn’t been ruled out by now is that there is a lot of noise coming during supplementary questions. I’d like the Rt Hon Winston Peters to ask that question again, without referring to the Opposition, and ask the question straight to the Minister, and the Opposition will be quiet.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Having heard of a recent example of a limited capital gains tax, is there anywhere in the world where an economy has adopted that policy?

Hon SIMON WATTS: On behalf of the Minister of Finance, what I am clear about—and I’m not aware of other countries in the world that are looking to punish their citizens for success through taxation—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No—[Interruption] That’s not an answer. Sit down, please.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. Madam Speaker, you made it extremely clear to the member asking the question that it was not to be in reference to any other party’s policy. The Minister then, in response, completely ignored your clear guidance.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I cut the Minister off and asked him to sit down, because I could see what was happening there—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: He didn’t, though, did he?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, he did. I said, “That’s enough—finish off the answer,” and I asked him to sit down.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: With respect to tax policy, has the Minister heard the statement “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen”?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, that’s not a question, thank you. We’re going to move on to question No. 3.

Question No. 3—Prime Minister

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

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

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes.

Chlöe Swarbrick: What is the effective tax rate paid by the wealthiest 1 percent of New Zealanders, and why is it half the effective tax rate of the average hard-working New Zealander?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We have a progressive income tax system in New Zealand, and the more money you earn, the more tax you pay.

Chlöe Swarbrick: How is it fair that hard-working New Zealanders pay tax on every dollar they earn through income while the super wealthy passively accumulate more and more untaxed wealth without lifting a finger?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, in answer to the member’s first leg to that question: it’s somewhat ironic, because she and her party did not support basic tax relief for low- and middle-income working New Zealanders. It wasn’t ideological; it was a pretty simple up and down vote: do you lift the tax thresholds for low- and middle-income working New Zealanders? Labour, the Greens, and Te Pāti Māori all said no, because you do not care about working New Zealanders—period.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, Madam Speaker. Speakers’ rulings are quite clear that no Minister should bring parties that aren’t involved in the question into the fray, and that Minister—the Prime Minister—does it repeatedly and has been told by other presiding officers not to do it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yep, thank you. I’d ask the Prime Minister to refrain from doing it for the rest of the day.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Why does he think that, in the past three years, the average net worth of the wealthiest 20 percent in this country grew by 20 percent while the poorest 20 percent got poorer by 9 percent if not economic rules that are geared towards the benefit of the wealthiest?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: You asked me why—because there was something called a Labour-Greens Government—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No—[Interruption] I’d ask the member to ask that question again. That was a swing at the Opposition, and it wasn’t an answer to the question.

Hon David Seymour: Point of order! Madam Speaker, the member asked a question about a period of time during which, as the Prime Minister says, there was a Labour-Greens Government. I don’t see how that’s not a legitimate response to the question.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’m asking the member to ask the question again, please.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Why does the Prime Minister think that, in the past three years, the average net wealth of the wealthiest 20 percent grew by 20 percent while the poorest 20 percent in this country got 9 percent poorer if not because of an economic system that is geared to benefit the wealthy?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, because when a Government increases spending by 84 percent, and it drives up inflation to 7.3 percent, that then leads to higher interest rates—they went up 12 times—high interest rates puts an economy into recession, and people lose their jobs. The consequence of all of that is that working and middle-income New Zealanders got incredibly hurt and damaged.

Chlöe Swarbrick: So when does he expect his tax cuts and Public Service cuts to trickle down?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, the good news is that the economy is growing now in this quarter. We have job ads up. We have building consents up. We have exports up. We have interest rates down. We have inflation down. We have business confidence up eight points. We have farmer confidence at a good level. We’ve got Accor building hotels now—their 49th, going on to their 50th. We’ve got Port of Auckland and Freightways talking about good activity. Loan arrears are down. They’re all positive signs.

Chlöe Swarbrick: What is more important to the Prime Minister: allowing the wealthiest to amass hundreds of millions in untaxed wealth or properly funding our hospitals, our schools, our emergency services, and our infrastructure?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’m actually very proud that this is a Government that realised about $40 billion of inefficiency, deployed it to the front line, including almost $17 billion in healthcare in our first Budget and a further increase of 6 to 7 percent in our second Budget.

Hon Shane Jones: On the matter of Government actions, can the Prime Minister confirm that, by exempting a substantial number of companies from the onerous obligation of reporting mythical climate emissions, our economy will be better off for it?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Anything that lowers compliance and regulation and red tape and green tape is a good thing for New Zealand because we’ve got to get the show unblocked and get it moving. Again, I’d just say to the Opposition party, support our fast-track legislation and mining.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does the Prime Minister agree with the assertion from his Minister, just then, that climate emissions are “mythical”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: He didn’t make that assertion. He said climate reporting, that is adding huge amounts of cost and compliance to businesses, is a waste of time.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Point of order, Madam Speaker. We have demonstrable evidence, almost immediately, that the Minister said precisely that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, I do believe that the Minister did use the word “mythical” in his question—about climate reporting, though, wasn’t it? It was about climate reporting, right?

Chlöe Swarbrick: Madam Speaker, if I recall correctly, it was about reporting on “mythical climate emissions”.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Ok. So—

Hon Shane Jones: Speaking to the point of order! The mythology refers to the beliefs of the party across the road. They are the ones who introduced that policy. It is mythical because it’s disappeared.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Speaking to the point of order!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sorry, is this a point of order or a question?

Chlöe Swarbrick: I’m speaking to the point of order, in which I asked the Prime Minister a very straightforward question, whether he agreed with the assertion from one of his Ministers about whether climate changing emissions were mythical or not.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: And the Minister just clarified that the policy was now mythical because the policy was no longer in place. So, we’ve—

Chlöe Swarbrick: Madam Speaker!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: —so we’ve clarified that. No, is this a new question?

Chlöe Swarbrick: I guess I just have a question for the House about whether the truth matters anymore.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, this—[Interruption] OK. Order, please! Yes, the truth does matter, and we’re going to move on to question— [Interruption] Quiet, please!

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. Madam Speaker, the last question is utterly offensive to this House. It’s not within Standing Order or Speakers’ rulings, or any other procedure of the past—

Ricardo Menéndez March: You would know!

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Of course, I’d know! Far more than you, sunshine! And that’s why I’m raising this point of order. That member should be required to stand now and apologise to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No. No, we’re moving on.

Question No. 4—Finance

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I had to tell the Opposition to be quiet during questions before, and now I’m going to tell the Government members to be quiet during questions.

4. Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of Finance: Does she stand by her statement of July 2024 that “cost of living relief is on its way”; if so, why?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Associate Minister of Finance) on behalf of the Minister of Finance: Yes. The reason why is that the statement was made two days before personal income tax changes came into effect on 31 July 2024. The member might be aware that the next sentence goes on to say, “From Wednesday, [you’ll] be able to keep more of your hard-earned money to put towards things that are important to you, your children, your weekly shop, [and] paying your power bill.” Those changes, mostly to income tax thresholds and the in-work tax credit, made around 1.9 million New Zealand households better off, on average, by $60 a fortnight. Households with children were better off, on average, by $78 a fortnight. And it is strange that the member would ask about that particular quote, in this particular week, because there is now a clear choice between a Government that wants to spend carefully, reduce your tax burden, and let you succeed on your own terms, and an Opposition that wants to put their hands in your pocket with a creepy and creeping capital gains tax.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: How many families, therefore, lost money because of the tax changes which came into effect on the date the Minister just reported?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, the tax threshold increase meant that people were liable to pay less tax. So if there was any group that somehow paid more, then I guess you would point to them. But 1.9 million households were better off.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: How many families have received the full $250 tax cut that was promised by this Government?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: The fact is that that promise is a sliding scale: it is a range of relief that might be received. And the Opposition can spend as much time as they like pointing out that rather obvious fact, but the people back at home want to see a Government that spends their money as carefully as the people in it would spend their own, and is able to reduce taxes rather than putting new taxes in front of them that will take all sorts of things that they might not have expected, because they can’t trust “Chippy”.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: If the cost of living relief is on its way, why are KiwiSaver hardship withdrawals the highest they have been, more than double what it was this time two years ago?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, the voters, I believe, have a lot more intelligence than they’re sometimes given credit for by the Opposition. They can see that the conditions New Zealanders face in the economy today are caused by a combination of factors overseas, historic policies by the New Zealand Government, and the initiatives of the current Government. And when they look at the current Government, they see a Government that is carefully managing its spending, that is presiding over falling inflation and falling interest rates so that New Zealanders have more money in their pocket left at the end of the week. The voters can work it out; if only those people could.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Are families getting more, when 5,530 people made KiwiSaver hardship withdrawals in the month of September?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: It is clear that there are people having a tough time, and we feel for people that are in the position—

Hon Ginny Andersen: Do you? Really?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: —of drawing on their KiwiSaver. I’d just say to Ginny Andersen, who says, “Do you? Really?”, actually, yes.

Hon Ginny Andersen: I don’t think you do.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: When a person answers a question in the House—oh, Madam Speaker, point of order. She’s just said, “I don’t think you do.” Now, to say that a member is deliberately misleading the House—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think that—

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: —is a breach of order, and she—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That was an interjection going both ways, so carry on with the answer.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, no, I’m sorry, Madam Speaker, it is a breach of the Standing Orders to accuse another member of lying. She did it twice and repeatedly—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No. No—

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: —and she should be asked to withdraw and apologise.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, the member didn’t accuse the Minister of lying; she just said she thought he didn’t understand.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Who else is there to blame for her economic mismanagement, given her Government has blamed Labour, power companies, Fonterra, insurance companies, supermarkets, US tariffs, “merchants of misery”, teenagers, John Key, teachers, firefighters, doctors, nurses, local councils, and unions?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, there was a man once who was called Christian Cullen, and he was known for being fast on his feet. Barbara Edmonds is the opposite of Christian Cullen. She stomps through question time with her lead shoes, reading out the questions that had been written down before, not changing tack when anything else changes in question time. As I said in a previous answer, the voters have a lot more intelligence and perspective than they are given credit for by the Opposition. They can appreciate that a combination of historic Government policy, of events that have occurred overseas, and the current Government’s actions influence the conditions they face. And the current Government’s actions are to spend money carefully, to take pressure off inflation, to see interest rates coming down, to cut red tape, and to improve the prospects of New Zealanders. They can see that this Government is fixing what matters for them; these guys are out of touch

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does she stand by her statement that the Labour capital gains tax plan is a “terrible idea”?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That’s not related to the original question, thank you. Question No. 5—[Interruption] Quiet, please. Quiet!

Question No. 5—Biosecurity

5. CAMERON LUXTON (ACT) to the Minister for Biosecurity: What recent announcements has he made about strengthening the biosecurity system?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD (Minister for Biosecurity): Last week, I announced the Government’s plan for overhauling the Biosecurity Act, to safeguard New Zealand’s primary sector into the future. As an island, food-producing nation, our prosperity relies on protection from biosecurity threats. New Zealand exports $60 billion of food and fibre products each year, and our relative freedom from pests and diseases is a big part of our competitive advantage and underpins our primary sector. That’s why we’re modernising the Biosecurity Act with nearly 50 proposals for change that will strengthen protection against invasive pests and diseases.

Cameron Luxton: How could an invasive species or a disease that impacts animals have such a big impact on our economy?

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Oh, he’s really kicking the hornets’ nest now.

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: Yes, we’ll take care of them. The primary sector really is the backbone of our economy, but we cannot afford to be complacent. Diseases and invasive species can spread fast and wipe out entire sectors if they are not prevented at the border or detected early and managed properly. Economic analysis from the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research (NZIER) says a foot-and-mouth incursion would cost over $14 billion a year. That wouldn't just cost farmers; it would shut down our economy and permanently damage our international reputation and credibility. Our biosecurity system is strong, and we’re committed to maintaining a strong border and robust biosecurity systems.

Cameron Luxton: How will the biosecurity system at the border be strengthened?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: One of the things we will be doing is to introduce a new offence for not declaring high-risk goods, such as raw meat, at the border. This offence will attract a fine of $800, while low-risk goods not declared will stay at $400. Our relative freedom from pests and diseases is greatly valued by all Kiwis, and this will remind visitors that New Zealand takes biosecurity seriously. We cannot afford to put our primary sector and our natural environment at risk, and the best way to manage any biosecurity incursion is to stop it from happening in the first place.

Cameron Luxton: What changes have been made to import health standards?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: We’re improving New Zealand's import rules by making the development of import health standards more flexible and allowing risk assessments to be tailored to the scenario—for example, we will enable the ability to issue a one-off permit for goods where it wouldn't make sense to develop and maintain an import health standard. These changes are in addition to a new programme of work I announced this year, aimed at significantly reducing the time it takes to develop an import health standard. This will enable higher volumes of trade and, thus, give exporters greater access to new materials to develop innovative products without lowering our biosecurity standards.

Hon Shane Jones: On the matter of pests, can the Minister confirm: what is the status of the invasive Portuguese millipede—otherwise known as Ommatoiulus moreleti—and whether or not it has crept across to the other side of the House?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Does the Minister wish to answer the first part of this question? I have no understanding of what that species is.

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: I believe in terms of where you've got a pest at a regional level, the regional council does take precedence. But yes, we will be looking to equip biosecurity with lots of flamethrowers, to try and remove that and spiders.

Question No. 6—Health

6. SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga) to the Minister of Health: What actions is the Government taking to increase vaccination rates?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health): Our Government is taking the current measles outbreak very seriously. Cases are now confirmed across multiple regions, and the risk of continued transmission is high. That’s why, this week, Health New Zealand launched a nationwide Measles Immunisation Week, to highlight the need for Kiwis to get immunised. Measles is a serious disease. In the 2019 outbreak, one in three people who contracted measles needed hospital care. That’s why Health New Zealand is running pop-up clinics, tracing contacts, and supporting families to lift our vaccination coverage—to stamp out the measles outbreak and to prevent the wider impacts of this disease on our schools, our health system, society, and the economy.

Sam Uffindell: What steps has the Government taken to reduce the impact of serious diseases, like measles?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: We have reinstated the health target for immunisation. After years of decline, our latest quarterly health target results show that 82 percent of children were now fully immunised by age two, up from 76.5 percent at 30 June last year, representing the largest annual gain across all of our health targets. This shows that our focus on targets is working. Whilst this is a significant increase, though, there is still much more work to be done. Health New Zealand is working with providers to make it easier for people to get their MMR vaccines and other vaccines, including through extra and pop-up clinics, to prevent the outbreak from worsening.

Sam Uffindell: Why is it important to increase the MMR vaccination rate?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Measles is one of the most infectious viruses in the world. One case can infect 12 to 18 unvaccinated people. If you’re not immunised and you’re exposed, there’s a 90 percent chance that you will catch it. Vaccination is the single best way to protect families, prevent community spread, and take pressure off our hospitals, with two doses of the MMR vaccine providing about 99 percent protection. We need around 95 percent coverage to stop future outbreaks and to stamp out the current incursion. Over the last few years, rates fell; we are now turning that around, but there’s still more work to do.

Sam Uffindell: Why did the Government reintroduce the immunisation target?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Let’s be clear: we’re committed to giving every child the healthiest possible start to life. Targets matter because, ultimately, that helps to drive the system to ensure that we can reach the targets needed to prevent outbreaks such as what we are experiencing today. It also ensures that children get the protection they need when they need it. Whilst New Zealand’s overall vaccination rates have improved, there is still much more work to do. That’s why Health New Zealand is working with providers this week and all weeks—particularly this week with the Measles Immunisation Week—to drive up immunisation rates and to promote the need for immunisation so that we can act decisively to prevent this outbreak from spreading.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Is it correct that despite his Government’s performance against the target, the number of susceptible people is estimated to increase by a thousand a month and, therefore, the risk of an outbreak continues to grow irrespective of the target?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: I would say to that member that it is critically important that we focus on improving immunisation rates. I would point out what happened to immunisation rates under the previous six years, under the Labour Government, where they fell from around 92 percent of two-year-olds to around 75 percent of two-year-olds, due to the removal of the target. We have reintroduced the target. We are now focused on meeting it. We acknowledge that there’s a lot more work to do, and we’re focused on doing it.

Hon David Seymour: What approach is the Government taking to school attendance in the course of this outbreak, particularly during NCEA exams, and what advice has the director-general issued to schools, in relation to attendance and the outbreak?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: The Director-General of Health has provided very clear advice that school students should continue to attend schools and exams, unless they are identified as a close contact and aren’t immunised. It’s about making sure that we continue to get our children the education that they need. Ultimately, though, the very clear message is that whether it’s teachers or students, immunisation is the best protection against measles, and we’re encouraging everyone to take up that opportunity to get immunised. The latest data which I have just received shows that there was around 2,500 measles immunisations delivered yesterday—the highest number since 2019.

Question No. 7—Prime Minister

7. 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.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does the Prime Minister stand by his answer to the Greens in question time, December 2023, when he said, and I quote, “We’re not weakening our actions on climate change, we’re just going about it in a different way.”, when his Government has just announced weakening our methane targets by halving them?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I think we’ve been very clear about our position on methane targets. We have the best farmers in the world. We have the most carbon-efficient farmers in the world. The madness of the previous administration of sending production offshore to less carbon- and production-efficient countries makes global greenhouse gas emissions worse. We want to maintain our delivery of our commitments that we have. [Interruption]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Quiet during questions, please.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does the Prime Minister understand that Government policy which increases climate-changing emissions will ultimately increase New Zealanders’ cost of living?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We’re not going to drive our farmers offshore and shut down farming production in New Zealand. We are not here to punish our farmers. They are the best in the world. They are the most carbon efficient in the world and we back them to succeed out there in the real world.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the Prime Minister aware that for every Government action that increases emissions, we become more liable to pay billions of dollars offshore for other countries to reduce their emissions?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’m not punishing New Zealand farmers in any stretch of the imagination. These are the farmers that get up early each and every day. This is the farming sector that’s pulling New Zealand out of the recession that the Labour-Greens Government created. We are backing our farmers. We are not punishing our farmers. They do an outstanding job and we’ve got the right policy to help them.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Point of order. The question was specifically about our constructive liabilities under the Paris Agreement, which the Prime Minister should understand, and the fact that if we are not reducing our climate-changing emissions domestically, then we have liability to pay other countries to do that. He did not even address the question.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Does the Prime Minister want to expand, please, on the liability part of that question?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: This is a Government that is doing everything it can to meet its climate obligations, including Net Zero 2050, and, based off our latest emissions reduction plan, there’s a possibility we may even do it earlier.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Prime Minister, when you were answering that question, were you giving the answer to the Māori version or the English translation version, given that the latter is not an accurate translation of the former?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, can I just be unambiguous in either te reo or English that we are backing farmers, our policy is the right one, we’re going to make sure that we deliver on our commitments, but importantly, we are powering up this economy and we are all about economic growth.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I actually think that that wasn’t an actual question. The translation is not the Prime Minister’s responsibility; it’s part of the question.

Hon Shane Jones: Supplementary question?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is this a supplementary to question No. 7?

Hon Shane Jones: Yes. A question to the Prime Minister: is he aware that one of the most wealthiest men in New Zealand has abandoned the hyperbole and hysteria of climate change, in the form of Bill Gates?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What I’m aware of is that if you want to back climate change, you would support fast-track legislation, you’d support mining for critical earth minerals, you would support ending the oil and gas ban because, actually, that’s what’s needed in this country.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. Madam Speaker, the translation may be not the Prime Minister’s role or responsibility, but I asked the question as to what he was answering, the Māori version or the English version, and you thought that you’d dismiss it by saying, “Well, we all know that’s not his responsibility.” So let’s have this question: why aren’t you fulfilling your responsibility, and your staff, and getting it right in the first place?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, I’m not accepting that point of order. This is a translated question which has been on notice for today and it’s on the translation on various other days. The Prime Minister is well aware of what the question means and I’m moving on to question No. 8.

Question No. 8—Health

8. Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by his statement that “We want all New Zealanders to be able to see a GP when they need one”; if so, is it acceptable that almost one in six New Zealanders cannot afford to go to the doctor?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health): In the context it was made, yes. Our Government is committed to ensuring that all New Zealanders can access the care they need when they need it. To do this, we have delivered the biggest ever funding boost for GPs—$175 million this year alone—and allowed a fee increase of just 3 percent, keeping costs stable and predictable. We know that the biggest barrier for patients today is actually getting an appointment. In 2023-24, 25.7 percent of adults couldn’t see a GP due to wait times, up from 11.6 percent in 2021-22. That is why we are focused on affordability and accessibility. We’re extending prescriptions to 12 months where safe, saving patients up to $105 a year in GP fees; strengthening the primary care workforce; launching a 24/7 online GP care service for times when patients can’t see their regular GP; and we continue to target support through subsidised GP visits for community services card holders, and the Very Low Cost Access scheme. All of this is about putting patients first and making sure that every Kiwi can get in to see a doctor when they need to.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Will he help the tradie who said to me, “I don’t go to the doctor’s, because I can’t afford to; I earn $24 an hour.”; or is he not bothered by the fact that cost is preventing working people from seeing the doctor?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, as the member will be aware, there is the community services card scheme, which means that those people earning that amount of money are able to pay a maximum of $20 co-payment. Ultimately, that member’s policy is to put a capital gains tax on property, on commercial buildings, and on KiwiSaver so that people earning high incomes can go to the doctor for free.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Does he recognise that the cost of doctors visits is harming patients, like the woman who wrote to me that she self-treated her joint problem with anti-inflammatories because she couldn’t afford a $60 visit and ended up with hearing loss?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: What I’d say to that member is that the increased number of New Zealanders who could not access a GP appointment because they couldn’t get one went from 11 percent, under her watch, to 25 percent. The other point that she fails to actually mention is that the cost of GP fees went up by 30 percent under Labour. We’re focused on increasing accessibility and affordability, such as our policy of extending prescriptions, saving people with long-term conditions $105. I have not heard from the Labour Party whether they actually support that policy.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Is it fair that, under his Government, a woman with pneumonia has to chose between her own health and that of her diabetic husband because they can’t both afford to go to the doctor?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: As I said earlier, the cost of seeing a GP went up 30 percent under the Labour Party’s watch. We’re focused on improving accessibility and focused on improving affordability with policies such as extending prescriptions to 12 months. I am yet to hear from the Labour Party as to whether or not they support our policy of extending prescriptions up to 12 months. That would save people up to $105 per year in seeing a GP. I have not heard from the Labour Party whether or not they support that policy.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Is the 70-year-old grandmother with asthma, diabetes, and high blood pressure, who has cancelled her last three doctors appointments because she can’t afford it because of the $75 fee, getting the care she needs?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Patients with asthma, such as that grandmother, and such as me, require long-term prescriptions, and our policy will mean they won’t have to get repeat prescriptions, costing $105 per year, and they will be able to get a 12-month prescription. I am yet to hear whether or not the Labour Party supports that policy.

Question No. 9—Tourism and Hospitality

9. SUZE REDMAYNE (National—Rangitīkei) to the Minister for Tourism and Hospitality: What recent announcements has she made to support tourism in New Zealand?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Tourism and Hospitality): Recently, I’ve made two joint announcements that will bring more visitors to New Zealand and boost our economy. Over the weekend, Minister Potaka and I announced $10.8 million of funding to complete two sections on the Mountains to Sea great ride. These sections are among the last needed to complete the full trail from Mount Ruapehu to the Tasman Sea. Minister Stanford and I also announced that, as of yesterday, Chinese visitors are now able to travel visa-free from Australia to New Zealand. Tourism is a key part of our Government’s plan to grow the economy, and these announcements will help do just that.

Carl Bates: How will the cycle trail announcement support the regions?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: We know the benefits a thriving tourism and hospitality sector brings to our economy, supporting local regions and communities. Ready-to-go projects like the cycle trails will bring more visitors to the Ruapehu region and entice them to stay longer and boost the central North Island economy. Overseas tourists coming to New Zealand remain a key driver of regional growth, and we want them to experience our great rides. Our Government is fully committed to supporting the regions to thrive, including getting more visitors to every corner of New Zealand.

Suze Redmayne: Why are Chinese visitors important to New Zealand’s tourism market?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: China is New Zealand’s largest trading partner and our third largest source of international visitors. In the last year alone, we welcomed almost 250,000 Chinese visitors to our land. We also know that over 60 million Chinese travellers are actively considering a visit to New Zealand, and China will play a pivotal role in doubling New Zealand’s exports over the next 10 years. We’re committed to welcoming more Chinese visitors to New Zealand and strengthening the ties between our two countries.

Suze Redmayne: How will more international visitors support economic growth?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: By investing in tourism, we are creating opportunities for growth, as tourism supports one in 10 jobs in New Zealand and contributes $44 billion to our economy. Every time a tourist comes to New Zealand and spends money in a local shop, buys food in a local restaurant or cafe, and stays in our accommodation, it’s good for jobs, it’s great for growth, and it’s great for the incomes of New Zealanders. Our message is clear: New Zealand is open for business, and we welcome visitors anytime, anywhere, from any place.

Question No. 10—Social Development and Employment

10. Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does she agree with the Prime Minister’s statement regarding employment, “They do have jobs. Often what happens is the people will take a job, they don’t stick with it for longer than a couple of days, they don’t show up on time”; if not, why not?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Yes, I do agree with the Prime Minister’s comments that he made about young people. We know young people may need more support and training to be job ready. We have already made the welfare system more active and brought back rights and responsibilities with the traffic light system to help people stay on track. We are encouraging New Zealanders to be ready for work while also backing employers who need committed staff to grow their businesses and our economy.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Would the people of Tokoroa have more jobs right now if they had followed the Prime Minister’s advice and stuck with a job longer than a couple of days and showed up on time?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: On behalf of the people of Tokoroa, I find that member’s comments offensive. I know the local MP has spent time with them on Friday, supporting the community with job opportunities, with recruitment agencies, with on-the-ground support from the Ministry of Social Development and community organisations, and I find that member’s comments offensive.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’ve got a point of order from Kieran McAnulty, and we may be thinking the same thing, but make your point of order.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Madam Speaker, if a member finds a comment offensive, then the person who made it should be made to withdraw or apologise. In this instance, the person who made those comments is the Prime Minister; he should be made to withdraw and apologise.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, I think—

Hon Louise Upston: Speaking to the point of order!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Speaking to the point of order, I think the member was referring to the comments of—

Hon Louise Upston: I was, and speaking to the point of order, that member is speaking about a quote that has nothing to do with Tokoroa, and he might want to check his facts before raising it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’m going to say that I did not find the member’s statement, or question, offensive to the people of Tokoroa. I took it more that there have been some job losses over there, and the member may wish to clarify that, because it didn’t sound offensive to me.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Speaking to the point of order, the comment was made about young people. There are young people in Tokoroa who no longer have employment, and I wanted to know whether that related to them or not.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: OK, thank you. You can ask the next question.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Does she agree with the local people of Tokoroa who said that cutting their trade training capabilities right after so many job losses is just another kick in the guts; if not, why?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I would really encourage the member to get her facts straight. In terms of the Toi Ohomai Institute of Technology, the Minister responsible for vocational education has ensured that there is additional funding available for Toi Ohomai, both for the Tokoroa campus and for the Taupō campus, to ensure that training is available on the ground.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Why then did her Government force Toi Ohomai to cut jobs in trade training right after record job losses in the very same region?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I think the member is confusing a number of things, and as I said, she might want to get her facts straight about Toi Ohomai in the centre of the North Island and the campuses in Tokoroa and Taupō. The member of Parliament for Taupō has worked incredibly closely with the council and with businesses on the ground to ensure that there is training available. What I don’t think is particularly helpful, in this House, is to bring in the lives of a challenged group of locals who have lost their jobs recently. I feel for them and their families, and I don’t believe it is suitable for that member to be dragging them into this House with issues that are actually factually incorrect.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I believe the member’s asking questions on their behalf, rather than targeting her questions at them.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Does she agree with the Prime Minister’s statement that employers in the Hawke’s Bay are “crying out” for young people; if so, why are there 7,359 job seekers but only 568 advertised jobs in the Hawke’s Bay?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I would like to just encourage that member to realise that we are seeing some really positive signs. If you look at the increase recently in the online job advertisements, it shows that there are increased opportunities in construction and hospitality, of which there are jobs in the Hawke’s Bay. I would encourage members to look at where there are positive opportunities, instead of doubling down on those who have challenges.

Hon Todd McClay: Has the Minister seen media reports over the hard work of the member of Parliament for Taupō in working to ensure that Toi Ohomai’s campuses in Taupō and also in Tokoroa remain open and that they were facing significant changes that would have led to a lack of training locally in those communities, as a result of the significant wasteful spending of the last Government and a wasteful reorganisation?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Yes, I have seen reports of the work that the local member of Parliament has been doing on the ground with stakeholders, with the council, with Toi Ohomai, with the unions, with the community organisations, with other training providers, and with other polytechs—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: And that’s a long enough answer.

Rawiri Waititi: Point of order, Madam Speaker. Was she answering that question with the Pākehā translation of “Taupo” or with the Māori translation of Taupō?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: She was saying it in her form of pronunciation.

Hon Ginny Andersen: How can she agree with the Prime Minister and say that there are jobs available, when 600 people applied for one casual job at mini-putt golf in this region?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: As I said, there is positive annual growth, and it’s up 10 percent for the construction industry, 10.2 percent for the IT industry, 6.8 percent for the hospitality industry, and 2.9 percent for the primary industries. We should be positive. We should be looking forward, as well as the 240,000 jobs that are coming over the next couple of years because of this Government’s investment in infrastructure and this Government’s work to unleash businesses by getting rid of red and green tape.

Question No. 11—Trade and Investment

11. PAULO GARCIA (National—New Lynn) to the Minister for Trade and Investment: What has the Government recently announced about strengthening trade and economic ties with Singapore and Chile?

Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister for Trade and Investment): Just last Friday, at APEC in Korea, along with the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister of Singapore, and the President of Chile, we launched negotiations for the Green Economy Partnership Agreement, or GEPA. This will be a high-quality agreement that boosts trade and investment between our countries and will drive economic growth in New Zealand. This agreement will position New Zealand businesses at the forefront of the growing global green economy, which is expected to be valued at $19 trillion by 2040.

Paulo Garcia: What are the key pillars of the Green Economy Partnership Agreement?

Hon TODD McCLAY: The GEPA, as it’s called, will cover many innovative areas, including sustainable finance and investment, green goods and services, sustainable agricultural food systems, and low-emissions fuel alternatives. It aims to bring down barriers, lower costs, and reduce tariff rates across the green economy, and, once completed, it will be open to other countries to join. Our shared vision for the GEPA is to support new trade opportunities and efficiencies for businesses, reinforce the rules-based order of international trade, and lower trade barriers while achieving climate change action.

Paulo Garcia: How does trade and investment support sustainable growth?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Well, the Government believes that solutions to environmental challenges, including climate change, will come from greater trade and cooperation with other countries, not less, and through investment in new technologies, not putting up costs on businesses or putting them out of business. The GEPA will drive investment in innovation and trade with Singapore and Chile and, in turn, will mean more exports and more investment for higher-paying jobs for New Zealanders.

Paulo Garcia: What other agreements has the Government announced with Singapore and Chile?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Well, successive Governments have worked away with these two countries. New Zealand, Singapore, and Chile have a proud history of shared leadership in developing innovative trade agreements to drive innovation and economic growth—from the P4 agreement, which went on to be the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, to, then, the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), the Digital Economy Partnership Agreement, and, more recently, the New Zealand - Singapore Comprehensive Strategic Partnership, which was agreed with Singapore and had been worked on for some time. All of these agreements have benefited New Zealand exporters, and this is why the Government is committed to doubling the value of exports over 10 years through agreements like the GEPA.

Question No, 12—Prime Minister

12. RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his Government's statements and actions?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes.

Rawiri Waititi: Why has his Government chosen to punish success by defunding Māori health infrastructure that saved lives and performed better than many State services during the pandemic in regard to vaccination?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Because this Government is determined to lift health outcomes for Māori, and the way to do that is to focus on lifting immunisation rates for under-twos. I would just love that member to come out and have a policy idea on doing exactly that.

Rawiri Waititi: If those vaccination rates are to increase, why have Māori vaccination rates plummeted, and what is his Government going to do about it?

CAMERON LUXTON: Well, this Government, in the very first few weeks, partnered with Māori health organisations, I think, from memory, to the tune of about $50  million. It has achieved really outstanding and excellent results, not just with Māori kids getting immunised but non-Māori kids as well.

Rawiri Waititi: Does the Prime Minister believe that teaching our children about Te Tiriti is the foundation of a bicultural nation?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, we are. But what we believe is the number one priority is, actually, academic achievement and teaching our kids the basics brilliantly, whether they’re Māori or non-Māori. This is a Government that has done more in two years, with an outstanding Minister, than the previous Ministers did in the previous six.

Rawiri Waititi: Is he going to ban visits not just to marae but churches, museums, and mosques also—when does this Government’s intrusion on where our children can learn and visit end?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’m confused by the question, as to the relevance of the question, but what is unambiguous is this is a Government that is focused on lifting Māori academic achievement. It would be fantastic if that member and his party had any ideas and any policy contribution to that. We have done more to lift Māori educational outcomes than the previous six years. Let me give you an example: Māori new entrants are operating at or above expectations on the phonics checks 20 weeks into schooling life—it’s up 18 percent. Māori kids actually needing targeted extra support is down 15 percent, because we are teaching the basics brilliantly and we make no apologies for doing so.

Hon Shane Jones: On the matter of statements and actions, is the Prime Minister aware that the term “wehewehe kāinga” means splits and divisions lead both to doom and a political tomb?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Prime Minister doesn’t have any responsibility for that question.

Hon David Seymour: Is the Prime Minister proud of the Government’s—[Interruption]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Quiet, we’re having a question.

Hon David Seymour: —charter school kura hourua policy, which has seen schools such as Te Rito in the Far North, TIPINE in South Auckland, and soon Te Aratika in Hawke’s Bay open to empower Māori to learn on their terms, their way?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I am, and there are 17 charter schools now in motion and it’s important. Iwi leaders I’ve spoken are very supportive of charter schools—even Willie Jackson’s a fan.

Bills

Regulatory Standards Bill

Discharge—Leave Declined

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green): Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave for the order of the day for the second reading of the Regulatory Standards Bill to be discharged.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection?

Hon Members: Yes.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Leave denied.

Bills

Regulatory Standards Bill

Second Reading

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Minister for Regulation): I present a legislative statement on the Regulatory Standards Bill.

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

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: I move, That the Regulatory Standards Bill be now read a second time.

This bill is a crucial piece of legislation for improving the long-term quality of regulation in our country and, ultimately, allowing New Zealanders to live longer, happier, healthier, and wealthier lives. In a nutshell, if red tape and regulation are holding New Zealanders back because politicians find it politically rewarding to tie them in red tape, then we need to make regulating less rewarding for politicians by putting more sunlight on their activities. That is how the Regulatory Standards Bill will help New Zealand get its mojo back.

This bill turns the explanation from politicians passing laws that restrict our freedoms from “Because we said so” into “Because here is the justification, according to a set of principles.” To the rest of my colleagues across the House: if you want to tax someone, if you want to take or impair their property, if you want to restrict their livelihood, well, you can still do it, but you’ll face tough questions about the impact that those actions have on people’s property rights, their freedom, and the compliance of your proposal with the rule of law. It does this by introducing principles of responsible regulation into primary legislation, with a focus on good lawmaking processes and the effect of lawmaking on existing interests and liberties.

When making legislation, agencies and lawmakers will have to consider the principles and be transparent about those considerations. Agencies will need to confirm that the legislation and the process for developing it has been reviewed for consistency with the principles and summarise any inconsistencies with those principles. That work will need to be published, and, where an inconsistency is identified, the responsible Minister or the maker of any secondary legislation will need to explain the reasons why.

Let’s put that into perspective by considering some issues that matter to Kiwis and how the Regulatory Standards Bill helps us avoid such mistakes. Earthquake regulations—recently repealed, and not a day too soon—have cost Kiwis billions. Saving $8.2 billion is what will occur when we remove these earthquake standards. Too many people have suffered and had their livelihoods taken away because a Parliament and a group of politicians decided that being seen to do the right thing at a moment in time was more important than the underlying rights of New Zealanders. The warnings were there—I voted against that legislation myself—but nobody took the warnings seriously enough, and it was only nine years and billions of dollars later that we are able to start putting those valuable resources into things like car crashes and cancers that, sadly, kill so many more Kiwis.

I want to touch on one change that’s been made to one of the principles of good regulation that has been particularly topical: the takings principle. That principle provides that “legislation should not take or impair property without the consent of the owner unless there is good justification and fair compensation is provided.” The inclusion of “impairment” is essential to the intent of the bill, which is to focus attention on the impact of legislation on existing interests and liberties as well as good lawmaking processes. When the Government is considering passing legislation that impairs property rights, the nature and extent of that impairment should be made clear, and relief should be considered. However, the committee’s change clarifies that the principle is intended to address situations where there is a high degree of impairment, not simply any impairment. Therefore, a reference to “severe impairment” has been added, which means the principle will not be engaged when there is not a severe level of impairment.

The bill does not require any action to be taken or compensation to be paid; the responsible Minister can provide a statement of reasons why they consider a severe impairment to be justified, and, if not paying compensation, the reasons for that position. However, the point is that this principle will make it easier for Parliament and the public to see where property rights are being severely impaired, with the intent of helping to reduce instances where impaired property rights without compensation lead to New Zealanders being so much poorer. I look forward to the committee of the whole House stage, when we can talk about the specifics of this bill in further detail. Overall, I’m proud to be responsible for a piece of legislation that is going to bring discipline and transparency to New Zealand’s lawmaking processes.

This bill, when enforced, is going to support the people of New Zealand by ensuring them that serious consideration is being given to legislation that impacts on their lives and livelihoods. If we’re asking New Zealanders to comply with regulations in everyday life, then it’s only reasonable to ensure that they’re clear, consistent, and meet a certain standard. When they do not meet that standard, the public rightfully expects lawmakers to be transparent about that fact. The passing of the Regulatory Standards Bill in later stages will take us a step closer to a more principled, transparent, and accountable process for making legislation in New Zealand. It will help build confidence in the legislative process, support better outcomes for New Zealanders, and ensure that our regulatory system is fit for purpose in the 21st century.

I’ve been very interested to see how easily people have mischaracterised this bill in the debate that has ensued, and I would like to touch on two changes, or two objections, that I think are misguided. One has been the repeated assertion that, somehow, the Regulatory Standards Bill imposes restrictions on Parliament and, therefore, is undemocratic. The law is crystal clear; it’s there in black and white. The purpose of this law is to promote accountability and transparency to the Parliament by the executive. This enables our democracy—it enables greater transparency.

Building on that misconception has been another widely shared in the public domain that, somehow, the principles are inadequate because they don’t include all of the objectives that the Government might have. A Government might wish to uphold the Treaty of Waitangi; it might wish to pursue goals around equity or public health or environmental protection. The fact that those are not included as principles reflects the fact that every initiative brought to this House and every regulation made by a Government is already assumed to have a public purpose. It is already assumed to have a purpose like one of the ones that I listed. The purpose of this bill is to enable and make transparent the Government of the day, to be able to show the public, and for the public to be able to see, where that collective purpose and the pursuit of it is impairing the rights of ordinary people. It’s not a surprise that it doesn’t include collective goals; the purpose of the law is to show when ordinary people’s rights are being impaired.

I’d like to thank the Finance and Expenditure Committee for its very efficient consideration of the bill. I would like to also acknowledge the changes that they have made to the Regulatory Standards Board—in my view, strengthening the bill by enhancing its independence and by saying that it will be reinforced by the Governor-General rather than the Minister for Regulation. I believe that that is going to make the Regulatory Standards Board a much more august body with more authority, and it will allow that board to further raise the quality of the consistency accountability statements. Without further ado, I thank everybody for listening, and I commend this bill to the House.

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

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Kia orana e te Mana Whakawā. Well, here we have it: a bill that 0.7 percent of submitters supported. Here, it is hard to find a bill which fewer people are in favour of, but this National Government is the lapdog of the ACT Party in this instance, sitting there and doing the ACT Party’s bidding. The real irony of that speech by David Seymour is that this bill is one of the worst in terms of regulatory quality that I have ever seen.

Do you know who said that? The Ministry for Regulation and the Ministry of Justice in the regulatory impact statement (RIS). They said this bill has been poorly consulted on; it hasn’t got a problem that it needs to address—even if there was one, it’s the wrong solution; and the Minister won’t let us do our job and explore other options. That is how you make bad law, and that is what we’ve got here.

One thing that struck me about the submissions process was the long list of submitters who came in and gave really thoughtful submissions. Not people from particular perspectives, but NGOs, even Government organisations, came in and said this is a bad idea. You know who looks after our legislative quality at the moment? The Legislation Design and Advisory Committee. Excellent body: thoughtful people; hate politics. They said, “[these] principles are novel and deeply contestable”—in other words, this is not a straightforward bill. This is a politically charged, ideological bill.

What did the New Zealand Law Society say? “It is striking that the process and content of a Bill purporting to promote good law-making and high-quality legislation should fail to meet not only the Bill’s own standards, but the existing established processes for supporting good law-making.” So it’s a bad bill.

The New Zealand Human Rights Commission, our independent human rights body: “The Bill embeds a narrow set of principles that prioritise individual and private interests as paramount considerations in lawmaking, effectively sidelining wider considerations of collective wellbeing”. The Human Rights Commission hates this bill.

Then you’ve got a whole lot of regional councils. The Greater Wellington Regional Council: this bill “Will impact on local government, creating legal risks, inefficiency, complexity and increased costs”. Does that sound like good law to you?

I picked those quotes because they are not politically aligned. They haven’t got an axe to grind. They are thoughtful people who explained why this bill is bad law. Of course, David Seymour says “Here’s my list of regulatory principles—but don’t worry, you can have other things in there. You know, just because I haven’t mentioned Te Tiriti o Waitangi doesn’t mean it’s not in there.” That is rubbish, because what this bill does is it highlights what, in his view, are the most important principles. At the top of that hierarchy are private property rights.

This bill is seeking to entrench, by the back door, private property rights as a constitutional principle. In fact, the chief economist of his own Ministry for Regulation wrote a paper saying that private property rights are the most important human right not currently in our law—so we can see where it’s coming from. These principles are totally selective. Private property is not a guiding light for good legislation and regulation.

The fact of the matter is that equal treatment—the second principle, stating that everyone should be treated equally—is shorthand for the status quo. It’s shorthand for saying, “Take the existing inequalities in our society and don’t seek to address them.” It’s saying, “Where wealth has accumulated, leave it there.”

Well, on this side of the House, we believe in equity. We believe in addressing the inequities which are troubling our society. Of course, not only is it silent on the Treaty; it’s silent on all kinds of other key principles. All of our international obligations—nowhere in that bill does it say we should adhere to the promises we as a nation have made in the international community, whether they be around human rights or whether they be around defence and trade.

Human rights. What does it say about gender? What does it say about disability? What does it say about race? It says absolutely nothing.

Cameron Luxton: We’re not debating human rights.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: No—the ACT Party doesn’t want to debate human rights. The ACT Party is not interested in human rights. The ACT Party is interested in property rights.

This bill is constitutionally significant. It is about how law is made. Now, the fact of the matter is that for a constitutional bill, the process has been shocking. A constitutional bill should be careful, thoughtful, and, ideally, engaging on a cross-party basis. This has been anything but. This bill is seeking to entrench property rights into our lawmaking process by stealth, and at speed. It basically promotes private property interests over collective benefits.

Fundamentally, this is about looking after corporate interests—because if we think about all of those rules there, all of those impairment rules, if we try to protect our communities, if we try to reduce the use of vapes or if we try to limit alcohol advertising, all of these are impairments. Now, David Seymour would say, “Well, you can do it; you just have to say why,” but we know that putting sand in the gears of legislation makes things least likely to happen, and that’s what he wants to do. He wants to tilt the playing field in favour of corporate interests.

Look, even the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment came along—not known as a great supporter of the left, but he came along—and he had a lot to say. The most important thing he had to say is this: this bill puts the environment at risk, because nowhere does the environment feature. So when your bureaucrats are doing their bureaucratic job, and all of this new blue tape and yellow tape that David Seymour’s creating—as they’re running through their checklist, where does it say, “How does this impact climate change?” “How does this impact biodiversity?” “How does this impact sustainability?” It doesn’t say it anywhere, because at the heart of this bill is putting property and private interests over community environment and sustainability.

The bill, also, is just a failure. It’s an absolute procedural and regulatory failure. As I’ve said, failed its own RIS. The very thing it says we should do, which is check a bill for good process; it was examined, and they said it didn’t meet good process. Probably the most important thing, if we have an issue with regulatory quality in New Zealand, the question is: what’s the best way to fix it? The short answer by everyone who was asked the question is: not this. We have a whole lot of rules out there already, a whole lot of bodies—the Attorney-General, the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee, the Regulations Review Committee, every select committee, and the list goes on, of quality checks that exist for legislation which aren’t engaged in sufficiently already, largely because as Government ignores them and rides roughshod over them. This year, we had a situation where the scope of the question was limited. David Seymour, against all his own advice, came into this with a closed mind, poor problem definition, and a solution that was in place before the problem was identified.

But here’s the other thing. This bill will cost a fortune. Not only will he have to set up its Regulatory Standards Board as a little pet board at a cost of probably $2 or $3 million but every Ministry will have to follow his new yellow tape—all of his rules he’s put in place. How much will that cost? Well, MBIE said that department alone will have to spend 15 percent of its time following David Seymour’s little rules at a cost of $60 million—$60 million. You can rubbish it, David Seymour, but you’ve seen the report, and you know it. It’s a total waste of money.

The second thing, or the final thing, is this: this bill puts into the hands of the Regulatory Standards Board the job of questioning what we do here. That’s their job, second-guessing Parliament—and for a party that talks about parliamentary sovereignty, then that lies ill in your mouth.

The bill is a waste of money, it doesn’t meet its own standards, it’s narrow, it’s contested, and it’s a constitutional change by itself. We will oppose this bill to the end.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green): E te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. I guess at the end of the day, the real question for this House is precisely who asked for this piece of legislation. It wasn't health experts, it wasn't the legal profession, and it definitely wasn't former Prime Ministers and those who have led former political parties. It wasn't regular New Zealanders. In fact, regular New Zealanders decided to overwhelmingly oppose this piece of legislation.

So if we just boil it down to the two main threads of arguments that were heard at the Finance and Expenditure Committee and have been well canvassed in the media landscape over the last few months as this Minister for Regulation has decided to push this legislation through despite the overwhelming opposition, on the one side, we've heard that it's largely redundant, that it is going to be duplicative, and, as indeed, Dr Duncan Webb alluded to, it'll be expensive. Then on the other side of the debate, at the most egregious end, we hear very clearly that what this legislation does is provide a framework for multinational corporations to be compensated by the people of this country when this Parliament decides to curtail their supposed right to destroy our shared environment, our climate, or to curb our human rights.

So I think again, one of those foundational questions we hear a heck of a lot from the libertarian or the supposed libertarian party in this place is about special treatment for certain demographics in our country. We have to ask ourselves: who, really, is getting special treatment in this country? So frequently we hear the Minister in charge of this legislation say that it is precisely the same communities and demographics who are disproportionately overrepresented in every single negative statistic in our society. We don't hear next to anything about the corporations who are exploiting both people and planet. In fact, they seek to pass this legislation which makes it easier for them to do precisely that exploitation.

I find it quite fascinating that we are indeed having this debate about how a law is made, this law being the constraints of the rules of how we are supposed to progress with making legislation into the future, and we have a situation where the Minister couldn't follow his own rules. He wants to talk about good lawmaking, yet he couldn't even uphold the processes of good lawmaking.

Today, the Minister of Education is removing Te Tiriti obligations from schools and saying that it is the Crown’s obligation to uphold those obligations, yet we have represented in this very piece of legislation the removal and the de-prioritisation of Te Tiriti as a principle that is to be considered in good lawmaking practices.

Which leads us to the statement from the Waitangi Tribunal, and here I quote from their urgent inquiry report none the less, that the Crown accepted that its policy development for the bill occurred without targeted engagement for Māori. The tribunal found that this was in violation of the Crown's obligation to consult with Māori in good faith and therefore violated Treaty principles of partnership and active protection.

Further, we hear from the likes of the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee who submitted on the first round of the design of this legislation, which I might add had approximately 25,000 submissions, which again were overwhelmingly opposed to this legislation. They said, at that point in time, that they had, “misgivings about the capacity of this bill to offer improvements” because they see risks with the proposals, including the risk of significant unintended consequences.

They then went into three key prongs: the bill is unnecessary to the extent that it restates existing constraints in the principles of good lawmaking. Secondly, the principles contained in the bill are selective and deeply contestable. Thirdly, the bill has the potential for significant constitutional impact that has not been fully explored.

If we are to take the Minister's arguments in good faith at just that surface level and to ignore all of the behaviour and everything else that he has said about our many communities across this country, if we are to believe that the aim here is to make good law, then surely there should have been a good lawmaking process to produce this very law which would have brought the people of this country along for that process.

Instead, what we have ended up with is something whereby, as the Minister would say, it's the people who are wrong. It's his own officials who are wrong. It's the legal experts who are wrong, the environmental experts, the health experts, former Prime Ministers, and the overwhelming majority of regular New Zealanders who used their time to oppose this legislation—99 percent of them—only to be ignored yet again by this Government.

Then we have the impartial Law Society who says, and I quote, “As well as being the product of inadequate consultation, the content of the Bill itself runs contrary to established precepts of legislative design in various important respects. It is striking that the process and the content of the Bill purporting to promote good law-making and high-quality legislation should fail to meet not only the Bill's own standards, but the existing established processes for supporting good law-making.”

Then we hear about the red tape—the red tape. Well, let's just talk for a minute about the yellow tape which the Minister’s own ministry advised him he would be creating with this very piece of legislation. Firstly, the creation of the Regulatory Standards Board, which we've just heard will cost in excess of approximately $3 million of taxpayers’ dollars per year. Then there are the new compliance costs with the requirements for each ministry and agency and department to create a consistency accountability statement. Then thirdly, at the conservative estimate of $60 million per year, the requirements to review existing legislation.

Again, I'd make the core point that if the Government genuinely wanted to engage on the point of how we make good law and improve our constitutional arrangements in this country, we're game. We'd be totally down for that, because, in fact, I think that it would be great if we could have some form of agreement about the values and the principles that guide this country. But what we instead unfortunately have represented here is a pet vanity project from one guy in one political party that has sought to pass this legislation three times and failed until it met such a poor negotiator as our current Prime Minister.

So on those foundational values, well, I hold the very earnest and perhaps some on the Government side might say naive view that New Zealanders actually care about each other and the planet that we live on. But those principles, well they’re nowhere to be seen as far as the design of this legislation. Again, we would make the point that if the Government wanted to actually meaningfully engage on how we could go about creating these better processes, the Greens absolutely would have been the first ones sitting around the table. Unfortunately, what we have here is the entrenchment of special rights for those who currently own things.

As we well canvassed in question time today, this Government cares not a whisker for addressing inequality—inequality which is compounding under intentional Government decisions that have been made to push more children into poverty, to make more people homeless, to increase our climate changing emissions, and in turn the cost of living for New Zealanders, whilst also making it more difficult for our farmers to farm. Guess what! They're the ones hit first and worst by climate change. If we wanted legislation that actually addressed these issues, we could be debating that here in the Chamber today, but instead, we unfortunately have this petty, petty vanity project.

I'd just make the other point that you kind of can't have it both ways. On one side of things, the Government is saying, “Don't worry. Nothing to see here. This is kind of just business as usual. This aligns with stuff that's kind of already happening and in train.” But then on the other side we've got a Minister professing that this is a bit of a foundational shift in our constitutional arrangement. Again, I think I tend to believe the latter, because what we've seen from our Prime Minister is an inability to grasp the detail of the things that he has negotiated and put our country on the line for in order to cobble together this coalition Government.

I just make, in my final 30 seconds, an appeal to the New Zealand First Party. Will the New Zealand First Party please stand up? Here is an opportunity to truly put New Zealand first. One of our Amendment Papers which will be tabled at the committee of the whole House stage will be to stop non-citizens from taking complaints and seeking compensation from the Regulatory Standards Board and we look forward to New Zealand First supporting New Zealand first. We oppose this bill.

CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): The Regulatory Standards Bill gives effect to National’s coalition agreement with ACT. As chair of the relatively collegial Finance and Expenditure Committee, we also undertook extensive consultation on these matters. We heard approximately 30 hours of oral evidence and received over 159,000 written submissions. Of course, this follows last year’s departmental consultation which attracted 23,000 submissions. FEC—the Finance and Expenditure Committee—canvassed a range of views and took a relatively liberal and cross-party approach as to who we would hear from and its acceptance of submissions. Following many submitters’ feedback, key amendments to this bill have seen a best-practice tightening of the board and chair’s independence and separation from the Minister and Government of the day, consistent with the provisions within the Crown Entities Act. I want to congratulate the ACT Party on what has been over 20 years of advocacy and hard work. Thank you.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Minister of Customs): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on the Regulatory Standards Bill, second reading. New Zealand First supports this bill because it promotes open and accountable government that legislates with key principles in mind: the rule of law, efficiency and regulation, property rights, an independent judiciary, and a belief that every New Zealander is created equal before the law.

The bill upholds equality before the law, it promotes openness and accountability in Government, and it ensures that property holders cannot be dispossessed of their property without fair compensation, and cost-benefit analysis of legislation ensures that economic policies that will impede productivity and growth are adequately scrutinised. For these reasons, New Zealand First commends the bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The next call is a split call.

RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): E te iwi, the Treaty principles bill tried to change the meaning and the intent of Te Tiriti o Waitangi; the Regulatory Standards Bill (RSB) erases Te Tiriti entirely from Aotearoa’s democracy without even mentioning it. This bill creates a world of minimal-to-no rules in order to ensure the profitability of all things; “all things” means at the expense of our people, our oranga, our labour, our whenua, our moana. The bill circumvents the rights you already have, by treating those rights as rules which the Government can consider inefficient and unprofitable. E kī, e kī.

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

Te Tiriti o Waitangi is the first and the last line of defence against corporate exploitation in Aotearoa. This bill and the sham select committee process to ram it through the House is proof that true democracy doesn’t exist in this country. This is what the Treaty principles bill, the takutai moana amendment Act, and the removal of Treaty clauses from legislation are really about: dismantling our collective rights to allow the Atlas Network - backed foreign companies to plunder lands, water, and resources. It creates an anti - Waitangi Tribunal, giving David Seymour’s unelected mates the power to review every single law that addresses systemic inequality.

Make no mistake, e hika mā, the Treaty principles bill was a distraction. Chris Luxon’s donors only allowed him to vote against it because they knew this bill was coming next. The Regulatory Standards Bill is a direct assault on the constitutional foundations that protect all New Zealanders from exploitation.

For te iwi Māori, this looks like “Your rights are now rules.” that the Government can deregulate as they see fit, especially when these rights are held collectively—for example, as a part of the common public good, or as hapū and iwi. These rights create costs that the Government, under the Regulatory Standards Bill, can deem to be unnecessary. Our people know this and this is why 98.7 percent of New Zealanders oppose the Regulatory Standards Bill, and yet not a single recommendation provided by the people was adopted. Te Pāti Māori stand with the majority of the 156,000-plus people who made submissions against the bill because they knew what this bill means for Aotearoa.

For our remote and rural communities, this bill means the emergency services and authorities can make decisions about who and where to help in a crisis, based on efficiency rather than need—because it’s more expensive to help everybody—and this looks like our more marginalised rural communities are being left behind.

For our community kai gatherers and whānau who rely on the moana as a kāpata, the bill would enable the Government to smash our fisheries even further. For example, a rule about putting cameras on boats to monitor fisheries and illegal dumping can be argued as being inefficient because it is an unnecessary cost, with no regard for our moana or our people, who depend on it.

What this means for our kaumātua is that this bill would enable Governments to raise the age of eligibility for our nannies and koros to access their super, or to significantly alter the scheme completely.

For our learning support kaimahi and their tauira, this bill would allow the Government to justify reducing Māori curriculum content that would require expertise and new staff to deliver it—an additional cost that they would be able to label as inefficient purely due to the expense rather than need. The cost of education should not cost our mokopuna the ability to be supported in our education system.

For our whānau rangatahi on social welfare, right now, the Government is moving debt off its own balance sheet and placing the debt as an obligation on our parents, even though rangatahi are entitled to these provisions as citizens of the state.

These decisions were made without the RSB even being in place, and yet under the RSB, the situation could become the enforced norm.

For our country dealing with the cost of living crisis, without rules the supermarkets will not bring the prices of food down by themselves. Their first priority is making money for their owners—which fits the purpose of the RSB—not ensuring that people have access to kai.

I want to mihi to the 156,879 people who made powerful submissions in the resistance to this racist bill, the multitudes of people who donate their time, their expertise, and their aroha to fighting for the kaupapa only to be ignored. This Government won’t listen to you, but Te Pāti Māori have heard you. We will get rid of this Government in 2026, and the Regulatory Standards Bill along with it. Kia ora tātou.

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise in anger to denounce the Regulatory Standards Bill. I would describe this bill as a wet fart of a dying Government that’s run out of ideas, that’s incompetent of doing what everyday New Zealanders want.

At a time when our economy is at a record low and our unemployment is at a record high, at a time when a measles outbreak is rising out of control, and property damage from a climate-exacerbated natural disaster is still being repaired all around the country, you would think that this Government would be focused on that and the real issues. But, no, they’ve put this at the top of the Order Paper. Why? Because, fundamentally, they’re a distracted, out-of-touch, ideological Government that’s focused more on their imported culture wars and their pet projects than serving the needs of ordinary New Zealanders.

There’s been a number of super-heated, inflated claims about this bill from the other side. The first claim that’s been made by the proponents of it—and, by the way, we’ve seen speeches from the opposite benches. We’ve had Mr Seymour not even give the full speech—eight minutes—we’ve had a one-minute speech from Mr Brewer over there, and we’ve had a one-minute speech from Ms Costello over here, because, fundamentally, they know that this bill is actually indefensible. They know that this bill can’t be defended, because it’s got no real substance to it.

They say that it’s about better regulation, but better regulation for who? It’s certainly not for the people, if you listen to the submissions of all the number of people who have submitted against it—98.7 percent opposed—it’s certainly not for the planet, if you listen to the submissions of experts, like the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment and groups that care about the environment, like 350 Aotearoa, Forest & Bird, and Greenpeace; and it’s certainly not for Te Tiriti, if you listen to the expert submission by the Waitangi Tribunal on why this bill is so bad.

We’ve heard claims that this bill will cut red tape and actually introduce a new era of prosperity where there’ll be fun for all and a new level of economic activity. But if you actually listen to what the Government’s own advisers have to say about this, they’ve said the opposite. They’ve said that creating a regulatory environment which is subject to chop and change, like this bill will do—because we will chop and change this bill up next term—is actually the opposite of how you create a stable environment for good investment in economic growth. This bill will cost a minimum of $60 million, and actually a lot more if you consider all the costs that’s being spent on the Ministry for Regulation. So rather than cutting red tape, this bill actually creates the opposite of it. It creates a tsunami of yellow tape that will strangle the Public Service and that will create distractions from core work. So much for a Government that claims to care about economic efficiency, when the bill will do the opposite with their consistency assessment standards.

Finally, this bill makes claims about good lawmaking. As we’ve heard from my colleagues Chlöe Swarbrick and the Hon Dr Duncan Webb, this bill has actually followed the opposite of the process of good lawmaking. From the abuse of urgency that this Government has undertaken in various legislation such as the pay equity bill, to cutting off the number of oral submissions, this bill actually gives the opposite of how you would do good lawmaking in this country.

We’ve heard this bill denounced as an ACT Party bill, but the reality is that while David Seymour might have created the legislation—and the legislation is the gun—the reality is that Winston Peters and Christopher Luxon loaded the bullets with their complicity in allowing this legislation to pass.

Now, what would the Green Party do instead? Well, we actually care about genuinely good legislation, and so the first step would be to repeal the Regulatory Standards Bill and to end the tsunami of yellow tape that this bill will create. The second is that we will abolish the Ministry for Regulation and end the libertarian industrial bureaucracy complex that this Government has entrenched in their current lawmaking. We will end the shoddiness of poor decision-making and the number of abuses of urgency that this bill has created.

I want to spend the next 15 seconds thanking the submitters who have helped to create amendments to this bill, and all of the people who have taken part in this process. This Government has not and will not listen to you, but we have and together we will make this a one-term Government.

PAULO GARCIA (National—New Lynn): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The object of the Regulatory Standards Bill is to increase transparency in regulation and the resulting accountability with the New Zealand public. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for this opportunity to speak on the Regulatory Standards Bill. It is, somewhat, déjà vu for me because, whilst I haven’t been involved in the select committee process on this bill, last term, we had a member’s bill in the name of David Seymour, and it was very similar to this. I was able to speak on that bill when, of course, we voted it down. That is what we will do when we have the opportunity. This bill will be repealed. This bill is vain. This bill is ideological in a very negative way. I say that despite what the introduction on the select committee report back says. I will read that to you. The first sentence is: “This bill seeks to support the executive’s accountability to Parliament”. I have to say, that sounds like a wonderful and glorious ambition.

As somebody who is part of Parliament but not part of the executive—the executive being the Ministers; there’s not many of them in the House at the moment—most of us are members of Parliament; we are not members of the executive. We hear, over and over again, that Parliament, this Parliament of all of us, the executive members and the non-executive members, is sovereign. We can make the laws, but what actually happens is that an executive can have so much power that they make sure that all of their members, all of their non-executive members that are part of Parliament, just go along with them and don’t do any scrutiny. That is a real problem if Parliament changes as drastically as it has this term.

This term of Government has seen an egregious use of all-stages urgency and giant amendments coming in at the committee stage with no recourse for the non-executive Opposition members to scrutinise that, to ask experts about what the changes might mean. I hear often from the other side, “In the last term of Parliament, there was lots of urgency used.” There’s a big difference between all-stages urgency and using urgency for different parts of a bill because you require more House time. Those two things are very different. There is also a huge difference when a bill is passed under urgency because there is something like an emergency—that is a good use of urgency—and when there are pieces of legislation passed that have post-enactment review provisions so Parliament can accept that it does need to do this thing quickly because, say, we had some space legislation earlier this year where there might be a national security interest. That is a good reason to pass something under urgency. But then, you have a post-enactment review placed so that the parliamentarians have an opportunity to scrutinise that legislation; this Government does none of those things.

It is quite ironic that we have this bill here and that the introduction from the select committee starts with the sentence that this is about changing the dynamic, moving away from executive powers to parliamentarian powers. That is not what this bill is doing at all. What this bill is doing, and we heard from the Minister say something about mojo—which we hear a lot from that Government, that’s all they seem to like to talk about—and then he said pieces of legislation need to be justified against some criteria. That sounds reasonable, but, of course, the criteria are David Seymour’s criteria. They are not Rachel Brooking’s criteria, and they are not many other people’s criteria. I am amazed that both National and New Zealand First seem to have been so bamboozled by this that they have laid down and agreed to David Seymour’s libertarian criteria to be used in an expensive process that will cost us all time and money and not result in better lawmaking and not, importantly, result in more power of the Parliament over the executive. We have his criteria, and he described, in his speech, that they were just rights of ordinary people and that they were, of course, not collective rights. And so, as I said before, these are not the Rachel Brooking rights. If they were Rachel Brooking rights, they would include ones about our Treaty arrangements—of course, one of our most important constitutional documents—but, no, they’re not there. They would, of course, include something about the environment and, maybe, the principle of polluter pays—that’s something that should appeal to libertarians—but, no, that’s not in this bill either.

We’ve heard from Dr Duncan Webb that this was a solution looking for a problem and that there have been many submissions about this question. If you do want to actually do what this first sentence says—to support the executive’s accountability to Parliament—what might you do? In 2019, before I was in Parliament, the Legislation Act 2019 was passed. This Act has a Part 4, yet this Part 4 is still not in force. I just want to quickly read the purpose of Part 4 of that piece of legislation, “Disclosure requirements for Government-initiated legislation”. Section 101 states: “The Purpose of this Part—is to (a) better inform parliamentary and public scrutiny of Government-initiated legislation; and (b) promote good administrative practices for the development of such legislation.” That sounds to me like a very fine ambition, one that appears to mirror what has been said about this version of the Regulatory Standards Bill. Yet I have not seen the Minister or any proponent of this bill explain why it is that they don’t just bring into force Part 4 of the Legislation Act 2019. Of course, we already have in existence the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee. We heard mention of them before, again from the contribution from Dr Duncan Webb. This committee are, and I say this with admiration, are some truly independent law nerds, and they look at the legislation—they don’t look at the policy; they look at the legislation—and say whether or not it will work and how it could be improved. So, they already exist. Again, why are they not mentioned?

I want to conclude by being very clear that the executive’s accountability to Parliament should be strengthened, and there are some ways to do that. One of the ways is to bring in Part 4 of that Legislation Act 2019 that I just read out. One of the ways could be bolstering the role of that Legislative Design and Advisory Committee. This is something that the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment submitted on. Another one would be not to be using all-stages urgency for bills that have nothing to do with emergencies or any sort of national security, because all-stages urgency means that when the ACT Minister comes in with a pay equity bill, we don’t see it until she stands up and starts speaking on it, we go to the table and pick up that bill, and then we go through all the stages of that legislation at once. That is a disgraceful and stupid way to make legislation, whatever you think of the policy. So, we will repeal this bill. It is a terrible bill.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): For the members’ benefit, I just want to highlight the purpose of this bill, which is to hold power to account and to raise the standard of lawmaking and policy making in this country. I think we've all got great examples from across the House of poor policy that we've seen, and the purpose of this bill is to strengthen that. That's why this bill sets out standard principles for good regulation. It sets out a process that it needs to go through and sets out a regulatory standards board to provide a way for Kiwis to have their say on bad and poor regulation, and it ensures that Ministers and agencies take their obligations seriously.

As a member of the Finance and Expenditure Committee, it was good to hear those that came before us. I wish to thank those submitters. We did make some changes to this bill, and I look forward to debating those throughout the stages.

But I wish to clear up some mistruths about this bill that have been fed from the other side. The first is that this takes away the sovereignty of Parliament. It does not take away the sovereignty of Parliament. There’s nothing in this bill that prevents us from passing legislation, and, with that, I commend this bill to the House.

Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour): I normally have a lot of respect for Mr Bidois on matters relating to this particular bill and other bills that we’ve debated in this House, but Mr Bidois, in his speech to the House this afternoon, made it very clear he didn’t listen to the vast majority of submitters who opposed this bill. Making good legislation in this House is about making legislation for the people. How is it that over 98 percent of those who submitted on this bill opposed this bill, and yet the Government continues to push on with its legislation agenda, of which the Regulatory Standards Bill is one?

Every bill in this House has a whakapapa—it has a history—and it’s easy to start at the Treaty principles bill, but I won’t do that. For context, the history of this bill started in the negotiations between the National Party and the ACT Party, where the National Party and the ACT Party in their coalition agreement came up with the Regulatory Standards Bill. Now, I could go back a little bit further, to past iterations of the ACT Party in Government where they tried to do a very similar thing. It still got the cut then, and yet this ACT Party continues with it to this day.

The National-led Government under Christopher Luxon negotiated, in their negotiations for the coalition, to have this bill come into the House. Now, how is it, then, that on that side of the House they can stand there hand on heart and say “We are making legislation for the people.”, when the people clearly do not agree with it?

Moving on to the heritage of this bill, the perennial beat-down on Māori in this country has been nothing but absolutely revolting from this Government from the time that they took office in 2023, and, yes, it did start with the Treaty principles bill. When they say, on that side of the House, “We’re here for efficiencies to make Government work better.”, well, they tried to push through a bill that wasted taxpayers’ dollars on a process that was never ever going to get across the line, yet we had to suffer the division forced on our communities, and we continue to do so with this particular bill.

Now, if the Minister today had stood up and said, “I heard all of the great suggestions from those who made submissions on this bill and we’ve incorporated some of those into the next iteration of this bill, in its second reading.”, well, we might have listened a little bit more. But, in reading the legislative statement today, what we see here is not only are there minor amendments; one of them actually continues to rub the salt in the wounds of Māori, who have only just recently suffered under the passing of the marine and coastal area (MACA) legislation in this House.

The legislative statement quite clearly says here that “A clarification has been made to provide a consistent approach to excluding legislation that gives effect to customary marine title under the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011”. Well, why don’t you rub it in? Why don’t you rub the salt in the wound, when this House has already gone and done that and made it even harder for anyone to try and seek customary title under the MACA legislation?

Now, we have a reminder here, in the second reading of this bill, in the Minister’s legislative statement, where he, in an attempt to try and assuage the voter out there, has said, “Oh well, we’ve excluded those who have already been recognised under the MACA.” Well, I’d ask this House: how many of those who have sought customary title have been recognised under MACA? No, people across this House probably don’t know the answer, but I can tell you that I’m aware of only one, and that is the settlement that was reached with Ngati Porou.

There’s another attempt by this Minister and this particular bill to say, “There’s nothing to see here. We still want to respect individual property rights.”, but that, actually, is not what’s happening here. We know that what this Government has done, with the way that they’ve passed their bills, that it is a challenge to the democratic processes of this House. How many times have members in this House sat on select committees where the process has been truncated in this term? Far too many—in fact, more than I’ve experienced in the three terms prior to this term.

Hon Rachel Brooking: That’s if it goes to select committee.

Hon PEENI HENARE: That’s how many, and my colleague here made the very good point that when you rush things under urgency, nobody gets to see the bill. Members don’t even get to see the bill until it’s tabled in the House. Well, if we don’t get to see it, that means the people of this country don’t get to see it, and that side of the House wants to talk to us about good lawmaking? They want to talk to us about good democratic processes?

Well, this is another affront to the democratic processes of this House and the ones that I know New Zealanders believe in, right up and down this country. We will repeal this legislation when we get the opportunity, and we do not support it.

CATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki): Look, red tape and regulation has been holding this country back for far too long—much of it introduced under that previous Government. We need to get rid of the unnecessary red tape holding our farmers and our growers, our primary sector, our horticulture sector back. We need to get the wheels moving. We need transparent regulation, smarter regulation, and less regulation so that we can strengthen this economy and lift wages for everyone. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): The introduction of this bill tells us that the “bill seeks to support the Executive’s accountability to Parliament for developing high-quality legislation and exercising stewardship over regulatory systems.” This is Government that we have seen over the last two years flout their responsibility as a Government to have proper scrutiny of the regulations that have been put in place.

We have had unprecedented numbers of bills coming to this House without regulatory impact statements. This is a Government that can't even use the existing apparatus that exists to ensure that we are making good laws in this House. We've had member after member on the Government backbenches jumping up and defending laws that they have no idea about the impact of, because none of us in this House do, because this is a Government that has just blatantly disregarded its responsibility when it comes to oversight of our regulatory systems in this country.

Now, we are not supporting this bill; my colleagues have made that clear. In fact, the Labour Party has made this clear at every stage of this piece of legislation. It is a deeply flawed and ideologically driven bill. It is an example, yet again, of the tail wagging the dog. This is where David Seymour got one over Christopher Luxon in the coalition arrangements and shows, yet again, what weak leadership we have from our Prime Minister—what weak leadership we have from the National Party in terms of standing up for what is right and what is wrong. I feel sorry for the New Zealand First members. I suspect that they know that this is deeply flawed legislation but are being forced to vote for it because of their coalition arrangement.

Let's go through and have a look at what this bill does. On the face of it, we see what—it sets out the principles about what we should be taking into account when we make law. It sets up a board that is appointed by David Seymour, and can be directed by David Seymour, to look into legislation. If we have a look at what this bill does, one of the things it does is it puts the primary of private interests over the collective interest at every point that it can.

Now, let's consider what that could do. We had Transpower, for example, come and give a submission to the Finance and Expenditure Committee about clause 8(c) of the legislation that pointed out because of this regulation, if in the national interest we need to upgrade our power grid—which we will, we will need to put more infrastructure into place—that because of what is laid out in this bill, New Zealanders will pay more for their power; that there will be a requirement because of this legislation for compensation to be paid.

Now, we see this in multiple ways. In fact, 98.7 percent of the people who came and submitted on this bill pointed out what problems there were with this legislation. I want to point out how wide the opposition was to this bill, how wide-ranging it was. We heard from the Law Society, we heard from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, we heard from iwi, we heard from groups that spanned a huge broad span of New Zealand society how problematic this piece of law is in so many ways. We heard from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment the way in which this legislation will impede our ability to make laws that protect our environment, to make laws that put in change the necessary provisions we need to do to counter climate change. These were things that we had respected bodies, like the Parliamentary Commission for the Environment, come and give their submissions of.

We also heard from iwi repeatedly of the failure of this legislation to take into account the Treaty of Waitangi. This comes within a bundle of legislation that this Government have passed—not only with the Treaty Principles Bill, we've had the marine and coastal area legislation that my colleague, the Hon Peeni Henare, just talked about, that this really is part of the trifecta from this Government of having a complete attack on Māori and Treaty rights in this country.

Now, under the shadow but trying to hide behind a fig leaf of good lawmaking, we have a Government that really is cutting to the heart of who we want to be as a country and what we want to be able to achieve with our legislation. That what we can see in terms of the rule of law, liberties, the taking of properties, taxes, fees and levies, the role of the courts, and good law making; these might seem on the face of it very sensible provisions. But we in no way are not saying that we should have proper transparency and oversight of the way in which we make law in this country. But we have a Government that can't even use the existing apparatus. Time and time again they’ve just bypassed the regulatory impact statement. They've brought legislation to this House that simply does not have that statement with it. The Cabinet hasn't considered regulatory impact statements when they're making decisions whether or not to progress legislation.

Focus on individual liberty: this obsession that the ACT Party have got into the Government's agenda with this single focus on individual liberty does not recognise the duty that we have as lawmakers to protect a vast array of things for future generations—that it is our job as lawmakers to make sure that we are thinking beyond just the individual rights of a single entity or a single person and think about what we need to do to protect Aotearoa New Zealand and make sure that our children and our grandchildren can benefit from things. All of these things need to be considered when we are making laws.

When we look at the submissions that we heard, as I said, 98.7 percent of the submissions opposed it. That should give a Government pause for thought, the fact there was overwhelming opposition to this bill. We weren't talking about just a small number of submissions. There were a very large number of submissions that came in. They went through an absolute range of things that could be put in place. One of the things, when we look at the taking of property principle that is in the legislation, it is unworkable. We heard this time and time again from those who came and submitted to the select committee, suggesting that a property right should not be impaired without fair compensation. This is what is in the legislation: where that impairment of property rights benefits one person but causes a detriment, the person who benefits should provide compensation.

One of the questions that we asked, and Government members on the committee refused to engage with, is: what about laws that we make in this country around healthy homes? What about where we say that, actually, people deserve the right to live in a home that does not make them sick. That as legislators we should have the ability to actually legislate to say there are minimum standards around the homes that we allow people to live in so that we don't add to the health burden of this country and to the detriment of individual's health.

What about swimming pool fences? Now, this will probably be something that will excite David Seymour a great deal—in terms of the reason why we have laws around we may do safety measures like this. This is in terms of the taking of property principle. These are where we are thinking about the collective benefit over that individual benefit. What about if a district plan would change to place height restrictions on a building to preserve the sunlight to a neighbouring building that would impair one landowner’s property rights for another’s benefit? That's clearly unreasonable to expect the neighbour to compensate the owner of the restricted land. These are all the kinds of issues that were raised at select committee of why this bill is unworkable.

This is a piece of law that is simply the ACT Party flexing its muscle with a weak majority party within a coalition that has no ability to stand up for New Zealanders and is letting New Zealanders down. New Zealanders are being stuck with a piece of legislation that is to their detriment.

Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam): Excellent, I have the 12th spot in this debate, and we have heard a lot of hyperbole and a lot of rubbish in this debate. This bill is very clear: it aims to bring the same discipline to regulation that some argue we already accept and expect in our fiscal management. It aims to set clear principles for good regulation, and then requires Ministers and agencies to disclose and explain any inconsistencies. The board’s advice to Parliament is non-binding, contrary to what we’ve heard. It cannot strike down laws. Urgent or exceptional laws can still proceed, but departures must be transparent and justified. This is about transparency and holding the executive to account.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the amendments recommended by the Finance and Expenditure Committee by majority 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 55

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

Amendments agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Regulatory Standards Bill be now read a second 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 second time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Medicines Amendment Bill.

House in Committee

House in Committee

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, the House is in committee on the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Medicines Amendment Bill.

Bills

Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 2)

In Committee

Part 1 Amendments to principal Act, and Schedule 1

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): We come first to the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 2), and we begin with the debate on Part 1. Part 1 is the debate on clauses 4 to 29, “Amendments to principal Act”, and Schedule 1. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): Kia ora and good evening, Madam Chair and members of the Parliament. Before we begin the committee’s discussion this evening, I just wanted to open the debate by once again thanking members of the public who provided their comments on this bill, and I also thank the members of this House who were sitting on the Finance and Expenditure Committee. The feedback that we received has been valuable in helping us better understand differing viewpoints and shaping a more structured and informed discussion today.

As I mentioned during the second reading, this bill introduces several important changes that advance the Government’s commitment to improving student achievement. It requires that school boards will make educational achievement their paramount or highest priority or objective. It also strengthens initial teacher education, ensures teacher discipline and competence processes are fit for purpose, and provides clear procedures for managing industrial action within the school system, alongside other improvements to the education system.

One of those key proposals in this bill is to amend section 127 so that educational achievement and attainment becomes a school board’s paramount objective. It is the highest priority in school governance. By placing student achievement right at the heart of what boards should focus on, we are supporting schools to return to the fundamentals of education and get them right. This change ensures that every learner can gain the knowledge, the skills, and the competencies they need to reach their full potential.

The bill also includes proposals aligned with other key Government priorities, including raising our national student attendance. To support this, the bill introduces new requirements for schools to have attendance management plans that set out how the school will respond to and address the diverse underlying causes of non-attendance. My colleague the Associate Minister of Education, David Seymour, will also speak to and address questions in the committee that anyone may have on these proposals.

Similarly, the bill also introduces a proposal to require universities to protect and promote academic freedom and freedom of expression in universities. It’s vital that universities remain spaces that foster debate, encourage ongoing learning, and expose students to a diverse range of viewpoints so that they can develop into the critical thinkers that we need. My colleague the Minister for Universities, Minister Reti, will speak and address questions on this proposal.

Alongside the proposals in the bill, I’m also announcing that I’ll be introducing two Amendment Papers during our discussion in the committee today. The first Amendment Paper proposes to rebalance the Teaching Council’s membership. It proposes a majority of ministerially appointed members by removing the teacher education position and adding a ministerially appointed member. This change will help ensure that appointed appointments are focused on professionalising the council and strengthening its strategic capability to more effectively perform its key regulatory function.

The second Amendment Paper relates to additional changes to school board objectives in section 127, and it responds to the Government’s Treaty reference review. During this review, concerns were raised about whether it is appropriate for boards to be held accountable for meeting the Crown’s obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi. School boards are made up of parents and community members, who volunteer their time to support and run their local schools. This Government does not believe that it is reasonable to expect these parents, who are, effectively, volunteers, to carry legal responsibilities that rightly belong to the Crown.

This Amendment Paper proposes the removal of the explicit requirement for boards to give effect to the Treaty of Waitangi from section 127. It’s replaced by explicit objectives for school boards to seek equitable outcomes for Māori students, to take all reasonable steps to provide for te reo Māori, and to reflect the school community’s cultural diversity in its policies and practices.

Given that my colleagues Minister Seymour and, shortly—I hope—Minister Reti are here to speak to the attendance management plans and the freedom of expression proposals, I’d welcome members’ questions on these proposals first. Then I can speak and answer questions from members on the other proposals in the bill, as well as the Amendment Papers.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Point of order, Mr Chairperson. Thank you, Mr Chair. I just wanted to get a clarification from the Minister of Education. Right at the end of her speech, the Minister’s recommendation was that we look at the questions on universities and attendance plan, etc., first, before coming down to other things like section 127, which is within her mandate—or is it that anything goes? I just wanted to check.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Well, just before I call the Minister, it’s up to the members to ask whatever question they like. However, it’s up to the Minister, if she can give any indication—

Hon Erica Stanford: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): But the questions will be—

SHANAN HALBERT (Labour): Speaking to the point of order—thank you, Mr Chair. I’m just seeking your guidance on this and the follow-up. Given that the Minister of Education has indicated that Minister Reti will be arriving to respond to the freedom of expression component in Part 1, how does the Minister—or yourself, as Chair—recommend that we ask questions based on that, given that the Minister hasn’t arrived at this stage? Should we postpone those questions, or how would—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Well, I would suggest that if members want the best answer from the Minister, they would probably be able to observe whether the Minister is here or not. I would say, looking at the bill, that there is plenty of material that will lead up to the arrival, or otherwise, of any Minister.

SHANAN HALBERT (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. I just wouldn’t want to miss the opportunity to ask the Minister for Universities directly—as outlined by the Minister of Education—the questions we need to, relative to this bill. So I just seek that commitment.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Well, once again, the questions will be actually through this Minister, and, generally, she will play something of a puppet master around how the other Ministers—the first questions, generally, are primarily directed through her. I’m sure she will be very quick to direct questions to other Ministers where she believes they have greater expertise or can provide a better answer than she can.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. Despite the Minister of Education’s preference to deal with attendance and universities from the outset, we actually can’t do that, because the Minister for Universities is not here, and I’m a bit worried that the jumping all over the place is going to make it difficult for us to track what has been covered off and what hasn’t been covered off. I want to say that I think, when we look at the bill, there’s actually a quite thematic approach that we should be taking to this, because the clauses are—for example, issues that we want to raise around the National Education and Learning Priorities (NELPs) and Te Tiriti in clause 8 and clause 9 also come under clause 127; attendance is in clause 9 and clause 23; universities are in clauses 12, 7, and 11; and then we have the Teaching Council later on. So I propose I would like to make my contributions along the lines of a thematic approach, and the Minister can figure out who needs to answer what questions, depending on what we all put to her in our contributing speeches.

I want to start by saying that the Minister, in her opening speech, acknowledged the public and the submissions process, but what she failed to do in that acknowledgment is actually acknowledge that the majority of submissions were opposed to these proposed changes; in fact, 80.5 percent of the submissions disagreed with the proposal to make educational achievement the primary objective. So the Minister, on the one hand, thanks the public for participating in this process, and then—typical of this Minister—she absolutely ignores them. She ignores the submissions that they’ve given and the feedback that they’ve given back and continues to push ahead anyway, always so dismissive of the points that they’re making.

I would also make the point that these changes are not based on evidence; they are based on the Government having a coalition agreement between the National Party and the ACT Party. It is, in fact, in there that this is the baseless politicisation of education in Aotearoa, which is a troubling trend with this Government, including the latest Amendment Paper that we have received this afternoon about removing Te Tiriti o Waitangi provisions for the board. What we have here is that the Government has a very narrow and antiquated view of education, which is fitting for this Government because they have little interest in meaningful engagement and collaboration with the sector.

My question to the Minister is: where is the evidence of the collaboration with the sector on the changes that she is making—which is acknowledged and, actually, it is being celebrated by the Hon David Seymour, who is saying this is a win for them because this is something that they campaigned on and that they put in their coalition agreement. So my question to the Minister is: where is the evidence of her engagement and collaboration with the sector on these proposed changes?

What we have here is a very simplistic solution that is not evidence-based. While the Ministry of Education and the Minister of Education portrayed a view that nothing will change under the new drafting, there is a reason why statutory interpretation actually exists, and the changes to section 127 do have interpretation repercussions.

In that first contribution, I just want to know, given that the Minister acknowledged the public and the effort that they went to to make submissions into this process, why she ignored that the majority of them were opposed to these proposed changes, and what evidence can she give this committee of the whole House of the collaboration that she did with the sector?

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Sorry, Mr Chair, the Minister was just getting up to respond. [Member is given the call] OK. Right, so, like the previous speaker the Hon Willow-Jean Prime mentioned, we are going to take quite a thematic approach, and I think this bill does lend itself to that quite nicely.

We are starting with replacement section 127, inserted by clause 8—and just a signal to the Chair as well that we will then move on to attendance, universities, and the Teaching Council, in that particular order.

Now, starting with section 127, I also want to signal to the chair that the Minister has released a very substantial Amendment Paper yesterday, without public consultation, without notifying anyone. Usually it has been the case in the past that when Ministers do bring a bill or have those Amendment Papers, that they at least make the House aware that a certain Amendment Paper has been released, as a sign of good faith. But we also didn’t really see that. So I really want to just request to the Chair that we do need to, because it is substantial, be given the full opportunity to examine this, as well as where the intention of this particular amendment came from. I think I’m referring to Amendment Paper 408.

So on section 127, this is clause 8 we’re looking at and this is something that we sort of never got clarity on despite the select committee stage, and I understand the Minister’s position is that we want to have a single paramount objective, but then the Minister was also like, “Nothing is going to change.” So the question then is why make that change if nothing is going to change? If we are making that change, having the singular paramount objective, then something would be changed in terms of how the board is going to work. So if something is going to change, then could the Minister walk us through, operationally, on how school boards are expected to see that change?

That’s my first question for the Minister and I do want to touch on, I guess, one of the bigger questions—and I also have an amendment to this particular section as well, which I will mention later, but I want to touch on the second question, which is on the Minister’s Amendment Paper 428. So this is the Amendment Paper that came in yesterday, and this is the troubling amendment where the Minister has removed Te Tiriti o Waitangi, specifically the giving effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi in new section 127(2)(e).

While I understand the Minister is saying that, “Oh well, some of the criteria are still there.”; that’s very different to giving effect to Te Tiriti, because giving effect to Te Tiriti is far more holistic than that. So other than what the Minister has just mentioned before, what sort of advice has the Minister received? I also want to look to the Minister who, in this case is also responsible for—hold on, let me just quickly check; it is in clause 11 of the Education and Training Amendment Bill. Nope, it’s not in that one. I’ll try to find it in another contribution, but I guess the question is: where is this coming from in terms of the removal of Te Tiriti? But also, more importantly, what we also want to check with the Minister is what consultation has she then undertaken with the New Zealand School Boards Association, noting that the school boards are going to be the ones who are implementing this. I’ll leave those two questions for the time being. So exactly what is being changed? Walk us through the operational aspect and where did this amendment come from?

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): In relation to the first question that was questioning the consultation, there has been consultation on section 127. There was public consultation on the proposal to amend section 127 and to remove the National Education and Learning Priorities provisions from the Act between 2 September and 14 October 2024. The Ministry of Education consulted in 2024 on section 127, making achievement paramount—

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: And what was the advice?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: —before introducing the bill, so—she asked specifically about consultation.

Just making some comments in relation to the second question about the process, I’d just like to point out that the process is that the Amendment Paper should go up I think 24 hours beforehand—which it did, yesterday afternoon—and from all my time on the Opposition benches, the job of the Opposition was to keep an eye on the website to make sure that any Amendment Papers were brought to their attention. That’s certainly how it’s been working since 2017, and so that’s what the member should do.

In addressing the point around evidence, the evidence is that there have been decades of decline in student achievement, and I know that it hurts the Opposition—especially Willow-Jean Prime—to know that they had six years in Government and didn’t manage to raise achievement for tamariki Māori, or any students, at all. I know that that hurts, and I know that it hurts that in 18 months, we have managed to raise the early achievement of phonics and reading for Māori students—

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Oh, tell us about that data.

Hon ERICA STANFORD: —in just 18 months, and I love it that then they have to say, “Oh, it must be the dodgy data.” That’s where they always have to go to. Well, I know that it hurts—[Interruption]

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Ms Prime, the good thing about being in the committee stage is that you’ll get a chance to go to your feet and respond to this, rather than have a continual barrage.

Hon ERICA STANFORD: But the point of this change is so that we are all rowing in the same direction, that achievement is the paramount objective of school boards, that we are being very clear and concise in our directions on what boards must do in order to raise achievement for Māori students and achieve equitable outcomes, to make sure that they are offering te reo Māori, to make sure that they are then culturally competent in their schools.

We are still being very directive, but what we are doing is saying that the Crown holds the duty when it comes to our Treaty obligation. It was signed between the Crown and iwi Māori. We take that very seriously, which is why we have made sure that every resource that we have produced in English has been also provided in te reo Māori, and that every single professional learning and development, every single resource, and every single policy has also been made available for kura kaupapa and available for Māori immersion units. That’s why we are seeing an increase in Māori achievement.

It is not the job of well-meaning parents who run schools who are effectively volunteers to be deferred a Treaty duty. Do you know what happened in the last six years since that’s happened? Nothing. Student results didn’t get any better. I know that that hurts and I know that it hurts that under our Government they have finally started to turn a corner, but when you focus on achievement and have everybody focused on that and following the evidence and the science as to what works, that’s what happens. Virtue signalling and empty words smattered around don’t actually raise student achievement. The core tenet—the core tenet—of our Treaty obligation as the Crown is to raise tamariki Māori achievement. Unfortunately, the previous Government couldn’t do that, and that hurts.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you for pointing out that I get a chance in my contributions to respond to the Minister of Education and her virtue signalling about her recent results. I mean, I’ve seen so much feedback from the sector on those results that the Minister is boasting about, and I do question the robustness of that. I do question the methodology behind it. So maybe if the Minister would like to answer those questions, in terms of that data that she is boasting about.

The Minister said that they consulted on these proposed changes in new section 127, inserted by clause 8. I asked the Minister: what was the result of that consultation; what feedback did she get and did the ministry get from the sector around the things that they consulted on before bringing this bill to the House? The Minister didn’t talk to any of that, conveniently. She also, conveniently, does not acknowledge that in the public consultation process in select committee that the majority of those that submitted opposed what is being proposed here. So she has this consultation. She ignores all of the feedback. She carries on and pushes ahead anyway.

One of the things in this bill that they are proposing to do is to repeal—to repeal—the provisions around the NELPs, that’s the National Education and Learning Priorities. This is in clause 5. Those National Education and Learning Priorities were actually developed through extensive consultation with the sector, something this Minister doesn’t like to do.

Hon Erica Stanford: No, I like to raise achievement.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: No, you don’t like to work with—the Minister does not like to work in consultation with the sector. It says that they provide crucial strategic guidance to school boards about areas such as putting learners at the centre; barrier-free access to learning; quality teaching and leadership; and the future of learning and work; and creating a world-class, inclusive, public education system. They are only in place in the Act where children’s participation and decision making is required. Does the Minister care about the children and the students at all? Does she care about what they think? What consultation has she done with the children about anything that she has proposed in here?

My question, because the point that stakeholders made is that they do not believe that it is necessary to repeal this provision within the Act—so why is the removal necessary when it is not a requirement to issue a NELP but only an option for the Minister is they choose? Why does she want to get rid of something that the sector supports—that, in fact, the sector was involved in the development of, because she doesn’t seem to like working collaboratively with the sector and respecting anything that they may have worked on and put forward. So why is the removal of this necessary?

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): Interestingly, while submitters on this issue to the bill disagreed with the proposal to remove them, the School Boards Association did their own survey of school board members—so this is more like the public; you could imagine parents and people who are serving on school boards. The survey received 55 percent agreeing with the removal of the NELP. So there is a diversity of views out there.

But the views of this Government are that, yes, the previous Government did spend a long time on the NELP, around two years, consulting fully and creating another strategic document—they created many of them—in the end that only required school boards and others to “have regard to”. So it was a document that they spent a very, very long time on that actually was replicated in many, many other areas and documents that was their work programme. But we have an urgent issue. We have got plummeting student achievement. If the member opposite and her previous Government had spent more time focusing on the children and their outcomes, rather than all of these strategic documents that didn’t actually do anything, maybe student achievement would have improved in the six years under their watch, but it didn’t.

We have used a different vehicle for our six priority areas. Many of the things that are outlined in the NELP are already replicated elsewhere. It is a document that people don’t have to give regard to or don’t have to follow if they don’t want to. We have our work programme. It is outlined in our Cabinet paper and in our press release and shown to the sector on many occasions. I talk about it often; it will never change, our six key priority areas to drive achievement. They’re already having an impact.

Again, I’ll say to the member: I know that it’s tough to see this Government raising achievement, when they spent six years with a whole lot of documents and strategies that didn’t go anywhere, but that’s just really unfortunate.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I also want to get some guidance from you, Mr Chair. We have heard the Minister of Education, rather than responding to the questions on this particular bill, spending an inordinate amount of time actually attacking the previous Government. So I’m just checking with you, Mr Chair, that if we are opening up shop for political hot takes, then there are a lot of things we could also be saying. But I would like to speak very closely to the bill.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Well, I’ll just answer that question. The Minister is aware that the wider her answers, the more material then comes within scope for those asking the questions. It’s been a fairly broad-based debate to date. It is a little bit more difficult to direct to specific parts, probably, while the Minister’s answers remain as broad as they do, because there is always going to be that wider scope. Carry on, Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Thank you, Mr Chair. And I think it is important, and what the Minister is saying is important, but I want to look at a few things that I asked before.

One of the things I asked is when it comes to the removal of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and potential legal obligations. Let me just say then, the president of the School Boards Association has come out, and I wondered—the first question is around how the Minister keeps on talking about “core Crown”. The term “core Crown” has never come up anywhere else that I know of, so if the Minister wouldn’t mind first defining what she means by “Crown”, because school boards themselves are Crown entities—in effect, school boards are the Crown. So if the Minister is saying that we don’t want school boards, as Crown entities, to be in charge of overseeing student work—and let’s say schools already have a number of obligations, responsibilities, and accountabilities. We have seen that in the past, school boards have been charged with neglect. So school boards already have to do that. By giving effect to Te Tiriti, it doesn’t actually mean what the Minister thinks that it means. So I just want to check, just clarify: what is “core Crown”, and is the Minister aware that school boards are Crown entities and they do have a legal obligation as well?

Which then comes to my second question around Te Tiriti, which is: have the Ministers consulted with the Minister for Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti? Because in section 6 of the Education and Training Act, they do give allowances for the Minister to actually collaborate with the Minister for Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti on certain announcements. I would assume that the removal of Te Tiriti o Waitangi is probably quite a big one to consult with the Minister for Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti on. So I’m just checking if the Minister has consulted with the other responsible Minister in this area, on this, and whether the Minister will see this potentially open up to things like, you know, a Waitangi Tribunal application. Because, again, we do, broadly, have an obligation in Aotearoa for things like the inclusion and, in this case, the removal of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. It’s not just simply something that the Minister can drop the day before. So that’s my third question.

On to consultation. I’m glad that the Minister quoted the consultation that she did, and I’m actually very pleased with that consultation. Hats off to the Minister for being one of the few Ministers that released an exposure draft bill. But in that consultation, in terms of making student outcomes the primary objective, the opposition rate—because the Minister cares about numbers, when she quoted 55 percent of school boards didn’t like the National Education and Learning Priorities—80.5 percent of the submitters did not agree with making education outcomes the primary objective for section 127. Then, if we’re moving on to the select committee stage, 94 percent of the submitters to the Education and Workforce Committee did not agree, or were opposed, to this particular section of making student outcomes paramount in the bill.

I know that it does hurt the Minister to consider that the way that we’re looking at student outcomes is the be all and end all, but at the same time, if this Minister spends some time in front of a classroom, I feel like that it is a little bit different and it can almost be considered hubris for the Minister to not actually take the advice of the sector with something like this. So that’s my third question: if the Minister truly did consult, then why has the Minister not taken on board the other numbers that didn’t necessarily agree with her agenda?

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): I’ll attempt to answer all of those—there are a number of questions there. Firstly, the core Crown—i.e., the Government of the day and central government agencies—are parties to the Treaty. The explicit duty for school boards to give effect to the Treaty is being removed in recognition that schools are not part of the core Crown. Yes, there are some Crown entities that have Treaty obligations, but school boards are very, very different than any of those. They are predominantly made up of parents who are, essentially, volunteers, who have a range of things that they need to achieve in the governance of their school. We don’t, as a Government, and this Cabinet has decided that the core Crown has the duty with iwi Māori in relation to the Treaty of Waitangi and that it is not up to a school board to try to decipher how to give effect to the Treaty. We are, instead, being very clear with school boards: what are the things that you need to do around language, cultural competence, and ensuring that there are equitable outcomes for tamariki Māori so that they are very clear and not having to try and decipher what giving effect to the Treaty is, because that is the job of the Crown; that is the decision of Cabinet.

In relation to the second part of the question and some idea that I don’t spend time in classrooms, I spent a lot of time in classrooms and with students and talking to teachers and talking to parents—

Hon Member: More than anyone—more than anyone.

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Yes, I’d say you’re right, probably more than anybody in this House. It is one of my very, very favourite jobs. But it’s also important to not that, yes, there were people who submitted on the bill, there are also a number of other stakeholders in New Zealand, like parents. There are tens of thousands of parents who expect this Government to make sure that when their child turns up to school that they get the very best world-leading education and that they reach their full potential at school. Now, for too long, as I mentioned, those results have been declining, nobody has managed to turn it around. We have a plan, we’re putting it in place, we’re already seeing the early results of that, and we are unashamedly making sure that when children turn up to school that we turn those results around because, if we don’t, then, the future of this country is not in a good space.

There may have been a third question that I’ve missed, and if the questioner wants to raise it again, I’ll answer it, because I don’t remember what that was.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): Thank you, Mr Chair. I have some questions for the Minister on these provisions that we’re discussing. The first is: does she accept that Te Tiriti is the country’s founding document? Does she accept that Te Tiriti has constitutional status in New Zealand? Does she think it’s inappropriate or appropriate for our public school system to operate in accordance with Te Tiriti, particularly if she does regard it, in fact, as a constitutional document?

Does she think that it’s a zero-sum game that schools cannot chew gum and walk at the same time; that is, they cannot strive and improve educational achievement and do it while operating in a way that is consistent with Te Tiriti? And, if she does think it’s a zero-sum game, and that any energy that a school puts into operating in a way that’s consistent with Te Tiriti is energy that cannot be put into educational achievement, what evidence does she have to support that?

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): The member will be very aware that the Cabinet Manual sees the Treaty as a constitutional document, of course. Since 1989, we have had school boards, and we have not had a clause in any part of the Education Act which has conferred or deferred a Treaty obligation away from the Crown to a group of parents who are volunteers on school boards. Now, that change has only been in place for a few years. But I'd also say to the member, there is more than just—

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: In recognition that it was failing.

Hon ERICA STANFORD: You're going to have your say when you get to ask your question, so just [gestures for member to sit down] for a bit, all right?

In answer to the member’s questions around chewing gum and walking at the same time, there are many things in clause 8 replacing section 127 that we're asking the school board to do, not just to raise achievement. Around student safety and wellbeing, there's parts around making sure that they're turning up to school—attendance—and making sure that they're carrying out assessments. There are a huge amount of things.

Not only that, but also we're being very, very clear about what school boards need to do, as I've already mentioned, in order to ensure that there are equitable outcomes for Māori students—that they're offering te reo Māori and that they're being culturally competent in the way that they operate in their school. So there are many things that we're asking the school boards to do, and being very particular, and some of those things are particular to tamariki Māori.

But it is, as I've already said, the Crown's responsibility, and it's Cabinet's decision that it is the Crown's responsibility, to honour the Treaty and to make sure that we are abiding by that, and we're doing that in many ways. If you look at our entire work programme, everything we're doing is also in te reo Māori. As I've already mentioned: all of the resources, all of the professional learning and development (PLD). We're providing new assessments for assessing early readers’ phonics ability in te reo Māori, which is why we're able to see where and when we need to intervene early for those students who are learning in te reo Māori and immersion units that are in kura kaupapa, so that we can intervene early to make sure that their reading is on track as well.

As far back as I can see, no Government has ever mirrored their exact work programme to make sure that all of the resources, all of the PLD, everything that we're doing, every policy, are also there and available in te reo Māori for Māori students as well. And that is why we're starting to see a shift.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Point of order. Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to say that I do take personal offence, under Standing Order 121, from the Minister for using te reo Māori when she is actively removing Te Tiriti o Waitangi from the legislation—

Hon Members: Oh, sit down!

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Shush, children! When someone is raising a point of order, it is heard in silence. Thank you. My point of order is that I do take personal offence, under Standing Order 121, for the Minister to use te reo Māori when she's actively removing Te Tiriti o Waitangi from the legislation, and I would like for her to withdraw and apologise.

Hon Erica Stanford: Speaking to the point of order.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yes, you can speak to the point of order, Hon Erica Stanford.

Hon Erica Stanford: Madam Chair, it is very clear, in everything that we're doing, that we are supporting te reo Māori in schools, not only making sure that school boards have an obligation to make sure that they're offering te reo Māori but also making sure that everything is available in te reo Māori—more so than any Government ever, that I've been able to see. So there's no need for the member to take offence.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Is this a point of order, or?

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: No, this is a new call.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): A new call? OK. Hon Willow-Jean Prime—he ceded the call to you.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. We’ve just had the Minister, once again, standing up and talking so proudly about her record of te reo Māori. My question to the Minister is: what gave the Minister the right to determine that Te Tiriti o Waitangi means providing resources in te reo Māori? Who gave the Minister and the Crown the sole right to determine that giving effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi is to simply provide resources in te reo Māori? Who did she talk to?

Which iwi, which hapū who signed to Te Tiriti o Waitangi did the Minister talk to, to determine that in order to give effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi all she has to do is give some resources and te reo Māori? The duties of the Crown to give effect to and honour Te Tiriti o Waitangi are far more than providing some resources in te reo Māori, OK? The Minister might want to address that one for us.

But I want the Minister to also tell me how she can claim that providing resources in te reo Māori is giving effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi when she is also recolonising the curriculum, whitewashing the curriculum? Who was involved in the rewrite of that curriculum, minimising the use of te reo Māori, minimising Māori concepts and matauranga Māori in that curriculum`?

Minister, as the Crown, who did you work with when working with your Treaty partners? Who did you consult? Who agreed that giving effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi was removing Māori words from 5-year-old students’ readers? Can she tell me the answer to that one?

Who did the Minister consult with when she decided that giving effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi meant removing $30 million of funding for Te Ahu o te Reo Māori, which is to train Māori teachers to be able to deliver?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Can I stop the member for a moment and just ask which clauses you’re referring to because I’m trying to find the scope of the questions that you’re currently asking. So can you refer me to a clause?

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Sure, yes. Replacement section 127, inserted by clause 8, the removal of giving effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Madam Speaker, for your benefit, prior to you arriving, the Minister made some quite broad contributions, and as the previous Chair pointed out, opened herself up to this very type of questioning and debate. So that was made very clear by the presiding officer who was here immediately prior to you.

Now, the Minister, in her last contribution, as you were switching over, talked about how she was proud of this Government’s record of giving effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the responsibility of the Crown by giving Māori resources to kids, by translating them. So, I am responding to that. The Minister stopped me as I was interjecting over here and said that I will get my turn. So, in my turn, I am asking the Minister to now answer the questions that she invited me to ask.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Thank you for the recap. That’s helpful in the changeover, thank you.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Now, I look forward to the Minister answering those questions. I also want the Minister to explain very clearly for the House—

Cameron Luxton: And slowly for the member.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: That’s right—really slowly, really clearly, in real detail, what she understands the Crown’s obligations to Māori under Te Tiriti o Waitangi are. And in the Cabinet Manual, what are the Crown’s duties and obligations in education to give effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi? What are the obligations of partnership? What are the obligations of active protection? What are the obligations of equity? Can the Minister please tell me what she understands her obligations are, as the Crown, in terms of Te Tiriti o Waitangi?

Can the Minister then tell me how she intends to ensure that schools do this if the boards of trustees no longer have any responsibility under this legislation and the proposed removal of this requirement on them? The Minister is going to delegate duties to boards of trustees but not any responsibilities. So how is the Minister, who says she’s going to retain that responsibility—what mechanism is she going to have in place to ensure that schools and boards of trustees are upholding her Treaty obligations? Because you’re removing one of those provisions. So, can the Minister tell the House, this evening, how she intends to monitor that so that parents across Aotearoa know that she is not simply delegating authority to school boards with no responsibility and that it just falls through some gap, which I’m sure is actually one of the key objectives of this? How will you ensure that that is upheld?

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): Going back to the start of that contribution where the member was asking around the provision of te reo resources—and this may go to part of my questions as to why the previous Government didn’t do this; I’m now starting to understand it. But under the Waitangi Tribunal’s decision, Wai 11—and the member would be advised to go and look at that decision, which says that treating te reo Māori as a taonga is important and that te reo Māori is, in fact, a taonga under the Treaty of Waitangi and it deserves active protection. The way that we do that in education is to make sure that we are providing resources, that there is bilingual education like the kura kaupapa and rumaki units, and that we are actively protecting the language, and a part of that is to provide resources. It’s only one way, but it is an important way of making sure that we are actively protecting that taonga of te reo Māori, which is exactly what we’re doing. There are a lot more things that we do in order to do that, but the member asked that particular question about resourcing.

The member also went on to ask what I think honouring the Treaty means, and I’ve said this a number of times. In article 3 of the Treaty, it’s very clear that the rights and responsibilities are given to Māori as they are British citizens, if you take the literal reading of the Treaty of Waitangi. That means, when we think about education, that tamariki Māori are receiving an education and they have equitable outcomes. That is why that yawning gap between Māori achievement and non-Māori achievement over so many decades has meant that we haven’t been doing all we can do to uphold that part of the Treaty, which is why I am so focused on every single thing that I do in the mainstream to make sure we’re also doing it in te reo Māori.

All of the things I’ve already mentioned, I won’t go over them again, but we are also being very clear with school boards. As I’ve already said, it’s very vague to say to a school board that you need to give effect to the Treaty of Waitangi, because what does that mean, in effect, for a school board? And I’ll tell you what, the member opposite hasn’t actually said what she thinks that it means. We are being very, very clear. We are saying that you must offer te reo Māori when students request it; you must make sure that you are attempting to achieve equitable outcomes for tamariki Māori, and you must make sure that you are being culturally competent: very clear and specific to boards so they know exactly what they need to do. It’s all very well to just put words in without actually being clear about what they mean, because what happens is that boards lose their focus, and we want them to be laser focused on raising achievement, closing the equity gap, and doing those things to raise Māori achievement. That’s what we’re focused on doing.

CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. Tēnā koe e te Minita. Otirā, tēnā tātou katoa. It's my pleasure to stand here as the presiding member of te kura kaupapa Māori o Taperenui a Whatonga to seek further clarification around section 127.

Beyond te reo and beyond resources, can the Minister of Education accept that giving effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi looks different according to iwi, hapū, community, and the tikanga and kawa processes of that iwi, hapū, and community? If so, how can the Minister monitor effectiveness and, of course, ensure consistency? I mean, I'm yet to hear a good argument about why we're honestly mucking around with Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

It's absolutely unnecessary. To simply say that if someone wants access to their reo, to their culture, they can request it, already disenfranchised people are not going to do that. They are going to sit—

Hon David Seymour: Why not?

CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL:

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

—because they've been downtrodden by ridiculous laws like this. That's why Te Tiriti being in these documents is so important, so ignoramuses can't detach people from their culture and their reo. But the question is: how can a Government asking stupid questions like that give us any comfort?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Direct the questions to the Minister and less of this pointing, thank you.

CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL: How can anyone in this country feel reassured that Te Tiriti will be honoured when we've got Government Ministers making silly quips like that about the value of Te Tiriti and access to te reo and tikanga and identity?

So in simplistic terms, how will the Minister monitor the effectiveness of this? What qualifies the Minister to ensure Te Tiriti will be given effect across schools across Aotearoa and therefore how will she ensure the consistency when the delivery giving effect to this will look different and it should look different in every school community, and that's what boards can be charged with. Tēnā tātou.

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): One of the easiest ways to ensure that you are raising achievement—which is, again, the core tenet of a Treaty duty: to make sure that tamariki Māori are succeeding to their full potential, which we have not done in this country for some time—is to make sure that we're assessing our young people. That's why we created Hihira Weteoro, which is a phonics check that is designed specifically—a world first, as far as we can tell—for Māori children learning in bilingual units. It tests them at 20 weeks, 40 weeks, and 55 weeks—understanding that they are learning in a bilingual environment, in some cases, or in full immersion—to make sure that they are staying on track with their learning. Where they fall behind, we pick them up with our literacy intervention teachers and programmes that we have put in place, which are very, very important.

What we're also doing is making sure that, for the first time—this has never been done before; the previous Government didn't do this—we’re actually assessing. Taking a sample assessment in our Curriculum Insights and Progress study, where we take samples of children in years 3, 6, and 8 in the mainstream and assess them in reading, writing, and maths to make sure that they're on track and that Government policies are working—for the first time, we're going to be doing that in immersion settings as well.

So the best way to make sure that we are achieving equitable outcomes is to actually ask the question, are we? We haven't done that before. We haven't had really good data across our mainstreaming and immersion units.

Also, from next year, there will be a requirement to assess, using one of the three assessment tools, reading, writing, and maths, twice a year, every year, from year 3. So it will be very telling how achievement is going and whether or not we are making sure that there are equitable outcomes for Māori students.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Can I just say, before we take some more questions for the Minister, that we've spent a reasonable amount of time around clause 8 replacing section 127 and the Minister has been answering the questions all the way through. The members may not like some of the answers, but the Minister has actually been answering. So it'd be really good if we could branch out to see if there's anything else in this piece of legislation.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): Point of order, Madam Chair. Thank you for that. I do just want to check your understanding, though, because this Amendment Paper that has been introduced around Te Tiriti—the removal of the requirements for giving effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi—has not been to select committee. This is our only opportunity to ask the Minister questions about this specific point. There are other things in section 127 that did go to select committee, which we haven't addressed yet—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I get the point of order from the member. My judgment is that the questions that have been asked to this point about how the Minister is going to ensure and measure have been answered by the Minister. I'm looking for different questions because I feel like the questions since I've been in here for the last 20 minutes have been very similar questions and very similar answers to what I've already seen that the previous Chair has written down. I’m looking for you to broaden out. What I'm saying is you may not like the answer that the Minister's giving you, but it doesn't mean that she's not answering the question.

SHANAN HALBERT (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate and respect your comments, and I’ll do my best to add additional points. The problem here is that the Minister of Education has been quite narrow in her responses and that what we’re trying to understand is, actually, how did this decision come about where, at the eighth hour, we’ve received an amendment; we’ve been through a select committee process; and our select committee actually does good, constructive, robust work; it wasn’t a short process; and so there was every opportunity for the Minister to drop this particular amendment.

It is a pattern of behaviour from this Government. This is not the first amendment that is dropped at the eighth hour to remove the Treaty of Waitangi; Minister Simmonds and Government colleagues did the same in the vocational training bill. So it’s not new for the Government. It is part of the coalition agreement. So I am confused why the Government is, in fact, dropping such a large piece of discussion that is sensitive in nature and is the foundation document for our country at a late stage in this process. Hence why I’m sort of drilling into the Minister to say “When did this amendment go to Cabinet and approved by Cabinet, was that this week?”—just to understand why it’s so late in the piece and what consultation keeps on coming up.

But she actually hasn’t identified for us which groups have been consulted around this particular amendment. It is the removal of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. I acknowledge that she is uncomfortable about doing this and probably is being wedged by the minor parties around her in this Government, the ACT Party and New Zealand First. This is their push, and she will be uncomfortable about this decision. But she is the boss here and she needs to answer these questions in this phase of scrutiny in the committee of the whole House.

So which groups did the Minister actually consult with here, which Māori groups as well, and which schools, if any—if any—came back and said to the Minister “This is a good thing, to put an amendment in place that removes Te Tiriti o Waitangi?”

The next layer of that is about understanding the rationale behind why this is important. The Minister has talked a lot about equity but we haven’t unpacked the role that Te Tiriti plays in achieving equitable outcomes for tamariki in our education system. So the question arises: can equity be achieved without our foundation document underpinning the decision making at a governance level in our schools? If that is removed, how do we achieve true equity?

The Minister, this afternoon, has come up with examples—some people call it cherry-picking—of the work that the Government is doing in te reo, and the like—which is fine, that’s good; I respect those things that they are doing, but that is not equity. That is not equity, Minister—

Hon Erica Stanford: What is it? Tell me.

SHANAN HALBERT: —it is examples—I’ve still got a minute.

Hon Erica Stanford: No, I mean, tell me what those things are.

SHANAN HALBERT: My question here—it’s my job to scrutinise you today, right?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The Minister’s just asking the member to clarify what he meant by that last statement.

SHANAN HALBERT: As I said—

Camilla Belich: Point of order. Madam Chair, you’ll know that there is a Standing Order which prohibits the Minister from utilising the microphone during the committee stage in order to insert comments into the debate. So I just appreciate—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I do understand that. I’m just trying to get the best answers out for the questions. If the Minister wants to clarify a question that somebody’s asked, I think that’s really important for the Minister to be able to answer the question. I don’t believe she was injecting herself. I’ve seen Ministers inject themselves in the past; she was just trying to get some clarification.

SHANAN HALBERT: Thank you, Madam Chair. The thing I’m trying to understand from the Minister is: what role does she see Te Tiriti o Waitangi playing in achieving equitable outcomes for tamariki in our education system? That has been removed.

What has been done here is silencing of Māori voices around a governance group that runs our schools. I’d like her to give me an understanding of if she agrees that that is silencing Māori voices around that table and what’s the impact of that.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to say, Madam Chair, this is not repeating questions for the sake of it. I want to respond directly to something that the Minister didn't say in her failure to answer one of my previous questions, but also to respond to things that she actually has said.

I finished my last intervention by asking the Minister to share with the House evidence that underpins—I think—her assertion that having the Treaty of Waitangi enshrined in this legislation is somehow a distraction, or detracts, from her objective—that, I think, is shared by everybody here—that we want to see tamariki Māori do as well as they possibly can in the education system. She doesn't answer that.

Further, I want to take the Minister's claims at face value that she's committed to supporting the achievement of Māori in the education system, and she's investing and producing resources and so on; and, also at face value, the distinction that the Minister draws between achievement of Māori in the system and the inclusion of Te Tiriti in law. If I can paraphrase what I've heard from the Minister today, she's more interested in educational achievement than she is in, somehow, the kind of symbolism of having Te Tiriti in our education legislation.

My question is: logically, why not do both? Why choose one over the other? Why not knock yourself out doing everything you can to encourage Māori to do as well as they possibly can in our education system, and have Te Tiriti enshrined in our law conveying to this and all future Governments our shared obligation to make sure that Māori see themselves reflected in everything we do in public life in this country? Why is she choosing one over the other?

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): The Treaty of Waitangi is enshrined in our legislation. It is deeply enshrined in the Education and Training Act in section 32, and I take that responsibility very seriously. But to have a clause and a board of trustees requirement that says they need to give effect to the Treaty, without actually being very clear on what that means—and it's very interesting that's the members are using words like “true equity” and “really honouring the Treaty”, without even saying what it is that they think. The reason that they won't is because they've got the same problem that boards of trustees have; that they don't know what “giving effect to the Treaty” actually means.

What we are being very clear on is what they need to do to seek to achieve equitable outcomes for Māori students: to take all reasonable steps to provide for teaching and learning in te reo Māori to students whose parents or caregivers request it; to take reasonable steps to ensure that the policies and practices for at school reflect New Zealand's cultural diversity. What we really need boards focused on is language, is culture, is making sure that students are achieving to the very highest possible of their abilities.

But in section 32, deeply enshrined in our legislation, is the Treaty duty, which sits with the Crown, which has been guiding me in all of my policies and all of my decisions. The members opposite might not like to think that providing resources and professional learning and development and making sure that we are providing to Māori language skills to teachers—which we are about to commence with next year, as it was budgeted for this year; all the literacy resources we're providing to schools, secondary schools, kura kaupapa, whare kura—is important. Those things are very important to our Treaty obligation to make sure that we are revitalising the language and making sure that Māori students are reaching their full potential, and that is exactly what we are doing.

But what we are saying to boards is, we don't expect you to sit around and try and work out what honouring or giving effect to the Treaty means—because if you want to talk about something being very unclear, that is exactly it. We need, and parents expect, boards of trustees to be laser focused on outcomes for students: getting them to school, making sure they're achieving to the highest possibility, and keeping them safe.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I also just wanted to mention to you, Madam Chair, with the previous Chair, we mentioned there are broader themes within this bill that we want to explore and we’re on the section on the obligations of the board, but there is also the other sections of attendance, universities, and the Teaching Council.

I want to just check with something that I asked the Minister of Education right at the beginning, which was around not so much broader consultation with the public but more consultation with, potentially, her Cabinet colleagues or with other officials.

I think my first question would be: how come, particularly with some of these changes, we haven’t seen a child impact statement being conducted, when this particular bill does affect children quite severely? In this case, in terms of a child impact statement, what sort of consultation, particularly with the latest amendment, Amendment Paper 428, that the Minister dropped, has been consulted through Mana Mokopuna, the Children’s Commissioner? I think that’s also a helpful indicator to the committee that the due diligence, even though we may not have seen it, has been done when introducing something like that into the committee.

The other person that I checked with in terms of consultation, for the Minister, was the Minister for Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti. That was mainly from the perspective of what, then—I understand what the Minister is saying, the Treaty of Waitangi is available in clause 6, amending section 9, but anything that removes the giving effect of Te Tiriti o Waitangi within any legislation should have serious scrutiny. So I want to know whether the Minister for Māori Crown Relations has been consulted and what this would mean for Māori-Crown relations in general, and has the Minister received advice on what this would mean in terms of potentially an application to the Waitangi Tribunal?

All of these included, when we’re looking at replacement section 127, inserted by clause 8, I think a broader question that we haven’t asked is: sure, the Minister wants to make sure that there is one single paramount objective, but with everything else we’re talking about, were there actually other options that were being considered? The Minister has consistently mentioned that it was confusing, that boards are volunteers, and etc.—and I 100 percent agree with that, but, at the same time, what are some of the other ways for us to potentially reach the sort of ability for the school boards to be able to do their role as the governing body of a school by other means, by providing additional resources? Rather than kind of like saying “You only need to focus on one thing, because you are volunteers and you don’t have the capacity.”, was there any option being considered that would give them the capacity to actually consider all of these or give them the resources that would potentially consider all of these?

Those are the tangible things. What information, then, have school boards been given on how to communicate or how to involve the mana whenua where the school is based? These are some of the tangible options that, for example, the Minister may have considered. So I’d be keen to hear from the Minister.

Now, the Minister has also mentioned, in terms of ākonga Māori and some other things—and I think it’s really important to highlight that kura kaupapa, kōhanga reo, kura reo, and all of those sort of things, we are seeing tamariki Māori, etc., thriving in those environments. I don’t deny the fact that the Minister has put resources into it. However, 97 percent of ākonga Māori are in English medium; they’re not in Māori medium. So while we’re celebrating Māori-medium success, what are we doing, signalling to those 97 percent of ākonga Māori in the English medium, saying “We are now removing the school boards’ need to give effect to Te Tiriti.”? What, then, would the Minister say to these 97 percent?

I really want to pick up the question from my colleague Cushla Tangaere-Manuel, because, I think, that question is really important, because what we are hearing from the Minister is that, yes, parents, caregivers, students can request it, but what that translates to is: if you want to do anything that is culturally yours, you’ve got to bat for it—you’ve got to ask for it; it is not naturally given to you as your birthright.

Ingrid Leary: Madam Chair?

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Sorry, Madam Chair? I’m almost done.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Thank you, Madam Chair. I apologise. I lost track of time.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I apologise too because I wasn’t watching the clock; I was listening.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: I think that’s a really important point: what, then, would this signal to ākonga Māori in terms of how the Minister’s intent is empowering them to succeed as Māori, not succeed for Māori? That is the really important question when we’re looking at a lot of these.

Again, I don’t deny the fact that the Minister mentioned about success in phonics and all of those, because when you are looking for success, you will find success. But it’s also ironic that the Minister uses phonics as an example, because I think it’s a really important analogy when it comes to the understanding of phonics and semantics and all of those other things and when you’re looking at context within a language, is that, with phonics, the Minister is using Māori like phonics, but the Minister doesn’t understand the context of being Māori or what it means for Māori. That’s a very, very important analogy when we’re looking at purely singular success when it comes to phonetics.

The Minister also mentioned te reo Māori being a taonga. Now, we have seen, both in terms of the way that the new curriculum has rolled out, we’ve also seen, in terms of some of the removal of kupu Māori in books like At the Marae. I want to check with the Minister, when she says that te reo Māori is a taonga, then why are kupu Māori being removed—

Hon David Seymour: It’s irrelevant to the bill.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Well, it is because that’s what the Minister is saying, and the Minister is using this to justify that it’s OK to remove giving effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

Jenny Marcroft: Is there a question?

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: The question, then, for the Minister is: why has, then, the ministry also decided not to include kupu Māori in any new Ready to Read Phonics Plus books, except for only in character names?

So all of those sorts of things, I just wanted to get clarification from the Minister, because the Minister is saying one thing but what we are seeing in terms of the reality and what we are seeing in terms of the announcement is something that’s completely different.

Just to recap a couple of the questions that I have. The question is: why was there no child impact statement being made? What consultation has she done specifically with things like Mana Mokopuna, in terms of obligation to children, with Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti? What are the potential consequences of application to the Waitangi Tribunal? Has she considered any other options in terms of this particular bill, other than having one paramount objective? What is her position, then, on things like removing kupu Māori when she says that te reo Māori is a taonga?

I want to finish with just touching on two additional things. One of the things is around NELP. I understand the Minister was saying, before, that one of the things that was part of the consultation was though NELP was really good, the current NELPs have “particular regard”. That, I understand from what the Minister is saying. So I would ask the Minister to consider my amendment, Amendment Paper 403, which is to reinstate NELP but actually make it stronger by saying “to give effect” rather than just simply removing it altogether. I do agree with the Minister that “have regards” is a little bit more vague.

I would also like to ask the Minister to consider my Amendment Paper 404. Now, this is one of the other questions I had earlier, which is: if nothing’s going to change, why change section 127, everything within section 127, including supporting objectives? I want to pick up particularly on clause 8, new section 127(2) and 127(3). That we change “To meet” to “In addition to”. Now, the reason for that is just to ensure that the supporting objective must be met. So it provides a clarity that has not been provided from a statutory interpretation perspective. So this particular amendment that I want to ask the Minister to consider is to provide a needed clarification that much more aligns the intention of the clause, where supporting objectives must be independently met, rather than have one be conditional on another.

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): I’ll just run through those questions. Firstly, there's no requirement for a child impact statement. Secondly, the question around consultation—there was full ministerial consultation, as there always is in a Cabinet process, and Minister Potaka was also on Minister Goldsmith's ministerial advisory group around the Treaty principles work that was done, so he was consulted, of course.

Around the claim that I've said nothing will change, that is not the case. What we've said is we want boards to be laser focused on raising achievement, and that's exactly what we expect to happen. But with the clarifications that we're putting into section 127, we are being very clear that there does still need to be—and very importantly—te reo, culture, and making sure that that equity gap is closed in section 127 so that boards are focused on doing their duty and not on a vague clause that says “give effect to the Treaty”, but they don't know what that means. We are being clear in what it means: those are the things that you must do.

The member is talking like there is only one objective for a school board. There are many objectives and they are all essential supporting objectives, but we want to make sure that they are laser focused on achievement.

With the National Education and Learning Priorities (NELP), I appreciate the member’s position, but this Government has come in with six very clear priorities. The NELP are overly burdensome. They are just one of many documents that school boards have to look at. We're reducing that compliance. We've been very clear on what we need them to do and been very clear on what our six key priority areas are, and that is the work of this Government.

There may be some other things I haven't answered, apologies. There were lots of questions and I tried my very best.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Thank you, Madam Chair. This is my first contribution, and I've been listening very carefully to what can seem like quite an academic and conceptual debate around “giving effect to” versus a list of things that are based on assumptions. Picking up on what the Minister of Education just said, we heard about te reo / language. We heard about culture versus “giving effect to”, which was presented to us as being vague. I wanted to try and ground this in some questions, for the Hansard, actually—for the record—so that I'm reassured that not only our Māori kids but actually the diversity of cultures in New Zealand who benefit from Te Tiriti clauses will not be disadvantaged when it comes to things that do enhance their learning and do improve their academic achievement, and those are around culture and identity.

I want to just reference work that I did with the Rt Hon Adrian Rurawhe a couple of years ago and bring the voices of the students into the House. I had a constituent case which was tricky, of a student who was wearing corn braids. That was part of his cultural identity. He was not Māori. The rector at the school decided that that was a distraction, and there was a bit of an impasse.

The result of that was that we decided to hear the voices of students. We asked students from different schools—uniformed schools and non-uniformed schools; about six of them, I think, in total, from the greater Wellington region—to come in and give us their experience of having these school uniforms that did not or did require certain things. And this is around identity and culture. It was very clear, from those conversations—there were arguments on both sides, but it was very clear that cultural identity and giving effect to Te Tiriti is embedded in school uniform protocols and in grooming protocols, and that those protocols benefit not only Māori but other students. Actually, it goes a step further, because we also had a gender lens and we were able to understand the difficulty for some people to go into classrooms being required to wear binary uniforms that were distracting to their education. It was very clear that the evidence that the kids were giving us was that what they need to do to achieve is to feel comfortable and confident in their identity and in the rules that allow them to express themselves.

As a result of that, the Human Rights Commission drew up a list of guidelines for boards of trustees, and those were received around Aotearoa. They were not mandatory, but they were based on the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, on freedom of expression and identity, and on Te Tiriti and giving effect to Te Tiriti.

My question for the Minister now is, if we're going to take that out of the board of trustees’ suite of things to consider, does that mean that those school uniform protocols that have been adopted by many schools and welcomed with open arms by many boards of trustees and by many students and that no doubt have led to higher achievement are to be thrown out—the baby with the bathwater? Does it mean that giving effect to Te Tiriti, as I understand what she just talked about, is about culture? So we might think of kapa haka performances, te reo classes, and resourcing. What about these really fundamental questions about self-expression and identity? Because if they are to be in that list of things, I think the Hansard needs to reflect that now so it's very clear. If they are not, if they're seen as a distraction and not part of the core things that boards are to focus on, then I think that needs to be on the record.

That, again, goes back to whose perspective on identity and culture we are honouring here. Is it one part of the Treaty partnership or is it true partnership? The reason I ask this is because this is not conceptual. We have had feedback from students, even in my electorate, who have had cultural taonga through moko kauwae, through other things, where they have embraced those. Their schools have embraced them. They have found a new love of learning. They have said how liberating it is for their education, and all the evidence stacks that up. So this is not a conceptual debate, this is real life, and if the Minister agrees that those school uniform guidelines should stand, then I would like that to be on the Hansard so there is absolutely no doubt that we are not ripping away things that have been built carefully with students at the centre of the of the debate.

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): I've already said this a number of times and I’m in danger of repeating myself, but if the member looks at the Amendment Paper, firstly, it does say, “takes [all] reasonable steps to ensure the policies and practices [at] the school reflect New Zealand's cultural diversity:”, and I expect that schools, as self-managing entities, will continue to do exactly that.

There are a number of things in section 127 that are not changing: that a school is a physically and emotionally safe place for its students; that it gives effect to relevant student rights set out in this Act and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990

There are a number of things that are already in the Act that protect against those things; it wasn't suddenly in just the last few years since the previous Labour Government put in the obligation for a board of trustees to give effect to the Treaty that suddenly gave rise to all of these things. In fact, the Opposition are speaking like this is a duty that has been on school boards since the dawn of time of boards, which is 1989. In fact, it's only been in since 2020 and it hasn't given rise to these things. In fact, since it's been in place, the core tenet, as I've said, of giving effect to the Treaty, which is raising student achievement, has gone backwards.

I can assure that member that schools are self-managing entities, and they will still take these decisions and continue to do so because it is here and we're being very clear in the legislation: take reasonable steps to ensure that the policies and practices of its school reflect New Zealand's cultural diversity. I’m answering all of that member’s questions.

GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland): I move, That debate on this question now close.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that debate on this question now close. All those in favour say Aye, to the contrary, No. The Ayes have it? The Ayes have it.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: The Noes have it. Party vote, please.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Too late, sorry. I’ve just called the Ayes have it.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendments to Amendment Paper 364 amending new clause 15AAA be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments to 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 to the amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 1 set out on Amendment Papers 364 and 428 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 (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendments to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 403 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 (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Willow-Jean Prime’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): Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendment to clause 6 set out on Amendment Paper 404 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s remaining amendments to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 404 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 Willow-Jean Prime’s tabled amendments to clause 8, new subsections (2) and (3) of section 127, 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 Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendment to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 411 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 Willow-Jean Prime’s tabled amendment to clause 8, new section 127(1), to insert “and to give effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi”, 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 Willow-Jean Prime’s tabled amendment to clause 8, new section 127(1), to insert “while upholding, protecting, and promoting the best interests of the child”, 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 Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendment to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 412 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 Willow-Jean Prime’s tabled amendment to clause 8, new section 127(2)(c)(ii), 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 Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendment to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 413 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 Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendment to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 414 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): Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendment to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 415 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The Hon Willow-Jean Prime’s tabled amendment to clause 87, new section 127(2)(e)(ii), is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendment to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 416 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendment to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 405 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 Willow-Jean Prime’s tabled amendment to clause 9, new sections 137A(2) and 137B 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 Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendment to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 406 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 Shanan Halbert’s tabled amendment deleting clause 11 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 Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendment to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 407 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 Shanan Halbert’s tabled amendment to clause 12 deleting new section 281A 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 Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendment to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 408 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): Just confirming that I do have a track on the time, but we’ve just got a few more votes to go.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendment to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 409 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 Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendment to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 410 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 Shanan Halbert’s tabled amendment to clause 12 deleting new section 281B 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 Shanan Halbert’s tabled amendment deleting clause 13 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 Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendment to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 417 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 Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendment to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 418 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 Willow-Jean Prime’s tabled amendment to clause 15(3), inserting new subsection (7) of section 479, 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 Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendment to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 419 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 Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendment to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 420 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 Hon Willow-Jean Prime’s tabled amendment to clause 21 replacing “7” with “3” is out of order as being the same in substance as a previous amendment.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendment to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 421 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.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, the time has come to suspend the House for the dinner break. We will return at 7.30 and begin Part 2. Thank you.

Sitting suspended from 6.16 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Part 2 Amendments to other legislation

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, the committee is resumed on the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 2). When we rose for the dinner break, we had just finished voting on Part 1. We now come to Part 2, which is the debate on clauses 29A to 30, “Amendments to other legislation”, and Schedule 2. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Point of order. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to raise the fact that this is the earliest time we were able to raise a point of order after voting. When we were voting on the bill, before we were seeking to the chair that there are still substantial sections in Part 1 that weren’t covered. We had both the responsible Ministers diligently sitting in their chairs waiting for their chance to speak on their part on attendance, universities—also noting for the chair that the Minister has dropped a significant amendment yesterday on the Teaching Council that we haven’t had the chance to address as well. This obviously has significant public interest and the public was not consulted. So I want to seek your advice as the chair on when it’s been voted, whether we can still have the opportunity in this section to seek some clarifications and questions for the Minister regarding the relevant parts.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Yes, so it’s not the chair’s role to direct the questioning. Members have the ability to direct questions to the relevant Ministers in the room. However, if you are able to address your concerns or your questions in Part 2 or the “Title” and “Commencement” stages, then that’s fine as well.

SHANAN HALBERT (Labour): Speaking to the point of order, Madam Chair. An example of that is we had agreed to discuss the freedom of expression component relating to universities in New Zealand in this legislation. It does sit in Part 1. We had an understanding from the chair and from the Minister to be able to speak to Minister Reti as the responsible Minister in that part. We weren’t given a signal by the chair at the time to be able to shift into that debate. It is quite a large component on that, and I’m just seeking your guidance and would appreciate consideration to be able to discuss that as part of “Title”.

Hon David Seymour: Point of order.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Just a minute. As I’ve explained to Lawrence Xu-Nan, it’s not the chair’s role to direct how members wish to question the Minister or the other Ministers who are in the room. So after two hours—I think—if there hadn’t been a question based on those topics, then I think the opportunity is lost. But as I have said, if you can broaden your questions into Part 2 and “Title” and “Commencement”, that is another opportunity where it could be addressed.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Associate Minister of Education): Speaking to the point of order, if I may. Madam Chair, I just note that the chair before the dinner break chose to accept a closure motion in full knowledge of where members had directed their questions, so now to dispute that chair’s ruling is actually disorderly in itself.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): My rationale is to be helpful to members.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Madam Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): So you are seeking the call now? I call Lawrence Xu-Nan.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I do want to draw the Minister of Education’s attention specifically to some of the questions I have around clause 29A, “Principal regulations”.

When we’re looking at Part 2, the main element of this part is to amend the Education (School Planning and Reporting) Regulations, and also in terms of what we see in Schedule 2, as well, which is also part of Part 2. One of the key aspects of the school planning and reporting regulations, and one of the things we see here in terms of the preparation of the first and subsequent strategic plan—a key component of that is actually when we’re looking at its association and the reason it’s also been delayed, as well, in relevance to the attendance management plan. So I actually do want to ask the Minister some questions on the school planning and reporting plan and how it’s going to relate to the attendance management plan.

Now, on the attendance management plan, I know that we have voted on some of the earlier clauses, so I won’t dwell on my amendment or even the vote, but I do want to check with the Minister that both in terms of something like the attendance management plan but also school planning and reporting regulations, on whether there is going to be a broader scope of—I guess a scope that broadens to some of the social impact that’s related to how a school can plan and report on things like truancy and on things like school attendance. The reason I ask this question to the Minister is because we have seen significant investment this year in truancy, which is an important element of any school’s planning and reporting, but, more importantly, as I’m travelling around the country and talking to different schools, I realise that a school’s ability to plan and report is a lot more complex than simply just to say that students need to attend school.

So, I guess, through this particular part, has the Minister, then, considered, as a requirement for the schools’ planning and reporting, and in conjunction with an attendance management plan, how a school is meant to be given additional resources? They have already identified issues, but giving additional resources that genuinely address things around school attendance, such as the fact that we have one of the highest rates in the OECD—I know the Minister likes OECD data—for school bullying. We’re seeing in the latest report by Asian Family Services, we’re seeing 46.3 percent of the parents report that their child has been bullied at school. We know that bullying is a major driver of truancy. We also hear from communities, and particularly rural communities, that the cancellation of school bus routes has been a significant factor when it comes to school attendance and issues with school attendance and students being able to attend.

So tying into clause 29A, I want to ask the Minister, while a school is looking at planning and reporting and attendance, how are they going to address some of these broader societal issues or broader issues that are within the realm of a departmental expenditure by the ministry, as opposed to a school’s own ability to make certain changes?

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): Part 2, the consequential amendment, is very narrow. It is around extending the date—January 1, 2026 to January 1, 2027—for school boards to prepare and deliver their strategic plan. So I’ll answer questions around that.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): While I appreciate what the Minister of Education’s saying in terms of the dates, the Minister will certainly be aware that anything you put on the table—we can actually ask that. Considering that we are looking at amendments—and we have seen multiple instances, including the fact that, under clause 3, we’re able to discuss maybe more broadly some of the purpose and principles around the Education and Training Act 2020—it is not beyond the scope of a committee stage for us to also ask questions around the Education (School Planning and Reporting) Regulations in general.

My question, again, to the Minister is while we’re looking at the regulations in the context of education, school planning and reporting, what is the Minister’s idea of how a school is able to plan and report with the kind of changes that we are seeing currently—which then involves attendance, which then does involve things like curriculum, which does involve things like changes to the way that teachers are able to have the kind of autonomy to be able to fully participate and have the kind of autonomy to do the work and schools have the autonomy to do the work that they do.

Because, again, drawing on the Minister’s own release on the amendment that is being dropped in this amendment bill around the Teaching Council; but just drawing on the example that the Minister has used evidence from Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS), the OECD report 2024, as a rationale for some of these. But we are also seeing, within that same TALIS report 2024, that it talks about the fact that schools and teachers are really struggling with the lack of decision-making authority that they have. Again, when we are looking at school planning and reporting, I ask the Minister: how is she going to ensure that schools are able to plan and report when all of these changes are happening?

Now, the reason I also mention that is I want to draw attention to the Minister and ask the Minister to consider my amendment for clause 29B in terms of the date, because the Minister—you’re right, it does already replace the date from 1 January 2026 to 1 January 2027. But in my amendment, I make the argument that with the kind of changes that we’re seeing—and particularly with some of the changes that we’re seeing in, let’s say, NCEA, which isn’t coming into effect until much later—a prudent way of asking schools to be able to have that ability to prepare for the first and subsequent strategic plans, which is 29B, is to delay it by a further year. So I do ask, in combination with the questions I asked before, that the Minister consider my amendment that moves the date from 1 January 2027 to 1 January 2028.

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): Almost everything that the member mentioned is completely out of scope, and I’m not going to address it for that reason. In answer to his second part, which is in scope, his amendment to change the time, I would note that this change from 1 January 2026 to 1 January 2027 was something that the select committee themselves had put forward and was accepted by the select committee. We agree with it and we’re not going to change it any further.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. If I can just help the Minister and take her to clause 30—we’re in Part 2, clause 30. Clause 30 is talking about consequential amendments to secondary legislation, and in there it is amending secondary legislation as specified in Schedule 2, as set out in that schedule. If we then go to Schedule 2, it’s consequential amendments to secondary legislation. In there, in particular, I want to talk about the Education (School Planning and Reporting) Regulations 2023. This is in scope, for the Minister’s benefit.

My questions are around the change with “replace regulation 71F with the following”, which is F—that’s the board strategies for giving effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, “including strategies for: (1) achieving equitable outcomes for Māori students; (2) working to ensure it’s plans, policies, and”—and then the word’s crossed out, “local curriculum”, and it’s replaced with “teaching and learning programmes reflect local tikanga Māori, mātauranga Māori, and te ao Māori; and (3) taking all reasonable steps to make instruction available in tikanga Māori and te reo Māori”.

My questions for the Minister are around these consequential amendments that are being made to the Education (School Planning and Reporting) Regulations, and in particular to talk about the removal of the term “local curriculum” and the replacing it with “teaching and learning programmes”. This is a significant change, because teaching and learning programmes are the how of the curriculum, not the what of the curriculum. I think this significant change—it’s important that the House, it’s important that the public listening tonight are aware that this Government is wanting to remove from boards that responsibility around local curriculum.

Why would they want to do that? What else have we seen recently with the release of the refreshed/rewritten curriculum: the minimising of local Aotearoa histories in our school. Local curriculum is a broader concept that refers to the entirety of what a school does, inclusive of teaching and learning programmes, enabling school boards to match learners’ needs within the community and to the national curriculum. Reference to the local curriculum empowers teachers to implement the national curriculum in the context that is specific and relevant to the children in their school, and this promotes educational achievement.

The process of developing local curriculum is one of the main ways that schools and kura have to build relationships and connections with whānau, with parents, with hapū, iwi, mana whenua, and communities.

When the Minister spoke earlier about the board having no obligations now to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, to give effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, she talked about the Crown’s duty in terms of Article 3 of the Treaty, but she didn’t talk about any of the Crown’s responsibilities in terms of Article 1 and Article 2. In Article 1, we have partnership; in Article 2, we have rangatiratanga. I want to know how the Minister, in this clause 30, in Part 2, where we are now amending the secondary legislation based on what was voted on earlier, where we have the removing of Te Tiriti o Waitangi as well as the replacing of local curriculum—can the Minister please explain to us why she thinks that is appropriate, how this is not minimising that Treaty relationship, that importance of local curriculum, and the national curriculum in its local context? Can the Minister please—because I believe it is in scope—address those?

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): To be helpful to that member, that particular part in Schedule 2 that she is talking about has been replaced, so all of the things she was talking about have been replaced by Schedule 2 in my Amendment Paper that we already voted on. In terms of Schedule 2, the only parts we are now debating are the first parts: the Education (Early Childhood Services) Regulations 2008 and the Education (School Planning and Reporting) Regulations 2023. But where it says “Replace regulation 7(1)(f) with:”, that was replaced with Schedule 2 in the Amendment Paper. We've already voted on it, so that is out of scope.

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

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Not quite yet. The Hon Willow-Jean Prime—but I do just want to alert members that we’ve had only three speeches to the Minister of Education, but we want to keep it very tight on this Part 2, and especially the schedules. Thank you.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): That's right, Madam Chair, and I did keep it very tight to clause 30, and I was asking about those consequential amendments to secondary legislation, which the Minister is trying to tell me that that is out of scope. So I am seeking your guidance, Madam Chair: is the Minister correct that that is out of scope? Because I asked a serious—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Did I say that was out of scope?

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: No, you didn't, did you? Oh, so the Minister—[Inaudible]. Thank you. Well, then—

Hon Erica Stanford: Point of order. I’m sorry, the member just said that the Minister lied—

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: No, I didn’t. I said you were wrong.

Hon Erica Stanford: I heard you say that the Minister lied, and that is not appropriate for this House.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: No, I said she was wrong.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I'm sorry, I didn't hear it. If that's the case, I was obviously distracted.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Review it.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: No, review it. I don't believe I said she lied. What I said was, I think she is wrong to say that this is out of scope, and I was seeking your direction, and you said you didn't say that, she did—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): We can check. It’ll just take a few minutes to get it. [Consults with Clerk] Yeah, we can't check it immediately, so we'll have to come back to it. Willow-Jean Prime.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Thank you, Madam Chair. Given that you did not say that these are out of scope, I would like the Minister to answer my questions that I asked in terms of the consequential amendments to Schedule 2, which is the “Education (School Planning and Reporting) Regulations 2023” and, in particular, my questions around the “local curriculum”. What does that actually mean in terms of these regulations? Can you please explain all of that in terms of “local curriculum” and the points that I made, and Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and—I'll add a couple to that, Madam Chair: did you consult with those schools—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I didn’t.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: The Minister—and those boards, and the whānau, hapū, iwi, mana whenua—your Treaty partners—on these changes that you're making to these regulations?

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): Once again, for the member, the bit that she is talking about is being replaced. So she keeps mentioning the words “local curriculum”; I just draw to her attention that that part in Schedule 2 has been replaced by my Amendment Paper 428, so she should look at the Amendment Paper for the correct part. This is just a consequential amendment. We’ve already covered this in Part 1. All this does is take that and put it into the regulations as a consequential amendment. That’s important to democracy, to make sure that our regulations and our legislation are the same.

Now, the member asked many, many, many questions and took the entire two hours to talk about this part. We’ve covered it at length and this is a consequential amendment, but I would like to draw her attention to the correct one that she should read from, which is in the Amendment Paper, which we have already voted on. It is no longer in scope.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I think one of the things that we were querying earlier was the fact that the Minister of Education mentioned that we have already voted on that. I think in terms of the voting part, this part on Schedule 2 will not be voted on until we conclude Schedule 2. So within the Schedule 2 from Amendment Paper 428 that the Minister is talking about, I do want to acknowledge the Minister for saying that it substantially changes what we're seeing in Schedule 2 of the amendment bill.

But it then also means that we should again examine this new Schedule 2 as a completely new thing that has not had the scrutiny of the Education and Workforce Committee. I think it is important for us to spend a little bit of time just to unpack the difference between why there has been such significant change between what is in the original Schedule 2 and what is in the amendment that the Minister released yesterday.

Now, in terms of replacement regulation 7(1)(f)(i), “seeking to achieve”, that stays the same. We already covered the part about giving effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi. I understand that that discussion has now drawn to a close. But I do want to check, and this is where my colleague the Hon Willow-Jean Prime is correct—when we say that what used to be in Schedule 2, in the select committee we changed “local curriculum” to “teaching and learning programmes”. In replacement regulation 7(1)(f)(ii) of the Minister's amendment, that has changed completely.

More importantly, the references to local tikanga Māori and mātauranga Māori are now gone. That is significant in light of the fact that we are also removing the part on giving effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi. So my first question to the Minister is: does Minister think that Te Tiriti o Waitangi or anything around that is only limited to te reo Māori? What was the Minister's rationale, then, to remove local tikanga Māori and mātauranga Māori from this particular section?

I'm going to leave that as this first question because I think this is quite a significant change from what is in the bill. Again, we are only able to debate on this for the first time today without any public consultation.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I’m just going to repeat: this particular part of the bill was debated at length in earlier debates. The amendment has been voted on. What we are debating now are the consequential amendments to secondary legislation. We are not re-debating the issues that have been raised.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Just a minute.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Point of order. But Schedule 2 is within scope of Part 2, though, because it is under clause 30, which is Part 2.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I think the member is starting to challenge my ruling. I just want to be clear, the amendments are to secondary legislation. It is not an opportunity to re-debate things that have already been voted on earlier today.

CARL BATES (National—Whanganui): 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 49

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

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendment to Part 2 set out on Amendment Paper 422 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 Part 2 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.

Part 2 agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Minister’s amendment to Schedule 1 set out on Amendment Paper 364 be agreed to.

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

Amendment agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendment to Schedule 1 set out on Amendment Paper 424 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That 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 Schedule 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.

Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Schedule 2 set out on Amendment Papers 364 and 428 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 55

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

Amendments agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendments to Schedule 2 set out on Amendment Paper 403 are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendment to Schedule 2 set out on Amendment Paper 415 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 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.

Schedule 2 as amended agreed to.

Clauses 1 to 3

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, we come now to our final debate. This is the debate on clauses 1 to 3: “Title”, “Commencement”, and “Principal Act”.

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I rise to take a call on the question of commencement, and drawing on your guidance earlier, am attempting to link some parts of the first part that were not adequately discussed, but very much linking it to the commencement date as per your recommendation.

Now, the commencement of this bill comes into force on the day after Royal assent and my questions are around whether this would apply to all parts of the bill, particularly clauses 11 and 12. These are the parts that confer additional responsibilities on the university councils, or does the Minister anticipate that there’s like a transition period for the university councils to adopt these statements on freedom of expression? Because if it is the day after the commencement, are they expected to have it, like, straight away, or is there more of a kind of gradual transition period whereby the university councils will have time to devise, consult, and create these statements on freedom of expression? I do ask that because I do think some universities have already developed statements on freedom of expression, so that’s not a problem with the commencement date, but others have not yet.

I guess, in terms of the interpretation on some of these things that we didn’t get a chance to flesh out, what does the Minister anticipate in terms of the universities not being able to take public positions on matters? Does that mean that if a university was to take a stance on a public matter after the commencement date of this bill, they would get into trouble? Or if a submission has already been made to an existing legislation, but it was before the commencement date, does that mean that they won’t get into trouble?

I’m just curious on the interaction of the commencement date and the requirement of the university to adopt statements of freedom of expression and how it interacts with them not being able to take public positions on matters, particularly as relates to the commencement date.

I think that it is really important to tease out what taking a public position on matters as institutions actually does refer to. Does it extend as far as curricula, for example?

Hon David Seymour: Maybe, but we’ve debated that.

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ: Well, “maybe”—exactly. Well, I mean, that would be terrible. If a university were to equally have to teach that creationism was as valid as, you know, the scientific theories of evolution, I think all members would agree that was a bad thing. So, I think it’s really important to clarify what that actual relationship with the commencement date is and whether that retroactively applies to existing curricula and existing things that—

Hon David Seymour: Point of order. Madam Chair, these should have relevance. It’s a very narrow question when the Act comes into force. I could help the member. If he looks at the relevant schedule, it’s six months after the Act comes into force that the university must have a plan. The content of it has been debated in earlier parts.

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ: He’s not the Minister, so—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The member still has the call.

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ: Great, thank you. Oh well, I appreciate the Minister’s contribution.

Hon David Seymour: Well, sit down then.

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ: Well, I still have one minute left so—but I think that it is particularly important on what does apply with that six-month period commencement. Does that retroactively apply to existing curricula and existing past positions that the universities have already taken on statements? Are they required to retroactively pretend that they didn’t have stances on certain issues to comply with this Government diktat, which, essentially, is forcing universities not to take positions on certain issues? Is there an element of retrospectivity with regard to that six-month commencement date that the honourable Minister very helpfully pointed out? Because, you know, I think it would be terrible if it were to retrospectively apply to existing past statements. Also, whether it applies to curricula as well, or whether it’s just expected that public positions actually means statements or actual political positions, and it doesn’t actually affect the teaching curricula of the university.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I also want to speak to the commencement date, clause 2—and I’m just signalling to the Chair, I won’t take a full call because I would like to take a call later on the title. I want to check in terms of that, in conjunction with my Amendment Paper, Amendment Paper 402, which is to replace “on the day after” with “six months after”. The reason I put this amendment together is mainly because of the fact that what we have seen, especially with the new amendment that has just come out this morning, it has caught school boards by surprise, is that there has been no indication that sufficient time has been given for school boards to be able to be compliant with the bill once the bill has been enacted. Unlike the section on universities, I haven’t seen within this bill, anyway, and the Minister may like to speak to that, that allows school boards to be compliant with the new requirement—or at least shift towards the new requirement—once it has been enacted, if it’s only the day after Royal assent. I think a six-month transition period is sensible for the schools to be able to do something like that, unless the Minister is suggesting that while the commencement date comes into force the day after Royal assent, school boards may not need to immediately be compliant or need to make the relevant changes that we see in this bill. So that’s kind of one element.

I think the other element that we haven’t had a chance to discuss and I think is quite significant is to do with how the commencement date is going to work with the Minister’s Amendment Paper 364, on the changing of the composition of the Teaching Council. Now, this has raised significant concerns since this amendment has come out, and I want to check with the Minister, because I’m assuming the Minister isn’t going to respond on whether this is actually considered now that the membership is dominated more so by Minister-appointed members, as opposed to independently elected. The Minister may or may not wish to address the fact of what that meant for the independence of the Teaching Council, which is a huge concern.

But, from a commencement date perspective, I want to check, once this bill comes into effect the day after Royal assent, at what point the Teaching Council will need to change its membership, noting that in section 486 of the Education and Training Act, the Teaching Council does have at least a mandate on how they are meant to do their nomination and process, but does it apply to the Minister-appointed members on that committee? I’m seeing a shaking of the head from officials.

Now, if the Minister wouldn’t mind just elucidating this committee on how that particular election process and transition from an independent majority Teaching Council to a Minister-appointed majority Teaching Council is going to work after the commencement of this bill.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. This is my first opportunity to make a contribution in this bill—regretfully at the latter stages of the debate, focused quite narrowly on the three clauses that we have remaining in front of us, and so I wanted to make a couple of comments around a few of those.

First of all, with the commencement. Now, this is not a bill that I have worked on at the Education and Workforce Committee at all. So when I was reading it today, I read the primary amendment piece of legislation, the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 2), and I looked at it and tried to understand. I looked at the original piece of legislation that it’s amending, which is the Education and Training Act, and tried to piece those two together. But, of course, as the House and the committee will be well aware, it’s not possible to understand this particular Act by reading those two pieces of legislation and draft legislation because of the number of Amendment Papers that have been put forward.

I think this is relevant to clause 2—“Commencement”—because of the late nature of the two Amendment Papers, and the primary ones that I’m looking at are 364 and 428, which I’m not looking to debate at this stage. But I think that because they raise such significant changes to the bill that perhaps the Minister of Education could consider later commencement dates for the changes contained within those Amendment Papers.

For example, Amendment Paper 428, which looks to remove the Treaty clauses and instead replace that with other duties that could, for example—and I suggest this amendment to the Minister now—come in, say, “one year after Royal assent” as opposed to “at Royal assent”, to give time for this to be socialised with the sector. Obviously, we haven’t had a select committee stage; we haven’t had the ability to hear submissions on this. We haven’t had a particularly long committee stage, Madam Chair—that’s not a criticism, that’s just a reflection of the fact that committee stages are, by their nature, not perhaps the best way to scrutinise these. That would be a suggestion that I would make to clause 2 of the bill.

Also, in addition to that, obviously Amendment Paper 364. I was checking with my colleagues, and they said that a number of these changes haven’t been traversed in relation to the Teaching Council that extensively. These were quite surprising changes that I saw reported in the media; that there was going to be a significant change to the way that the teaching profession was going to be regulated. There is a question, I think, as to whether it is appropriate for those significant changes to come in without a select committee process, without the chance to socialise that, not only with the Teaching Council, those employed by the Teaching Council, those affected by the changes to the governance of the Teaching Council, those impacted in the wider education sector, the profession. I think that that would merit consideration of a later commencement date for those changes contained within Amendment Paper 364. I’d like the Minister, if possible, to comment on those.

In terms of the title, obviously there are other kind of probably not very realistic titles that I could suggest and are often suggested at this stage. It’s not my intention at this stage—although perhaps maybe some other members would like to suggest some title changes that may be more reflective of this bill.

But actually, the fact that we’ve already had two Education and Training Amendment Acts this year, I think, warrants consideration of whether it should be changed to a title. Not a title which doesn’t reflect the content of the bill, not a title which is a ridiculous suggestion, but something that actually reflects what this actually does. My suggestion to the Minister would be instead of the Education and Training Amendment Act (No 2) 2025, whether she would consider changing that to the “Education (Removal of Teaching Council Provisions and Removal of Treaty Clauses) Amendment Bill”. Because that is what the bill actually does, and I wondered if the Minister would be able to seriously consider those suggestions around commencement and the appropriateness of the commencement of this—we’ve got such a short period of consultation—and also whether the title does, in fact, reflect the bill.

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): I'm not sure if the member Camilla Belich was here earlier when we were discussing the fact that we are giving schools a whole additional year to do their next strategic plan. The last bit we've just finished voting on moves that from 1 January next year to 1 January 2027, and so there is plenty of time for schools to look at the new section 127 and the new regulations, and then put them into their strategic plans. We've already discussed that.

In terms of the Teaching Council, it is a very minor change. It's just an additional person and we will make that change immediately, and so there's no reason for us to do that.

The member also suggested a change saying that, essentially, the bill is only about two things. The bill is a lot more than that. Unfortunately, members in this committee stage didn't ask any questions on any other part of the bill. That's why we didn't get to talk about it, and so it's really unfortunate. But there are a lot more things in the bill, and so I think that the bill’s title should stay the same.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just wanting to pick up on that point that the Minister of Education made. Just for absolute clarity for all of our schools and kura out there, are you saying that their current strategic plans which give effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, which outline the things that I said earlier about the legislation, which have now been replaced with the strategies in your Amendment Paper—so for all of next year, their current strategic plans are the ones that they will be governing their schools in accordance with? Your changes are not required to come into effect until 2027, is that right? Could you just clarify for all those schools in their planning?

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I'm going to call Lawrence Xu-Nan, but I can't hear a much more new material coming in.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for this opportunity, because I do want to address the title of this bill because I have a number of amendments to the title. But I want to, first, thank the Minister of Education for responding to my questions. That’s very helpful. So thank you, Minister.

In terms of the title of the bill, we’ve heard previously from my colleague Camilla Belich that the title should reflect the bill, and this is the second education and training bill, not including the early childhood education reform bill that’s coming up as well. But I think to capture everything, like the Minister suggested, my tabled amendment is to call it the “Education and Training (Broad Objectives, Attendance, Teaching Councils, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill”, which does, in fact, capture everything and is inclusive of that.

But looking at the title, summing up what we have discussed in the committee stage today, there are things that I think are better reflected within the title, because one of the things that we have heard consistently is the fact that we are removing the giving effect to Te Tiriti in section 127 of the Act. We are removing, even in some of the supporting objectives, the idea of local tikanga Māori and mātauranga Māori. We are looking at the fact that te reo Māori for ākonga Māori in mainstream is only available should they ask for it, as opposed to the default.

So I think I would like the Minister to seriously consider my amendment, which is to call the bill the “Education and Training (Recolonising Education) Amendment Bill”, because that’s kind of what we’re seeing here in terms of the amount of things that have been removed as part of this bill. It’s really important when we do look at education, Minister, that we are looking at education that is appropriate in the context of the students and in the context of those who are learning and who are being educated in our system, because if they cannot find relevance in there, it is much harder for them to get the educational outcome that the Minister has mentioned throughout this committee stage.

So, in many ways, this is very similar to what we’re seeing when we first start to learn about things like phonics, which the Minister has mentioned throughout this debate. When we’re learning about our A, Bs, and Cs, we’re learning that “A is for Antelope, L is for Llama”, and those are kind of the things that, for some students, they may never see in their entire life. So how are students able to relate to that, how are students able to learn best from that if they cannot find the relevance? So my amendment that I would like the Minister to consider is changing the title to the “Education and Training (Antelopes and Llamas) Amendment Bill”.

Finally, I would like the Minister to consider the fact that when we’re looking at the packaging of the changes to section 127 with the removal of giving effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, we are looking at the changes that we are making to the Teaching Council. We are looking at the fact that we’re introducing a redundant piece of legislation on freedom of expression, as many universities already have a policy on that. A better title of this bill is the “Education and Training (Atlas’s Puppet) Amendment Bill”.

CARL BATES (National—Whanganui): 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 (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendment to clause 1 to insert “(Board Objectives, Attendance, Teaching Council and Other Matters)” 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 (Maureen Pugh): Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s remaining amendments to clause 1 are out of order as not being an objective description of the bill.

The Hon Willow-Jean Prime’s 14 tabled amendments to clause 1 are out of order as not being an objective description of the bill.

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 55

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

Clause 1 agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendment to clause 2 set out on Amendment Paper 402 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 clause 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.

Clause 2 agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 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.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment.

Bills

Medicines Amendment Bill

In Committee

Part 1 Consent to distribute medicines by verification

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, we come now to the Medicines Amendment Bill. We start with Part 1, which is the debate on clauses 4 to 10, “Consent to distribute medicines by verification”. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s nice to see this bill enter the committee stage and to see it come through with many improvements made by the Health Committee. We’re always grateful for the opportunity to be able to participate in panel beating the bill at select committee.

I’d like to ask the Minister some questions tonight. The first one, I’d like to link to the original policy intent of the bill. Clause 4, the “consent by verification”, which is the main innovation in this bill: I’d like to hear from the Minister why this consent by verification and the verification pathway applies to new medicines, and what is meant by a “new” medicine. What about other already approved medicines that might have a minor change, like a change in their presentation, or a minor change in their formulation that doesn’t require a full evidence review? Why is that not part of the verification pathway, given that, on the surface, you’d think those would be lower-risk types of changes and, perhaps, more frequent than the need to actually verify new medicines?

I would appreciate it if the Minister could expand on why this consent by verification pathway only applies to new medicines.

Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour): Tēnā koe, Madam Chair, and thank you very much. It’s one of those bills where specifics matter, and I’m curious—and if the Minister wouldn’t mind answering some of the questions I have—around the recognised regulatory authorities. That’s in clause 7. It goes on to talk about, as a regulator of medicine—and it lists those that it has in there. I wonder if that might include, to the Minister’s reckoning, or at least to the Minister’s consideration, some of the work that the important ethics committees and others might do in that space, with respect to the medicines. If the Minister wouldn’t mind giving some thought to whether or not they perhaps could be included, either now or at a later date, with respect to making sure that we have recognised regulatory authorities.

The other matter I wanted to raise is, in clause 6, the following particulars are required, and it goes down to the letter “(m) the name and address of the place or places where the manufacture, preparation, or packing is intended to be carried out.” The reason I ask that question is that a number of concerned members of the public who have travelled widely around the world know that, in some countries, they repackage goods, even give them different names, but in effect they are still the same thing. Yet they want to be sure that, when these types of matters are raised and medicines are brought into this country, the origin of those particular medicines, of both its manufacture and of course its preparation and packaging, is clear and is well understood for those in New Zealand. At the moment, those regulations are pretty tight. What we’re concerned about is any loosening of those matters could cause some confusion about the types of medicines that those people might be gaining access to. Some clarification from the Minister on those particular matters will be helpful.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. My colleague has picked up on clause 6, so another question in relation to clause 6, which lists the contents of an application under the verification pathway. I’d like the Associate Minister of Health David Seymour to explain how these requirements interact with the common documentation system used by some of the regulators we are likely to recognise. There’s a number of specifics here that all seem very logical from the perspective of approving a particular medicine, but we’ve been told repeatedly at the Health Committee that there’s the potential for great efficiency through the use of standardised documentation when these applications are made—or applications for the Minister’s consent, as it’s called in this bill. So we’d like to understand how requirements (a) through to (m) interact with the standardised documentation system.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d just like to support the vote of confidence in this bill from my colleague the Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall, who really gave it some good scrutiny at the Health Committee. I think it’s important to note that, in the broader constitutional policy space, there is quite a shift of power from legal, prescriptive sorts of requirements through to empowering Ministers to act through notices and rules, and I do think that raises a number of legal questions. While I accept that it improves the agility of being able to get medicines out faster, there are questions around parliamentary scrutiny, and there are questions about the transparency of Gazette notices, and also how section 22 in particular interacts legally with new section 22A.

I’ll just go through them in turn, and I’m happy to either have a longer contribution or do some quick-fire. We do recognise that delegation and flexibility are important, because medicines are the new frontier for being able to get people well faster, and potentially save a lot of money around more invasive procedures, like operations. We do accept that there are efficiency gains, in that there will be a reduction of duplication of effort, consistent with our trade and health cooperation frameworks with Australia. I think where the rubber hits the road, though, is around the dependence on secondary legislation, and there are operational details, such as time lines, data requirements, verification procedures, that will only exist in future rules, not in primary legislation. That produces a kind of layered legal dependency, where the rights and obligations of applicants hinge on rules that are not yet drafted.

That’s tricky; I’d be keen to hear the Minister’s views on how he sees that interplay and the certainty that will be afforded, particularly if applicants are going to be questioning some of the applicant decisions—how those sections 22 and 22A will interplay, because, once again, we find ourselves in the House where we are subordinating to secondary legislation quite a bit of the devil in the detail. That will be important, we want to support that, but we need to know that there will be due diligence given to ensure that there isn’t uncertainty for those who apply, because that could have a chilling effect on the market, and that the rules are really clear from the outset, even though we have this kind of parallel stream of how the Medicines Act is going to work.

I will have more questions later about regulatory capture and the medicines regulations and some of the constitutional implications, but I’d just like the Minister to answer those if he may.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Associate Minister of Health): I’d like to thank members for their questions so far, and I’ll try and address each of them in turn. Ayesha Verrall asked about clause 4 and specifically the words “new medicine”: why would a new indication, or perhaps a minor change, to a medicine not be able to access this verification pathway, which the words “new medicine” might suggest that it couldn’t? I’m advised that, in actual fact, a new medicine, a new use—i.e., a major change to a medicine—would be captured as a “new medicine” for the purpose of this bill, whereas a minor change would be already notified. So, in other words, if a change is significant enough to require consent, then it is a new medicine, even though there might be something very much like it already consented.

Peeni Henare asked two questions, one about clause 7, and he asked a question about whether an ethics committee could also be involved in authorising a medication. I don’t intend it to go any further than the bill right now. He asked if we might in the future—that’s certainly quite possible. But the point here is to rely on trusted nations’ consent authorities—and those trusted nations are set out in secondary legislation—rather than introduce any new pathways through other bodies, besides what I’ve just described.

He also asked about replacement section 21(2)(m)—for motel—inserted by clause 6: the name of the place and why is this necessary. He pointed out that one of the dangers with medication is that what it says on the label might not be what’s there. A lot of Medsafe’s work is ensuring that what you read on the label is actually what’s in there, and it’s certainly true that some medicines are manufactured and packaged in parts of the world that might not have the same sort of ethics and standards that we’re used to in New Zealand. So that’s why it’s actually important that they identify where will this be packaged and manufactured, so that we do have oversight—or Medsafe can have oversight, rather—not only of what does it say it is, but what actually is it.

Ayesha Verrall then asked about clause 6, inserting replacement section 21(2), and how these requests interact with the common document system used by other countries. In other words, are the requirements listed in paragraphs (a) to (m) of section (21)(2) going to mesh well with the common technical dossier—I think that was the point of the question. I’m advised that, yes, it will. The company needs to provide the full data dossier, which is standardised internationally, and that has been thought of.

Finally, Ingrid Leary asked about what she says is a shift of power towards Ministers. It’s certainly true that it talks about a Minister granting consent. That, at a constitutional, technical level, may be true, but, ultimately, this decision making is not done by a Minister; it’s done in their name. It’s done by people with far more appropriate qualifications in pharmacology—than most people who have held the role of Minister—in this legislation.

In terms of the question about accountability and stability—and I was pleased to hear about, you know: how do we make sure that there’s certainty for people who are applicants? I just make the point that any rules, made under this law, that will set out how it operates do need to be presented to the House and are subject to disallowance by Parliament. So, under our normal conventions, we maintain parliamentary oversight, and there’ll also be consultation with affected people prior to making any of these rules. So I hope that addresses the questions that have been asked so far.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour): Thank you to the Associate Minister of Health for his answers. I’d like to talk about new section 22AA in clause 7. The Health Committee’s view was that it was a helpful change to the bill to, rather than specify the regulators in primary legislation, specify criteria about which overseas regulators would be able to be recognised. We think that that’s a positive, helpful change, and we’re pleased to see it reflected in the bill now.

I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the revocation of recognition of an authority. I would like the Minister to expand on what type of circumstances he imagines an authority’s recognition might be revoked, and any elaboration he can provide based on advice he’s received on that.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I just have two quick questions for the Minister regarding clause 6, inserting new section 21(2).

The first question I have—and this is partly because one of my degrees is actually in pharmacology—is on subsection (2)(h), “reports of toxicological, pharmacological, and clinical studies that support the application:”. I want to check with the Minister whether there is a requirement for that particular study to be conducted or to be peer reviewed as well. The reason I mention that is because there have been instance where, particularly in the chase for funding for toxicological or pharmacological studies, peer review hasn’t been done as much or as well. That is something I want to check with the Minister: whether there is a requirement.

The second thing is around subsection (2)(k), in terms of the distribution in any country other than New Zealand, and also, this plays into “approved or consented to by the appropriate authorities in that country” but also potentially recognises the regulatory authority that has been touched on previously in clause 7, which inserts new section 22AA. My question is whether there have been any safeguards considered by the Minister on what happens in the event that, or how do we potentially vet if, a particular appropriate authority or authority in that country has been susceptible to undue industrial or political pressure. Those are my two initial questions.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. So my question was in relationship to new section 22AA(1)(e), inserted by clause 7. This is in relationship to the recognised regulatory authorities. One of the requirements that's been set out in the legislation is for those to conduct their business and release reports in English. I wanted to ask whether the Minister for Regulation thinks that that may potentially hinder the ability for us to access medicines where the business may be conducted in another language.

The reason why I ask this as well is because we do have, in replacement section 21(2)(j), inserted by clause 6, that, for example, translations may be provided when it comes to the applications for the Minister's consent. So in clause 6, there's this acknowledgment that translations can play a part in enabling good decision-making, but then in new section 22AA, there is the sort of much more tight requirement for the business of these entities to be conducted in English without, I guess, being able to accommodate, for example, resources to translate necessary documents to English in order to be able to broaden the range of recognised regulatory bodies that the Government can tap into so that people can have greater access to medicines.

So my question to the Minister is whether he thinks that new section 22AA(1)(e) unnecessarily narrows the recognised regulatory authorities, particularly in relationship to the way that clause 6 has been written. Thank you.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d just like to ask a further supplementary question based on the question raised by the Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall regarding the revocation or designation of a recognised authority. Normally, ministerial decisions are not subject to explicit procedural safeguards. If it’s in the Gazette and a decision has been made, normally there are notice and comment requirements beyond publication. So my first question to the Minister on that natural justice and transparency issue is: are there other forms of contesting decisions either with designation or revocation, except via judicial review, which we know is incredibly expensive and again could have a chilling effect on the market?

I wouldn’t mind turning also to—just for some clarity, I think really for the Hansard, because I did raise this previously—the relationship between section 22 and the amendment. If there is a question of which one supersedes, because there are two pathways, it would be good to know what is the primary section out of those? If there are two pathways, if there are inconsistent rules, which rules under those two pathways should supersede?

I’ve got another question, too, just around the administrative burden, because with the gazetting of notices which are required—so they recognise or they revoke authorities—it could create some transitional uncertainty for applicants. Is there an efficient way of doing that or is that just going to be a constant stream of Gazette notices?

The other one is: could legal challenges arise where a medicine has been approved under one recognition regime and then is later affected by revocation? Probably, again, the “hierarchy” is the word I was looking for in terms of which of the two streams that they can be approved under would take precedence.

I think there is also another question that is similar but different to the one raised by the Green member around localised safety assessment. Where the Minister may revoke consents, the process relies on post market intervention rather than pre-market evaluation, and that can have inherent public risk if adverse effects arise later. What are the mitigations for that risk, particularly because that is a localised situation and those conditions may have changed within the New Zealand market, but may not necessarily have come up from an external market?

That’s probably all my questions, but they are important legal questions if we are to see this legislation actually reap the full financial and health benefits to New Zealand that it is touted to do.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Associate Minister of Health): I thank members for this latest batch of questions. I appreciate Ayesha Verrall saying that this is a positive change that the countries, or at least the regulators of the countries, that will be deemed equivalent or valid for the assurance pathway—that that is going to be set in secondary legislation, rather than hard-wired into this law. Then she asked a question about revocation. The test is whether the regulator continues to meet the criteria set out in paragraphs (a) to (e) of new section 22AA(1) in clause 7. If it starts failing to meet those, then it would be revoked, and so those are the criteria set out in the legislation.

Lawrence Xu-Nan asked about the credibility of toxicological, pharmacological, and clinical studies. They’re peer-reviewed by the regulator who has given consent overseas, and so I guess that the point is that if we’ve—these questions sort of go together. If the overseas regulator is approved, then one of the criteria for that is that we can trust that they rely on good science, and, of course, if they rely on good science, that probably answers Lawrence Xu-Nan’s question.

With regard to new section 21(2)(k) in clause 6, there was a question about proof that it’s been consented elsewhere. It really is as simple as being able to demonstrate credibly that the consent overseas truly exists, and so it’s a fairly mechanical, administrative thing.

Ricardo Menéndez March raised an interesting question about: does limiting ourselves to English-speaking jurisdictions restrict the possible range of overseas agencies that we could rely on for verification? Potentially, but I think that members might be surprised. For example, I asked about Japan. I’ve been informed that the Japanese consenting authority actually conducts its business in English, and so that’s a significant country with its own language that none the less uses English to work with the rest of the world. There may be countries that conduct their business in other languages, but there are certainly enough countries who do their medical consenting in English that I think that there’s a big enough pool for this policy to work very well.

Then Ingrid Leary asked a series of questions about the natural justice of revocation, and whether there could be peer review or other ways to challenge that. I think that it’s important to recognise, simply, that in the part that she talked about, she’s talking about whether or not—as I understand it—a particular country can be recognised for their consenting agency, rather than a particular applicant. It’s true that a country might be offended that we no longer recognise them, but that in itself is, I don’t think, a reason to have a major bootstraps, belt and braces approach to natural justice where New Zealand’s Government will choose countries that it thinks it can rely on for this pathway.

There was a question about a hierarchy between the usual consenting pathway and the new rule-of-two consenting pathway. For a starting answer—and I might need to get more advice about this, because she also asked what would happen if a medicine fails at one pathway but succeeds at another. I would start by saying that the purpose is that if you have consent through either of them, it must be adequate, but we certainly would not retrospectively revoke. Then there was a question of could there be a—actually, I’ve addressed the question of the legal challenge against revocation.

There was, finally, a question about localised safety assessments, and are there problems where there might be local conditions where the population—if I understood her question correctly, the population in New Zealand has different needs or vulnerabilities from those in other countries. I would just make the point that most countries have quite diverse populations within their borders. By the time you’ve got two other countries that have consented a medication, I suspect that you’d find that, actually, they’ve covered enough bases so that it’s safe in New Zealand, particularly considering that one of the criteria for considering if you want to keep doing business with someone is to ask whether they have robust systems. So I hope that addresses the questions asked today.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour): Thank you. I’d now like to ask the Minister some questions about the development of his policy thinking in this area. In particular, I have been studying the coalition agreement between the National and the ACT Party, which is referenced in the regulatory impact statement (RIS). The commitment that’s relevant to this bill was to require Medsafe to approve new pharmaceuticals within 30 days of them being approved by at least two overseas regulatory agencies recognised by New Zealand. I read that and I interpret that as automatic approval, and yet, that’s not what this bill does. This bill still requires a sponsor to make an application. So it is not the case that we’d have a very efficient system where just with approval in two jurisdictions, there will be a requirement for automatic approval. Instead, it requires a sponsor, usually the pharmaceutical company, and the application to be made.

My first question to the Minister is why has the thinking, with respect to how this bill will operate, changed from what was envisaged in the coalition agreement and what’s in the bill now? I’m interested to know how he thinks that change will impact the efficiency benefits that will come from this bill, because the purpose of the bill is to speed up the approvals of new medicines in New Zealand, and, of course, as a result of the change between what’s envisaged in the coalition agreement and the bill that we have now, there will be fewer medicines being considered through this pathway. In particular, one of the things that comes into play—because of the way the bill we’re debating is crafted—is the incentives that apply to a sponsor. Now, in the original version that wasn’t relevant, but it is now, in the way that this bill is constructed.

We heard at select committee that a number of incentives operate on sponsors, including that they make judgments on the likelihood of their bill achieving Pharmac funding in New Zealand. They’ll think, “Well, is it really worth our while to put something through a process when”—perhaps, they would say—“unlikely to get it funded.” That makes me wonder, well, will this bill have the actual impacts that were promised when it was proposed? I’d like to hear the Minister’s explanation of how impactful he thinks it will be in light of those changes.

Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m going to speak to clause 7, 22B(4) and just ask for a bit of clarification, so this won’t take very long: “The Director-General may issue the applicant with 1 or more invoices for any fee payable under regulations in respect of the application.” Is that only those that are successful? Does that include those that are declined? Is there an opportunity to see a schedule of what those fees may look like? Is there transparency around those particular invoices we can expect to be made public to allow us the confidence that there’s consistency in their fees framework?

So just some clarification around that. I know it seems relatively small in the scheme of things, but I just think that when we look towards the way that those who access the ability for consideration as medicines that it’s made very clear what those fees do look like, and whether or not those include those that are accepted as well as the ones that are declined.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): My colleagues have talked about the drivers, if you like, of efficiency with the system and how that will look compared to the original coalition agreement. I think, extrapolating on that, there is a real potential for a streamlined process to reduce scrutiny of pharmaceutical submissions if the decision making becomes overly reliant on the second stream. We don’t have any control over that or influence over that. There are jurisdictions that we compare ourselves to that have far more lobbying and political influence in their system. Conceivably, there may be two or more jurisdictions with very big pharma companies—just as there are with tobacco companies, actually—where a concerted effort is made to promote things that may not necessarily be consistent with New Zealand public interest standards.

If there is a two-tier system and they both function, that’s probably not much of a problem, but if the second tier becomes the predominant way of getting pharmaceuticals through to New Zealand, I think it does raise real questions about the drivers and the safeguards. So I’m really just wanting some reassurance that the New Zealand public interest standards are met through whatever rules come out, which have not yet been written, and that we don’t see a kind of tail wagging the dog, where the whole sector then becomes beholden to international commercial interests that don’t necessarily serve New Zealand public interest standards.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you, Minister, for responding to my previous questions. I have two more questions for the Minister. The first one is something the Minister said, and it kind of ties into new section 22C(1)(b)(v) as well. I think the Minister was saying that in terms of some of the pharmacological or clinical studies that have been done in other countries, other countries also have a diverse population in order to be able to test some of that. Two authorities have approved that, and it should, again, be safe enough here. But I think one of the things I would be interested to know about—certain countries, most of the other countries, don’t have the same data on the indigenous population of Aotearoa, and also, potentially, Pacific populations.

So, you know, looking at new section 22C(1)(b)(v), when it talks about contextualising “the benefit-risk profile of the medicine due to local disease epidemiology, public health considerations”, I do wonder, in those sorts of considerations: does the Minister consider that while we do have a diverse population, some of that interaction, particularly when we’re looking at it from a pharmacological context, may not have been tested here? So I just want to check; the Minister may already have a response to that.

The second part is around new section 22D, noting that there is a lot of ministerial authority in this bill, and we’re looking at the rules for Minister’s consent by verification. I wanted to check with the Minister: when we are looking at things that are done by Order in Council and when there is secondary legislation, did the Minister, as always, consider some sort of review clause in terms of how the Minister may make rules setting out some of that requirement, or is there something that will be done, in terms of a review of those rules, on a more ad hoc or need basis?

In terms of the rules, as we are always concerned about, in terms of any potential overreach or potential “Henry VIII” clause, I think having something of a review clause would also be another level of safeguard that can be protected when it comes to particularly consent by verification. So those are my two questions.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Associate Minister of Health): I thank members for further questions. Ayesha Verrall asked about the perceived difference between the ACT - National confidence and supply agreement and the workings of this legislation. As a Minister, I’m not actually responsible for political agreements. All I would say is that I’m a very thoughtful and receptive Minister who’s always prepared to make the legislation work in the best interests of all New Zealand. I’ll also just make the point that having an applicant, as the member asked, demonstrates that there is a company that will take responsibility for the supply chain within New Zealand. So that is a worthwhile benefit in my view.

Peeni Henare asked about what fees these foreign pharmaceutical companies might be charged. I have to say that I’m heartened by the Labour member’s concern for foreign pharmaceutical companies; it’s a new development, but not an unwelcome one. The fees will be published, they’ll be set by regulation, and they will be transparent. But they’re not currently set, so that will come as a consequence of the law of passing, if the Parliament decides to pass it.

Ingrid Leary repeated the question by Ayesha Verrall and then also asked about the lobbying and political influence on overseas consenting agencies. All I would say is that if you imagine a place like, say, Switzerland, which was in the original bill, or if you imagine a place like the EU or the United Kingdom, your mind doesn’t immediately think, I’m sure, that their consenting authorities consent dangerous medicines because of undue influence. I think that would be a surprising thing to most people; there’s no evidence to believe that is the case. All of those jurisdictions do have much greater access to medicines than New Zealand and that is one of the things that we are trying to fix here.

Going back to Ayesha Verrall, she also asked if it might be that because companies are unlikely to—well, she posits that companies are unlikely to apply for consent if they don’t believe they’ll ultimately get Pharmac funding. That may be a calculation for some companies, but at the margin what we’re doing here is making the consenting process easier and quicker. So you would expect the net effect of that to increase medicines’ availability. Of course, any company coming to the New Zealand market will be asking themselves “Will people actually buy it?”, but that’s a commercial decision for them, not one that we can control.

Then we had Lawrence Xu-Nan asking about Māori and Pacific populations. But he also, helpfully, answered his own question by pointing to new section 22C(1)(b)(v), inserted by clause 7, where he pointed out that the Minister can consent a medicine if he believes or she believes it “does not require independent assessment … to contextualise the benefit-risk profile of the medicine due to local disease epidemiology, public health considerations, or New Zealand specific health risks;”. So that is actually covered.

Finally, Lawrence Xu-Nan asked if there would be a review clause. Much secondary legislation—I expect all secondary legislation—will be made in best practice.

Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam): I move, That debate on this question now close.

Motion agreed to.

Part 1 agreed to.

Part 2 Other amendments

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Members, we come now to Part 2, the debate on clauses 11 to 13, “Other amendments”, and the Schedule. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to specifically refer to the Minister’s Amendment Paper, which was not considered by the select committee. I’d like to take the opportunity to ask the Minister to engage in some back and forth, if we may, on the content of this amendment.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Encouraged by the Chair.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: Minister, what does your amendment do? [Member knocks over her glass of water]

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Associate Minister of Health): Look, I realise that the Chamber can get exciting at this time of night. The amendment simply allows a promoter of a medical conference—you can imagine a place where the primary audience is people who are registered as clinicians under the health practitioners assurance legislation. If you’re holding such a conference, then you can get consent to advertise medicines that are not currently consented by Medsafe. The reason that you would want to do that is that clinicians go to these sorts of conferences, in part, precisely because they would like to find out about medicines that are new. Presently, our laws actually forbid those medicines being advertised, and the practical result of that is that doctors—I even happen to know some—go to nice places like Fiji or Noosa, to go to these conferences and learn about the latest and best medicines emerging in the world, and they take their money with them. I’ve seen one estimate, and if I recall off the top of my head, the net benefit to New Zealand of allowing these medical conferences to happen here in New Zealand will be around about $90 million.

It’s very simple. We’re aligning our rules with the places that New Zealand doctors are currently going. So, instead of going to Noosa or Fiji, they can stay somewhere nice, like Auckland, and learn about new medicines.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour): In the spirit of back and forth, thank you to the Minister for that answer. Why is the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act used to define which professions or regulated practitioners in the Act. Their conferences are the ones that are covered by this amendment. Why is that done and is it relevant to the operation of this clause that in an international conference many visitors from overseas won’t be regulated by that Act, because they will be registered overseas?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Minister for Regulation): First of all, why would we use the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act? Because that is the piece of legislation in New Zealand that defines the professions that you might think of—doctors, clinicians, the kinds of people that you would imagine you would want to learn about new medicines. It seems like a tidy way to do it.

The member is correct that there might be people coming from overseas inbound to learn about medicines at conferences in New Zealand, but I would interpret this as those people are people who come under the same professions and, indeed, would be regulated under that Act if they were in New Zealand. Of course, in this instance they wouldn’t be, but they’re equivalents. They just happen to be from overseas.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Mr Chair, just to conclude this—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Dr Ayesha Verrall—I’ll facilitate this.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour): This concern about medical conferences was raised in the course of the last Parliament’s debate on the Therapeutic Products Bill, so can the Minister explain why this amendment has appeared in the bill now? Why wasn’t it in the original bill that was drafted and considered and went to select committee? Why did the Minister’s intention with respect to this concern, which has been well known about for some time, change? Perhaps the Minister would like to elaborate on the prospects of a medicinal products bill. Has the prospect of a medicinal products bill passing in this Parliament declined, and is that why this amendment is going through with this bill?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Associate Minister of Health): Well, first of all, I regularly receive praise for having a range of fine qualities, but not in this sense. So why would we not put this in the bill initially? Because we were preparing a bill primarily for the purpose for the rule of two. Once it was brought to my attention that it would be useful for New Zealand clinicians to be able to have medical conferences with advertised medicines in New Zealand, I made a judgment that it was well worth enabling that at the earlier opportunity, which is this bill.

The Minister—it’s not really part of this debate; if she wants to speculate if there is now not going to be a medical products bill. I wouldn’t speak for my colleague Casey Costello, who has that responsibility, but I wouldn’t underestimate her either.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. Some follow-up questions on the amendment which, Ayesha Verrall noted, was introduced without select committee scrutiny.

I noted that the Minister mentioned that such conferences—if I heard correctly—were to bring $90 million to the country. Can I just test where that figure came from, and who produced the analysis on that amount of money? Also whether, as part of that, there was any distributional analysis of, I guess, where that money goes into in terms of who benefits from that?

The other question I had in relationship to the amendment was that it seems to me like this is obviously something that had been considered for a while, but can the Minister list the range of stakeholders or entities that have been consulted, if at all, to prepare this amendment? Because, again, we’ve heard feedback from the Minister in his initial remarks around some of the bodies which he talked about wanting this, but can I check what official engagements happened to produce this amendment, if any? Also, additionally, at what dates did the Minister start the work to prepare this amendment—because that’s an important part of the question in relationship to Ayesha Verrall’s point, which is that if this had been considered for quite some time, why was this not flagged at the select committee stage?

So, to recap, I’m interested to know where the $90 million figure came from; the distributional analysis for benefits; additionally, the list of stakeholders or entities that were consulted; as well as the issue of the date that the Minister started to prepare this amendment.

A follow-up question on that would be in relationship to the list of stakeholders and entities that would have been consulted with. Did he receive any feedback of which regional centres in our country are most likely to benefit from these medical conferences, if at all?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Associate Minister of Health): As I said at the time, the $90 million was a figure off the top of my head. I’m not relying on that to justify this change, and I don’t want to start quoting if I might misquote. But it is a figure that I’ve heard and share in candour with the committee.

As far as the distributional analysis is concerned, I also don’t have that. I only have the headline figure. In terms of consultation, I haven’t directly consulted people with this. I’ve had it proposed—the ministry’s recommended it—and I believe that if we can remove a restriction that will make sure that people can do more to make New Zealand a wealthier and more interesting place, then we should do that.

In terms of the date, I started thinking about it. I couldn’t give you an exact date off the top of my head but I’d be happy to talk to the member later if he is really interested in that.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m a little bit concerned to hear that the $90 million was kind of made up on the spot. I guess the question I had in relationship to that—or from the top of his head—is whether he asked any Government body to do some analysis on that figure? I can totally accept that, maybe, he just doesn’t have a thought in his head, but I do want to know whether he actually asked his officials to explore exactly how much revenue it could bring. It’s OK if that figure is not in front of him, but I do want to ask whether that question was part of the process to get this amendment sorted.

The reason why I ask this is because the bill, so far, has had quite constructive cross-party consensus. I would hope that this amendment and the way that this is presented also seeks to do that very same thing. But without having clarity of exactly the robust analysis that was being made from the Minister to corroborate, for example, the amount of revenue it could bring to the country, it’s hard for us to be able to quantify the benefits of this amendment.

To recap, I’m interested to know if he did actually ask for any advice on the amount of money such an amendment and these medical conferences could bring to the country; and if he did not commission such advice, then what basis is he using to get to a point where he feels confident about the amount of money that such an amendment will bring to the country?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Associate Minister of Health): I can only repeat my previous comment. The justification for this does not rely on any specific figure. If it was $9 million, $90 million, or $900 million, it costs next to nothing to do, and it increases people’s freedom to do as they please within New Zealand so long as there are no risks to others, and, therefore, we should do it.

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

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Minister’s amendments set out on Amendment Paper 425 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 102

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

Noes 21

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

Amendments agreed to.

Part 2 as amended agreed to.

Clauses 1 to 3

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Members, we come now the debate on clauses 1 to 3—title, commencement, and principal Act. The question is, That clause 1 be agreed to.

Clause 1 agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is, That clause 2 be agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is, That clause 3 agreed to.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment.

House resumed.

Report of the Committee of the Whole House

Report of the Committee of the Whole House

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Madam Speaker, the committee has considered the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 2) and reports it with amendment. The committee has also considered the Medicines Amendment Bill and reports it with amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I declare the House in committee for the consideration of the Crimes (Countering Foreign Interference) Amendment Bill and the Crimes Legislation (Stalking and Harassment) Amendment Bill.

House in Committee

House in Committee

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Members, the House is in committee on the Crimes (Countering Foreign Interference) Amendment Bill and the Crimes Legislation (Stalking and Harassment) Amendment Bill.

Bills

Crimes (Countering Foreign Interference) Amendment Bill

In Committee

Part 1 Amendments to the Crimes Act 1961

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): We come first to the Crimes (Countering Foreign Interference) Amendment Bill. We begin with the debate on Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 3 to 15, Amendments to the Crimes Act 1961. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to start by going clause to clause, because there are quite a few things to unpack. I want to start with clause 4, which inserts section 2A, “Meaning of person who owes allegiance to the Sovereign in right of New Zealand”.

One of things we had a question on—and it’s one of the things we’ve been trying to tease out in the select committee—is the broader idea of what it means when someone owes allegiance to a particular location. This came up when we were talking about someone, for example, who may not have the citizenship of a particular country but at the same time has whakapapa to a particular country and as part of the whakapapa may experience of may express certain intentions or feelings, and whether they are going to be captured in this legislation.

It is something that is complex, considering we heard in the previous bills that we do have very diverse communities here in Aotearoa, and the Greens have some concerns around the definition we see here, for example, in section 2A(3)(c), because I think it takes a very pure form of definition that doesn’t take in broader complexities of the whakapapa of the person, or the heritage or the ancestry of the person. So I just want to check with the Minister to start off with, on some of that consideration as he develops this bill and the intentions behind it.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): This legislation is not changing our citizenship laws or making amendments in any of those areas. What it does do is create new offences relating to foreign interference in the Crimes Act. Just by way of introduction, it’s a bill that would create an offence if a person engages in covert, deceptive, coercive, or corruptive conduct on behalf of a foreign power to intentionally compromise a protected New Zealand interest, or is reckless as to whether their conduct is likely to compromise such an interest, or commits an imprisonable offence to intentionally benefit a foreign power, or is reckless as to whether committing that offence is likely to provide such a benefit. So that’s the primary focus.

What we’re trying to do here is to deal with the reality. A lot of people would seek to deny that there is a problem, but the Government is firmly of the view that foreign interference is something that we are concerned about as a nation. So we’re updating our legislation to be clear about that. What we’re not doing is changing our citizenship laws.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ll pick up where my friend and colleague Lawrence Xu-Nan left off, on clause 4, new section 2A, which does touch on the slightly arcane subject of the meaning of a person who “owes allegiance to the Sovereign in right of New Zealand”. This is, basically, a loyalty question in the old-fashioned sense of the word—that is to say, for someone who owes allegiance to the Crown, under this legislation it is a criminal offence to work against the interests of the Crown.

Whilst the Minister noted that this doesn’t change immigration law—I accept that—there is an interface between immigration status and who owes allegiance to the Crown. One thing that is clear here is that anyone who is a citizen owes allegiance to the Crown, but, from the legislation, it’s not immediately clear to me—and I’d appreciate the Minister’s elucidation; I see he’s flying solo tonight, which is probably a good thing—about other immigration statuses. In new section 2A(3)(c), it says, “[any person] not bound by the oath of allegiance:”. Essentially, you can’t be found guilty of this offence. There is a series of categories of people. One would be a person on a resident’s visa. Is a person on a resident’s visa bound by the oath of allegiance? Is a person on a worker’s visa bound by the oath of allegiance?

I think, when we get down to the categories where it’s clearly not the case—for example, someone on a visitor or tourist visa, who, if they engaged in what are, essentially, subversive activities, would not be criminally responsible for foreign interference, because they’re not bound by the oath of allegiance. But the one a little bit higher up from the tourist and visitor visas—workers, Recognised Seasonal Employers workers, or people on perhaps a two- or three-year worker’s visa—if they engage in activities which are there to benefit a foreign State by deception, which is at the root of this, as we’ll come to, would a person on a worker’s visa or a resident’s visa be subject to this legislation, or are they persons who owe allegiance to the Sovereign of New Zealand?

It would be really appreciated if the Minister could give some elucidation there, because, ultimately, I think we accept that if people come into New Zealand and they’re on a pathway to residence—ultimately, a pathway to citizenship, which is the highest status, including residency—we expect them to be loyal, ultimately, because this is what this legislation is at root about, to New Zealand. If they come from a foreign country, wherever that might be, which has different interests and wants to undermine New Zealand’s economic or security interests and they want to, I don’t know, pass information back to the other State or to engage in conduct that undermines the interests of New Zealand, as workers or with an immigration status other than that of citizen, ultimately the question is this: are they captured by this?

If they’re not, there’s quite a hole here. Look, if you’re a spy—let’s say what this is about—and you’re a resident but not a citizen, you’ve got a free pass; you’ll continue passing information and undermining the interests of New Zealand in the interests of the other State with pretty much impunity. I think it would be really good if the Minister could go through and say, “Here’s where the line is. Here is where you owe allegiance to New Zealand, and here’s where you don’t.” That would be a really helpful elucidation by the Minister.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. I have some new and different questions for the Minister, but they are about the same new section 2A. This is the section about who owes allegiance. During the course of submissions, the New Zealand Law Society wrote a lot on this section and asked several questions, some of which were addressed by the amended version of the bill, but some weren’t. I just thought I would use the opportunity to get the Minister’s clarification on where he thinks these situations would fall.

The first is: who counts as a person in the context of the Ross Dependency? There are potential difficulties with the reference to persons in New Zealand due to the need to reconcile respective sections in the Crimes Act and the Territorial Sea, Contiguous Zone, and Exclusive Economic Zone Act 1977 definitions. The interaction of the Crimes Act definition of New Zealand with provisions of the other Act is unclear, in my view. Section 2 of the Crimes Act defines New Zealand as including “all waters within the outer limits of the territorial sea of New Zealand (as defined by section 3 of the Territorial Sea, Contiguous Zone, and Exclusive Economic Zone Act 1977”, but section 3 of that Act defines the territorial sea as encompassing the sea within 12 nautical miles of a baseline, being the low water mark along the coast of New Zealand, including the coast of all islands.

The statutes don’t fit together well, and the Law Society made this argument as well—that there is a good argument that the bill enacted in its current form wouldn’t apply to the Ross Dependency. Now, that might entirely be the Minister’s intent, but I think that, at this stage of the House’s work, it’s useful for us to clarify that. The Law Society suggested that, potentially, there could be an amendment here to make it clearer. Similarly, they spoke about how the law would apply to Niue. It’s stated, of course, in section 3 of the Niue Constitution Act that it shall be self-governing; however, section 6 provides that “Nothing in this Act or in the Constitution shall affect the responsibilities of Her Majesty the Queen in right of New Zealand for the external affairs and defence of Niue.” The question is, really, whether the Minister’s view is that that would also mean that people would fall within that sense of allegiance as well.

The other issue that the Law Society spoke about was the statement that the common law would continue to apply rather than specify what the common law is in terms of who owes allegiance and who doesn’t. They particularly pointed to the issue of renouncing citizenship or repudiating allegiance, and, in the Law Society’s view, there would be some merit in actually stepping through, within the statute, who that includes and who it doesn’t. In many ways, it would seem absurd if someone were to validly, and with documentation, renounce their citizenship, and potentially be living overseas as well, but, through some interpretation of the common law, be determined to still fall within one of the people who did continue to owe allegiance.

Another matter that I have been reflecting on since select committee, and I can’t recall that this came up within the select committee itself, is the issue of New Zealanders who are working within foreign embassies and the treatment of them both overseas as well as in New Zealand. Presumably, it would apply to individuals who are staff of other embassies in New Zealand—I know that embassies often attempt to recruit from home countries, but, again, it’s not unusual for administrative staff to be locally recruited. How would the bill, when enacted, apply to them, but also New Zealanders who may be employed in foreign embassies, potentially with dual citizenship as well? While that feels clear in the context of being within New Zealand, if the Minister could respond to those individuals who are working in embassies outside of New Zealand, I would be grateful.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): I’m looking forward to the Minister of Justice’s elucidation of these points, once he gets some advice, obviously. But, look, one of the things that’s really interesting here—because this is the Crimes Act, right? The Crimes (Countering Foreign Interference) Amendment Bill creates a crime and the trigger is that if you’re going to do bad things hurting the interests of New Zealand, the flip side is that to be criminally responsible, you have to owe allegiance to the Sovereign of New Zealand.

Then, in the new section 2A(2), inserted by clause 4, it says, “this section is not an exhaustive code of the law relating to the circumstances in which a person owes allegiance to the Sovereign … of New Zealand;”, so it’s just opened the gate. The thing about criminal law is that you want to be pretty clear about when you’re liable, when you could be charged with a crime, right? A lot of the bill kind of steps through—my previous contribution talked about, well, what about if you’re a resident? What about if you’re a tourist? What about if you’re on a worker’s visa and so on. There are going to be clear yes or no answers to that.

The question here is what the hell does it mean to say it’s not an exhaustive code as to whether or not you owe allegiance to the Sovereign of New Zealand? Is there going to be some situation where, to take a recent instance, you are a child of a person who is tangata whenua who has a moral claim to citizenship, and you’re a spy for a foreign State in a foreign country—does that mean you could conceivably owe allegiance to the Sovereign of New Zealand or basically, what else? Why do we need a vague, open-ended framework that says, “Here are the circumstances where you do owe allegiance. Here are the circumstances where you don’t, but just for a lack of clarity, that’s not everything. There could be something else, but we’ll let you know that when we get round to it.” That’s ultimately what phrasing like “this section is not an exhaustive code of the law relating to the circumstances in which a person owes allegiance to the Sovereign in right of New Zealand;” means.

So you could be a person who might, for whatever reason, hold in high esteem the interests of another State and you might be gleaning information from situations you’re in and secretly passing it on to another State. All of a sudden you land in New Zealand and you say, “Well, I’m not a citizen. I’m not a resident. I’m not even on a worker’s permit.”, but the authorities say, “Ah, but no, that’s not an exhaustive code. You’re not allowed to glean information in that way, because we think you owe allegiance to the Sovereign in right of New Zealand in some other way.”

So it is a concern that we’ve got a criminal statute which kind of harks back to the Star Chamber where you kind of made things up as you went along, where you just said, “We are of the view that it is appropriate in the circumstances kind of ex post facto to impose liability.” So I’d be interested in the Minister’s own observations, clearly, on when there might be something which is not captured by the rules in the subsequent parts of the section but nevertheless, someone could owe allegiance because, actually, this is the trigger for liability here and it’s a relatively serious thing, so I’d be interested in the Minister’s observations there.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): I can respond to the concerns about who’s in and who’s out by just referring to the bill where it says, in new section 2A(3), “A person who is in New Zealand owes allegiance to the Sovereign in right of New Zealand”—anybody who’s in New Zealand owes allegiance to the Sovereign—“unless 1 or more of the following apply:”. One and two are, essentially, diplomats, and three is a person who’s an enemy alien—i.e., somebody that we’re at war with—and is not a New Zealand citizen and is not bound by the Oath of Allegiance, or a child of such a person.

Everybody who’s here in the country is somebody who owes allegiance to the Sovereign if they’re in the country, unless they’re a diplomat or a person who is an enemy alien. It’s reasonably clearly outlined in the legislation, and I think we’re getting slightly distracted, trying to draw what this legislation here is, which is focused on dealing with foreign interference, which is a real threat that we face, and I don’t think it’s helpful to try and draw into a debate around citizen rights of children of actors in relation to this topic.

TEANAU TUIONO (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you to the Minister for engaging on this topic as well. I note the comments made by Vanushi Walters around Niue and the Ross Dependency, and also, as a Cook Islander, I’m interested as well, because Cook Islanders hold New Zealand passports. The Cook Islands and Niue are part of the New Zealand Realm—so, technically, in New Zealand. So it would be good for the Minister to draw out exactly what that would mean for Cook Islanders in this instance, because I know that people will be listening with interest as to whether they owe allegiance, and exactly what that means. We have seen in recent events in the Cook Islands where there has been a difference of opinion around the relationship with China, for example, and concerns both in the Islands themselves and here within the Cooks Islands community as well.

So the issue of who owes allegiance to whom is an important one, because it poses a lot of questions that actually need specific answers in terms of the allegiance to the Sovereign. What exactly does the Minister mean in this particular case; how does it pertain to Pacific Islanders who are part of the New Zealand Realm; and what will that do in terms of the ability of people in those countries to be able to express a different opinion, to be able to have different relationships with different foreign countries? Whether we like those relationships here in Wellington here or not, there are possibilities and ways for them to be able to engage in those relationships.

So I think it’s an incredibly important issue around what allegiance to the Sovereign actually looks like, and I do agree with the point made by Dr Duncan Webb about this being not an exhaustive code as well, because I know that people in the Pacific Islands will be worried about whether they fall within that non-exhaustive code as well. So these are important questions and it would be good to get some answers from the Minister.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. I did have another question in relation to this new section that’s going to be inserted as to whether the Minister of Justice considered the concept of temporary allegiance, which is actually a concept that has deep historical roots. In Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England published in 1765, it suggested that allegiance arising from birth in England was inalienable, but that there was also something that was temporary allegiance owed to the King by aliens only while resident in England. So that was one argument; that you only owed this allegiance to the King while you were there under, as Dr Webb has suggested, maybe temporary circumstances—that could be expected of you while you were in New Zealand, for example.

The other argument that also has come out of Blackstone’s very early arguments on this historic concept of temporary allegiance is the idea of a ligament of allegiance, in that you might owe allegiance to the Crown, but similarly, the Crown owes obligations to you. Prior to the statute of treason in 1351—when the common law purely applied—there was an argument that that was the way in which one should formulate what allegiance is; that you only have that obligation in so far as the Crown is complying with its obligations. If the Crown fails to do so, then those obligations no longer exist, or they may exist in some sort of diminished state.

So my first question is really whether that was brought into the Minister’s thinking in terms of framing how there might be temporary allegiance obligations of those people who are temporarily in New Zealand, quite rightly? Many of them come with other citizenship obligations, which they don’t derogate from when they come to New Zealand. They may still vote in those elections that are happening overseas as well, and so we should bear in mind those more nuanced ways of understanding allegiance and build them into legislation at the get-go.

The other question I have on this is whether there was consideration for a carve-out or an exemption from liability if there was an officially induced error? This was another proposal that was put forward by one of the submitters where there could be merit in including an officially induced error defence in the section, which would apply where a person has formally sought advice from the New Zealand Government as to whether they owe allegiance to the Crown in the right of New Zealand and they’re advised that they did not. So they’ve sought that advice, the advice has come through saying that they’re not, and, subsequently, they’re charged with an offence under these new provisions. It’s almost that reliance defence where one would think that, ordinarily, that person had a reasonable excuse. If they do, then that ought to be written specifically into statute.

I circle back to the Law Society’s point about being very specific about what is and isn’t included here, rather than adopting general language that the common law applies, because we are talking about a serious offence. We are talking about a taint as well after someone might be convicted of this offence. So it is very important that we get this clear.

Again, just wanting the Minister’s consideration or thoughts, reflections on whether temporary allegiance was considered as a concept; if not, why not? Particularly for those on temporary class visas and his views about the exception: should it be in there? Does he believe that it falls within the common law scope of what would be excluded if that person relied on advice from the Government or would they otherwise be held to be accountable for breaching the provisions of this new law, even if they had that advice from the Government that they didn’t owe that allegiance?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): In relation to the last question about whether we considered views, I’m not sure the extent to which detailed consideration of temporary allegiance was given, but we have certainly not decided to go down that route.

In relation to our friend from the Greens’ reference to “people may be expressing different views”—I think was the phrase he used; I might have got that wrong—from different parts of the Realm expressing different views: this is not a question of free speech or expressing views. It’s about people who engage in covert, deceptive, coercive, or corruptive conduct for or on behalf of a foreign power to intentionally compromise a protected New Zealand interest, or as reckless as to whether that conduct is likely to compromise an interest. So we’re not talking about expressing views. It’s a very different thing indeed.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I do understand where the Minister’s coming from, and I think that foreign interference is incredibly serious. Even if you’re looking at something that we’ll touch on later, in terms of clause 7—if you’re looking at section 69 of the Crimes Act, particularly new subsection (1B), inserted by clause 7(1), it is punishable by up to 14 years of imprisonment. So we understand the severity of it, which is why this new definition that has been introduced, of the meaning of a person who owes allegiance, is particularly important because this is the crux of a lot of what is going to be coming in terms of the rest of the bill, in terms of the actual offence itself.

Now, I know that my colleagues have touched on persons “in New Zealand”. I actually want to focus more on persons “outside of New Zealand”. Understanding that, when we’re looking at new section 2A(4)(a), (b), and (c), inserted by clause 4—certain areas like, for example, (c)(i) and (b) are potentially relatively easily understood. But I want to focus on subsection 4(c)(iii), which is “has family or property in New Zealand that demonstrates an enduring connection to New Zealand.” Now, this section is a new section: section 2A. It comes immediately after section 2 of the Crimes Act, “Interpretation”. Therefore, any words that are coming out of 2A will be leveraged off the interpretation or definition that comes under section 2.

The reason I focus on this section is that under section 2 of the Crimes Act’s, under “Interpretation”, there is no definition of “family”. So how broad is “family”? I understand that potentially the keyword here is “enduring connection” but just hold on to that thought for the time being. “Family” is not defined in the interpretation section; property is. “Property” in section 2 is defined as “includes real and personal property, and any estate or interest in any real or personal property, money, electricity, and any debt, and any thing in action and any other right or right or interest”. So “property” has an incredibly broad definition in section 2. If we consider “enduring connection”, who then determines what that enduring connection is and how broad we make it? Is “family” immediate? Is “family” a great, great, great-aunt? Is “family” second cousin twice removed? That “enduring connection” is not clear.

Now, I do want to combine that with what is in new section 2A(4A) and (4B), which is “Interpretation”. It says in (4B) that where it is a question of law, “the prosecutor or the defendant may adduce”—may adduce. So in the event of what we’re seeing in terms of defences, does the person need to then be arrested first, stand trial, and then, in this case, is it for the judge or evidence heard by the jury to determine what that enduring connection is? In those kinds of events, how many people are going to be potentially held under the definition of new section 2A(3) of a person who owes allegiance to the Sovereign in right of New Zealand, if they have, like I said, a great, great-aunt or a second cousin twice removed here in Aotearoa New Zealand or property? I see they may have accrued a debt or a parking fine from travels that they’ve done here in New Zealand; potentially one day they may want to come back. Is that considered an enduring relationship?

Those are my three questions. What is the definition of “family”—four questions, sorry. What is the definition of “family”, definition of “property”, definition of “enduring connection”, and does it mean that the judge or evidence heard by a jury will need to determine that after the person has been arrested?

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Mr Chair. Just moving on to clause 7, which inserts new section 69(1A). This is quite interesting because it’s actually not strictly about foreign interference; it’s about an allied series of offences, which are kind of treason and mutiny. But I have a quite specific question here, because the new subsection (1A) talks about “A person who owes allegiance to the sovereign in right of New Zealand commits an offence if the person, outside of New Zealand, aids, incites, counsels, or procures the doing or omission outside [of] New Zealand, by any person not owing allegiance to the Sovereign … New Zealand … any act which, if done … by a person owing such allegiance, would be any of the crimes mentioned in subsection (1).” Subsection (1) mentions, amongst other things, treason and mutiny. So, basically, you can’t find someone who doesn’t owe allegiance and then use them as your tool to commit the crimes of mutiny.

Then, new subsection (1B) says, “A person who commits an offence against subsection (1A) is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years.” Well, there’s a couple of things in there. Firstly, if you look at the Crimes Act, which we’ve got to remember, Minister, was drafted in 1961, and a few clauses haven’t—it doesn’t look like they’ve been reviewed since then, because “mutiny” includes some strange language. Mutiny is: endeavouring at any time to seduce any person serving in the New Zealand forces from his or her duty. So a strange use of language there, but, essentially, seeking to induce someone not to do their duty, to breach their duty as a member of the armed forces. But the interesting thing is this: the penalty for inciting to mutiny—that’s section 77 of the Crimes Act—is 10 years. The penalty for being a party to inducing someone else to do that is 14 years. Now, usually being a party, that is to say conspiring or, you know—what’s the other word? You’ll know, Arena Williams. It’s usually a lesser offence. So how can it be more serious to incite an offence than to commit an offence? You get 14 years for inciting an offence, but you get 10 years for doing the offence itself. It makes no sense.

So if you could explain to me why inciting mutiny is 14 years in prison, but being mutinous is 10 years in prison, that would be a really handy elucidation.

And I’ve got a lot more to go, because this is a very difficult piece of legislation, it’s very complex. I’ll come to further “[incitement], counsels, or attempts to procure”, in new subsection 69(2A) at a later time. But if the Minister of Justice would be kind enough to respond to that, that would be very handy.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): At the risk of leaving the House in suspense, the time has come for me to report progress.

Progress to be reported.

House resumed.

Report of Committee of the Whole House

Report of Committee of the Whole House

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Madam Speaker, the committee has considered the Crimes (Countering Foreign Interference) Amendment Bill and reports that it has made progress on the bill. The committee has also considered the Crimes Legislation (Stalking and Harassment) Amendment Bill and reports that it has made no progress on the bill. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The House is suspended. I will resume the chair at 9 a.m. tomorrow morning.

Sitting suspended from 9.57 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Wednesday)

TUESDAY, 4 NOVEMBER 2025

(continued on Wednesday, 5 November 2025)

Bills

Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu Claims Settlement Bill

First Reading

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The House is resumed for the extended sitting.

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

DEPUTY SPEAKER: 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 Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu Claims Settlement Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Māori Affairs Committee to consider the bill, and at the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 6 March 2026.

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

Just over a month ago, I had the privilege of hosting Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu here at Parliament for the signing of their deed of settlement. Now, we come to welcome them back to Parliament for the first reading of their bill. Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu, I extend a warm welcome to you, your negotiators, Jill Taylor and Nicola Scott, and all those witnessing the first reading of the bill. I’m pleased to speak in support of a bill that has been many years in the making.

The overarching claim for Hauraki iwi Wai 100 was lodged at the Waitangi Tribunal in 1987—38 years ago. Tane Mokena and Peter Te Wharau. Tane Mokena and Peter Te Wharau subsequently lodged Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu specific claims, Wai 663 and Wai 695, in 1997. Jill Taylor also lodged a specific claim in 2008. The Waitangi Tribunal heard and reported on some of those claims in the 2006 Hauraki inquiry report. The historical grievances of Ngāti Tumutumu particularly centre on the loss of lands surrounding the sacred Te Aroha maunga, where Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu have long exercised kaitiakitanga and drawn mana and substance. The grievances, in particular, relate to the Crown’s confiscation of land in which Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu had interests after they sent men to fight Crown forces in the Waikato.

Crown land purchasing techniques and also Crown control of lands through the mining residence site licenses and the operation impact of the Native Land Court laws saw Ngāti Tumutumu’s alienation from Te Aroha hot springs and taking of Ngāti Tumutumu land under the Public works legislation—all of this in combination—left Ngāti Tumutumu virtually landless, undermined in their traditional tribal structures, and also caused significant economic, cultural, and spiritual hardship.

In 2009, Sir Douglas Graham proposed a regional approach to Treaty settlements in the Kaipara, Tāmaki-makau-rau, and Hauraki regions. Subsequently, in 2011, at a hui in Auckland and Te Aroha, the people of Ngāti Tumutumu formally gave the Ngāti Rāhiri Settlements Committee a mandate to negotiate a Treaty settlement on their behalf. The path to settlement included signing an agreement in principle in July 2011, initialling a deed of settlement in 2017, and, last month, signing both the settlement deed and the Pare Hauraki Collective Redress Deed, through which Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu will also receive redress.

At the deed signing, Jill Taylor spoke of the challenges of the Treaty settlement process and reminded us of the importance of relationships, tikanga, and acting with integrity. I remember that speech well and acknowledge the sentiments in it. I acknowledge the immense work Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu put into the settlement and the many compromises reached for this point. I’m keenly aware that Ngāti Tumutumu, of course, have lost a number of esteemed members who contributed to this process and did not live to see this day. This is a special moment in the settlement journey, and it’s only appropriate that, at a time like this, we reflect on those who have passed and acknowledge their work and acknowledge the pain and the sense of loss that goes with that. To Jill and Niki and your fellow negotiator, the late Mapuna Turner, who navigated Tumutumu through this complex negotiation process, I want to thank you for your work and your efforts. It’s taken determination and tenacity.

On the Crown side, I do want to acknowledge the Hon Rick Barker, who is in the House here today, a former member of Parliament, as well as, more recently, Brian Dickey KC. Finally, I also acknowledge my predecessors Chris Finlayson and Andrew Little, as well as their ministerial colleagues and agencies who have assisted over time, particularly Te Tari Whakatau.

The claims settlement bill gives effect to the settlement package. It includes the Crown acknowledgement of our breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi and the grievous consequences for Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu, their mana, and their taonga. The settlement includes $5.5 million of financial and commercial redress. It includes vesting 18 sites of cultural significance—with two sites jointly vested with other iwi—agreements with a range of Crown agencies, a range of mechanisms to acknowledge Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu spiritual, cultural, historical and traditional values in areas of particular significance to them, and a cultural redress payment, part of which will go towards the cultural revitalisation of Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu. In the deed, the Crown acknowledges that recognition of the longstanding grievances of Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu and the provision of redress for these grievances is long overdue.

I’m pleased that we’ll be hearing speeches from members from the other side of the House and all around the House. We recognise that this is a process that, as a country, we’ve been working on for three or four decades now, and it has enjoyed wide support across the House, recognising that no settlement solves every problem in the world. It can never make up for everything that has happened in history, and it requires grace on all sides, but it is a genuine effort that we as a country have been on for the last few years, recognising the mistakes and the wrong deeds of the past and seeking to make acknowledgement for that. I look forward to continuing this legislation through the House so that, in 2026, we may finally achieve full settlement of the historic Treaty of Waitangi claims and to enter into a new stage of our relationship. 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.

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the honour, I will say, of being able to stand and speak today on the reading of this bill, the Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu Claims Settlement Bill. This bill records the acknowledgments and also the apology made to Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu by the Crown when the deed of settlement was signed. It gives effect to the redress in that deed that requires this legislation today. In doing so, I see it as representing both a beginning and an end—an end to the long process of negotiation and the beginning of a new chapter for Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu, one grounded in recognition and, I hope, also renewed partnership.

The bill before us today is the expression of the deed that was signed on 26 November 2025, which concluded 15 years of negotiations between Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu and the Crown. It delivers in it the formal apology by the Crown for the breaches of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and it provides a range of commercial and cultural redress for the iwi to move forward with.

The rohe of Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu extends across Te Aroha, the Kaimai Ranges, the Hauraki Plains, and the Coromandel Peninsula. Within it, I know that you are a proud community with unbroken connection to the land, waters, and also Te Aroha as well included in this and that is despite the generations of hardship that you have endured.

Like so many iwis, sadly, Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu is one of deep resilience in the face of incredible loss over the years. Your grievances arise from a series of Crown actions and policies throughout the 19th and the 20th centuries that stripped land, autonomy, and also opportunity. This included the confiscation of 290,000 acres of land in Tauranga following the 1863 Waikato war. In 1864, the purchase of KatiKati and Te Puna plots were made without any proper investigation into your rights and from the Crown’s subsequent failure to establish any of the reserves that it promised to deliver. Later, the Native Land Court processes made further fragmentation and alienated remaining lands, undermining collective Māori ownership, and rendering people to become increasingly landless.

The proclamation of a goldfield at Te Aroha in 1880 deprived Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu of control over your own resources without any of your consent being provided. For generations, the economic benefit of that goldfield flowed elsewhere, while the maunga of Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu bore the scars of mining and pollution. The most damaging of these environmental injustices came with the Tui mine operation between 1966 and 1973, which left Te Aroha maunga contained with heavy metals and made unsafe for the generations to come.

On top of this, Crown policies discouraging te reo Māori in schools further eroded the ability for Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu to have te reo Māori as part of day-to-day life. Taken together, these actions and omissions left Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu virtually landless and deeply affected by the consequences of the Crown’s actions that impacted on social, cultural, and economic wellbeing for your people.

Today, I would like to acknowledge those that are here today in the House. I would like to say that the redress provided is not the end of this story, it is a new beginning, providing you with the tools to carve out a future for your people. I really hope that this settlement may bring some healing to the wounds of the past. I hope that it reaffirms your enduring connection with Te Aroha maunga and also your lands. But most of all, I hope that it empowers your mokopuna to thrive for the generations to come ahead. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

TEANAU TUIONO (Green): Tēna koe o te Mangai o te Whare.

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

As I was researching about this bill and learning about the depth of history of the people that have been welcomed here today, I noted that this is actually not their first time to Parliament. Actually, this issue had come to Parliament in 1877 under the Native Affairs Act, where the petitioners argued that Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu were the main occupants of Te Aroha, and they objected to the Crown purchasing land in the block from other iwi.

In that petition, they wrote “That land, Te Aroha, belongs to us alone, to our ancestors, to our hapu Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu … and we and our hapus … have permanently occupied this land, Te Aroha, from days long gone up to the present day, have large interests in the land, and we are still exercising acts of ownership on the land according to Māori custom. No other hapus or tribes … had any right or title whatever to this land, Te Aroha, according to Māori custom.” In that petition, they pointed out about the injustices—things that they did to try to get some control over their land, get some control over their whenua in 1877.

I am hoping that this first reading is a step in reconciling those issues that have been long simmering for the people. I want to acknowledge their tenacity, I want to acknowledge their resilience, I want to acknowledge—as we say in Māori—[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

They’ve just done all the hard mahi, as well, to get to this particular point. Also to acknowledge that this is not the end. These Treaty settlements are just the beginning and the start of another journey; a positive step in another journey, I hope. A journey towards resilience, as well. I also note that in researching about this bill, about the impacts of mining, the impacts of gold mining and, as the Green Party, this is something that we totally sympathise with. You have to look after the whenua. We have to treasure the whenua, as well, and noting that all of the proceeds and the profits that came from the mining went to somebody else.

So [Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

CAMERON LUXTON (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to speak on behalf of the ACT party on the Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu Claims Settlement Bill, and I welcome you to the House. You’ve been welcomed this morning, but I’m proud to be able to stand up and speak in favour of this bill in front of you today, those of you who have come.

Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu is a Hauraki iwi, with rohe that extends from Hauraki over to Tauranga Moana. We’ve heard contributions today about the alienation that’s happened on both sides of the Kaimai; the beautiful land that is Te Aroha—the mountain and, indeed, the town. The history of the town being built is a sad one for Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu, with so much promise but, actually, so much let down, as we see in this bill here today, which gives effect to the Deed of Settlement, signed many years ago but, as my colleague who has just spoken mentioned, initiated many, many, many decades ago. Generations and so much pain has come between then and now.

The town of Te Aroha is a jewel in the area. The historic nature of the town is deep. You only have to take a walk around to know that not just the culture, with the hot springs and the bubbling, carbon dioxide waters that led to special things such as Lemon and Paeroa—but also to making Te Aroha a place that people from around the world once came to visit, before Rotorua was the hot spot that it now is. Te Aroha was the place, and I can imagine how, for generations, watching people come and enjoy and build and create, without having the promised part of reserves and lands set aside for Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu to have what was promised, was painful and has led to generations of fight to get it back.

Like I say, the town of Te Aroha has got much history built on it in the last 150 to 160 years, but there’s a lot more history that goes before that. In the time I spend around there, I enjoy listening to some of the stories about what the maunga Te Aroha’s connection is to the other side of my area and back to Maketū, and also up into the Coromandel and through the greater Hauraki area and also the Kaimai Range. It’s a dominant mountain that oversees the whole area. That means that the mountain has got a geological history, too, and that is explained with many stories from Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu’s experience in the area, which, as we know now, in this bill, runs deep and explains a lot of why the connection to land that was lost through confiscations, through misdeeds, and through bad dealings hurt so much.

The beautiful side that is Tauranga Moana—it’s a difficult one to get one’s head around the Waikato Wars, the way that operated for someone like myself in Tauranga who learnt the history of what I always thought was sort of an isolated conflict in Tauranga, but through the process of these Treaty settlements, learnt our history and the interconnectivity of the Waikato Wars all the way through the Bay of Plenty up to the Tāmaki-makau-rau area, through the Waikato, through other battles like Ōrākau. Stories of Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu’s warriors going to fight in these wars gives much mana to this hapū and iwi around the Waikato area.

This bill is giving action to the Deed of Settlement, financial redress, cultural redress, and making sure that there are acknowledgments of the way Government deals with Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu in its provisions there in the Hauraki area and around. It’s an important step forward that, I hope, will be taken as a promise for the future to build a stronger and longer-lasting relationship between the Crown and Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu. Thank you very much for your patience with this House. Thank you.

JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First):

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

I begin, firstly, on behalf of New Zealand First in support of the Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu Claims Settlement Bill. I’d like to acknowledge and pay tribute to the generations of Ngāti Rāhiri Tumtumu who have taken this journey together to seek justice for their people. To the many members of the iwi who have passed away over the course of this journey and are not here in this House to bear witness to this historic first reading of the Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu Claims Settlement Bill, I acknowledge you.

To the members and those of the post-settlement governance entity, and all the members of Ngāti Rāhiri Tumtumu who are here in the House today, I welcome you to the House of Representatives that you are here on behalf of your iwi aspirations for the future and hopes for the generations to come.

This bill is a result of many long years—I was going to say 15, but we’ve heard, actually, it goes back to the 1800s. So these negotiations have now been going on for a decade or so between the Crown and Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu. Now, in the 2023 Census, they noted that there are 510 members of the iwi—while small in number, mighty in mana. This is an iwi that is one of the original iwi, with ancient whakapapa in and around Tīkapa Moana, the Hauraki Gulf. You’ve been recognised in the broader family of the Hauraki Gulf—the 12 iwi of Hauraki, including Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu, that is part of the Pare Hauraki Collective in relation to collective redress, for those shared interests in the Hauraki region. But this bill today is about iwi-specific matters.

Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu, you are rejuvenating your sense of place, expanding the knowledge amongst the whānau, and reclaiming your identity that was eclipsed through colonisation and the general drift of iwi from their homelands. The area of interest of Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu centres around Te Aroha, extends across the Kaimai Range to Katikati and Te Puna, and the Hauraki Plains and the Coromandel Peninsula.

Earlier in the 1990s, I was a broadcaster on Kiwi FM, and we broadcast coast to coast, from the Waikato through to the Bay. We had a transmission tower on top of Mt Te Aroha, and we had a promo which spoke about the “Tower of Power”—50,000 kilowatts of power from the top of Mt Te Aroha, and that tower is still there today. It’s a radio broadcast tower, FM, there’s also WSPR—a Weak Signal Propagation Reporter—and a relay station with point to point Digital Mobile Radio, and it’s likely also carrying some cellular backhaul on it. Those towers were probably put up without any acknowledgment to the iwi—I’m making that assumption. We wouldn’t probably do that today; we would have a greater recognition of the need to speak with iwi if we’re going to place towers, whether they’re cellular or broadcast, on our sacred maunga.

I’d just like to conclude my contribution by saying that the grievances and what the Crown did—the actions and its omissions, including the land acquisitions confiscations and the introduction of native land laws—alienated Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu from their ancestral lands. There is no doubt that today this bill will begin the writing of a new story for Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu, and I look forward to the progress of this bill as it goes through to select committee and back for its third and final reading. I commend it to the House.

ORIINI KAIPARA (Te Pāti Māori—Tāmaki Makaurau):

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

Before the arrival of tauiwi, Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu lived beneath the korowai of Maunga Te Aroha, their ancestral mountain, their kaitiaki, their source of strength. The rivers, the bush, the hot springs, ngā waiariki, all were woven into the life and the very identity of Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu. The whenua provided and the people, in turn, cared for it. That balance between tangata and whenua, between wairua and oranga, was the foundation of who they are.

Then came the Crown’s war in the Waikato in 1863. Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu, bound by whakapapa and tikanga, sent their men to stand alongside other Māori fighting for their whenua and their rangatiratanga. For that act of loyalty, the Crown branded them rebels. The punishment was swift and harsh. Hundreds of thousands of acres were confiscated across Tauranga, lands where Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu held deep interests. Though some was later returned, it came back under individual title, breaking down collective ownership and weakening the iwi’s hold on their own whenua. Through the following years, Crown dealings stripped away more of their land: Katikati, Te Puna, and then Te Aroha. Promises of reserves for urupā and wāhi tapu were never honoured. Even the sacred waiariki, the hot springs of Te Aroha, gifted to the Crown with the understanding the iwi would always have access, was taken.

By the 1920s, almost all of Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu’s land had been lost. By the end of the century, less than 3 percent remained in Māori ownership. Along with the whenua went their reo, their tikanga, and their way of life that kept that iwi, Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu, connected to their maunga, Te Aroha. Many of them were forced to leave, seeking work, seeking stability, but in that leaving was that disconnection, mamae, and loss that they carry to this very day.

That is the legacy that this redress acknowledges—a legacy of confiscation and broken promises, of wairua wounded but not destroyed. And yet through it all, Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu endure. Even when their lands were taken, their mauri remained. Even when their voices were silenced, their mana never left them.

Today, this bill gives effect to a settlement that says clearly and finally that the Crown was wrong. It offers an apology, the return of sacred sites, and financial redress to help them rebuild, but, more than that, it restores recognition and begins to heal a relationship that was once torn apart.

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

Your endurance is your power.

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

Through everything, you have kept the flame, the stories of your iwi, the waiata, the whakapapa, and the aroha for your whenua alive. Today is a tribute to your tīpuna who fought for justice and a gift to your mokopuna, who will inherit the strength of your land. May this settlement be not an end but a beginning, a foundation for the future to come, a time to heal the whenua, to strengthen your people, and to return home in every sense of the word.

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the National Party at the first reading of the Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu Claims Settlement Bill. I welcome all those in the gallery. It is wonderful to see you here today. Can I also say that, goodness, they chose well. It’s the best, most beautiful part of the country, in the mighty Eastern Waikato region and other parts, and I’m proud the be the member of Parliament for Waikato and sharing areas across Te Aroha, in particular, a beautiful part of New Zealand, and an area that I’m very proud of as well. I can relate to that pride that comes with being in that region, having grown up in the Karangahake and Paeroa area, before moving to Matamata and always having that deep connection to the region and being able to see Mount Te Aroha from just about anywhere around our beautiful region. It is indeed a real privilege.

We heard just before about Lemon & Paeroa, L&P, coming from that area. Let’s not also forget “L & Te Aroha”, Lemon and Te Aroha, which preceded Lemon & Paeroa, I am informed. It actually comes from one of a few natural springs in the world that are carbonated—a naturally carbonated spring. Of course, there’s the Mokena Geyser in Te Aroha, the world’s only soda water geyser. There are incredible opportunities for all those that wish to visit the beautiful region. Come along and spend your tourism money in our area. We most certainly welcome it.

Tim Costley: Shameless!

TIM VAN DE MOLEN: Shameless plug, indeed.

Look, this is, I think, an important step, and it is great to see, now, having this first reading. I would like to, of course, thank the negotiators on both sides, bringing to an end 15 years of negotiations on this process, which I think will be a welcome relief and provide that certainty, that confidence, that this legislation going forward will bring finality to those historic claims, putting a line under some of the deeds that happened in the past, the unfortunate situations that we saw that impacted significantly on Tumutumu. I think, now, when we look to the redress that’s being provided through this bill—in terms of the financial redress, the cultural redress, the opportunities that come to help—put that foundation in place, now, as a springboard to grow the opportunities into the future. I think that presents a massive opportunity and, indeed, is a very nice positive step after the recent negative situation where the mighty Thames Valley Swamp Foxes lost the Meads Cup final. This is indeed some more positive news for our area. We’re very pleased to see that as well.

We look forward to following the progress of this bill through the House and seeing that pass with support from across the House, as we typically see on these sorts of bills, acknowledging what’s happened in the past but looking forward to the future with optimism. I look forward to working with Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu, as we continue to work on what’s best for the mighty Te Aroha area and further afield as well. It’s a pleasure to commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour):

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

Welcome to the House, and the speeches this morning have already spelt out much of the historical facts that are known to Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu, as well as the Crown. They don’t capture the fullness, though, of much of the story and the history that I know Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu and many of the other hapū and iwi of that rohe continue to carry. It is, however, the historical context negotiated with the Crown that spells out in this bill the history and the progress to move forward, based on that history.

So, in the short time that I have, and acknowledging that this is only the first reading—and I certainly hope to continue to see this bill through, through the committee stage and into its final reading, where we can not only mourn the past but celebrate the future—I want to share a story for our whānau of Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu. It is one of more recent relevance, but one that I know will continue to push the maunga of Te Aroha, and the small township that we know of Te Aroha, to the world.

Just the other day, I was in a conversation with the former Prime Minister the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern, and I mentioned to her that this particular bill was coming up for its first reading. She went into nostalgic mode and shared stories of her fond memories of Te Aroha, Matamata, and the district, and we cast our minds back to a conversation that she and I had when she discovered that she was with baby and pregnant. She had said to me, “Peeni, I want a name for my baby, and I want the name to be significant to me, to my whānau, and to my upbringing.”, and in the course of a long discussion with her, we settled on Te Aroha.

At the time that we discussed it, we talked about the importance of the maunga of Te Aroha and the importance of the connections of the people to that maunga and to the district and to the many places that members have already mentioned in the House this morning. From there, of course, the rest of the country knew this young kōtiro as Neve Te Aroha, but not knowing fully exactly where that ingoa comes from. Now, that’s a practice that isn’t too common nowadays, but it’s something that I think that when we capture the history and we capture the events that took place that lead us to where we are today, they are of importance to know that when that young kōtiro Neve Te Aroha goes into her bright future, the link to the home that we are discussing here this morning is one of significance and one of importance.

When this bill goes through its committee stage, we look forward to hearing the fullness of that particular history—the one that provides the context of this bill—but also some of the missed opportunities. We know that the limitations around the negotiations with the Crown are very real. They don’t fully capture exactly the desires and the aspirations of the iwi. None the less, those who have worked hard to bring it to this point—we acknowledge you. We look forward to following this bill to its completion, and I say to Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu, nau mai, haere mai, whakatau mai.

RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): Ata mārie to everyone gathered here today, in the gallery, in particular: I want to say thank you very much for making the journey over here. As we’ve heard from my colleagues across the House, a lot of us journey to your rohe, often to have a break from reality in those beautiful lands that you have—but you’ve travelled here not necessarily as a break, but more to look in the face of what’s coming in the future with respect to this settlement. So thank you for gracing us with your presence—to the people in the gallery, Madam Speaker, not to you.

It’s a pleasure—a quiet pleasure, rather—to stand up for the first reading speech in the Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu Claims Settlement Bill. I stand up in my role as deputy chair on the Māori Affairs Committee, a responsibility that I take very seriously and a responsibility that I know is, actually, a privilege. Our chair, David MacLeod, sends his apologies that he can’t be here today, but he’s always with us in spirit as we converse on the kaupapa before us.

Just by way of some technicalities—I think it’s important to mention them before we go on to other subject matters. Indeed, as we’ve heard, the purpose of this bill is to give an effect, in law, to the deed of settlement signed between Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu and the Crown. This was signed on 26 September 2025, not too long ago, but that in no way undermines the decades of struggle in order to get to this point. What we know is that, originally—and, of course, there was kōrero about going back to the 1800s—but, originally, in terms of recent history, the mandate was recognised in June of 2011. That’s a very important step. The conversations I’ve had with the advisers for Treaty settlements is that it’s not easy to receive mandate; it is quite a robust and rigorous process. Finally, mandate was recognised in 2011, but as we said, the deed was signed this year. So that’s something that I feel is important for us to recognise for the record.

It’s always interesting, as we embark on a Treaty settlement, Madam Speaker—and when I listen to thoughts from across the House, I would like to reflect today, with your indulgence, on how, when I was first introduced to Papakura Marae in South Auckland, it was quite an eye-opener to me; an eye-opener in that, for me as someone that was born overseas and was embraced by New Zealand when I got married to my husband Roger, this is a place that was established as a result of parts of the subjects that we’re talking about here today. The Waikato wars, the displacement of a lot of Māori from their whenua, the need to work in the city. But our elders—and God rest his soul, Mr Brian Joyce that passed away recently, who was quite a pinnacle figure in terms of establishing Papakura Marae—what they taught me is that this marae, amongst many others, was established as a result, like I said, of the displacement, to make sure that Māori, in particular the children, the mokopuna, still had a connection with their heritage, with their culture, with their language.

So I’m pleased that for you here today, all of you here in the gallery and your cousins and brothers and sisters, that we are embarking on this journey that acknowledges some of the grave loss that your ancestors experienced and that is still ongoing to an extent. I look forward to us progressing this through select committee and through the House, as well. I commend this bill to the House.

CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti):

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

It’s always an honour to speak on Treaty settlements, and there’s always a sense of weight that comes with them because of what they represent. They represent pain, they represent injustice, they represent compromise, they represent hope, and they represent a commitment to the future, so I thank you for being here today. I also want to acknowledge Minister Goldsmith for his speech. It’s always nice when we sit here as one unit of Parliament in unison, and especially the Minister’s acknowledgment of alienation and “the undermining of cultural structures over the years.”

But

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

Where will our language and our traditions flourish when they have no home, where our legs have no whenua to stand on? Nowhere. They will be lost and they will be compromised.

So

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

I want to acknowledge that Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu are indeed settling, and they are settling in good faith and as good partners to the Crown, but this redress we are offering here today—$5.5 million, 18 sites—will never, ever pay for what has been taken. So we must acknowledge people who come to this House and settle because they are indeed settling in good faith and as good partners to the Crown. It is a gracious act indeed, but it is an act of commitment to the future.

So

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

I do not want to get too political on this, but while it’s lovely to hear the acknowledgments of the Government, please take heed. Please take heed and consider some of the legislation we are considering now that could land us back in this situation.

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

DANA KIRKPATRICK (National—East Coast):

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

I just want to say a special welcome to those in the gallery today. It’s an honour to have you here, and it’s also an honour to speak on this bill because it means so much. I want to acknowledge too, though, that this isn’t the end, and there isn’t anything in the world—as my colleague Cushla Tangaere-Manuel said—there is nothing that will make right what happened. This is just the next step in the chapter of the wonderful people of Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu.

I have spent a fair amount of time in the beautiful rohe that the people of Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu come from in my time as a reporter at the wonderful Hauraki Herald, which covered a large part of the rohe. It is definitely a beautiful and extremely historically rich part of the country, and I want to acknowledge that much of that history, in more recent times, should have included Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu in a much more inclusive and different way than it probably has. I look forward to hearing the submissions and stories—hopefully in your rohe—when we go through the select committee process.

It is 15 long years that it has taken for Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu to reach this point, but, as others have said, it’s been a lot longer than that; this is just the Treaty settlement part. I’m privileged to sit on the Māori Affairs Committee, which will take this bill through the next stages and, I’m sure, spend some time listening and understanding the stories from the region. I just think it’s useful to remind those around us that the rohe includes Te Aroha, the Kaimai Range, Hauraki Plains, and the Coromandel Peninsula.

The Crown acknowledges that Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu has well-founded grievances arising from as far back as 1863 and the subsequent confiscation of 290,000 acres in Tauranga, as well as the many acts that followed in the years following. These grievances left the people of Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu virtually landless and marginalised from their whenua. The Crown acknowledges that Crown actions with respect to gold and other minerals deprived Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu of their rangatiratanga over land owned by them in the Hauraki region. The Crown also acknowledges that, following acquisition of the Te Aroha springs, it did not provide for Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu’s relationship with the site, which has been a longstanding grievance for the people.

The Deed of Settlement includes a Crown apology to Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu for its actions, which harmed the people, and for its breaches of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and its principles. The Crown prejudiced Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu by promoting laws and policies that led to the loss of their whenua, damaged the sacred taonga Te Aroha maunga, and severely undermined the wellbeing and ability of Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu to pass on mātauranga Māori to their mokopuna, which has left us where we are today. The Deed of Settlement provides the apology, an agreed historical account, and financial redress of $5.5 million. It includes cultural redress, with the vesting of significant sites, mechanisms for ongoing relationships with Government agencies, commercial redress through rights to Crown properties, and a number of redress measures in the Kaimai Mamaku Conservation Park, primary industry arrangements, and commercial arrangements, too.

As I’ve said previously, no amount of redress makes the actions right, and this is not the end; this is just the start of the new chapter. I want to acknowledge those here today, those who have dedicated years to this but may not still be with us, and the agencies and ministries who have all worked on this settlement. Thank you for your patience, your hard work, your commitment, and your dedication to the work that you have done. Your patience, hard work, and resilience is noted. I just want to say, once again, that we look forward to taking this through to the next stages through the select committee, and thank you all so much for your attendance today. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is, That the Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu Claims Settlement bill be considered by the Māori Affairs Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Māori Affairs Committee.

Instruction to the Māori Affairs Committee

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I move, That the Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu Claims Settlement Bill be reported to the House by 6 March 2026.

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

Motion agreed to.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Permission has been granted for a waiata.

Waiata—“Kura te Winiwini”

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Now, I understand we just need a short moment. Are we having some exchange of some of our visitors? Excellent. Thank you. I think we are almost ready. Excellent. Thank you. Can you all be seated where you’re able. We’ve still got one or two people still coming through the side door up here. Thank you.

Bills

Ngāti Paoa Claims Settlement Bill

In Committee

Part 1 Preliminary matters, historical account, acknowledgements and apology, and settlement of historical claims

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Members, the House is in committee on the Ngāti Paoa Claims Settlement Bill. Members, we come first to Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 3 to 21, Part 1, “Preliminary matters, historical account, acknowledgements and apology, and settlement of historical claims”. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 426 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Part 1 as amended agreed to.

Part 2 Cultural redress

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Members, we come to Part 2, debate on clauses 22 to 120, “Cultural redress”, and Schedules 1 to 3. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 2 set out on Amendment Paper 426 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Part 2 as amended agreed to.

Part 3 Commercial redress

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Members, we come to Part 3. The question is that Part 3 stand part.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 3 set out on Amendment Paper 426 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Part 3 as amended agreed to.

Part 4 Provisions for governance reorganisation and transitional taxation arrangements

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Members, we come to Part 4. This is the debate on clauses 146 to 163, “Provisions for governance reorganisation and transitional taxation arrangements”. The question is that Part 4 stand part.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 4 set out on Amendment Paper 426 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Part 4 as amended agreed to.

Part 5 Repeal, amendments, and savings

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Members, we come to Part 5, the debate on clauses 164 to 168, “Repeal, amendments, and savings”. The question is that Part 5 stand part.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 5 set out on Amendment Paper 426 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Part 5 as amended agreed to.

Schedule 1 to 3

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): We come to the Schedules. The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Schedule 1 set out on Amendment Paper 426 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): We come to Schedule 2. The question is that Schedule 2 stand part.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): We come to Schedule 3. The question is that Schedule 3 stand part.

Schedule 3 agreed to.

Clauses 1 and 2

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Members, we come now to our final debate, clauses 1 and 2, “Title” and “Commencement”. The question is that clause 1 stand part.

Clause 1 agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that clause 2 stand part.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment.

House resumed.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Madam Speaker, the committee has considered the Ngāti Paoa Claims Settlement Bill and reports it with amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Ngāti Paoa Claims Settlement Bill is set down for third reading immediately.

Bills

Ngāti Paoa Claims Settlement Bill

Third Reading

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

DEPUTY SPEAKER: 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 Ngāti Paoa Claims Settlement Bill be now read a third time.

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

This is the third and final reading of the Ngāti Paoa Claims Settlement Bill. It marks the conclusion of the settlement process for the historic Treaty of Waitangi claims of Ngāti Paoa. It delivers redress agreed in the Ngāti Paoa deed of settlement and it enshrines in law the Crown’s apology for its breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.

The bill was introduced to the House in December 2022; it had its first reading in June 2023; the Māori Affairs Committee invited public submissions on the bill and it was reported back to the House for its second reading in April 2024; and as you’ve all just seen, it went through the committee stage just now, and here we are at the third reading. I just want to welcome everybody from across Ngāti Paoa who have come for this third reading and special moment, and I want to thank the speakers this morning. We had a wonderful gathering this morning to hear speeches and to sing waiata, and to particularly acknowledge those who have been part of the process over the last four decades and who are no longer with us, and to acknowledge the pain of their passing and the heightened emotions of this very significant step in the process that we’ve been going through over a long period of time. I just want to say thanks for the speeches and for the warm feelings that were there.

Ngāti Paoa have been very engaged in this legislative process. There were 350 submissions received by the committee, the majority of which were from Ngāti Paoa members. Iwi representatives also attended the first and second readings. In this settlement, the Crown has acknowledged the cumulative effect of its actions and omissions, including raupatu, the operation and impact of the Native Land Courts, and continued Crown purchasing. These left Ngāti Paoa virtually landless and undermined the economic, social, and cultural development of the iwi, breaching the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles. The Crown also acknowledges it breached the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles when it invaded the Waikato, attacking Ngāti Paoa, and shelled the unfortified village of Pūkorokoro in 1863, causing the death of iwi members.

In March 2021, at Wharekawa Marae in Kaiaua, the Crown unreservedly apologised for the breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles for failing to protect Ngāti Paoa from land alienation, loss of life, devastation caused by hostilities, and the policies that led to the loss of whenua and te reo Māori. I’m just conscious that some people might be tuning into this debate wondering which part of the country we’re talking about here, and I mentioned Kaiaua on the western shores of the Hauraki Gulf. A beautiful place, stretching on the eastern side of Auckland - Tāmaki Makaurau. I live in Auckland, and my mountain Ōhinerau, or Mount Hobson—you look east across to the beautiful islands of Waiheke and Ponui, and the eastern parts of Auckland and the western side of Hauraki Gulf extending further north is the territory that we’re talking about here.

No settlement can fully compensate Ngāti Paoa for what has been lost. A wide range of redress has been negotiated to provide for the historic and cultural recognition of Ngāti Paoa and to support its economic base to provide for the iwi’s future prosperity. This settlement includes $23.5 million in financial redress and the opportunity to purchase seven commercial properties. There are provisions to strengthen the relationship between Ngāti Paoa and the Crown agencies, local government, Health New Zealand, libraries, and museums. There’s also the return of 12 cultural sites of significance in Tāmaki Makaurau, through the islands and coastal areas of Tīkapa Moana, the Hauraki Gulf. It includes sites for a marae, Paoa Whanake, and papakāinga in the Auckland suburb of Point England.

The settlement provides statutory recognition of Ngāti Paoa and its association with a number of important cultural sites, and includes statements of traditional associations and restoration of traditional place names, placement of pouwhenua, and an additional $1 million for a cultural revitalisation fund. Finally, the settlement consolidates the Waiheke Station farm in the post-settlement governance entity so that all Ngāti Paoa’s Treaty settlement assets are held and governed by one organisation. This consolidation was strongly supported by iwi members during the ratification process.

I want to acknowledge those members of Ngāti Paoa who have passed on, as I mentioned, and for whom justice through this Treaty settlement did not come soon enough. Many, many people from Ngāti Paoa have given their time and energy as volunteers, advocates, and leaders to have their grievances acknowledged and to lay the foundations to realise the collective aspirations of the iwi for a better future. The Crown is grateful for your efforts.

I particularly want to acknowledge the Ngāti Paoa Rangatira who negotiated the settlement, the late Morehu Wilson, and his co-negotiator, Hauāuru Eugene Rawiri, who is here today standing in the gallery with Morehu’s family, for your significant contribution and sacrifice, and to ensure that this is recorded in the Hansard. I also wanted to thank Herearoha Skipper and Mihingarangi Forbes, chair and deputy chair, respectively, of the post-settlement governance entity and the Ngāti Paoa Iwi Trust, who have been responsible for supporting this bill through the legislative process; who, together with the other Ngāti Paoa trustees, have been entrusted to take this settlement forward for the Crown.

I do want to acknowledge former Ministers for Treaty Negotiations Christopher Finlayson and Andrew Little, and current and former Chief Crown Negotiators Mike Dreaver, the Hon Rick Barker, who’s here in the House today, and Brian Dickey KC, who’s also up there in the audience. I want to thank my ministerial colleagues, Crown agencies and officials, and elected members of Auckland and Hauraki districts for their work and support in negotiating this settlement.

In conclusion, this has been a long journey over many decades. We met with the trustees in Auckland not long ago, and we decided that it was time to complete this, and ideally sooner rather than later, and ideally before Christmas. I’m so delighted that we’ve been able to make this happen, and I just want to acknowledge the support and willingness from members on all sides of the House to make this happen in a timely fashion, and I appreciate that. It is one of those rare occasions where members from across the House all unite in combined endeavour to continue the work that we are carrying out as a nation to address the mistakes and wrongs of the past, and to acknowledge those, and to find a new path forward.

I want to conclude with a whakatauki signifying the longstanding existence of Ngāti Paoa as a prosperous maritime and coastal nation, with the ongoing aspirations to reaffirm the prosperity and wellbeing of our people.

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour): Te ao Māori, Mr Speaker.

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

I remember Morehu. When I first entered this House in 2014, Morehu was one of the first people to contact me to say “Peeni, I need to speak to you as the member for Tāmaki Makaurau.” So him and Hauāuru came to my office, and I think for the first four meetings we argued about Ngāti Paoa and Tāmaki. We argued about the deeds of my ancestors before the dates that are mentioned in this bill. Once we recognised that after all of that, through marriage and through connections we are whanaunga, we managed to get on to the important matters that both Morehu and Hauāuru, on behalf of Ngāti Paoa, were leading.

It was through that communication and that interaction with them both that I became familiar with this particular settlement and this particular claim. I want to remember Morehu, because he operated with the virtues that were signalled this morning in the pōwhiri, with pono, with tika, and with aroha. Every interaction I had with that man was always held with those particular virtues at the forefront. The one that we were never ever satisfied on, though, was the ultimate virtue of patience. It’s with that in mind we now come to the third reading of this bill.

I marked my career on the progress of this bill—that’s how I remember it. In fact, one of my first speeches in the House was on the first reading of this bill.

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

But that speaks to the tenacity; that speaks to the long-held and strong views of Ngāti Paoa about advancing forward. When I think of the journey that Ngāti Paoa have come on, I’m reminded of a number of whakataukī—or whakatauākī for the Panekire crew amongst us—the whakatauākī of our tūpuna. The first one was from my tupuna Kawiti, who said, “If I were to flinch at the first touch of the chisel on my nose, how bad would my moko be?” It speaks to the fact that through these challenges, we must continue to maintain and hold our mana and our dignity and never ever lose sight of a fight ahead of us, whatever that may be. Whether that’s Treaty settlements, whether that’s the revitalisation of our language, whether that’s the wellbeing of our families.

The other whakatauākī of my tupuna Kawiti in his discussion with Hōne Heke, who, once they reached the shallow waters of the battle, Hōne Heke wanted to turn around and Kawiti said to him, “No. You asked me to come to war and my war is with the biggest sharks of the ocean, not with the flounder nipping at your feet.” What that says is, regardless of who is leading the fight or the enemy in front of us, we must always strive forward to make sure that we win that battle against that enemy on the very virtues that I spoke of earlier of aroha, tika, and pono. That’s where Ngāti Paoa find themselves here today.

The Minister and others in this House, over a number of years, have already covered off the challenges around the Hauraki settlement, the Hauraki whenua, and the Hauraki advancement of their interests over many years. To then take a regionalised approach continues to recognise the role of hapū, the role of whānau, and the role of iwi that aren’t mainly recognised in much of the narrative of our ancestors of the past. I acknowledged Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu this morning and now I continue to acknowledge Ngāti Paoa here today.

I said earlier that you can’t separate whakapapa, genealogy. You just can’t. So in acknowledging them both, I acknowledge the ancestors who are mentioned in this particular bill, and I want to acknowledge the fact that in the returning of the whenua that have been described or have been laid out in this bill for Ngāti Paoa, that the fight will still continue, that the biggest sharks and taniwha of the ocean are yet to be met. I encourage Ngāti Paoa and many others who continue to walk on this journey to remember that whakatauākī of my tupuna Kawiti.

In a very rare misstep this morning, the Minister called me Tau Henare.

Hon Willie Jackson: It was deliberate.

Hon PEENI HENARE:

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

Now, while that might be a jovial moment in what is a very serious occasion, I want to remind Ngāti Paoa that, actually, these fights and these battles are very difficult. Despite my family having 50 years in this House, Ngāpuhi and my people are nowhere near where you are today. When we were raised—and many of you in this gallery will know—our ancestors and our grandparents and our parents said, “You will go and do this to benefit your people. You will go and be a teacher. You will go and be a doctor. You will go and be a lawyer”, so on and so forth. Well, in my family, the kōrero was “You will go into the House of Parliament, and you will settle all the disputes Ngāpuhi have with the Crown.” Fifty years

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

So, Ngāti Paoa, I acknowledge you and I honour you. I honour you for the journey that you’ve travelled. Also, recognising my tuakuna Morehu, I’ve spoken about our early connections, and I acknowledge his family here today. When I saw you in the crowd it brought tears to my eyes. I also want to acknowledge Herearoha and my tuahine Mihingarangi. In much of the deliberations, Mihingarangi has been my go-to. I’ve called her on occasions where I thought things could have been different. She’s called me on occasions where things have got difficult. It is true what they say. If you want something done

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

If you want it done, give it to Māori woman—pono. We’ve seen that here for Ngāti Paoa. We’ve seen it over many years for Ngāti Paoa and indeed across Māoridom. So, to you both, and to the board, in this challenging and difficult time, because I know this road and this journey has not been easy, I acknowledge you and your families for your commitment and for your desire to drive Ngāti Paoa into the future, to embrace the aspirations that you all have.

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

To our mokopuna and our tamariki, this is but one small step in a long journey. I say to each and every one of you, it is within the clasp of your hand where we, Māori, and in this case Ngāti Paoa, will reach the highest pinnacles of the achievements and aspirations that they have. It will not be found here, in the House of Parliament, but in the hands of our people.

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green): E te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e te Whare.

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

Ngāti Paoa, from the land to the sea and beyond the horizons of Matariki.

E te Māngai and e te Paremata, I want to acknowledge today the immense strength and resilience of the people of Ngāti Paoa to get to this point. It has been a long time coming and, to be perfectly honest with you, it is so much less than you deserve. But this is just one step forward in that enduring and ongoing fight. To that effect, the words and reflections ring in my ears about how once again it is Māori who have kept peace in this country when its supposed partner has time and again breached its commitments but, more than that, lied consistently in how it has behaved so consistently dishonourably.

So if I can just put very clearly on the record, as both the member of Parliament for Auckland Central and the co-leader of the Green Party, that we very strongly believe that Te Tiriti o Waitangi and He Whakaputanga are not things to be settled; they are things to be honoured. That requires that our Crown, on an ongoing basis, upholds its commitments and that, in apologising, we recognise that it requires us to behave markedly different moving forwards because, e te whānau, Governments come and go, but Te Tiriti is forever.

Now, as reflected in this settlement bill, as many other speakers before me have alluded to, we have a summary of the historical account contained within this bill which we will be passing into an Act today, which makes it abundantly clear what the process of colonisation has done to the people of Ngāti Paoa. We see here acknowledged in black and white that the Crown is noting and putting on the public record that not only has it breached Te Tiriti, not only did it attack the people of Ngāti Paoa, not only did it steal land and resource, it also lied. And through that process of confiscation, alienation, and theft we see the compounding impacts today noted here. I quote: “By the end of the twentieth century, only 27% of Ngāti Paoa spoke te reo Māori. The decline of Ngāti Paoa tribal structures and the loss of te reo Māori contributed to a loss of Ngāti Paoa mātauranga Māori.”

I do not want to dwell on the impacts of the awful behaviour from the Crown in this country. Instead, I would prefer for us to take a moment to acknowledge and to uphold the consistent leadership and grace and patience and mana and fight of Ngāti Paoa. My major interface with Ngāti Paoa as the MP for Auckland Central has been primarily through my mahi on Waiheke Island. I just want to acknowledge Whaea Hūhana, who I saw up there, who I know has also been a champion on islands for a really long time for the revitalisation of te reo Māori.

But in talking through the process that we’ve got to get to this day, I think that it would be remiss of any of us to not take a moment not to dwell but to acknowledge how this very settlement process drives and encourages and fans the flames of conflict. This once again goes to show how utterly cooked it is when this place that has been responsible for breaching these foundational agreements in Te Tiriti o Waitangi, then seeks to set the terms of negotiation. This, once again, I think underscores that what we have represented here today as a result of all of the kaha and the fight to get to this point is just another stepping stone in upholding the mana of Ngāti Paoa and denotes that there is so, so much further to go.

However, even without a settlement in place, I have seen the ability of Ngāti Paoa to respond not only to the needs of the people on the ground but also abundantly to the needs and the cries of the te taiao and particularly our moana, Tīkapa Moana, the Hauraki Gulf. I reflect—and I saw Blair somewhere up there as well—on the day that we had some common dolphins strand on Waiheke. It was Ngāti Paoa who were among the first on the scene, working with the scientists and making sure that everything was done in accordance with tikanga. So, too, we’ve seen that Ngāti Paoa have led when it comes to conservation around Waiheke Island, particularly inner moana, with the rāhui that was placed on four of our significant signal species. Again, this is mahi that has been done without that settlement in place, without that resource which is nowhere near adequate to address what has been taken; not lost—taken! So just to address particularly that which has been taken and the aspirations moving forward.

Much like my colleague, I also have on the hotline Herearoha Skipper, and I want to acknowledge her today, because so frequently whenever anything is happening in particularly our moana space, we want to know immediately what it is that Ngāti Paoa has to say about that and the positions that we should be taking and considering in our mahi as parliamentarians. But as Herearoha asked me to reflect on in this Chamber in this third reading today, it has been clear that Ngāti Paoa have been a people and a force on the whenua and on the moana for hundreds and hundreds of years, and will be for hundreds and hundreds and hundreds more to come. That is Ngāti Paoa mana whenua, mana moana. It is the role of our governments to now get out of the way and support Ngāti Paoa to continue to resource their aspirations. Because, I think, as all of us who reflect on the experience and the evidence know, when we support what is good for Māori, we ultimately get the best possible outcomes for Aotearoa New Zealand.

I just also wanted to make the point, as my colleague also did, that I believe, if I’m not recalling incorrectly off the top of my head, that the post-settlement entity board is in fact entirely filled with wāhine Māori. I don’t know, that might have some indication of some amazing things that are on the horizon.

But I am just acknowledging, as I feel that we need to, that this is just one next stepping stone in this journey towards justice. This does not and cannot represent justice, because it is a mere drop in the bucket of what was stolen and the compounding inequities that we see face today. We must acknowledge the grace, the strength, and the leadership of the people of Ngāti Paoa. The Greens support this legislation, but we will not stop until Te Tiriti o Waitangi is completely honoured.

LAURA McCLURE (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Kia ora. I’d like to extend a mihi from the ACT Party to the iwi, the hapū, and the whānau who have joined us in the House today, and the ancestors you have brought with you as well. As a member of Parliament, it is a huge honour and a privilege, as part of our role, to be able to see these settlements go through. I don’t take that lightly. I wear the huge burden that it is on not just you but members of Parliament to do you the honour of passing this bill through the House today.

This bill is giving the legal effect to parts of the deed of settlement signed by Ngāti Paoa and the Crown in 2021. It marks the final settlement of this historic Treaty claim between the iwi and the Crown. The facts are straightforward. Over many decades, the Crown’s actions led to Ngāti Paoa being virtually landless. It is not acceptable at all.

Military operations against iwi settlements and the operation of native land laws undermined your ability to maintain economic and social independence. Those are matters of historical record. Those are matters that we all know, and you all know, you live and breathe. This bill doesn’t rewrite the history, but it does acknowledge it. The Crown failed in its obligation. This legislation is about putting that on the record and providing a resolution.

The settlement includes financial redress and cultural redress relating to sites of importance to Ngāti Paoa across areas including Tāmaki Makaurau, the Hauraki Gulf, and parts of Waikato. This bill confirms the finality of these claims. That’s important not just for the Crown but for you too. You deserve closure and certainty for generations of effort to get to this point. We hope this redress will help your roughly 5,000 members come together for each other and share stories of your past, and, most importantly, I hope that passing this bill helps build your vision for your future. I commend the bill to the House.

JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise on behalf of New Zealand First in support of the Ngāti Paoa Claims Settlement Bill.

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

I begin my contribution by acknowledging and paying tribute to all the generations of Ngāti Paoa who have taken this journey together to seek justice for their people, and the many members of the iwi who have passed over in the course of this journey, who are not here today to bear witness to today’s third and final reading—a significant day for Ngāti Paoa. To the Ngāti Paoa Iwi Trust, the post-settlement governance entity for Ngāti Paoa, and to all the members of Ngāti Paoa here: welcome to the House. It is a privilege, and it is my honour, to speak to your settlement bill today.

To say that this settlement journey has taken some time to reach this stage, where you’ve now gathered in the House of Representatives, would have to be something of an understatement, but you all bear witness to the conclusion of the legislative part of this process, and I hope that, from this point on, you can move forward together.

As I said, it’s taken a very long time, and it has been going on for many, many years. I’d like to acknowledge the complexity of all of the issues that you’ve had to deal with—the many issues—and the history of this journey. A number of challenges that you’ve had to come through during this settlement process have been articulated well by the Minister and those who have spoken to previous readings, as well as those in the House so far today. The boundaries in Tāmaki-makau-rau and the overlapping interests create, as we know, some difficulties, so it’s not a straight line that has to be navigated through the course of any Treaty settlement.

I’d like to speak to a couple of things here, and first I’ll look at the area of interest for Ngāti Paoa: Mahurangi is a place very close to my heart—it’s where I reside; Tāmaki-makau-rau— obviously, I’ve been living in Auckland for a number of years, decades, in fact; the Hauraki Plains; the gulf islands—we all love our beautiful islands; and parts of the Waikato as well.

Ngāti Paoa is a mana moana people. What does that really mean? It means that, when it comes to the ocean, your concern and care—the kaitiakitanga you have for that—is of the utmost degree. I’d just like to make a couple of examples of that. In my role as the Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries, I’m very interested in the state of the gulf. We know that Caulerpa, the toxic, invasive seaweed pest, has been a great concern for Ngāti Paoa, and the work that you have done alongside Bremworth to try and smother Caulerpa—although it may not be the ultimate way to get rid of Caulerpa, but many of you have been involved in processes, alongside Nicola MacDonaldWe know that there’s been some progress in that there’s not as much Caulerpa right at the moment, and we’re trying to understand what that is about—what has caused the decrease? Maybe it’s sedimentation, but there is a report due shortly as to where the Government is at in terms of further work that needs to be done alongside our iwi around the Hauraki Gulf.

The other point I’d like to note is around Mahurangi, where I live. We’ve had an ongoing issue with Watercare and the contamination of the Mahurangi River, with sewage being spilled multiple times. It’s an ongoing issue with the failure of the Watercare system, which as affected not just the oyster farmers in the region, but it also speaks to the degradation of our waterway flowing out into the harbour. It is not just culturally insensitive, it is totally objectionable that we’ve had these sewage spills. Just last week, 1,200 cubic metres of sewage was contaminated into the Mahurangi River, and we must continue the fight together—all of the iwi who are connected to the Hauraki Gulf—to ensure that Watercare does the right thing and that the infrastructure is fixed, but also compensation is made not just to the oyster farmers but to the iwi as well.

Waiheke Island is a place that I’ve been to visit multiple times, and I’ve had the pleasure to join the Waikehe Marine Project. This has been a wonderful experiment—well, it’s more than an experiment. It’s, basically, citizen science, where the community has got involved—Ngāti Paoa is involved as well—in doing the kōura count and finding out what is the state of the crayfish in the region. Recent surveys by the project have shown that the kōura population around Waiheke Island is at historically low levels at the moment, with the population described as functionally extinct. That latest survey this year shows an average of 0.7 crayfish per 1,000 square metres in the Waiheke waters. That is a significant drop from last year’s figure. It’s now in its fifth year, and the results of the survey conducted by the Waiheke Marine Project really speak to what more could be done not just by community but by Government, alongside iwi, in terms of restoring the mauri not just of the waters around Waiheke but of the wider gulf as well.

I’d like to also speak to one of your bright, shining stars. Now, not everyone has the backbone or the guts for politics, but I’d like to mention Kerrin Leoni, who stood for mayor in Auckland—a Ngāti Paoa sister. Oh, there she is! Lovely to see you, Kerrin. Congratulations, well done, you made yourself and your whānau proud—56,000 votes in the latest mayoral election, and I’m really proud of you, sister. I’d just like to say that’s 30,000 more than Chlöe Swarbrick got when she stood for mayor, so well done, Kerrin; that was a really great effort. Well done to you.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Ms Marcroft, some mention of the bill would be good at this stage.

JENNY MARCROFT: Speaking to the bill, Mr Speaker—thank you for that—I’d just like to say that it’s always a pleasure to speak to a Treaty settlement bill, but actually acknowledging the people, the whānau, and the individuals who are a part of a tribe, an iwi, is an important part of when we speak to Treaty settlement bills.

I’d like to just continue to say—and I think it was Peeni Henare who just spoke earlier about grasping hold of your future. One thing I’d like to add to that is that I think it’s really important, when we have a Treaty settlement bill like this one we are speaking to today, that we do more than grasp hold of our future; that we actually take this as a way of reimagining our future. We need to change the neural pathways in our brains. We need to have a new mindset—what does a future look like?—and build that mindset and be able to have our children do that at the same time so that we end up creating that future together.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to finish my contribution now, acknowledging Ngāti Paoa. Today is a conclusion of many years—14 years—of negotiations, three Ministers, and three Governments. We’ve got it done. Congratulations, Ngāti Paoa. I commend the bill to the House.

ORIINI KAIPARA (Te Pāti Māori—Tāmaki Makaurau):

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

You honour me, Ngāti Paoa. It was an honour to welcome you early this morning alongside my whanaunga Alishia and her tāne Kura Moeahu and

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

alongside Crown representatives and esteemed guests. It is an absolute honour to speak on behalf of Te Pāti Māori and as the MP for Tāmaki Makaurau:

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

As the House considers the third reading of the Ngāti Paoa Claims Settlement Bill, it really is hard for me to stand here without acknowledging those who started this journey for Ngāti Paoa. Their faces may not be here in this room today, but their spirit is without doubt here, bearing witness to this historic moment.

The challenge for many of us tangata whenua and tangata Tiriti is that with every Treaty settlement read in this Whare, we find ourselves standing between sorrow and hope, between what was taken and what is being restored. There is a name that needs mentioning: Morehu Wilson

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

The weight of the loss of the instrumental people who carried the weight of the atrocities committed by the Crown against Ngāti Paoa is felt, and I acknowledge this with great respect and aroha. I wish to respond to some of the wise words spoken by Herearoha Skipper:

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

this morning at the whakatau. Herearoha, Hauāuru, Mihingarangi: Te Pāti Māori recognises that with the third and final reading of your historic Treaty claims, we are not just consenting to legislation but we are affirming the dignity of a people, the legitimacy of your claims, and the strength of a partnership.

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

We also acknowledge the tremendous skill and perseverance it takes to navigate the Crown’s Treaty settlement process, a process shaped by the Crown’s own policies, their own limitations, and its ongoing struggle to reconcile words with actions.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): The member’s time has come to an end.

TEANAU TUIONO (Green): Tēnā koe e te Pīka.

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

What a momentous occasion is it to rise to speak with the Greens on this bill and to acknowledge that the Ngāti Paoa have got three Ngāpuhi that have stood up to mihi to them. I don’t know if it’s your lucky day, but that’s how it is.

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m pleased to rise and take a call here in the final reading of the Ngāti Paoa Claims Settlement Bill—the final reading recognising the completion of the legislative stage of this process.

Of course, that is only a very small portion of what it has taken to get to this place, now. I want to acknowledge those members of Ngāti Paoa who are present in the gallery today and, particularly, acknowledge those that have been more intimately involved in the negotiations and the work getting this claim settlement bill to the point that we are at today. Indeed, that has been over a very extended period of time, and I want to acknowledge the good faith on both sides from negotiators as they worked through the process, acknowledging some particularly challenging situations in the past, trying to find a position where agreement can be reached, to ultimately set a strong platform to enable Ngāti Paoa to move forward with renewed hope and optimism. I think that has been achieved, and those negotiators should indeed be proud of what they have been able to deliver, noting the opportunity that it presents and, of course, recognising the difficulties that have gone before.

We see the bill focusing on the Crown apology, an agreed historic account, cultural redress with the return of 12 culturally significant sites, 23 and a half million dollars, and of course, other support through collective deeds, as well. But that obviously only recognises a small measure of what the ultimate view would have been around the impact over a long period of time, and such is the challenge with these Treaty settlement bills. But on this side of the House, this Government is very pleased to continue a strong track record of delivering Treaty settlements in this House, indeed starting the process 30 years ago with the Waikato-Tainui settlement in the mighty Waikato—and of course, now coming right through to today.

We saw earlier today, as well, Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu commencing their legislative stage with the first reading of their claim settlement bill, too, and so it is encouraging to see that progress continuing. As the MP for Waikato, Ngāti Paoa, having some interest down into our region, as well, with their rohe and, indeed, in some areas overlapping with Tumutumu—understandably, it’s a beautiful part of the country; everyone wants to be there.

It’s pleasing to see, when we reflect on what’s happening in that area—it is a wonderful region. You know, we have strong industry in terms of our food and fibre sectors, fisheries, dairy farming, red meat sector, horticulture in that area, but tourism, manufacturing, as well, and some beautiful environmental aspects with incredible conservation. The mountains, the ranges, the ocean, the rivers—just, I think, highlighting some of the intrinsic beauty that most people would see around New Zealand, but that I’m particularly proud of in the Waikato region, anyway.

I’m very pleased to be able to take a call on this bill as we wind down towards the end of the process, being able to draw a line under what has been a long process but a well-supported process getting to, I think, on balance, a good outcome. So I’m pleased to commend this bill to the House.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour):

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

A lot has been said, and I was listening to some of the kōrero about the wāhine there, and I think one of the things with Ngāti Paoa is, no doubt, there was a mana wāhine takeover. I want to acknowledge you all—you know, all the names weren’t read out. So it’s a little bit like the Labour Party, actually, when I see what happened with Ngāti Paoa—I’ll come back to the negotiators shortly. All the women’s names weren’t read out, so I want to read them all out, I want to mihi to you all: to Herearoha Skipper, to Lucy Tukua, to Tania Tarawa, to Tui Tawera, to Michelle Wilson, and to the infamous Mihingarangi Forbes—well done to all of you. Homai te pakipaki [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office] for our mana wāhine team. [Applause]

I want to say it’s fabulous this mana wāhine team, and Peeni and I were talking about Mihi—done some wonderful mahi for Ngāti Paoa. I really do think, Mihi, your greatest feat here in Parliament was chasing David Seymour down the corridor, which the only shame I felt was that you didn’t trip him up. I thought it was a terrific job that you did that day, Mihi, and I do thank you, my old friend from many, many years ago, for your mahi for te ao Māori, for your people—and just having a bit of fun there with David Seymour. That’s what it’s like, I think, for all of our people here, who’ve come here today: they are balancing everything. They’re balancing everything, you know, and so I mihi to the mana wāhine team and to the negotiators, to Hau, to Koro, and to others—obviously, Morehu from the past.

We heard the frustration this morning, at our mihimihi this morning. It was a beautiful kōrero. We had about 200 to 300 of the iwi turn up. And I’ll be a bit careful here, Mr Speaker, because last time I was talking like this, you kicked me out of the House—but we won’t go there. It was the last tribal bill; I think I talked lots. I’ve been away for a little while. I thought I’d stay away from some of these iwi kōrero!

This is such an important kaupapa, and I look at how our people—and I listened to Koro this morning: the frustration of our people in his mihimihi this morning. You know, Peeni and I were sitting there, and Hau had just done a beautiful kōrero to the Minister—we thought a little bit over the top, Hau, but kei te pai. Kei te pai. You know, Koro certainly balanced that out—old “Goldie” was feeling on top of the world there for a while, but you certainly changed things. Koro talked about the frustration that our people feel in terms of going through the process, and he talked about, “Hey, this was never our fault.” We made you feel like we had something to do with it.

Chlöe Swarbrick talked about it too, and I want to acknowledge what she was saying: there’s such a sacrifice from our people. We subsidise this country in terms of the Treaty settlements. You’re talking about iwi taking 2 or 3 percent of what the settlement was worth. And that’s what Koro was talking about this morning, you know. It’s either peanuts or nothing, so we take the peanuts, and our iwi have taken the peanuts there.

That does not mean they’re not grateful for the mahi done by the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, the Hon Paul Goldsmith, by Minister Finlayson, by Minister Little—they’re not ungrateful for that. That’s what we heard this morning: the gratefulness, and then the anguish and the frustration that you have to go through a system that only recognises 2 or 3 percent of the actual loss. I’m sure some of you know, Koro will know, that when Tainui and Ngāi Tahu settled for $170 million, the economic estimate of the settlement was $16 billion to $18 billion. That’s what we are subsidising this country with, and so that’s the type of kōrero we get from the Chlöes, from Mariameno, from Oriini. Our people know about what we commit to the process, but never let it be forgotten what we have sacrificed.

I mihi to you all today, in terms of coming here and doing the business. As the Minister said quite rightly, we do try and strangle each other in the House and give it to each other, but outside the House, we are cordial. We will whakakotahi for the kaupapa, because the kaupapa is what we want in the end. We want a settlement. We want our people to be given an opportunity, but we need the House and Crown to remember the sacrifice—the sacrifice.

Again, as I said, Mr Speaker, I’ll be a bit careful, because we do accept, particularly Minister Goldsmith and Minister Potaka—when we come together for these hui, we do come together. You never see us warring on a paepae or anything, but I have an obligation to remind the House that we come together like this under the shadow of a Government that continues to attack Māori rights. I know it’s a sensitive area here, but it’s hard when yesterday we were talking, my colleague Willow-Jean Prime was talking about, the Treaty clauses being removed in terms of kura. We’re talking about the Treaty being expelled from legislation. That has to be said today—that this is what we’re balancing. And so I—

Hon Nicola Grigg: Speak to the bill, Willie.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I’m speaking to the bill. This is part of the bill. You cannot continue to carry on like this without speaking about the constant attack in terms of tikanga Māori. So I’ll say that and leave it there—and leave it there.

I want to want to want to wrap up by doing a mihi to Kerrin Leoni too, because I thought that, Jenny Marcroft, was a bit uncalled for there. Kerrin Leoni actually got 76,000 votes—77,000 votes—and she was the co-chair for Mr Hon Peeni Henare’s Tāmaki Makaurau electorate, so thank you, Kerrin, for your commitment to the kaupapa. And to you, Miss Chlöe Swarbrick, I think you were like 16—weren’t you?—when you stood for the Auckland mayoralty, so 30,000 votes wasn’t bad, I think. It wasn’t too bad at all, Chlöe, so well done to you. No need to talk about those sort of numbers, because I always think anyone who puts themselves up for these positions, we should acknowledge. So well done to you, Chlöe, for what you did all those years ago.

Today, in terms of our iwi who come here today, it is a great day. It is a great day. For all its warts and whatnot, it’s still a great day that we as parties can come together. It’s great that the Minister can front up and listen to the criticism and whatnot, and we still kōkiri the kaupapa, āe. We still move forward and say, “Right, we acknowledge, we acknowledge. And now we’ve got this pūtea, now we’ve got the settlement. Now what can we do?” I think you’ve got the example with Tainui, you’ve got the example with Ngāi Tahu, we’ve got the example with Ngāti Whātua. I think that’s all in place, and maybe $23 million won’t go a long way, but what you’ve set—your example in terms of fight, in terms of principle, in terms of values—will be held in good stead for all the rangatahi who are coming through.

I mihi to you all, and to Hau, to Koro, to all our negotiators who’ve come through, Morehu, to our mana wāhine team, to Rick Barker, Mike Dreaver, for your work in terms of bringing all us Māori together. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): E te Mana Whakawā, tihei mauri ora. E ngā mana, e ngā reo, e ngā iwi, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

I’d like to begin by acknowledging the significance of today. It has been well traversed in this House that it is a special day and one that has come after many decades of mahi nearly 200 years since the Treaty of Waitangi was signed and since the atrocities and breaches of the Treaty that we now acknowledge today. I’d also like to acknowledge the beautiful rohe of the Hauraki Gulf and the Ngāti Paoa area. Like many in this House, I am a product of the Hauraki Gulf. I was born and raised in East Auckland. I have many fond memories in the Hauraki Plains and down in Thames during Christmas time, and I now live on the North Shore, which is a wonderful place where my family and I live. It is a wonderful area and a place that, I think, as we know, provides sustenance and life to many New Zealanders. It is, I think, the jewel of the North Island, the Hauraki Gulf, and a special place for this iwi, but also a special place for all of New Zealand.

This bill, as we’ve heard, acknowledges the deed that was signed to settle the claim with Ngāti Paoa, and this bill gives effect to that deed in its entirety. I wish to just account for what is in that deed. It is an historic account, which is important—and I’d encourage any New Zealander tuning in today to read that historic account—it is important that we do not forget. The second, is the Crown apology for the breaches that were made under the Treaty of Waitangi in terms of the land Crown purchases, the confiscation of land, and the native land wars that happened. Next, is the redress of $23.5 million, the vesting of 12 cultural significant sites dotted throughout the Hauraki area, and some significant name changes as well.

As a former member of the Māori Affairs Committee—this bill went through the select committee process—I’d like to acknowledge all my colleagues from across the House. As you can see today, there is a lot that we actually agree on in Parliament. My colleague Willie Jackson—there’s a lot of his speech I don’t agree on, but I do agree that in times like today, we actually come together and support such important legislation in the House. This has been an important process, one where we did make, from the select committee, some changes to this piece of legislation. I do want to acknowledge the officials who have worked diligently in this matter, and those of the Ministers. As has been mentioned by Jenny Marcroft, my colleague here, this piece of legislation has been through many Ministers and many Governments. I’d like to acknowledge that.

Most importantly, I’d like to focus on the future, which is really in the hands of Ngāti Paoa and has been acknowledged by the trust entity, which is full of wāhine toa. I’d like to acknowledge, as Willie did, all those members on that trust board, the chair, Herearoha Skipper, and the great Mihingarangi Forbes and all trustee members. It is in your hands to take what is a small amount—and we all acknowledge that no amount of redress can make up for the loss and the damage that has been suffered by iwi. It was 30 years ago we signed the first iwi settlement with Tainui, and it wasn’t easy. If you speak to Sir Doug Graham or if you read accounts of that, it was a very hard process to get through. And, yes, it was a small amount, an insignificant amount, relative to the amount of damage that was done. As you can see, it may have been peanuts, but other iwi across this country have turned those peanuts into plantations. It is our hope, collectively in Parliament, that that happens to Ngāti Paoa, that you take what is a small amount and do what you can with it to benefit the future of your members and iwi in your rohe.

It is a good day for this House. It is a good day for Ngāti Paoa. I’d like to, again, acknowledge all of those who have contributed to this process: Morehu Wilson for his contributions in getting us to this stage. Again, I acknowledge that, on this side of the House, National does have a very proud track record of Treaty settlements, and they will continue. The Minister, Paul Goldsmith, has got ambitious plans to get us to the stage where we actually get a lot more iwi settlements across the line. It is on that basis that I commend this bill to the House. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

SHANAN HALBERT (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker.

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

Today is a good day. We come together in kotahitanga. We come from Tāmaki-makau-rau. For those of you from Te Raki-pae-whenua, e mihi ko ana ki a koutou.

Can I acknowledge you all, Ngāti Paoa, and the mahi that you have done to arrive at this settlement today. Some may talk about the patience that you have, the resilience, but we know that together, as Māori, our resilience, our fight for our future, for ngā rangatira

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

—that together, we will make a better tomorrow for them, and that is what this is about.

It is no doubt difficult in one of the most tumultuous Governments that we have seen as Māori. Some have talked about attacks, but those of you who know me will know that, prior to politics, my time was spent in education, and this has been one of the most difficult weeks, as this Government, a National Government, has removed Te Tiriti o Waitangi from our governing bodies in ngā kura o Aotearoa. What that means for us is that there is no longer a requirement for them to reflect Te Tiriti in their practices and, most of all, to protect our tamariki, to grow and to learn in those environments as tangata whenua, as Māori. That makes me sad, and while we celebrate together today, and this is absolutely a celebration, it’s one step forward and two backwards. But, most of all, e whānau mā, while I say it’s one step forward and two backwards, we’re still going forward. Nobody can stop us, and most of all, we will go forward together.

You’ll also know that I am a descendant of Tamatea-pōkai-whenua, our whānau here from Kahungunu, and tomorrow, our whānau from Mōkai Pātea, Ngāti Whitikaupeka, will come here to sign our agreement in principle, so I understand a little bit the long road that Ngāti Paoa has been on, and we’re only partway through. Today, I acknowledge you, Ngāti Paoa, and I also acknowledge the Crown, because the whakataukī that I opened with talked about partnership, the aspiration of two peoples coming together in this country. This redress is acknowledgment of that: the hurt, the loss, the impact of colonisation on your whānau at the hands of the Crown. This is merely a small recognition of that, but it’s also an apology. It’s an acknowledgment of the hē, of the wrongdoing that was done by this place and by the Government and Parliament of the day, to take away what was rightfully yours.

I see Whaea Zee there, Janine, and for those of us who come from Te Raki-pae-whenua, Northcote, we often miss seeing our Māori identity around, and I want to acknowledge the stories, the whakapapa, that we are seeing in the Northcote housing development, at Auckland University of Technology; they are your stories, they are your tīpuna, and I mihi to you all today.

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

GREG FLEMING (National—Maungakiekie): [Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

When you mentioned that the Minister had misspoken and called you Tau Henare,

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.],

and maybe that day, if it is my honour to be there, I will call out and say,

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour):

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

Today marks a significant milestone, not just for this House but for the people who are here today. It is a moment of intense significance that is both hopeful and solemn—solemn because we reflect upon the generations of loss, hardship, and injustice that have been suffered by Ngāti Paoa at the hands of the Crown, but also hopeful because, today, we move one step closer to Ngāti Paoa determining your own future.

This settlement represents the Crown’s formal acknowledgment of those wrongs committed against Ngāti Paoa, and the Crown’s apology for breaching Te Tiriti o Waitangi. As we have already heard from my friend and colleague Willie Jackson today, no settlement can even get near to fully compensating for the depth of loss that Ngāti Paoa has endured—for the lands taken, for the economic opportunities that have been lost and denied, for the cultural harm, and for the generations forced to live with the consequences of those actions—but what this settlement can do, and what I believe it must do, is lay the foundation for a renewed relationship, one that is built on partnership, one that is built on respect, and also, hopefully, one built on trust.

This bill is not just about the return of whenua and the provision of redress; it is about recognising the right of Ngāti Paoa to stand strong on your own lands, in your own language, and with your own identity affirmed. The journey to this date has been a long one. Negotiators have worked tirelessly over the years. It was back in 2013 that the Ngāti Paoa Iwi Trust was confirmed as your post-settlement governance entity, and it was in March 2021 that the Crown signed the Deed of Settlement with Ngāti Paoa, a step that came after years of negotiation, reflection, and perseverance.

What this bill does is it sets out, in clear terms, how the Crown failed to uphold the principles and the promises made in Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Those breaches include the confiscation of land—raupatu—the unjust operation of the Native Land Court system, the Crown purchasing that left Ngāti Paoa virtually landless, and the policies that have eroded economic, cultural, and social wellbeing over the years. The Crown’s apology recognises the pain caused by the rapid alienation of land after 1840, the devastating impacts of conflict, as well as the laws that stripped away the availability to access te reo Māori. While no apology can erase that history, the formal acknowledgment of wrongdoing is such an important start; it is the foundation of reconciliation for a shared future that is based on integrity and mutual respect. The settlement includes redress of $23.5 million, the transfer of culturally significant sites, and the ability for redress payments to support revitalisation in those areas.

Just as important is what the settlement provides; it’s also important to tell the stories that have come with this journey. In the select committee process, one of the submissions stood out so clearly for its heartfelt view of what this represented, and I chose that one today to refer to. It is that of Te Ahipourewa Garner-Forbes. She spoke of watching her mother, her aunties, and her uncles gather at countless hui over the years, dedicating themselves to this long and unforgiving process. She spoke of the anguish in the voices of the negotiators like Hauauru Rawiri and the late Morehu Wilson, who carried that heavy responsibility upon their shoulders. She stated, “Unlike my grandfather or my mother, I have been raised in both te reo Māori and te reo Ingarangi. I recognise the whakamā and the mamae held by those who suffered cruel Crown legislation that silenced them.” Her statement that “We are whenua kore in our special places, and this settlement will go some way to changing that” captures the very heart of why this bill matters today. The story that she told is one of resilience, manawanui, and endurance in the face of extraordinary loss.

In the 19th century, the Crown confiscations and purchases stripped away nearly all land. They drained the Hauraki wetlands, and the diversion of the Waihou and Piako rivers transformed not only the physical landscape but also the very life for generations. Yet, despite that devastation, Ngāti Paoa have persevered. That resilience is embodied in the leadership of today’s iwi representation and the collective will of the Ngāti Paoa people.

An important part of the settlement spirit is partnership, and that is woven all the way through the provisions: mahi tahi. We can already see the fruits of this partnership with the relationship between Ngāti Paoa and Auckland University of Technology, AUT. It’s AUT’s engagement with Ngāti Paoa that stands as such a strong example of what it really means to move beyond apology into meaningful collaboration. Together, they have worked to embed Ngāti Paoa narratives within the AUT North Campus, land on which Ngāti Paoa are mana whenua. The university’s commitment to shared values—pono, tika, aroha—is exactly what partnership is under Te Tiriti o Waitangi. It is a reminder that the outcomes of these settlements must reach beyond legal instruments and into the very fabric of our institutions and our communities.

I want to acknowledge the many people who have carried this kaupapa across decades: negotiators, kaumātua, lawyers, historians, Crown officials, and even Ministers, past and present—acknowledging you, Rick Barker, here today. This journey has not been easy. There have been delays, disagreements, and deep frustrations along the way, but the fact that we are here reading this is testament to the perseverance and also the faith in the process of reconciliation. I would like to acknowledge the work of the Māori Affairs Committee, which engaged all the way with submitters and helped to ensure that the bill was brought back to this House.

I’d like to conclude by looking ahead. While we celebrate this moment, we must also remember that settlement does not mean an end to the Crown’s responsibilities. It marks, instead, the beginning of a new relationship, one that requires ongoing commitment to that partnership. Settlements provide a base, a platform for iwi to rebuild and thrive, but they do not erase inequality or restore every loss. For true reconciliation, we must continue to ensure Māori voices are heard in decision making, that iwi have equitable access to opportunities, and that te reo Māori and tikanga are respected and normalised right across all spheres of life, including our schools.

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

The mana of the Treaty will not fade. Our collective challenge as parliamentarians in this House is to uphold that mana through action. As Te Ahipourewa reminded us, this settlement is for her generation and those yet to come. It is about creating a future where Ngāti Paoa can stand tall, knowing their identity is valued and that their history is acknowledged.

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m privileged to be the final speaker, as we close this chapter of this very long and arduous journey, on the Ngāti Paoa Claims Settlement Bill. I’d also like to acknowledge everyone that’s travelled here today, also from my beautiful electorate of Takanini, which includes areas from Manurewa East, all the way up to Flat Bush in Ormiston—so welcome, haere mai—and I’d like to say that I’m very sorry that many of us from the Māori Affairs Committee were not able to join you this morning. Our hearts were with you, but the mahi that we had here in the House didn’t allow us to be with you. So my apologies in that regard.

I’m very privileged, as I said in my previous speech, to be the deputy chair of the Māori Affairs Committee, and, indeed, privileged because I actually wasn’t born here in New Zealand, and I look at everything with a very open eye and open heart. I’ve learnt a lot from the number of Treaty settlements that we have engaged with since I was blessed to be voted in to this House, and I know that I continue to learn.

I’d like to just reiterate some of the key time line. When it comes to the key timeline of bringing this settlement bill into the House, it began with the previous Government, and so I’d just like to acknowledge the Hon Andrew Little and his mahi in that regard. The deed of settlement was signed in 2021, on 20 March, and the bill was introduced into the House on 15 December 2022. It went to the Māori Affairs Committee of that previous administration in June of 2023, and there was a total of 351 submissions.

Now, I do want to say that it was transferred to us, as the new Māori Affairs Committee, in the 54th Parliament, so to speak, but in respect of the submissions and the ongoing correspondence—and this was touched upon by various colleagues across the House—there was the issue of Waiheke farm. I think that it would be kind of remiss of me to not mention it, because it was and still is a very important and ongoing issue, and so I’d like to reference it in the House. Essentially, this is referring to the bill transferring the Waiheke farm land from Ngāti Paoa Trust Board to the Ngāti Paoa Iwi Trust post-settlement governance entity.

I want to say to the people that have different views that the Māori Affairs Committee spoke a lot and in deep detail and considered this issue quite profoundly, and we found that both trusts exist for the same purpose: the benefit of those who whakapapa to Ngāti Paoa. Here, I’d like to say that something I’ve learnt in my last 13 and a half years in New Zealand is that with Māori, you find a way because your suffering is shared suffering. Sometimes I don’t agree that blood runs thicker than water, but with Māori, I agree that it does, and I have faith that the disagreements will find a way to dissipate and it will be water under the bridge in some time.

Also, because we’ve traversed across the speeches today about the technicalities of the deed of settlement, I would like to just say, if I may, that for those of you who are not familiar with the working of Parliament too much, it could be like you’re asking “Why are we doing this? Why are we going through this process? There was a deed of settlement. Why do we have to go through this process?” If we put it in a nutshell, essentially, in this process here in the House, we’re putting into law what was agreed upon in the deed of settlement. So that contract becomes extralegally binding by us going through this legislative process, and I did just want to clarify that for any of our listeners.

I will end my kōrero with a couple of points. Through our speeches, we’ve heard the term “virtually landless” and that Ngāti Paoa was rendered virtually landless after all of the land was taken, and other things, as well. I reflect on this a lot, particularly when we’re going through settlement legislation. I reflect on what being virtually landless can mean in practice to one’s wairua and to one’s equilibrium.

I whakapapa to Lebanon, and the Ottoman Empire occupied Lebanon for 400 years and they were brutal. I think to myself that if they took away the land around my beautiful village of Ainata Al Arz, which is very up high on the mountain, I’d feel a lot of anger and I’d walk around with this anger a lot. But I look at our Māori brothers and sisters, and often and often, again—like I said in my speech, about whakatauhia—you teach me a lot about endurance, about patience, and about perseverance, and I’m still learning.

So I pray that after this we can all go forward, quietly close the door on this chapter, open the door on a new chapter, and—as my friend and colleague Dan Bidois has said—cultivate that plantation: the plantation of the mind, of the spirit, of the heart, and of the land, all for your mokopuna. I commend this bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Permission has been granted for a waiata.

Waiata—[Name to be inserted by Hansard Office]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you—that was beautiful. Now we’re just going to take a little bit of time to have our guests move around. We have some more guests coming in shortly, so, for the House, we’ll just take a couple of minutes to do the changeover. Thank you.

Bills

Ngāti Hāua Claims Settlement Bill

Second Reading

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

DEPUTY SPEAKER: 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 Ngāti Hāua Claims Settlement Bill be now read a second time.

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

It’s very good to see you again in the House. It’s my pleasure to stand for the second reading of the Ngāti Hāua Claims Settlement Bill, which is now nearing the end of its settlement journey after commencing negotiations with the Crown in 2017, though many of the claims that will be settled by this bill date back as far as 1987. I’d like to acknowledge, as I have, the Ngāti Hāua contingent joining us today, and I look forward to meeting you all again in force for the third reading of this legislation, which is the final reading of the legislation before this Treaty settlement is enacted by legislation. That will be coming soon.

The Māori Affairs Committee considered the Ngāti Hāua Claims Settlement Bill from May to October. There was a great deal of interest in the bill. I understand that it has received almost 1,500 submissions, which is unprecedented for a Treaty settlement bill. Hearings were held both here in Parliament and at Ngāpuwaiwaha Marae in Taumarunui. It’s a lovely spot, I’m bound to say. As Minister for the arts, I hear a lot of music, but the best music I’ve heard this year was at Taumarunui at the signing ceremony, where the waiata was on another level in terms of the quality. I will never forget that.

Discussions at hearings at the select committee were expansive and often robust. I’d like to acknowledge the grace demonstrated by Te Whiringa Kākaho o Ngāti Hāua Trust during these passionate discussions. I’d also like to commend the trust’s hospitality in hosting the committee in Taumarunui and taking the time to bring them to the sacred Ngāti Hāua sites. I want to thank the Māori Affairs Committee for their considered review of the bill and their efforts to give each of the many submissions their due. I’m satisfied with the committee’s recommendations, which had only minor amendments to resolve technical issues and last-minute overlapping interests with a neighbouring iwi. This redress is reflective of a robust negotiation, and many compromises have been made along the way.

We’ve had a busy morning with Treaty settlements. We’ve had progress of the first reading for Ngāti Tumutumu and, just now, the final reading for Ngāti Paoa. Here we are with Ngāti Hāua based around Taumarunui. This effort that this nation has been on for the last 30 or 40 years in the Treaty settlements, with broad consensus and support across the political divides that we have in this country, is about recognising the misdeeds of the past, the wrongs that have been committed by the Crown over many, many decades going back into the 19th century and making amends. I’ll be outlining all those details of the settlement in the third reading, which is to come—we hope, not too far away.

This redress is reflective of the efforts and compromises made along the way, but the trustees, I believe, should be proud of what they have secured for their people. It’s the penultimate step towards a settlement, and then we will be here again soon. I want to, again, thank members of Ngāti Hāua who have come today. I welcome them to their Parliament and extend the warm invitation to come back again one more time for the third reading soon. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour):

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

The Ngāti Hāua Claims Settlement Bill that we that we have before us today is a living record of perseverance and a reminder of the injustices inflicted upon Ngāti Hāua over the years, but also one of unwavering determination to seek justice and to seek a new course for future generations. This bill represents a culmination of generations of struggle of tūpuna who endured imprisonment, exile, confiscation, discrimination. Yet, through this, Ngāti Hāua have never surrendered your rangatiratanga through this process.

The people of Ngāti Hāua, you have carried this mamae over the generations. You’ve walked a long road to this point in time. He mihi mahana ki a koutou; tēnā koutou katoa e tēnei rā.

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

To understand the significance of this bill, I think it’s important to reflect also on part of the history in terms of what the actions of the Crown did to breach Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and that goes right back to the New Zealand Company in the 1840s; the sale of lands at Heretaunga that were never willingly sold; the threat of military force as well; the catching and court martialling of Ngāti Hāua tupuna Te Rangiātea, who was sentenced to life imprisonment and passed away while being imprisoned—it’s important to acknowledge those. Mātene Ruta Te Whareaitu was sentenced to death at the time. Even in those years, the injustices keep mounting up. Five other tūpuna were exiled to Australia.

These events were not isolated. They set the stage for continued conflict for Ngāti Hāua and the Crown, and over those years we see that they have stood in solidarity with each other, although labelled rebels and punished for fighting against what was theirs and their rights. The confiscations extended to Taranaki and beyond, and Ngāti Hāua’s participation in the peaceful protest at Parihaka—and today is the commemoration date of that sad day in our history—in 1881, once again Crown violence, invasion, arrests, and destruction of property accompanied that. From these events, a long trail, a long legacy of marginalisation ensued. The use of the Native Land Courts to individualise land ownership and break up communal ownership of land and the misuse of public works legislation have all compounded these losses over the years.

It’s important to note that in the early 1900s, Ngāti Hāua’s remaining lands were again compromised, and the Crown ignored those conditions on the establishment of the Taumarunui native township, passing legislation that stripped Ngāti Hāua of meaningful control over that area. In addition to that, the creation of Tongariro National Park occurred without any consultation or recognition of Ngāti Hāua’s deep relationship with that land. So this settlement is an important step to reconnect the kaitiakitanga to be able to re-establish those in a meaningful way that is acknowledged right across New Zealand and with this legislation.

Part of this bill is also the Crown’s apology. I hope it really reflects deep thought and reflection of those things that have been so wrongfully done in our past. Through this apology, the bill formally acknowledges the breaches of the Tiriti of Waitangi and it recognises the Crown’s repeated failures to act honourably and the pain that those actions have caused across generations. It’s taken nearly 180 years for these injustices to be acknowledged and set right. That fact alone should really give us a moment to pause.

I will briefly talk about the cultural redress that’s included in here, some of those overlay classifications, the 64 properties will vest in Ngāti Hāua as reserves—there’s some wonderful opportunities to see those outlaid. Also included in that is the joint management and partnership of Te Pou Taiao joint management committee with the Department of Conservation. It’s so good to see co-management, to see partnership, operating in in bills like this when we go forward. The bill also provides for Ngāti Hāua representation on the Conservation Board, a voice where once there was no voice at that table. So it’s so good to see it. It gives because recognition to your iwi’s mātauranga and the role of kaumātua and kaitiaki in day-to-day decision-making.

I would like to conclude by saying that Treaty settlements are never just about money or transactions. They’re about truth, they’re about recognition, and they’re about healing. They’re about ensuring that our tamariki and mokopuna can grow up in a country that is honest about its past and even dares to be hopeful about its future. The settlement processes are about the Crown fulfilling its obligations under Te Tiriti o Waitangi and walking forward in partnership, meaningful partnership.

For those of us in this House, our responsibility is to ensure that these settlements are not only honoured in law but in spirit as well and that we as members in this House continue to uphold te mana o Te Tiriti and that we continue to address the inequities that persist today, whether those be in housing, health, education, or other opportunities. Because true reconciliation is not a moment in time; it is a movement that we all need to be part of.

I’d like to mention at the end: Ngāti Hāua, as you move forward into a future of self-determination and opportunity, may this settlement be a taonga, a legacy for your mokopuna, a reminder to all of us in this House about the importance of justice, compassion, and kotahitanga. To Ngāti Hāua: I truly wish, may your future be guided by the strength of your past, by the wisdom of your tūpuna, and by the light of your wairua. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

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

TEANAU TUIONO (Green): Mōrena e te Pīka. I rise on behalf of the Greens to speak to this Ngāti Hāua Claims Settlement Bill in this second reading. I’m not a member of the Māori Affairs Committee, so I didn’t have the privilege of going to Taumarunui and listening to the wonderful music that the Minister referred to earlier or to hear the submissions or to partake of the kai as well. But as a previous member of the Māori Affairs Committee, in my time, it was one of the more collegial—the most collegial—committees, in my experience. One of the reasons for that was sometimes somebody will show up with a kai. I showed up with pāua fritters one week. Yeah, I know that because the next week Paul Eagle showed up with blue cod and completely shamed me out. I’m not too sure if that tradition continues over at the Māori Affairs Committee or whether it’s collegial or not, but it is important for us as a Parliament to work our way through these issues, to give these issues really attentive consideration.

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

Just to acknowledge, as I was reading through this bill and through the select committee report, that it’s quite a heavy history. It’s quite a sad history. We’ve talked earlier around their participation and support of the peaceful actions at Parihaka—the direct actions at Parihaka as well—but then also the imprisonment of two of their tūpuna. That makes really sobering reading when you read that. I think it’s important for us to note that. You read the accounts of Te Rangiātea, an elderly, sick, unwell man who was confined for life, and Mātene Ruta Te Whareaitu, who was hanged until dead. These kinds of things weigh heavily on whānau, they weigh heavily on hapū, and they weigh heavily on community as well.

I looked at that name, Te Whareaitu. I live up in the Manawatū and I know some of the Whareaitu whānau. I don’t know if they’re related to this Whareaitu. I’m seeing nods in the gallery. My children who go to the Kura Kaupapa o Mana Tamariki went and did their schooling alongside the Whareaitu whānau as well, so to see this name here and to sort of see if there’s a connection there is quite personal as well.

Just to acknowledge that when the Crown invaded in 1881, they arrested Ngāti Hāua people and destroyed their property, and in the 1860s, they were labeled as Hauhau and rebels by the Crown. This history is incredibly painful and I want to acknowledge your resilience in that.

As I was reading through the select committee report as well, I did note that there were some amendments, and amendments that were agreed to by the iwi, by the whānau, for example, riverbeds belonging to Te Awa Tupua where we’re transferring a number of conservation areas and reserves to Ngāti Hāua. The bill would remove the existing conservation and reserve statuses from some rivers after the land around them had been transferred to Ngāti Hāua. So there would be changes around clause 138 which would remove reserve status from two riverbeds from the additional surveys. In the select committee, they recommended amending clause 138 to remove reserve status from a further six riverbeds. Clause 139 would remove conservation status from one riverbed and they recommended amending it to remove conservation status from a further four riverbeds.

I guess my observation from the outside of that would be that would allow Ngāti Hāua more say, I guess, in how that is managed as well. There are other kind of consequential amendments around the title, for example, the Office of Māori Crown Relations, who were known as Te Arawhiti—its new name of the Office of Treaty Settlements and Takutai Moana.

These bills are incredibly important and they’re incredibly important to traverse, but I guess, from the Greens’ perspective, we continue to make the point that the point of the Treaty is about relationships. It’s about ongoing and building relationships. It’s not just an end point. It’s not just about property rights. It’s about trying to build those relationships with iwi, hapū, and whānau.

The other point that I would make as well, as I was reading this horrendous and painful history for our whānau from Ngāti Hāua, is how incredibly important it is for our tamariki and our mokopuna to be able to have this history in kura, to be able to have this history in schools, to be able to learn about Te Tiriti o Waitangi in our kura, to learn about Te Tiriti o Waitangi, the Land Wars, and all those other sorts of things.

I don’t know—and I’m going to show my age here. I don’t know about other members around the—maybe I’m not going to show my age; maybe we’re all age adjacent. But when I was at kura and at school as well, we didn’t learn about any of this stuff. I learnt about Canada for whatever reason in fourth form, but here we have incredible, important history.

I would encourage the Government MPs and the Government in general to actually really think about the changes that have been made in the education sector, because this is important stuff. This history that has been that has been heard by the Māori Affairs Committee should be something that we should all be aware of. It helps our tamariki in terms of their identity to understand the history and the kōrero of the whenua that they walk on as well, so that is incredibly important.

The settlement package for this Ngāti Hāua settlement includes a Crown apology redress—we usually have that—and statutory pardons for two Ngāti Hāua tūpuna. Those were the two tūpuna that I was talking about earlier. I know that will be so incredibly important for their whānau in particular. So this is an important point and I’m glad that that’s in there.

We have cultural redress and commercial and financial redress to the tune of $19 million. I think when we were talking in the previous bills—this is just a small amount, but I do want to acknowledge the work of of the committee but also the patience of Ngāti Hāua in accepting, really, a minuscule and small amount in terms of the total financial amount that they lost because of the Land Wars, because of their participation at Parihaka, the unjust imprisoning of their tūpuna and killing of their tūpuna as well. But I would say that our Te Tiriti and te tuakana, He Whakaputanga, these are ongoing relationships. These are good things for our country, good things for our tamariki, and good things for our Parliament, and it is just the beginning. So I would encourage Ngāti Hāua,

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

CAMERON LUXTON (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to speak on the second reading of the Ngāti Hāua Claims Settlement Bill, and, like other speakers so far in this second reading, where the usual custom is to talk about what happened at select committee, I also was not on the select committee. However, I have read this bill a couple of times and gone through it. The history is, as my colleague Teanau Tuiono has described, important to learn.

Reading through the raupatu of the 1800s, there’s a list: individualised land titles; forced removal of land; Crown purchase from others—it’s painful to read through—Native Land Court underpayment for land; promises from Crown to enable infrastructure not fulfilled; misuse of the Public Works Act; coming into the 1900s, Ngāti Hāua left out of the Tongariro National Park establishment without consultation and not having any part of the management; waterways used for power, for electricity for our country to grow and establish, created without consultation; scenic reserves and hydro developments in the Whanganui National Park without consultation; and the Taumarunui Native Township establishment without proper consultation. It's painful to read, but it’s in this bill, and it’s our history of this country.

We have talked about more pain, the fighting, the figures, the court-martials, Te Rangiātea, Mātene Ruta Te Whareaitu. Reading these stories is painful. The five tūpuna were exiled to a foreign land and mistreated. Parihaka stories, with Ngāti Hāua’s support, and people there—so much fighting and so much wrong, so much struggle. A Government should protect its people, and the Crown did not in this case that the House is talking about this morning, and that is repeated so many times throughout our history. This is something that I was, when I read—whatever emotion or word you want to put to how I felt when I was reading it. I didn’t get to go to the select committee and hear it all, but I’m glad that the House, by the sounds of it, and I’m sure, will unanimously support this bill, as is right to do. I commend it to the House.

JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First):

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

I’m pleased to rise on behalf of New Zealand First in support of the Ngāti Hāua Claims Settlement Bill. Today marks a significant step forward for Ngāti Hāua, a journey that has involved many years in negotiation and discussions and now has had a little bit of time at the select committee. I’d like to acknowledge the hard-working Māori Affairs Committee. As our colleague from the Green Party who spoke noted, the Māori Affairs Committee is a really collaborative committee, and he put that down to a little bit of kai. That sort of brings people together, certainly, but I think the weight of these particular settlement bills enables the House to come together in a way that is quite unusual for us. I think it’s important that we are able to put down our political stripes and come together for a purpose that is greater than us individually.

When Ngāti Hāua began their settlement journey, they traversed the rohe and their people voted 97 percent in favour of Te Pua o Te Riri Kore and the establishment of the post-settlement governance entity. This settlement contains a redress package that returns culturally significant sites. There’s a cultural revitalisation fund, financial redress, and statutory pardons, and it’s those pardons that I would like to speak to, particularly, today: the pardon for the two Ngāti Hāua ancestors, Mātene Ruta Te Whareaitu and Te Rangiātea.

They were arrested, tried under martial law, and convicted for partaking in a rebellion against the Crown. Te Whareaitu was sentenced to death by hanging and Te Rangiātea died in imprisonment mere weeks after being sentenced. Still to this day their bodies have not been found. This legislation not only pardons them, but it recognises their character, their mana, and their reputation. At the same time, five others were exiled to Australia.

Minister Paul Goldsmith formally delivered the Crown apology to Te Rangiātea at the signing of the deed of settlement in March, and at that ceremony he spoke of the statutory pardons for the Ngāti Hāua tūpuna: Mātene Ruta Te Whareaitu and Te Rangiātea. I think it was a really important process that was underaken at the signing of the deed, and we continue through that process today. He said that the bill will enact long overdue statutory pardons for these Ngāti Hāua tūpuna, who were treated so harshly by the Crown, and we should not forget that.

This has been a 179-year fight since 1846. Doing a little bit of research for this contribution that I’m making today, I listened to a recorded interview from the chair of Ngāti Hāua Iwi Trust, Graham Bell, where he talks about the Crown breaches. He talked about “settler first” and hunger for the land and also the fact that Ngāti Hāua have had to carry the burden of what happened to their rangatira. They were imprisoned and taken away from their people, and he acknowledged the strength of the negotiators to actually have that pardon included in their settlement. It is vindication and validation.

I’d just briefly like to talk about the rohe that encompasses the upper W’anganui River, stretching from the slopes of Mt Ruapehu to the townships of Taumarunui, Ōwhango, and National Park as well, and my connection to Mt Ruapehu. On the 1950s, my father, the late Lyndon Marcroft, was a member of the Rotorua Tramping and Skiing Club. They founded that club and they built a hut on the side of the maunga. It’s where he proposed to my mother, so I have fond memories. And actually in the 1950s, there weren’t many Māoris on the mountain. So it was great that we were up there skiing. It wasn’t until a number of years later that Simon Wi Rutene became a quite a well-known skier staying in our hut.

My colleague, the Hon Shane Jones, Matua Shane, spoke in the first reading. I’d just like to reiterate his words briefly that he noted—a mihi to the current leaders, to the community of Taumarunui. It is a place to shelter and he hopes that this settlement represents a piringa, a place to shelter, in times of adversity in the future. I commend this bill to the House.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori):

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

It’s an honour to be standing on behalf of Te Pāti Māori and noting the day, Parihaka day, of te pāhuatanga, when 144 years ago the Crown stormed a place of peace and interrupted the natural development of whānau, and it is not without note that today we have the generosity of Ngāti Hāua here today to reclaim and restore what the Crown should never have done to it in the first place.

Settlements are unsettling. They are actually some of the worst experiences that whānau, hapū, and iwi can go through. The cruelty of them is that we must enter into them but we are also told and dictated what to do through a process that is anything but hapū, whānau, or iwi friendly. I mihi to all of those who have had to front this, and I also acknowledge the courage and endurance of Ngāti Hāua.

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

The blossom, the flower, of peace, is again a show of the aroha that this iwi has for us as a nation. It is also not lost on us the generations of opportunities, the generation of growth and contribution that could have happened to this nation had our natural development not been interfered with.

We come into this with humility and noticing that Ngāti Hāua have indeed decided to facilitate and imagine themselves away from colonisation, and it is not about justice that’s being delivered. It is actually about their love for all of us in this nation, to progress and find a way forward.

Settlements are capped. They’re barely 1 percent of everything that has been lost, and when rules have been predetermined and boundaries predetermined, it is really important that the nation feels the love of Ngāti Hāua for us all today.

I also stand in acknowledgment for the tupuna Mātene Ruta Te Whareaitu and te Rangiātea. I am related to Tini Te Whareaitu and the Tamaka whānau, who my kuia was, and I hope this goes some way towards lifting the trauma of what the whānau and the hapū and the iwi have had to endure. The return of wāhi tapu is not about hectares. We acknowledge this is about w’akapapa and wairua and restoration and reclamation, and we hope, we sincerely hope, that that restoration desired, happens. We know that the dollars for cultural revitalisation and redress will never erase the past but we hope that Ngāti Hāua will be able to rebuild and reclaim and restore and revitalise their language, their tikanga, their kaitiakitanga, their education for their mokopuna, because that is what this is all about. It is our hope for the establishment of

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

that those 14 partnerships put you back to the position that you should have been, where the Treaty is honoured and the partnership with these agencies goes the way you need it to, and the true weight of the settlement that carries both grief and hope is able to be carried through so that the dreams of our ancestors who dreamed for their mokopuna’s freedom happens.

For Te Pāti Māori, these settlements are not the end of history. They are the beginning of transformation, and we acknowledge everything that you aspire to do. Reconciliation when led by iwi becomes an act of reclamation, the re-weaving of w’akapapa between people and place, between past and future, and it is our true hope that you are able to progress, not only carry the weight of what’s happened but also carry the hope of your future aspirations.

These settlements are a reminder not only of our struggle for justice—that will be continuously ongoing—but that mana motuhake is not negotiated; mana motuhake is lived.

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

Through truth and integrity, our self-determination will stand. Nā reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

KAHURANGI CARTER (Green):

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

The Greens strongly support the Ngāti Hāua Claims Settlement Bill at its second reading and we again acknowledge Ngāti Hāua who are in the gallery here today. I’ve moved over here so that I could see you a little bit better.

At the first reading, members of the House reflected on the scale and the relentlessness of what was done to Ngāti Hāua. Today, after the Māori Affairs Committee consideration, that historical account, the Crown apology, and the intent to restore and respect mana remain at the heart of what we are doing here. The Green Party continues our long-held position that these settlements are not full and final. Te Tiriti was never something to settle, but something to uphold and honour. We also recognise that this deed is what Ngāti Hāua iwi members have themselves agreed to: over 96 percent of valid votes. That matters because our job in this place is not to impose what we think justice looks like for tangata whenua but to follow the directions and decisions of iwi themselves.

At select committee we heard from Ngāti Hāua and, again, from those who hold whakapapa and connection to this beautiful whenua. The kōrero was clear and the processes that led to the settlement were not rushed. They were long, they were hard. They were carried by iwi over many, many years in good faith and with so much patience. We heard concerns from sub-submitters who felt that they had not been represented or heard in the mandating process, and we also heard from Ngāti Hāua Iwi Trust and from officials who confirmed that the mandating and ratification processes were thorough. We advised that this dispute resolution took place as it should: kōrero kanohi ki te kanohi [face to face]. We were advised that overlapping interests were worked through and we were advised that iwi themselves are confident in this pathway.

So when we say that, through this bill, Ngāti Hāua has chosen this settlement, we are not speaking on guesswork. We are speaking to the reality that over 96 percent of valid iwi votes supported this, and that is clarity.

We have to keep naming the truth. The historical account records that Ngāti Hāua suffered the forced taking of land for the main trunk line, the forced taking of land for dams, the establishment of Tongariro National Park without consultation, the destruction of property at Parihaka, the use of the Public Works Act to dispossess, and the stigmas and legal labels imposed on tūpuna as rebels and targets to be controlled, punished, erased.

The consequences of those acts were poverty, low educational outcomes, poor housing, dispersal of people from their kāinga and from their whenua, erosion of te reo and cultural practices, and the dismantling of an economic base that is essential to rangatiratanga. These were not accidents; they were deliberate choices.

So it is right that this Parliament now makes choices to put some things right, including respecting the mana of Te Rangiātea and Mātene Ruta Te Whareaitu through pardons in this bill. I know that means a lot to whānau.

No one should pretend that property transfers or rights of first refusal or statutory acknowledgment restore what was taken, but they can return some land, they can return naming, they can return recognition, and they can return authority over riverbeds to correct guardians. That is why the Greens support this bill in the spirit of restoration and with clarity that Te Tiriti is ongoing and active. I commend this bill to the House.

CARL BATES (National—Whanganui): E ngā mana, e ngā reo, e ngā rangatira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. It is a privilege to stand in this House and speak to the Ngāti Hāua Claims Settlement Bill. As the member for Whanganui, which will soon include the communities on the outskirts of Taumarunui, as well as Ōwhango and Waimarino, all part of the rohe connected to the settlement claim. I look forward to deepening my engagement with Ngāti Hāua, alongside Barbara Kuriger and Suze Redmayne as local members of Parliament, as this settlement translates into reality for you here.

Today's bill is a recognition of history, a restoration of mana, and a step to a future built on partnership. As highlighted in the Whanganui Chronicle, this settlement marks the beginning of a new chapter for Ngāti Hāua, one that will see the return of lands, the restoration of dignity, and the empowerment of future generations. The Chronicle's coverage reminds me that the sites covered as part of the settlement bill are a taonga woven into the identity of Ngāti Hāua and our wider region.

During the first reading I reflected on the significance of the statutory pardons for tūpuna Te Rangiātea and Mātene Ruta Te Whareaitu. Their stories and those of many others across New Zealand are a reminder of the fragile foundations on which our justice system was built. I mentioned that I'd read Fragile Foundations—The Application of English Criminal Law to Crimes Committed in … New Zealand between 1826 and 1907. It spoke of the challenges and the injustices faced by Māori under British law; how the application of foreign legal principles led to convictions, confiscations and the erosion of mana. The story of Ngāti Hāua tūpuna is one of several in that book.

Today, through this bill, we continue to address those injustices and try to restore what was lost. This settlement recognises Ngāti Hāua’s role as kaitiaki and enabling your iwi to thrive. As I said in my maiden speech, the story of Taranaki Maunga and its journey down the Whanganui awa is one that I learnt as a child, never imagining how often I would refer to it in this House. Each settlement in our rohe breathes life into our awa, and I hope that through this bill, all people who live by our river can look forward to the opportunities that the post-settlement entity will provide.

I want to acknowledge the hard work and determination of Ngāti Hāua: those present today, those watching from afar, and those who have passed before us. Your commitment to justice and to reconciliation has brought us to this moment. I also acknowledge the Crown negotiators, Ministers past and present, and all those who've worked to progress the settlement.

This bill is a testament to the resilience shown by Ngāti Hāua. It is a reminder that our work is not yet done. We must continue to build relationships based on respect and on trust, and to ensure that the mistakes of the past are never repeated. My hope is that, as we move forward, there will be fewer tears in our awa and more opportunities for all who call our rohe home. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

Rt Hon ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare.

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

It would be remiss of me not to mention the recent passing of Paora Haitana and his close relationship to Ngāti Hāua. Uncle Baldy, as he was affectionately known, was at every kaupapa, and I wouldn’t be surprised that he would be here today in spirit.

I am on the Māori Affairs Committee, and I got to listen to all of the submitters. I think we gave a fair hearing to all of those who made submissions—and there were quite a few. I think, to be fair, the time we called for submissions was the same time that another bill, which has been discussed in this House, also had submissions called for. I suspect it got caught up with that bill, and I say that because there were a number of those submissions you’d swear were talking about a different bill altogether. However, they got a fair hearing.

It was really important that the Māori Affairs Committee heard from those—particularly those who were against the bill and the settlement—but, afterwards, I’d have to say that we were satisfied that what we heard from the negotiators from the trust addressed all of those issues. I point in particular to Whakapapa Island and the different stories that we heard around that. There were complaints about not being consulted, about not being heard. I did enjoy one of the submitters, who basically said to us, when asked about consultation—he’s a rangatahi as well—“Well, you have to want to be consulted with to be consulted”, or words to that effect. We found that everyone had had a fair opportunity to have their say on this settlement, and, suffice to say, we also heard from the trust telling us that there had been an agreement with Ngāti Tūwharetoa over Whakapapa Island. If members read the select committee report, you will see exactly that spelt out in that report.

I’m looking at the clock. I could talk for a lot longer, but I’m going to truncate my contribution. I expect to have a 10-minute call in the third reading, but I’d really like to see the second reading pass before lunchtime today.

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

SUZE REDMAYNE (National—Rangitīkei): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. E ngā mana whenua, e Ngāti Hāua, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. It’s an honour to speak to the second reading of the Ngāti Hāua Claims Settlement Bill, and I mean that with all of my heart. When I became a member of Parliament, I never thought one of my greatest privileges, my greatest joys, would be speaking in the House on days like today and having the opportunity to speak on Treaty settlement bills. It’s truly an honour. The Ngāti Hāua Claims Settlement Bill gives effect to Te Pua o Te Riri Kore, the flower of peace, the deed of settlement between the Crown and Ngāti Hāua, signed in March this year at Ngāpuwaiwaha Marae in Taumarunui on a stunning day in the northern reaches of the mighty Rangitīkei. I was there with my colleagues Ministers Paul Goldsmith and Tama Potaka. We heard heartfelt kōrero from Ngāti Hāua’s Graham “Tinka” Bell. He told us on that day, “Finally, our story can be heard, and the Crown now acknowledges the injustices that were inflicted on Ngāti Hāua.”

Financial redress is important, but it’s not everything. There is so much more. Through this process, injustices are acknowledged, like the people of Ngāti Hāua being pushed out of Heretaunga, like the execution of your tupuna Mātene Ruta Te Whareaitu in 1846—“when the ink was barely dry”, as Tinka says, on the Treaty of Waitangi—and the incarceration and subsequent death in custody of Te Rangiātea. Importantly, this settlement includes statutory pardons for your tūpuna, whose fates have carried great pain across generations. Their names and their mana are now formally restored.

Through this process, stories are told, and history is acknowledged, like the poisoning of flour which forced your people to resort to eating things like the mamaku tree to sustain yourselves. In Tinka’s words, “That kōrero has been passed down to us for generations, so we feel a sense of validation to have those things recognised in our deed.” While no settlement can truly compensate for what was lost, this bill lays the foundation for partnership, one grounded in respect, cooperation, and mutual trust.

To the trustees and negotiators and those of you that are here especially today, thank you. To all those who carried this kaupapa long before—Eugene Torpine, Archie Taiaroa, Kevin and Flo Amohia, Ngaire Etana, and so many others—your legacy is with us, especially today. To Minister Goldsmith, thank you for the dedication and care shown throughout this process. Finally, to the select committee members who have shepherded this bill—especially my colleagues David, Dana, Rima and Greg—thank you for your hard work. I know you share my sentiments. It is a great privilege as an MP, especially for you as members of the Māori Affairs Committee to be part of this process, to hear the stories, share the history, and play your part in helping to shape the future.

Ngāti Hāua, the name of your post-settlement governance entity, Te Whiringa Kākaho o Ngāti Hāua, captures the essence of this settlement. It draws from the proverb

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

—weave together the kākaho reeds; they become unbreakable. The story of Ngāti Hāua is one of strength through unity, the strands of whakapapa, tikanga, and whānau woven tightly together through challenge and change. Ngāti Hāua, the people of

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

, from the mountains to the sea. May this settlement empower you to continue writing your story on your own terms, strong in identity, secure in your whenua, and confident in your rangatiratanga. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare.

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

Ngāti Hāua, I was interested as I read your legislation and wondered why I didn’t speak on it in the first reading. I must have been away that day. I generally speak on most of these bills, and as I read your bill, it brought back a lot of memories. As a child, only twice I ever attended an Anzac Day service with my grandfather, the late Sir James Hēnare, and two of those two occasions were in Taumarunui. He would always go to Taumarunui to remember his comrades of the 28th Battalion and those who served alongside him in the world war. In fact, as far as I knew, up until recent times at least, his picture would hang in the RSA whare in Taumarunui. I always asked him why we go to Taumarunui for Anzac Day, given he’s a proud Ngāpuhi man and commander of A Company and then, ultimately, the battalion.

He would talk regularly about his comrades, the likes of Hōri King and others who he remembered fondly and he served with during the world war. Then he would go on to talk about the history and the connection. He’d talk about Te Rangiātea, who is here mentioned in the bill for his wrongful conviction, and he also spoke about Mātene Ruta Te Whareaitu. The connection he would continue to make with us, as young people from Ngāpuhi was that it was well known that, during the time that these two gentlemen were, sadly, locked up unjustly by the Crown, it was our tupuna Pōmare who actually made his way down and came across Te Rangiātea in particular. He would talk about the injustice that befell these two men from the Crown and also how Pōmare would look after those who found themselves incarcerated. In fact, if you look across much of the history that we’ve spoken about in tribal settlements in this House, we know Pōmare came here and was close with Te Rangihaeata, and there are plenty of other instances where he would take food—and, in particular, Ngāpuhi chiefs would take food—to the many prisoners who were held unjustly in places, like Mount Eden and Wellington and Dunedin and many other places around the country.

It was because of those deeds of our ancestors that we would go to Taumarunui, of all places. When I look up into the gallery and I read the bill and I think about the importance of Ngāti Hāua and the work that they’ve done to bring themselves this far in this bill, I can’t help but remember him and say thank you to you all.

Because this has been such a long morning, I want to finish by saying,

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

Let us bring together the embers of a hot fire.

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

Let us put the rākau into the fire so that it may harden and we can carve a taiaha.

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

Cast it to the sky and cast it to the earth.

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

Then we lay it to the talking ridge pole of this House.

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

We will grab it again during the third reading of this bill.

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise as the final kōrero that's going to be given in the second reading of this settlement bill that we're considering today, the Ngāti Hāua Claims Settlement Bill. I'd like to acknowledge those guests in the gallery from Ngāti Hāua that are here with us today. Thank you for travelling here and thank you also for the manaakitanga that you showed us when we were on your lands. It's an experience I will never forget, particularly when we went and visited what some would call the Cherry Grove and where you so diligently, Mr Willie Jackson explained and described what it would have been like back in the day with all the different waka joining there. That's something that's tattooed in my memory.

What's also tattooed in my memory is that, yes, we did traverse different opinions when it came to the submissions, but something that stood out in a way that it hasn't stood out to me before was when it came to the dissenting views or the different opinions. They were conveyed and packaged in love, and they were given in a way that it was almost like there was a pain in expressing the difference of opinion because they were underpinned with aroha, with love. At the end of the day, you're all cousins, and that's something that I walked away from that submission hearing thinking, “My goodness, the way that your cousins and you to each other”—to the guests in the gallery, Madam Speaker, and those at the submission hearing—"just were able to convey these differences of opinions.” As I said, packaged in the right way, packaged with love, and always remembering the underlying threads that bound you all together. And that’s your blood.

I too would like to acknowledge that today we are trying—as much as I have a lot to say, and I was up to 1.30 in my office writing notes, because this is very important. I am going to maybe cut to the chase because I want us to complete, as well, the second reading before lunchtime so that none of you have to remain longer than necessary in our Whare here in Wellington. I want to, before I end, add on to what Minister Goldsmith said when he said it was the best music I have ever heard at the signing ceremony. Well, one of the groups on my Spotify favourites list is Ngāti Hāua. Now, it seems to be the same logo. I don't know if it's associated with you, but it's absolutely beautiful, particularly the song Kīngi Tūheitia. May he rest in peace.

I'll end with a quote said by Wade Phillips at the submission hearing, and this quote is interesting because I feel it encapsulates what we are trying to achieve on a general level when it comes to settlement bills. Mr Phillips said, “Though our iwi sought peace, we were met with war. Though we sought to engage, we were manipulated. … The consequences of these injustices are still deeply felt today: social and economic deprivation, cultural dislocation, and the loss of tino rangatiratanga. Yet through all this, Ngāti Hāua has endured. We have held fast to our identity, our mātauranga, and our aspirations. The settlement … is a symbol of our endurance and a step towards justice. We cannot undo the past, but we can begin to restore balance.” I commend this bill to the House.

Bill read a second time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This bill is set down for committee stage next sitting day, and the House now stands adjourned until 2 p.m. today. I'm not sure if our guests came prepared with a waiata, I don't have it on here, but as the House is adjourned, it's entirely up to you.

Waiata

The House adjourned at 12.56 p.m.