Tuesday, 12 May 2026

Tuesday, 12 May 2026

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Start of Sitting Day

Karakia/Prayers

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri) (14:00): Gagaj ‘Ḁitu, ‘ḁmis ‘uḁ‘uḁ‘ḁkia ‘äe ‘e reko ḁlalum ‘atakoa ne ‘ḁmis pō ‘e ‘otomis mḁuri.

‘Ḁmis ‘uḁ‘uḁ‘ḁkia ‘äe ‘e reko måür ‘on Sḁu Fā ta Jiarema far la‘äe la muḁ‘ḁkia ‘otomis hḁifäegaga ‘e terḁni te ‘i. 

La pō la ‘ḁmis la a‘sokoa ‘amnåk tūtū ne Rī Tḁunå‘ te‘is ‘e ‘ou poto ma ‘inea, ‘e hḁiäf‘ḁkiga, hḁihanisiga ma huḁg vḁivḁi se ‘on lelei ne hanue te‘is Niu Sirḁgi.  

‘Emen 

Resignations

Hon Judith Collins KC—Papakura

Resignation of Member

SPEAKER (14:01): Members, I wish to advise the House that I have received a letter from the Hon Judith Collins KC resigning her seat in the House with effect at 11.59 p.m. on Thursday, 14 May 2026.

Parliamentary Membership

Te Pāti Māori Membership—Mariameno Kapa-Kingi

SPEAKER (14:01): Members, I wish to inform you that Mariameno Kapa-Kingi is no longer a member of Te Pāti Māori caucus, and, therefore, she will be regarded as an independent member for parliamentary purposes.

Presentation

Petitions

SPEAKER (14:02): Three petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.

CLERK (14:02):

Petition of Tamati Warmington requesting that the House establish a national strategic fuel reserve holding 18-24 months’ fuel supply

petition of Carmel McGill Wright requesting that the House amend the Crimes Act to provide that a person under 18 cannot legally consent to sexual activity with an adult who holds a position of authority or trust over them

petition of Suzanne Edmonds requesting that the House urge the Government to establish a royal commission of inquiry, rather than a Government Inquiry, into the 2026 Mauao landslide disaster.

SPEAKER: Those petitions stand referred to the Petitions Committee.

Papers

SPEAKER (14:02): Ministers have delivered five papers.

CLERK (14:02):

Government responses to the referral of the petitions of Nick Ruane and Brian Pinny

protocol to Amend the Agreement between New Zealand and Singapore on a Closer Economic Partnership, together with the National Interest Analysis

Climate Change Commission, 2026 National Climate Change Risk Assessment and priorities for action

Ferry Holdings Ltd, Statement of Performance Expectations 2025-2026

SPEAKER: Those papers are published under the authority of the House.

Select Committee Reports

SPEAKER (14:03): Ten select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.

CLERK (14:03):

Reports of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee on the:

Telecommunications Amendment Bill

Telecommunications and Other Matters Amendment Bill

report of the Education and Workforce Committee on the Education and Training (System Reform) Amendment Bill

reports of the Justice Committee on the:

Crown Law Office, Long-Term Insights Briefing 2025

Ministry of Justice, Long-Term Insights Briefing 2025

reports of the Petitions Committee on the:

petition of Connie Bachle: stop the repeal of the Plain Language Act 2022

petition of Sam Fisher: inquiry into threats and violence against women MPs and local authority representatives

petition of Zane Allan: ban geoengineering and weather modification in New Zealand

three petitions requesting a ban on fireworks

report of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee on the Public Works Amendment Bill.

SPEAKER: The bills are set down for second reading, and the long-term insights briefings are set down for consideration.

Bills

Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Amendment Bill

Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill

Overseas Adoptions Legislation Bill

Ngā Hapū o Te Iwi o Whanganui Claims Settlement Bill

Conservation Amendment Bill

Introduction

SPEAKER (14:04): The Clerk’s been informed of the introduction of five bills.

CLERK (14:04):

Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Amendment Bill, introduction

Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill, introduction

Overseas Adoptions Legislation Bill, introduction

Ngā Hapū o Te Iwi o Whanganui Claims Settlement Bill, introduction

Conservation Amendment Bill, introduction

SPEAKER: Those bills are set down for first reading.

Oral Questions to Ministers

Infrastructure

Question No. 1

Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill) (14:04) to the Minister for Infrastructure: What updates has he seen on the fast-track approvals scheme?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister for Infrastructure) (14:04): Fast track is doing what it was designed to do: getting New Zealand building again, helping to close the country’s infrastructure deficit. One year on, fast track is delivering faster infrastructure, more homes, more jobs, and more certainty. Twenty-one projects have now been approved through fast track across New Zealand, with more to come.

Hon Member: More donors.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: For your mates.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I’m proud of the impact this project is having on the infrastructure system—and those members know they’re not allowed to say that—showing that you don’t need to talk for years and years to get a good decision, when one is possible in just a matter of months.

Dr Carlos Cheung: What impact does he expect these projects to have on the economy?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The projects are expected to create tens of thousands of jobs and inject billions into the economy. So far, over 8,000 new homes have been approved, about the size of Greymouth. There are two Auckland region quarry expansions, for 260 million tonnes of aggregate for construction and roads. I’m advised that could build a two-lane highway from Cape Reinga to Bluff four times over.

Hon Shane Jones: Waihī.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Another example, which I know my friend and colleague Matua Jones will be interested in—the Waihī goldmining expansion—could generate $5.2 billion in additional silver and gold exports over 18 years. It’s a critical part of this Government’s mission to get the economy growing again.

SPEAKER: I’ll just make the point that some of the answers given by the Minister were somewhat obscured by the assistance being given from his own side.

Dr Carlos Cheung: Which projects have recently received approval under fast track?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: There have been three further approvals since I updated the House late last month. The Ashbourne project was approved on 21 April: hundreds of news homes and two solar farms in the Waikato. On 1 May, the Pound Road Industrial Development was approved in Canterbury, which plans to subdivide land and develop industrial lots. Over $450 million is expected to be contributed to the economy. Then, on 7 May, also in Canterbury, the Ryans Road Industrial Development was also approved, enabling the development and subdivision of 126 industrial lots, alongside supporting infrastructure. The approvals are now coming thick and fast.

Dr Carlos Cheung: What other piece of feedback has the Minister received about fast track?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: What’s quite interesting, as I get out and about around the country, is the countless positive stories about how it’s going on the ground.

Hon Rachel Brooking: What did they say in Queenstown?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I’ve also had feedback that fast track is helping to improve the wider consenting system.

Hon Rachel Brooking: They do not love it in Queenstown.

SPEAKER: Ask a question.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Some applicants have said to me that fast track is driving competition in the consenting system. Councils are now aware that, if they aren’t up to scratch, applicants they could expect to receive could instead go into the fast track, and I’ve been told that, in some cases, this is leading to more reasonable behaviour by councils, acting in a more proportionate way. Isn’t competition a wonderful thing?

Prime Minister

Question No. 2

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition) (14:07) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all of his Government’s statements and actions?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister) (14:07): Absolutely, and particularly the actions of that great Government Minister Judith Collins. I want to acknowledge her and her 24 years of service to this great country and this Parliament.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Was David Seymour acting consistently with his expectations of Government Ministers when he said of the chief executive of Radio New Zealand, “He won’t be answering the calls at RNZ for much longer.”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: The Minister explained his comments well, and, actually, I’m quite confident that he did not at any time direct RNZ or TVNZ.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Was David Seymour’s criticism of Radio New Zealand’s recent appointment of new presenters and his decision to describe the tenure of Television New Zealand’s political editor as “untenable” consistent with the Government’s legal obligation not to interfere with public broadcasters’ decisions with regard to programmes, allegations, complaints, or the gathering and presentation of news?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, I refer the member to my answer to the first question, which is I’m confident that the Minister did not direct TVNZ or RNZ in any way.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Is he confident that David Seymour’s public comments did not in any way interfere—as he is prohibited from doing under law—with Television New Zealand’s and Radio New Zealand’s decisions with regard to the gathering and presentation of news, their decisions on programmes, and how they handle any allegations or complaints?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As I said in the first two answers, yes.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why did he consider expressing New Zealand’s “explicit public support” for the US assault on Iran, a move his own foreign affairs Minister said would be “imprudent” and “counter to New Zealand’s national interests”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: The statements that we have made publicly are statements that I support, otherwise they wouldn’t have been made.

Hon David Seymour: Considering some of the challenges that people around the world are facing right now, how would he describe this Government’s priorities for making life better for New Zealand?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, we’re focused on what New Zealanders need rather than petty politics.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: What action has he taken in relation to Winston Peters’ release of internal emails that revealed the Prime Minister’s personal support for the war in Iran, given that he said Winston Peters had “clearly put politics ahead of the national interest”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, I’ve said that any public statements that this Government makes are statements that I support; otherwise, they wouldn’t be made.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he agree with Nicola Willis that “the prime minister has a duty to serve New Zealanders and we cannot do that as an executive if some political parties are off pursuing political gamesmanship rather than the national interest.”, and if he does agree with that statement, why won’t he do anything about Winston Peters, according to Nicola Willis, preventing the Government from serving New Zealanders?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Sorry, I didn’t hear the question. I’m actually deaf in the left ear today, and I just would like to hear it again. It’s such a good one.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Sitting next to David Seymour, you’re lucky. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: No, hang on—just a moment. Questions are heard in silence, and comments like that at the start of them don’t help order in the House.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he agree with Nicola Willis that “the prime minister has a duty to serve New Zealanders and we cannot do that as an executive if some political parties are off pursuing political gamesmanship rather than the national interest.”; if so, why won’t he do anything about Winston Peters, according to Nicola Willis, preventing the Government from serving New Zealanders?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: In answer to the first leg of the question: yes, I act in the national interest of New Zealand.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Why is his Government moving with unprecedented urgency to introduce a new law which interferes with an active case in front of the Supreme Court to hold climate polluters accountable?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: All we’re doing is giving business confidence and clarity to continue to invest in New Zealand.

Chlöe Swarbrick: If New Zealanders cannot seek compensation from private companies for the harms of their emissions, who pays?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: It’s not the law now, and that’s why we’re giving clarity and certainty to businesses.

Environment

Question No. 3

CAMERON LUXTON (ACT) (14:12) to the Associate Minister for the Environment: What recent announcements has he made regarding voluntary nature markets?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD (Associate Minister for the Environment) (14:12): Yesterday, I announced the Government’s plan to support growth in New Zealand’s voluntary nature markets by providing a light-touch assurance framework for private sector programmes. Voluntary nature markets enable private capital to fund projects that protect and restore nature—work such as wetland restoration, native planting, and habitat protection. If we can help scale up existing offerings and encourage new entrants, that will be a win for both the natural environment and landowners.

Cameron Luxton: What is the Government’s role in facilitating voluntary nature markets?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: I’ll start with what the Government isn’t doing in relation to voluntary nature markets: we won’t be running a market, and we won’t be forcing people into it through heavy-handed regulation. What we will do is offer Government recognition through two pathways: high-quality programmes accredited by reputable international bodies will be recognised by the Government; and domestic providers will be able to have their programmes assessed against market principles that work for New Zealand. Government recognition is a clear market signal, not a Crown guarantee. However, it will lower the costs of due diligence and give confidence to investors, landowners, and developers.

Cameron Luxton: How will this initiative support organisations in the community that protect and restore the natural environment?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: Well, it most certainly will support community organisations. I’m excited about the opportunity that the QEII Nature Trust and catchment care groups will have to expand their good work with landowners through potential access to increased funding from the private sector. Voluntary nature markets will be successful if they are robust and reliable, but judging that can be tricky. The Government assessment and endorsement pathway will help groups that don’t have the resources to undertake that full due diligence.

Cameron Luxton: How will this initiative benefit farmers and other landowners?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: For too long, Government sent the wrong message to farmers that if you do the right thing and invest in preserving or creating wetlands and native bush, you’ll be punished with more controls on what you can do on your own land. This initiative flips the script from more regulation to incentives. It means that farmers can get rewarded for the great work they do and it won’t rely on more regulation or Government funding.

Social Development and Employment

Question No. 4

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) (14:15) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does she stand by her statement that “The steps we are taking will put New Zealand and young New Zealanders on a better path”; if so, why?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (14:15): Yes. We acknowledge that many Kiwis are finding things tough at the moment. That’s why our Government’s welfare reset is shifting the dial, driving policies to support job growth, to help more people into work. Our Government is focused on taking steps to putting all New Zealanders on a better path. And we know that our economy is stronger when more people are working, and as we go for growth, it’s really important that as many Kiwis as possible share in the benefits of work.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Is having nearly 100,000 young New Zealanders not in employment, education, or training a sign that young New Zealanders are on a better path?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Well, we know that when the economic times are challenging, young people are disproportionately affected, which is why it’s really important in terms of our welfare reset that we have focused on the under-25s. We have more young New Zealanders who are on welfare in job coaching. They get an individual needs assessment; they get an individual employment plan. We support them with the challenges that they face to work, and, despite it being challenging, in the last year, we saw 84,000 New Zealanders leave welfare into work. That’s why I’m confident that what we are doing is working.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Is adding 10,000 more young people since September 2023 on to jobseeker support a sign that young New Zealanders are on a better path?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: As I said, it is challenging for any young person that’s not in employment at the moment and wants to be, which is why we have really reset the welfare system to ensure it is meeting the needs of young people. We accept that there may not be a job opportunity for all of them right now, but the work that we’re doing through that intensive case management, through job coaching, through the wide range of programmes that support young people, is to assist them to take up those opportunities when the job is there.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Is cutting Apprenticeship Boost, making it harder for young people to learn on the job, a sign that young New Zealanders are on a better path?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: As I said, what we’re really proud of is the welfare reset that is enabling—despite there being challenging times and more young people being affected through the jobseeker numbers—84,000 New Zealanders leaving welfare into work. Increasing—we are seeing really positive numbers of the under-25s exiting welfare into work because our Government is setting an expectation: we’ve set a very clear expectation for young people that we are unwilling to tolerate the fact that a young person going on to welfare under the age of 25 will stay there for 20 years. That’s not good enough. That’s why we’re taking action, and we are seeing results.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: When she said she was putting “young New Zealanders on a better path”, did she mean the daily Air New Zealand flights to Australia?

SPEAKER: No, no—no. You got another supplementary?

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Does the Minister have any other plan for young New Zealanders other than for them to have to go to Australia to find better opportunities?

SPEAKER: Well, even that doesn’t quite comply, but the Minister may make a comment so we can move on.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Well, if the member had listened to some of the questions earlier in the session, she would have heard my colleague the Hon Chris Bishop talk about fast-track consenting and the thousands and thousands of jobs that creates. I want to ensure young New Zealanders are ready to take up those opportunities, unlike the other side who are happy to leave them there to rot.

Justice

Question No. 5

RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini) (14:19) to the Minister of Justice: What action is the Government taking to bring certainty to climate change tort law?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice) (14:19) Thanks, Mr Speaker—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Hang of a minute.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: The Government is clarifying climate change laws to provide businesses with certainty around their obligations. Ongoing litigation in the High Court where civil claims have been made is creating uncertainty in business confidence in investment, and risks the development of a new regime that contradicts the framework that Parliament has already enacted that responds to climate change. Ultimately, where there’s legal uncertainty there is less investment over time, and that affects us all; as a country, we become less competitive. Therefore, the Government will amend the Climate Change Response Act 2002 to prevent findings of tort liability for activities that involve the emissions of greenhouse gas and climate change harm.

Rima Nakhle: What is a tort?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: It’s a good question. A tort is a claim brought—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just a minute. One moment. This is clearly a very important question. We’ll hear it in silence.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: A tort is a claim brought—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: No, that’s absolute silence.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: A tort is a claim brought in private law in situations where the conduct of one person causes harm or invades the interest of another person. Tort law has primarily been developed through the common law, which arises from decisions made by judges in court rather than by legislation that is developed by Parliament.

Rima Nakhle: Why does the Government consider bringing certainty to climate change tort law important to address?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: The changes needed to address the risk that the courts could develop a regime that is parallel to—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Come on, Greta. Have your turn now. Greta, your turn.

Chlöe Swarbrick: I thought you liked democracy.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: —and contradictory to the Climate Change Response Act 2002—

SPEAKER: Hang on.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: You want a Thunberg moment.

SPEAKER: Yeah, well, you don’t have to be provoked like that. The member can, surely, control herself. I know she’s got questions coming. Start again, please, Mr Goldsmith.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: This change is needed to address the risk that the courts could develop a regime that is parallel to and contradictory to the Climate Change Response Act 2002, which is set by Parliament. Our view is that greenhouse gas emissions and climate change harm are best regulated by Parliament and the executive, who take a whole-of-economy approach that carefully considers environmental, economic, and social implications; not through piecemeal litigation in the courts.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Have the Minister or his officials directly, or by proxy, engaged with any of the companies—including Fonterra, Z Energy, and Genesis Energy—currently being sued in the Supreme Court for their climate pollution?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Obviously, Ministers, members of Parliament, and officials engage with those companies on a regular basis. But, as has widely been counted, there is widespread concern across the business community around this decision, and that’s where we were looking at it.

Rima Nakhle: What change is the Government making to bring certainty to climate change tort law?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Just to conclude, in amending the Climate Change Response Act to create a statutory bar—a statutory bar prevents courts from issuing a certain type of finding or considering a particular issue. In this case, that a person or entity is liable in tort for climate damage or harm caused by greenhouse gas emissions.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: With over 60 percent of the emissions coming from China, India, Russia, and the United States—[Interruption] One more time?

SPEAKER: We’ll hear all questions in silence.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I’ll start again. With over—

SPEAKER: Sorry, the person who’ll judge that is me, not you.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Good point. With over 60 percent of the world’s emissions coming from China, India, Russia, and the United States, how is the Government’s target going?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: I would defer to my colleague the Minister responsible for climate change to answer those questions. Suffice it to say that what we’re doing today does not alter the regulatory framework in which we are operating as a country in regards to climate change. We have a very good regime, and that is what we are seeking to make sure is clearly in place without confusion in this country.

Rima Nakhle: Will bringing certainty to climate change tort law change any existing obligations imposed on greenhouse gas emitters?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, no. New Zealand already has a legal framework to manage greenhouse gas emissions, set through Parliament—through the Climate Change Response Act 2002 and the emissions trading scheme. This decision does not change New Zealand’s climate targets, nor the approach the Government has set for meeting them. Businesses will continue to be required to meet their obligations under the emissions trading scheme. This change simply maintains the coherence of the regulatory system and to deliver consistent obligations for greenhouse gas emitters.

Economic Growth

Question No. 6

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) (14:25) to the Minister for Economic Growth: Are there more or fewer people in work now compared to when she took office?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister for Economic Growth) (14:25): There are more people in work.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Is she was creating the economic conditions needed for job growth, then why has the unemployment forecast been revised upwards, two years on?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The member will hopefully have seen the Stats NZ result last week which showed unemployment falling, which is very positive news. It is no secret that New Zealand has been going through a difficult economic recovery over a period where we were responding to a very overheated economy, with inflation that went out of control and interest rates that rose rapidly. But we continue to forecast that, into the future, unemployment will fall, notwithstanding that events in the Middle East are making that a more challenging path for New Zealanders.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Is 47 percent of unemployed people being out of work for six months or longer part of her economic plan, given that it’s the worst it’s been since the 1990s?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, no. Our Government is always concerned to see that people who want work can find work, and I do want to acknowledge the significant efforts of the Minister for Social Development and Employment, in this regard, who has been working very hard on this issue and has shown that during the year ending March this year, compared to the same period the year before, 5,580 more people left the benefit for work. We also saw the number of people receiving jobseeker support decrease by 8,289, alongside the number of working-age people on a main benefit dropping by 17,661 people; more Kiwis off a benefit, in work. Positive news.

Hon Ginny Andersen: If her economic plan is working, would wage growth remain lower than inflation in real terms, meaning New Zealanders are actually going backwards?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Our economic plan is to grow the economy by fundamentally tacking the barriers that have held back our productivity and growth for many, many years. In doing that, we will create not only sustainable growth but also more jobs and higher incomes that keep up with the cost of living.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Does she regret cutting Māori trades training now that Māori and Pasifika unemployment is more than double the national average?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: In fact, what our Government did was rescue the Apprenticeship Boost scheme which the last Government left unfunded with a massive fiscal cliff. We rescued that programme, and I am certain that many Māori and Pasifika will have benefitted from that wise decision of ours.

Conservation

Question No. 7

CATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki) (14:28) to the Minister of Conservation: What progress has he made towards modernising the Conservation Act 1987?

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister of Conservation) (14:29): This Government has introduced the most significant reform of conservation legislation in nearly 40 years—40 years—modernising a system that has become too slow; too complex; and frustrating for businesses, iwi, conservation groups, and communities alike. We cannot protect a modern conservation estate with a loosey-goosey, 1980s system wrapped up in red and green tape. This bill is good for nature, it’s good for regional economies, it’s good for international manuhiri, and good for the long-term sustainability of conservation responsibilities. Importantly, stakeholders acknowledge that the current system is no longer working, and good conservation is not measured by the size of the statutory book but by the durability of conservation outcomes. [Interruption]

Catherine Wedd: Supplementary—

SPEAKER: Just a moment. Carry on.

Catherine Wedd: Why is the Conservation Act in need of reform?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: It’s nearly as old as me. It’s 40 years old. Its outdated rules have created unnecessary costs and massive delays. More than 1,600 businesses already operate on conservation land, contributing an estimated $5.3 billion to our economy each year. Area planning, as well as the current decision-making process, is just too slow; it’s too complex and too difficult to navigate. This is not just the Government saying the system needs updating; people like New Zealand Ski have said the current framework has struggled to keep pace, while the Tourism Industry Association has welcomed reforms that better align tourism, conservation, and regional growth—

Rawiri Waititi: What about Ngāi Tahu?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: And Ngāi Tahu absolutely appreciates the work that this conservation Minister has done to progress more efficient decision-making in places like Milford Sound / Piopiotahi. Tihei mauri ora!

SPEAKER: With regard to the opening comment from the Minister’s answer, yes, be very careful not to mislead the House.

Catherine Wedd: How will the amendments boost the economy whilst protecting nature?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Good conservation is not just intentions and bumper stickers—long on talk and short on delivery—but relies on systems that can deliver in the real world. The bill will support economic growth on conservation land. It will deliver improved regulatory efficiency and faster processes. It will enable new revenue streams to be generated to support conservation and visitor experiences and, of course, provide more clarity about the Government’s Treaty obligations.

Catherine Wedd: How will iwi and Māori interests be provided for in the amended Act?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Section 4 of the Conservation Act requires conservation laws to be interpreted and administered in a way that gives effect to Treaty principles. This bill seeks to describe, in more detail, how to implement section 4 in processes like area planning. To the question from the cheap seats about settlements, this Government, in addition, has committed to upholding Treaty settlements in a simple redress space in two ways. First, we have set out nearly 75 pages of the bill that upholds simple Treaty redress through minor or consequential changes. Second, there is more kōrero to come. Over the next two years, we’ve provided space and place for those engagements with Treaty settlement iwi who have complex redress and need to have that provided for in the new system.

Hon Marama Davidson: Will his Conservation Amendment Bill make it easier for the Government to get rid of conservation land?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: There’s a lot of speculation [Interruption] and myths that this this Government intends to—

SPEAKER: Hang on. Just a moment. I’d just say here that the assistance being offered for Ministers is obscuring the answers that the House would like to hear. Please just refrain from that a little bit.

Hon TAMA POTAKA: This bill provides greater clarity under what circumstances land can be exchanged or disposed of, particularly with reference to, and upholding, the rights of first refusal that are set out in nearly all Treaty settlements.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he agree with Ngāi Tahu chair, Justin Tipa, who, last year, described the Minister’s conservation reforms as “privatisation by stealth”?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: I respect the significant responsibility that Ngāi Tahu has in its takiwā and the ongoing relationships and partnerships that it has with the Department of Conservation and those that undertake conservation responsibilities, and also its appetite to seek more clarity, to seek better and more expeditious decision-making on concessions that, indeed, Ngāi Tahu and its tourism business applies for. There is a wide variety of views, often with the same person, and we are absolutely focused that we build a better system for conservation—better for Kiwis, and better for all New Zealanders.

Housing

Question No. 8

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri) (14:33) to the Associate Minister of Housing: Faiȧkse‘ea, Mr Speaker. Does he agree with Consumer NZ chief executive Jon Duffy’s reported statement that the Government has “got it wrong” regarding proposed changes to retirement village capital repayment laws?

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Associate Minister of Housing) (14:34): Kāore. No. The proposed changes strike an appropriate balance between improved consumer protections for residents and ensuring continued growth, innovation, and consumer choice within the retirement sector. The Government has agreed to practical reforms that reflect the feedback of residents and operators, and we look forward to the introduction of the bill in due course and feedback through the select committee process that will follow.

Ingrid Leary: How is it acceptable to give retirement village operators 12 months to repay when it is the residents’ own money and, for many of them, time is not on their side?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: We consider that we have struck the right balance between consumer protections and the need to have a viable, financially responsible retirement village sector. Any suggestions that the mandatory repayment time frame be moved to a three-month period go completely against financial responsibility, and it fails to take into account the incentives and the types of business practices that we need to ensure that aged care remains viable and, indeed, respects the sanctity of contract that many residents entered into when they entered into these villages.

Ingrid Leary: Why is he excluding current residents by applying the proposed reforms only to new residents?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: We are absolutely supportive of some changes to typical consumer protections—for example, more objective decision-making around dispute resolution and some better clarity around chattels—but we’re not supportive of full retrospectivity with mandatory payments at three months. We are interested in a balanced system that takes into account the importance of credit lines and capital adequacy, and I’d encourage all of the responsible members of the Opposition to do so too.

Ingrid Leary: Why is he mandating some provisions to current residents’ licences, such as stopping weekly fees immediately when they vacate, yet refusing to mandate repayment to those same residents?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: My sense is that question is a little bit confused. As I mentioned in the previous answer to the previous question, there are some consumer protections that are typical. For example, if you move out of a place, you should stop having to pay fees. But if the view is that it is typical that there should be retrospective application of a shortened mandatory time frame that will severely compromise the financial viability and responsibility of the entire sector, we’re not up for that on the side of the House. What we are up for is the right balance around consumer protections and ensuring that the retirement village sector continues to be successful and a place where 53,000 residents continue to enjoy the māramatanga of their lives.

Hon Casey Costello: Is the Minister aware of any circumstances in the private housing market where sellers can expect a 10 percent payment within five days and the remainder within three months as a guarantee?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: No, I’m not of aware of any such circumstances, nor am I aware that when someone, for example, moves out of the farm, they are guaranteed that the sale of that farm will happen in three months and they will receive the proceeds of that sale within three months, probate notwithstanding.

Ingrid Leary: Why is it that wealthy retirement village operators have his ear and not the 56,000 current residents who will be worse off under his reforms?

SPEAKER: No, we’ve talked about this quite a bit. I’ll be generous enough to let the member reword the question, but be very careful, otherwise it’s all over.

Ingrid Leary: What evidence can he give this House that he has listened to the residents—56,000 of them, not 53,000—rather than simply the retirement operators who have been lobbying him?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: I’m not aware that the member has insights into my diary, but what I am aware of is that I visited many villages right throughout this country, and there are many residents that are very, very comfortable and expressed to me that they are comfortable with the arrangements that they contracted after independent legal advice and informed decision-making, that they respect the sanctity of that contract, but, more importantly, that their retirement villages absolutely look after them and will continue to show that manaaki into the future.

Prime Minister

Question No. 9

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green) (14:38) 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) (14:38): Yes.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Should Government majority-owned gentailers lower their power prices?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We have a challenge within this country in making sure we’ve got abundant supply of electricity, and that’s why this Government is doing everything it can to get renewables built and also make sure we’ve got gas, coal, and other things that we need as well.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Do Government majority-owned gentailers have the power to lower their power prices?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, again, the key way in which we lower power prices is making sure we support things like fast track. I just say to that member: her party disagrees with the fact that we should be repealing the oil and gas ban. That is an absolutely critical thing that we need to do. We need to have a strategic coal reserve. We need to make sure we’ve got gas in the system so that we can get abundant, affordable electricity and lower prices for everybody.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Are the profits of Government majority-owned gentailers excessive?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, the challenge is about increasing the supply of electricity in this country. That is the single biggest thing that we can do. We saw a failed energy policy that had quite a chilling effect on investors. We saw a very convoluted Lake Onslow programme that was billions of dollars in late delivery. We saw $800 megawatt per hour prices in 2024 thanks to a bunch of bumper stickers and Post-it notes.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I understand that usually, you know, there’s a leniency with regard to addressing the question, but in that answer, the Prime Minister did not even address the terminology of “profit”.

SPEAKER: Well, thank God, because it would be a long afternoon if he was to do that. I think, also, if you think about your question, you ask a question that it would be practically impossible to answer. When you ask, “What was excessive?”, that would take quite a degree of discussion.

Chlöe Swarbrick: There is internationally accepted metrics on that, but—Mr Speaker, supplementary.

SPEAKER: Well, then, I’m sure that the member will provide that to the Clerk’s Office—

Chlöe Swarbrick: I’m happy to table them.

SPEAKER: No—well, if you want to, but I don’t think there’s enough room in the building to table all of that stuff. But it can be used as a back-up to a question on notice.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Will the Prime Minister’s Government use their majority shareholding in gentailers to rein in their profits and lower New Zealanders’ power bills?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We expect the gentailers to be giving consumers a fair deal. That’s why we are strengthening the Electricity Authority with new powers to make sure that they can increase fines and make sure companies play by the rules.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the Prime Minister comfortable with near-record power company profits and dividends being paid out to shareholders, helping to improve the look of the Government’s books, while 65,000 more New Zealanders could not afford to heat their home adequately last winter?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: For the member to understand power prices—and we want to see downward pressure on power prices, for sure—that requires us to put in place an energy strategy that makes sense and is coherent, not just—

Chlöe Swarbrick: You’re ignoring the OECD.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’m ignoring the OECD! OK. It’s a lovely report, but we actually have our own view on how we put energy policy together in this country, and we’re not going to do the mistake that the Labour-Greens Government did, where you created $800 megawatt power prices and lower-middle income working people lost their jobs. Unacceptable.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: In the years 2021, 2022, and 2023, how many times did Chlöe Swarbrick ask those questions?

SPEAKER: That’s a matter of House record. Question No. 10—[Interruption]. Question No. 10, and no one else.

Local Government

Question No. 10

TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki) (14:43) to the Minister of Local Government: What recent announcement has he made about simplifying local government?

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Local Government) (14:43): Last week, Minister Bishop and I announced a new Head Start pathway to fast track local government reform. Through the Head Start pathway, councils will have three months to put forward proposals for new unitary authorities. This will enable those councils that are ready to reorganise to get on with it. This change is part of the Government’s plan to streamline the complex maze that is local government so that it delivers better services for ratepayers.

Tim Costley: Why has the Government created the Head Start pathway?

Hon SIMON WATTS: Following the Government’s draft proposal for local government reform, released last year, there was broad recognition across the sector that change was needed. Councils told us that they want to move faster and they want to have more flexibility to lead reform in a way that works best for their communities. The Head Start pathway responds to that feedback. We want to give those councils who are ready the opportunity to move faster and create the regional governance arrangements that work best for them.

Tim Costley: What happens after councils submit their proposals?

Hon SIMON WATTS: Once the proposals have been received, Cabinet will assess them and make sure that they are practical, reduce duplication, and deliver better outcomes for communities. For those that are accepted, the Government then intends to pass bespoke legislation in 2027 giving effect to those proposals. For the remaining councils, they will fall into a slower backstop pathway. This will take effect following the 2028 local government elections and will replace regional councils.

Tim Costley: How has this announcement been received?

Hon SIMON WATTS: Very well. I’m pleased to report that the Head Start proposals have been received positively by not only ratepayers and the business community but also the local government sector. Local Government New Zealand welcomed the announcement as a step forward. Meanwhile, Alan McDonald from the Employers and Manufacturers Association called it a pragmatic step and noted that fewer layers of governance and clearer regional coordination should translate into lower costs and more coherent infrastructure and planning decisions.

Rural Communities

Question No. 11

DAN ROSEWARNE (Labour) (14:46) to the Minister for Rural Communities: What recent advice, if any, has he received regarding changes to funding levels and eligibility criteria under the Mayors’ Taskforce for Jobs programme for rural communities?

Hon MARK PATTERSON (Minister for Rural Communities) (14:46): I have received no official advice on the Mayors’ Taskforce for Jobs. That sits under the auspices of the Minister for Social Development and Employment.

Dan Rosewarne: Did he advocate against cutting the Kaikōura Mayors’ Taskforce for Jobs programme, which reduced jobs from 30 to 12 a year in a rural community with few alternative employment pathways?

Hon MARK PATTERSON: In terms of the Mayors’ Taskforce for Jobs, my understanding is that the funding hasn’t been cut, but there has been a reallocation of resources to areas in greater need. That’s an operational decision for the Ministry of Social Development (MSD), but what I will say is that the member is looking at this through far too narrow a prism; you’ve got to look at the wider work programme that the Government’s doing. Minister Upston referred to the 84,000 people that we’ve recycled out of welfare. Look at the major reforms Minister Stanford is doing with NCEA and getting a vocational pathway in there to channel young people into vocational pathways, or the work that Minister Simmonds is doing with polytechnic reform. I was at Telford the other day. We’ve just put $2.5 million into upgrading the facilities there. There are 74 kids there now, going to 144, with ambitions under the Southern Institute of Technology to get to 235. That’s real action.

Dan Rosewarne: Does he accept that tightening eligibility criteria for these programmes away from school leavers risks undermining early intervention efforts that have historically kept long-term benefit numbers low in rural districts?

Hon MARK PATTERSON: Look, I’m a big fan of the Mayors’ Taskforce for Jobs, and I’ve had involvement myself in the Clutha region with the Jobbortunities programme—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Sorry, just a minute—sorry. That barrage of response before the Minister has even got one sentence out is unacceptable.

Hon MARK PATTERSON: I can assure the member that I’m a staunch advocate for the Mayors’ Taskforce for Jobs. I have a peripheral involvement with the Clutha District in the Jobbortunities initiative there; I do know that it works. But the key issue here is that we’ve actually got to have some jobs for these young people to go to. You’ve got to zoom out a little bit, and that’s why you should be supporting the fast track. We’ve just heard of the hundreds of thousands of houses, the mining projects, the renewable energies boom, and the like. There are the water storage projects we’re promoting under the Regional Infrastructure Fund, the flood protection projects—

SPEAKER: Yep, good—tighten it up.

Hon MARK PATTERSON: There’s so much to go on with. We’re actually focused on creating the jobs with the Going for Growth programme.

Dan Rosewarne: If the member is a strong advocate for the Mayors’ Taskforce for Jobs, what steps, if any, is he taking to ensure that funding models for youth employment programmes reflect the realities of rural labour markets?

Hon MARK PATTERSON: As I’ve said in my primary answer, I haven’t had any official advice because it’s not something that’s been raised directly with me by the mayors. Subsequent to your written questions, I have made some inquiries. I am aware that there have been some adjustments in how the funding is allocated and the emphasis on jobseekers as opposed to just school leavers, and so that’s an operational decision for MSD. But—

SPEAKER: Yeah—good.

Hon MARK PATTERSON: This is an important scheme. We continue to support it, and I’m there to advocate for it.

Hon Louise Upston: To the Minister, can he confirm that in rural areas like the Clutha District, the Mayors’ Taskforce for Jobs programme is achieving, in Clutha District’s case, 183 percent of its target of rural employment?

Hon MARK PATTERSON: I am aware of the success of the Jobbortunities project in the Clutha District, but that’s got to be seen in the wider context of the suite of work the Government is doing to get young people into work.

Dan Rosewarne: Why is the Government cutting the Mayors’ Taskforce for Jobs programme, given the Mayor of Kaikōura, Craig Mackle, said in response to these cuts: “we’ve gone from being the fence at the top of the cliff, to the ambulance at the bottom.”?

Hon MARK PATTERSON: Again, I’m not sure that—there has not been a cut; there has been a reorientation of where the funding is allocated, and that is an operational decision for MSD.

Hon Todd McClay: Can the Minister confirm that rural confidence levels amidst farmers have gone from some of the worst ever recorded three years ago to, now, net positive and extremely good for our communities; and, secondly, could this be to do with the Government announcing it’s going to cut all regional councils?

Hon MARK PATTERSON: I am aware of the enormous surge in confidence in our farming community, and the Minister McClay, myself, Minister Hoggard, and many of the parliamentary colleagues were at the dairy awards on Saturday night in Rotorua. There was fantastic energy through there; the industry is doing really well. The broader primary sector, with $60 billion - odd of exports, is going really well, and that is, I think, probably attributed to a suite of Government policies. Particularly, I think I’d look to the Resource Management Act reform. That’s been an absolute bugbear led by the regional councils, and the fact that we’re adjusting that has been incredibly well-received.

Prime Minister

Question No. 12

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori) (14:52) to the Prime Minister: Does his Government stand by all his Government’s statements and actions?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister) (14:52): Yes.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does the Prime Minister stand by his own words at Rātana in January 2024 that he was committed to “building relationships and building trust with Māori”, and, again, in December 2025 to Te Ao Māori News, when he said that rebuilding trust would be a “focus” of his Government?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes, and the way trust is built is by delivering improved outcomes for Māori.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Why then did his Cabinet decide to weaken Treaty obligations across 23 pieces of legislation, and does he consider making constitutional changes affecting Māori to be consistent with building trust?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We think there’s a problem with generic Treaty principle clauses. We want to create certainty and make sure that everyone is very clear about their specific roles and obligations to each other.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Did the Prime Minister read his own Ministry of Justice officials’ advice that found the proposed Treaty clause changes had “no apparent benefits, failed to meet the quality assurance standard due to an absence of consultation with iwi and hapū, and carried significant risk to the Māori-Crown relationship”, and, if so, why did Cabinet proceed anyway?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Because we think there’s a problem with generic Treaty principle clauses, because when they’re open-ended, they create uncertainty and legal risk for everybody.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does the Prime Minister believe iwi Māori ceded sovereignty?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, we’ve talked about this before. In terms of the Treaty of Waitangi, article 1 deals with that issue very well.

Debates

Government Fuel Response Plan—Announcements

Urgent Debate Declined

SPEAKER (14:54): I’ve received a letter from the Hon Dr Megan Woods seeking to debate, under Standing Order 399, the Government’s announcement of its fuel response plan—rationing for fuel under phase 4 of that plan—and a lack of further support for New Zealanders struggling with the high cost of fuel. I’ll take the two branches of the application in reverse order.

The absence of Government action is not a particular case of recent occurrence that can be raised for urgent debate—Speakers’ ruling 222/4—so the member’s point about the higher cost of fuel cannot be the basis for an urgent debate. The question I have considered is whether the matter has reached such a level of urgency as to warrant setting aside the usual business of the House.

There is nothing to suggest that New Zealand is approaching phase 4 of the fuel response plan. For that reason, the matter does not reach the level of urgency that warrants the immediate attention of the House. The application is declined.

Vote Correction

Financial Markets (International Money Transfers) Amendment Bill

SPEAKER (14:55): Further, on 29 April, when the House was considering the Financial Markets (International Money Transfers) Amendment Bill, the result of the vote on the question that the bill be now read a first time was incorrectly recorded as Ayes 54, Noes 49. The correct result should have been Ayes 74, Noes 49.

We will take a 30-second break for those who have to go to other business to leave the House before I call Government order of the day No. 1.

Members should leave the House quietly and without any conversation on the way—all members, all members.

Bills

Conservation Amendment Bill

Legislative Statement

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister of Conservation) (14:56): I present a legislative statement on the Conservation Amendment Bill.

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

First Reading

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister of Conservation) (14:57): I move, That the Conservation Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Environment Committee to consider the bill.

Before I get started, I want to acknowledge one of the greatest global citizens for nature of all time, Sir David Attenborough, on his 100^th birthday today, and, of course, the incredible service, over 24 years, of my colleague the adroit and erudite Minister Judith Collins.

Aotearoa New Zealand is defined by its natural environment. Our ngahere, our forests; our mountains, our maunga; our rivers, our awa; our vistas and our coastlines are part of who we are. They are laced through our pepeha and our whakataukī, our proverbs and our tribal sayings. They shape our identity and our communities and our economy. They are places where New Zealanders, Kiwis like us, connect with nature, where manuhiri from around the world come to experience our Godzone, and where generations of whānau have exercised conservation stewardship and kaitiakitanga over land and water. They appear in our whānau names—for example, my own children: Aorangi, our mountain in Mōkai Pātea; Te Awarua, our pā on the side of Aorangi mountain, adjacent to the Rangitīkei River; and, of course, Te Ikaroa, the middle name of our daughter, which is the vista that’s known as the Milky Way.

These places are precious, but they are also under pressure. The conservation system that we rely on today was built nearly 40 years ago—for a different world, a different time, a different place—and, since then, expectations have changed. Conservation challenges have grown, tourism has evolved and expanded, and the demands placed on public conservation land and waters have increased significantly. It’s out of date. We want to make the conservation system better for Kiwis and all New Zealanders. The system itself has struggled to keep pace. The result has been slow and inconsistent decision-making, growing frustration from iwi, businesses, community groups, predator free groups, and volunteers, and processes that too often consume time and money without delivering better outcomes for nature. Toitū te taiao; nature should sustain and endure.

At the same time, the need for conservation investment has never been greater. We’re home to over 28,000 endemic species found nowhere else on Earth. More than 4,000 are threatened or at risk, and protecting our biodiversity requires long-term thinking, practical action, sustainable funding, and a statutory system that works. The Department of Conservation (DOC) Te Papa Atawhai manages around 30 percent of all the landmass in this country and oversees 4.5 million hectares of marine space.

That responsibility is immense. DOC protects some of the most iconic landscapes and seascapes on this side of planet Earth. But it must also operate in a system that enables people to experience, invest in, and responsibly use this land in ways that strengthen both conservation and regional prosperity.

That is what this bill seeks to achieve: a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to reform conservation legislation; to make it clearer, more efficient, more responsive, and, of course, protect the natural places, the historic places, the wondrous heritage, that New Zealanders value most. It recognises something important: conservation and economic development do not sit in opposition to one another all the time. Done properly, they can support one another. That’s what we believe in. Strong conservation outcomes support regional jobs; biodiversity; recreation; our international reputation; and of course, tourism.

Tourism on conservation land—it creates around $5 billion annually to our economy. More than 1,600 businesses operate on conservation land, and they bring jobs and opportunities to our region, help people experience the beauty of Aotearoa, and support towns and cities. But many of them face delays, uncertainty, complexity. I’ve heard directly from operators, iwi, researchers, volunteers—a whole range of individuals and organisations—facing challenges within the estate. I’ve met up with some whanaunga, cousins, a couple of weeks ago. They’ve waited 10 years to get a concession to run guided tours.

Hon Member: Outrageous.

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Outrageous. In 2024, I set some concession targets, processing targets, and since then, applications have doubled in pace, they’re processed twice as fast, and the backlog has been halved. But operational improvements themselves are not enough. We must change the underlying statute. We reform the concessions and planning system to give greater certainty, faster decision-making, and clearer pathways for appropriate economic activity on conservation land—and, actually, a whole range of recreational and cultural activities too. More simple—[Interruption] Yes, hunting. Shoot the deer—pūhia ngā tia; possums, rodents, mustelids, goats—two-legged and four-legged ones.

We want to create a more coherent planning framework, replacing multiple overlapping plans. Did you know that about 80 percent of the plans, conservation management strategies, everything else, are out of date—10 years out of date. We establish a National Conservation Policy Statement providing one clear source of national direction for conservation land. It will replace outdated and fragmented settings, with a more modern framework, and reduce unnecessary green and red tape for low-risk activities. Up to 30 to 40 percent of current concessions will either be pre-approved or exempt. Then conservation staff can spend time on the more complex ones and actually shooting pests and predators and looking after birds on those great programmes, like the whio recovery programme up the Whanganui River with Genesis; or kākāpō recovery down on Codfish / Whenua Hou, just off the coast of Rakiura; and, of course, in different areas, reserves, wilderness areas right throughout all the members of Parliament’s electorates and locations. The bill creates the ability for low-risk activities to be pre-approved through the NCPS, the National Conservation Policy Statement, and focus our attention.

This bill also recognises the need for sustainable funding for conservation, and that’s why we say the reality is that maintaining world-class manuhiri experiences and protecting highly visited natural areas comes at a cost, and that cost should not be borne just by taxpayers. Infrastructure has got to be maintained. Tracks have to be upgraded. Biodiversity needs pūtea.

Cameron Luxton: Fire those tractors up and clean the dunnies.

Hon TAMA POTAKA: That’s right. But right now, we carry nearly all of the burden as New Zealand taxpayers. While I’m proud of what we deliver, we don’t do it alone. We rely on strong partnerships with businesses like Air New Zealand; the Isaac Conservation and Wildlife Trust, just off Christchurch Airport; Trojan Holdings—Sir John Davies and others; RealNZ, the whānau down there in Queenstown, Ngāi Tahu whānau; and organisations like Raukūmara Pae Maunga—people like Ora Barlow and Caleb Wharepapa, out there shooting thousands of goats up on the Raukūmara Range; NEXT Foundation—Andrew Grant, Bill Kermode, and others, with that audacious philanthropic gift of the Plowmans, Neal and Annette, of $150 million for our environment; and more coming from people who want to improve the conservation landscapes and seascapes that we look after, these wondrous, magnificent, absolutely beautiful places, especially in Northland and Hamilton.

This bill enables the Government to introduce targeted access charges for international manuhiri at a small, selected number of visited sites. We use the money that we get from that to invest back into conservation, back into visitor infrastructure, and actually do basic things like cleaning the toilets, getting the right equipment out to fix those wastewater systems up and down the country. Like with my little boy today, who’s up Tongariro National Park—it’s amazing. In 1988, when I went up on Mount Tongariro when I was 12 years old, there weren’t too many toilets available back then. There was a rock and maybe a tree, and that was it, but now it’s phenomenal. You’ve got facilities on the maunga that can be used by international and other visitors that go up and visit it, but they need to be cleaned, they need to be emptied, and we’ve got all sorts of gadgets that measure all that exciting stuff.

Might I add Taranaki Maunga—my brother over here, MP David MacLeod—an absolutely phenomenal place that exudes kaitiakitanga and conservation. It’s about ensuring the visitors who come to experience some of these most iconic locations contribute to protecting and maintaining them for future generations. Yes, we are going to charge foreigners to go on some tracks around the country. That’s OK, because, actually, when we go to Hawaii and when we go to the United States and when we go to Australia and other places, we pay to go into the national parks. So why do we think as taxpayers we should wear all the burden to look after our conservation land when our friends from across the Ditch will be happy to pay 20 bucks to go up the Routeburn or the Kepler—

Grant McCallum: No, $40.

Hon TAMA POTAKA: —or $40, or whatever it might be. We’ll figure that out—details, shmetails, details. We want to be clear: the wording of section 4 has not been changed. This bill provides greater certainty about what it means, and, of course, members of the Opposition know there is no veto. That’s what the Supreme Court said and that’s what this Parliament says. But the Bill introduces clearer statutory guidance while also maintaining the Government’s commitment to honouring Treaty settlements and concerning engagement in good faith. It reflects the practical belief—the practical belief—that we can protect what’s special about this country while enabling opportunity, investment, and growth. It’s about backing conservation with sustainable tools. It’s about making sure that our natural and historic places remain protected, accessible, and thriving for generations to come, and reimagining and recognising that when we care for the whenua properly, when we create benefits not just for nature but for communities, regions, businesses, and generations of New Zealanders it will actually regenerate. Ki te manaaki koe i te taiao, mā te taiao koe e manaaki—if you look after the environment, it will look after you.

This bill modernises conservation law for the future. It protects the values that matter most for us as a country, for our children—for our tamariki—and for the names, tikanga, and commitments that they and their children will hold to. I commend this bill to the House.

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

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Mr Speaker?

SPEAKER: The Hon—ah—

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Priyanca Radhakrishnan.

SPEAKER: Priyanca Radhakrishnan. My apologies.

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour) (15:07): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Anyone listening to the Minister’s contribution would think that this legislation is just about modernising the Conservation Act, but it’s not. It’s a sneaky, egregious bill that goes so much further. It is the most significant rollback of conservation protections in a generation and it puts commercialisation over conservation, and that Minister should be ashamed of this legislation.

It introduces a new function for the Department of Conservation that fundamentally shifts conservation land from being protected for its intrinsic value and for public enjoyment. Anyone of any political persuasion who lives in either rural New Zealand or in the cities should be worried about this because it breaks the longstanding cross-party consensus on intergenerational stewardship of conservation land. Governments of all stripes have been asked by members across all Aotearoa New Zealand—by New Zealanders—to do better for conservation and to protect our conservation lands for our kids and our grandkids, and this Government’s legislation flies in the face of that. It changes the function of the Department of Conservation, which was set up as the department whose core function and core responsibility is to protect our conservation land, our biodiversity, and this Government is undoing that.

It allows the Minister to sell off 60 percent of conservation land. Think of beech forests in the Lewis Pass: currently, under the current test, which allows for the disposal of land that has no or low conservation value, it wouldn’t meet the test, but it would under the proposed legislation by this Government. It also centralises power with the Minister, while it reduces public voice and independent oversight. It allows, in fact, the Minister to unilaterally pretty much dispose of land and allow for the construction of public toilets and car parks on conservation land.

This is the new low that this Government is taking us to in terms of its anti-environment agenda: the centralisation of power to the Minister that we’re seeing in bills currently going through Parliament that will replace the Resource Management Act that, of course, members opposite are pushing through select committee with truncated times and absolutely rushed time frames.

This bill weakens Te Tiriti provisions, as well. The Minister said in his contribution that there is no change to section 4 of the Conservation Act and therefore the requirement to give effect to Treaty provisions, but what it does—and what he chose not to talk about—is that it sneaks in a section after that that will weaken Treaty provisions, and I know that colleagues on this side will traverse that in a little bit more detail shortly, as well.

The other point that I wanted to make is the fact that this legislation will allow for land disposals “where land”—it says in the legislation—“is not important for the conservation of threatened species or ecosystems,”. Now, on the surface, that sounds good. It means that the Minister won’t be able to unilaterally sell off land with the highest conservation value, but what the Minister hasn’t said is that it then allows for land with slightly lower conservation value that is habitat to at-risk species—so think of the kākā, the kākāriki, the northern blue penguin. All of the land that their habitats are on can be sold pretty much unilaterally by this Minister, with hardly any public oversight in that process. To that point, the bill also significantly weakens the role of the New Zealand Conservation Authority and conservation boards, and, in fact, it takes away the statutory authority that is currently given to them under the Conservation Act.

The point that I want to come back to in terms of how egregious this is is that the Department of Conservation themselves have said in an Official Information Act document that outside of owning land, they have very few levers to protect rare and distinctive species and ecosystems and that the disposal of conservation land means removing all statutory obligations on the landowner to manage land for conservation purposes. Ultimately, this is one of a series of actions and decisions that this Government has made in their anti-environment agenda. It’s known as the Shane Jones clause in this one: to bring in economic growth over protecting the environment. It is, ultimately, the Prime Minister’s responsibility to do better and to protect our conservation land for our children and grandchildren, and he has failed to do that.

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green) (15:12): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Like the Minister putting this bill through, I too will open up in recognition of how precious our ngahere is, and our forests, our waters, our awa, our maunga, our taonga species, our native species, and the habitats that they all rely on to be able to survive, especially within our conservation estate. Absolutely, those precious places of ours deserve legislation that is up to the big, contemporary challenges, which we all know of, of ecosystem destruction, climate change, and ongoing pollution. They demand urgent responses from the Government, but this bill, as my colleague Priyanca Radhakrishnan has just said, takes us in a completely different direction, which moves us away from conserving and protecting our native species and our native habitats.

Let’s be really clear about what this bill is going to do. At a closer read, it reveals the insidious move away from conservation, and away from putting first and foremost the protection of Papatūānuku and all of her living things for the beauty in and of herself. Instead of doing something about the alarming 4,000 native species at risk of or threatened with extinction, this Government has once again chosen to put profit over and above protecting our taiao and our living spaces.

This bill moves away from conservation. It makes it easier to privatise public lands.

Currently, the bar is, understandably, high to sell or swap out public conservation land, as it should be. Conservation land in public ownership means that our native taonga are protected for all of us as a priority in and of itself, but this bill lowers the bar for discarding conservation land. It will lower the bar to allow for land exchange and disposals across millions of hectares of public conservation land—over 60 percent of public conservation land—and over half of that will be eligible for land exchange and disposal.

To make it worse, this bill also puts more power in the hands of Ministers and reduces independent and public oversight. It oversteps the local decision making that this Government continues to pretend that they support when it keeps ramming over the top of local authorities and local boards to be able to provide the critical checks and balances that our conservation estates deserve. And that’s just it: our public conservation estate for the public, owned by the public, managed by the Crown on behalf of the public good. This bill is not about the interests of the public—the beautiful places that make up our conservation estate, that are part of who we are and are unique only to Aotearoa.

For te iwi Māori, of course, conservation land is something more again. It is ancestral land, indivisible from our whakapapa, where our tūpuna and our taonga, our stories, our histories, reside together. But once it is in private hands, it’s gone and gone for good—gone to be bulldozed, gone to be mined, and gone are the chances of being returned through Treaty settlements, even though this Minister has tried to maintain that the bill upholds settlements. The Minister is being very sneaky about what it actually does to settlements—not principles; settlements. The Government should be working to protect our most significant landscapes and environment and, instead, they want to allow bulldozers to be brought to it.

If the Minister or his colleagues are denying that, then let’s see what happens in the committee stage, when the Minister has the opportunity to absolutely rule out some activities on conservation land. Let’s just see if those changes are put forward, because this bill is a betrayal—a betrayal to our native species; a betrayal to everyone who loves to experience the beauty and the marvels of our places; a betrayal to all of the future generations for whom we are merely kaitiaki of these lands for them. That is why, today, we cannot support this bill.

My final message is that we heard the Minister, in his words, try to uphold how he sees the protection of conservation land and against the Budget cuts, including in 2024, which amounted, over conservation as a whole, to $135 million. How can he try to uphold a priority of protection and conservation against the backdrop of constant cuts?

CAMERON LUXTON (ACT) (15:17): Thank you, Mr Speaker, I rise in support of this Conservation Amendment Bill. For too long, New Zealand has had a conservation system that often treats people as the problem. It has treated a new track, a new hut, a new wharf, a better facility—as we’ve heard today—a better visitor facility, or a business who’s looking to provide an experience as something suspicious before it’s even been considered.

This Government does not believe that that is the right approach. Conservation can go together with people enjoying the natural endowment this country has. We believe communities, businesses, visitors, and conservationists all have a stake in making the estate work better, and hunters are prime amongst them, I must say.

There are a few things that this bill provides that are desperately needed. First is some certainty. We need to know, when you’re going for a concession as a business owner, what you are actually dealing with, and this bill provides that. There’s clarification on the Treaty requirements in section 4 of the Conservation Act—long overdue. How can we have certainty in all manner of things if we do not know what rules we are all playing by? Better use of the public land: it should serve the public, it should serve conservation outcomes, and it should serve the identity of this country. When it is done properly, people can protect and increase what they experience, but they can only participate and grow fond of and protect if they can experience.

Fairness, finally, for the taxpayer. If people are coming from around the world to enjoy what we have in our conservation estate using the assets and infrastructure that’s being provided by hard-working taxpayers, it makes sense that they can contribute, too, and this bill enables it. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

ANDY FOSTER (NZ First) (15:19): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak in support of this legislation.

I’ve heard comments made about the conservation estate being part of who we are, and I completely agree with all that. It’s part of our sense of identity. It provides an enormous number of ecosystem services, whether it’s clean water, whether it is reduced run-off from those areas where there are forests on, whether it’s carbon absorption—and, of course, it is home to a lot of our indigenous flora and fauna, which is utterly unique to these islands, and it’s been here for millions of years before human beings even evolved.

It is also something that we use and enjoy for recreation, and many of us get out in the bush or on the waters, on the rivers or on the lakes, to enjoy the opportunity for recreation. We love being able to be out there and doing that in that natural environment. But it’s also used for the purposes of tourism and it is used for some business activities, and this part of this bill is to allow for a broader use of economic activities there. The devil really will be in the detail as to how this is worked through.

One of the things, though, that we have here is the idea that concession terms should be more linked to the asset life. Now, if you think one of the concessions which has recently been renewed was the concession in Milford Sound. You think about the amount of investment that has been in Milford Sound—the length of that, the life of that investment—and think: how is that allied to the life of a concession? They do need to be brought together, and that’s one of the things that the bill suggests that we do.

I was interested in listening to the Minister’s introduction and I thought he might refer to the number of concessions—I think it was about 1,000 concessions. A thousand concessions; that is business people who are waiting to try and get a concession across the line so they can actually do something, so they can actually invest, they can create jobs in New Zealand—and those were being held up. To speed those up—really, really important to have a structure which allows those to be sped up and to get those done so that if we can actually get some value out of those areas then people can invest with confidence is really important. That’s one of the things that this bill tries to put in terms of structure.

I might also say, the way in which some of the pastoral leases have been dealt with in the land and Department of Conservation (DOC) land, which is often next to pastoral releases, is a regular matter of complaint from some of those lessees and farmers. DOC has enormous responsibilities. It is often woefully underfunded—it doesn’t matter whether it’s a blue Government or a red Government; blue-led Government or red-led Government—it is often underfunded, critically underfunded, but it often also looks somewhat paralysed. I think that giving it some clearer direction is really, really important. I think the top knows what it’s doing. I think the people on the ground are magnificent, but often the middle seems to look a little bit paralysed.

I’ll give you one example of that—and the bill does address that—and that’s these issues of overlapping plans. Now, I, for my sins, was a member of a conservation board here in Wellington for six years. I have to say that was one of the most frustrating experiences of bureaucracy, which never went anywhere to do anything meaningful. We were supposed to be reviewing the conservation management plan; the number of times it got deferred because DOC was doing some sort of restructuring and deciding to merge Wellington with Hawke’s Bay conservation boards and nothing ever happened. It was an exercise in frustration. When you see these overlapping hierarchy of different plans—to make that much simpler and streamlined is going to be a very good thing, I think, for everybody.

The legislation, at the moment, talks about the Conservation Act. In the Act, it talks about the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi and, of course, we as a party do not believe there are any principles; it’s just clause one, clause two, clause three, and then what you do with those—but it’s clause one, clause two, clause three. What this bill does do, rather than removing that—which would have been quite good, in our view, I think—is to interpret what this means. As I read it, it says, “You are going to engage.” The key bit about the principles of the Treaty, in this case, is about engagement. I think that is important. So we do actually have an interpretation there.

Just to finish off, I think there will be a lot of interest in this bill. I think there will be a lot of interest in the classification process. The stewardship land is one of the areas I think, in particular, there will be some interest around. This Government has actually made some progress on this. I would say that we’ve had one roughly one-ninth of New Zealand—one-third of the conservation state, which itself is one-third of the country—has been sitting in limbo land and stewardship land since 1987. That’s not good enough; we do need to address that. I think there will also be considerable interest—

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Unilaterally.

ANDY FOSTER: —in the disposals and swap process, and they are not unilateral, Priyanca Radhakrishnan. They are not unilateral; there is a process which is set out there and it’s quite an extensive process. I look forward to the submissions on that. The devil will be in the detail and I am looking forward to the submissions and what people have to say. Labour is not interested in the submissions—it’s already made its mind up—but I’m looking forward to the submissions and seeing what New Zealanders have to say about this important land and this important bill. I commend this bill to the House.

RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori) (15:24): Ko Tihirau taku maunga. Ko Whangaparāoa taku awa. Ko Te Whānau-a-Apanui taku iwi whenua taurikura.

[Tihirau is my mountain. Whangaparāoa is my river. Te Whānau-a-Apanui are my people of a bountiful land.]

Pepeha is more than an introduction. It is an environmental covenant. To recite my maunga, my awa, and my whenua is a declaration of responsibility to protect.

I wish to pay homage to the late Te Arikinui Sir Tumu Te Heuheu, who, in his role as chair of the Unesco World Heritage Committee—his active participation as the driver of Ngā Whenua Rāhui and the fight for the mana of his maunga Tongariro—guided indigenous peoples throughout the world on heritage protection, helping different nations to make mokopuna decisions, just as his father Sir Hepi did, and his tīpuna before him. Today, this monumental task now sits with his son, Te Ariki Te Rangimaheu Te Heuheu.

I stand today to raise the alarm on this coalition Government’s ram raid of conservation in Aotearoa, on the inheritance of our mokopuna. The bill touches on unresolved issues championed by Sir Tumu with regard to the Tongariro National Park—regardless of the Minister’s speech on toilet cleaning. His previous public statements calling on the Government specifically referred to existing conservation planning; arrangements between the Crown and Ngāti Tūwharetoa.

Te Pāti Māori is appalled to hear of the prospect that iwi will have to relitigate the Crown’s commitment to uphold their Treaty settlements. In Ngāi Tahu, 30 years on from commitments which have already been made—they are now being further undermined by this bill. This demonstrates a blanket lack of good faith and only adds to iwi Māori’s suspicion about the Crown’s ability to act with honour in the 21^st century.

Many of the early settlements talk about entering into a new age of cooperation between iwi and the Crown, and iwi take those commitments seriously. Waikato-Tainui has warned, “Kia tūpato ki te remu o taku kākahu”—beware the hem of my cloak. Other iwi, such as Ngāti Whare and Tūhoe, are completely encompassed and surrounded by Department of Conservation (DOC) lands, which never belonged to DOC to begin with. Thirty years on from post settlement, other non-settled iwi are witnessing the durability of existing settlements and see a future where their efforts to settle will be undermined by this bill. Current settlement negotiations, including Ngāpuhi, will be watching closely as this coalition Government’s action and inaction creates an unwelcomed chilling effect on the settlement process entirely.

Treaty settlements contain deeply complex arrangements that require technical precision in achieving transfer without causing further breaches—assuming that rights holders of those settlements agree with changes in the first place. Amending settlement legislation should not be treated lightly. How can this Government believe it can amend any legislation regarding Te Tiriti o Waitangi when it continues to fail to uphold it? Proceeding otherwise fails to uphold the spirit and the intent of the settlement, which we are told is full and final, except where the Government of the day changes its mind, laying a dangerous pathway for ending the Crown’s policy of full and final settlements.

Section 4 of the Conservation Act is only the oldest Treaty provision in the statute books. It has been criticised for its lack of influence and delivery on Treaty rights since its introduction in 1987. Te Pāti Māori’s support for changes to section 4 is conditional on broad support by te iwi Māori on proposed changes made with iwi Māori, while acknowledging the independent voices of whānau, hapū, and iwi, who may take different positions which reflect their own place-based conservation realities.

The Minister proposing this bill happens to be an iwi member and former leader of Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, who led the landmark Supreme Court decision Ngāi Tai Ki Tāmaki Tribal Trust v Minister of Conservation in 2018, where the Department of Conservation was successfully challenged on section 4, the Treaty provisions of this Conservation Act. Minister Potaka, of all people in this House, knows what is at stake here; knows what it takes to lead our people through settlement; knows what it means to persistently pester the Crown to do what it says it will do.

Te Pāti Māori will not stand by as the inheritance of our mokopuna is opened up for development of the benefit of this Government. We oppose this bill in this current form and welcome submissions to select committee from hapū and iwi. Kia ora tātou.

CATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki) (15:29): Look, our conservation land makes up a third of New Zealand, and it’s time for us to manage our conservation estate more efficiently and better. The Conservation Amendment Bill is about modernising an outdated system so that conservation land can be managed more efficiently.

The current Conservation Act is almost 40 years old. It’s out of date, and it is time for change. This bill will bring greater clarity, it will improve how decisions are made, and it will make it easier to get things done on DOC land. We need to make better use of our conservation land in New Zealand. This is a practical change that will create regional jobs and be supportive of tourism. Everywhere else in the world, you pay to see the sights, you pay to see the attractions, and you should do the same here in New Zealand so that we can use that money and put it back into improving and protecting our environment and biodiversity. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (15:31): Thank you, Madam Speaker. In my past life, I was an environmental lawyer, and I did act for a number of clients on trying to get concessions from the Department of Conservation, and it was very difficult, and there were a lot of time-consuming issues. There have been Ministers since back in the day of Eugenie Sage, when she was the Minister of Conservation, who have been making that point—that there does need to be a change to this legislation; it needs some work. But what this bill does is an entire paradigm shift. It’s not what we’re expecting when we hear speeches from the other side saying, “Oh, this is just about efficiency and modernisation.” No—this is a paradigm shift.

There are three things I want to talk about. One is this change to the purpose to enable development; another one is amenity areas popping up everywhere, including restaurants; and then, of course, the third point is around the Treaty clause and this watering down by new section 4A, inserted by clause 5, that is there to undermine active protection—

Hon Member: Clarify.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Let’s go through those. The purpose of the Conservation Act stems from a long history in New Zealand. My father is an environmental historian, and he did provide me with some material to talk to—it was a bit long, I have to say—because, of course, there’s been so much legislation in New Zealand since at least the 1870s about the need to preserve these special areas. There’s was the Scenery Preservation Authority in Dunedin in 1888, and more recently, in 1952, the National Parks Act, but there’s been a long stream of conversations and a lot of work and a lot of advocacy that has gone into protecting these areas. Now what we see, in this amendment, is that the purpose is to enable use and development of that land. That is a huge change, and it is one that we are very much opposed to. I know there will be a lot of submissions on that topic from all of those people who have advocated for conservation status over many generations.

The second point I want to talk about is what clause 16 is, and the following clauses, and that is that the Minister can set out amenity areas. We’ve heard the Minister talk about the importance of toilets, and toilets are important—I’m not going to have an argument about exactly where and when you have toilets—but this definition of amenity areas includes accommodation and restaurants. I am asking the members opposite: are they intending to go to Mitre Peak to attend a wine bar? Is this what this bill is about? That is very serious, and it undermines, as I just said, this whole piece of work over generations to preserve these areas so that people can enjoy them but not so that wilderness experiences and the experience of being in nature is totally undermined. That is what this bill is doing.

The third point goes to the Treaty clause. The Conservation Act has a very strong Treaty clause, and that is to give effect to the principles. Whilst that clause is not changed by this amendment bill, there is a new clause that’s added in just after it, and its whole point is to water down—someone over there said it gives some context or explanation, but it is a watering down of that “give effect to” provision. Giving effect to requires active protection, but what we see in the new section 4A is a bit of consultation, a bit of consideration, one or two reports, and that is it. That is not active protection. We know that most conservation land is in the South Island—the best island—and the majority of that is in Ngāi Tahu’s takiwā. We know that they had a settlement—one of the oldest settlements—and they have already said that this legislation totally undermines that settlement. Shame on anybody across the aisle there who says that they are “blue-greens”, because this is diminishing every piece of the conservation estate and those settlements.

GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland) (15:36): Thank you, Madam Speaker. As the co-chair of the Bluegreens, as just mentioned by the member opposite, I rise to support the Conservation Amendment Bill.

Last weekend, on Sunday, on the way back from the dairy awards evening in Rotorua, I dropped into the Maungatautari sanctuary and had a look round. It’s just an amazing, amazing thing that’s happened there; the locals have done a lot of great work. Guess what—to actually look after areas like that, and I know the previous speaker will appreciate this—you need funding for that sort of thing.

Let’s just go to a couple of core principles of the Bluegreens: “economic growth and improving the environment can and must go hand in hand”, and “New Zealanders have a unique birthright to access and enjoy our special places”. Well, guess what—all of that also comes at a price and a cost. By allowing people to have appropriate businesses on conservation land and to charge visiting tourists to go there, we can all go and enjoy these special places, and we can also build things like toilets, which are required, because it’s a hell of a lot better to have toilets than people wandering behind the bushes. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon JO LUXTON (Labour) (15:37): Thank you very much for the opportunity to take a call on this amendment bill, Madam Speaker. If we were to listen to the Minister’s speech, we would be believing that this is all about getting rid of the pests—the deer, the goats, and all of those things. Yes, whilst those are important and big issues in our conservation areas, that is absolutely not what this bill seeks to do.

We’ve heard from Cameron Luxton and also Catherine Wedd saying that it provides greater clarity and certainty—but I would say certainty for who? Then we heard the word “business” in the same sentence—business. What about certainty for our future generations that they are going to continue to be able to access the conservation estate without having to walk past a wine bar or walk past a restaurant. Sure, toilets are important—I’m not going to argue that point either. But what about certainty for iwi? What about certainty for our native species that would be at risk of extinction if we do not look after our conservation estate?

We heard a member opposite talking about tourists having to pay to partake in the beauty of New Zealand’s nature—and, sure, I don’t disagree with that, so long as that money is spent on the upkeep of things like tracks, protecting our native species and areas, not funding restaurants and wine bars in the most pristine areas of our conservation estate.

I want to talk about the issue around Treaty settlements and Treaty obligations under this piece of legislation. There are concerns that this bill will force iwi to renegotiate full and final settlement. If we look to a recent article, where Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu kaiwhakahaere Justin Tipa says, and I quote, “It puts iwi in the position of being forced to renegotiate important parts of their settlements to fit within a narrow framework. The Crown made full and final settlement commitments to Ngāi Tahu and other iwi, and this bill breaks that promise.” As my colleague Rachel Brooking said, it does retain section 4 but it does hollow out and replace the “giving effect to” with a procedural checklist rather than the active binding obligations that already exist within the Treaty principles review already under way. This bill quietly pre-empts that process by weakening Treaty obligations and conservation law before it has even begun.

The Prime Minister promised all New Zealanders that he would fix the cost of living, but nothing is getting better. There is no real legislation that provides relief to everyday hard-working New Zealanders, and today we see the introduction of the Conservation Amendment Bill, which seeks to recognise economic opportunities to enable the use and development of conservation to the greatest extent possible. This is simply a way of propping up National’s failed economic strategy, and all New Zealanders will be paying the price for that.

They talk about economic growth providing a new function for the department to recognise economic opportunities that arise from the use and development of land and other resources, and I’m guessing that mining may well be one of these opportunities, given that Minister Jones was bellowing out, “Mining, mining.”, during question time when there were questions being asked of the Minister about this particular amendment bill.

The bill will enable the department to use and develop “to the greatest extent”—what does that mean? It is very ambiguous. How long is a piece of string and at what cost to highly valuable conservation land that currently belongs—but maybe for not too much longer—to all New Zealanders. Given what we know from this piece of legislation, that it allows the Minister to sell off—or get rid of; sorry—conservation land as he sees fit, it gives the Minister a heck of a lot of powers and all New Zealanders should be concerned.

DAVID MacLEOD (National—New Plymouth) (15:42): I’m pleased to take a call in the first reading of the Conservation Amendment Bill, a bill that’s been around for some time. The Minister mentioned that it’s almost 40 years, back in 1986—that’s only nine years after Winston Peters came into Parliament; did you know that? So it’s a fair bit of time, when you think about it.

It looks like we’re going to be taking this bill through to the next stage with a successful vote here, and, of course, entering the select committee process with the Environment Committee. I look forward to getting the feedback from the many who I’m sure will be contributing via submissions to that process.

One of the areas that I’m keen to look at—and I think it’s a great amendment—is the ability to charge international visitors. One of the most often-made comments I get from international visitors who come and visit me is that they can’t believe how much free stuff there is in New Zealand, and this is one of them here. They come here and they enjoy our conservation estate. In fact, it’s mentioned that 50 percent of all international visitors will visit the conservation estate, and what’s wrong with charging them a reasonable amount to they can contribute to the conservation that we wish to deploy on to that land.

With that, the last call in this reading, I’m happy to commend the bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Conservation Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Kapa-Kingi.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

Referral to Select Committee

DEPUTY SPEAKER (15:45): The question is, That the Conservation Amendment Bill be considered by the Environment Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Environment Committee.

Environment (Disestablishment of Ministry for the Environment) Amendment Bill

Legislative Statement

Hon NICOLA GRIGG (Minister for the Environment) (15:45): I present a legislative statement on the Environment (Disestablishment of the Ministry for the Environment) Amendment Bill.

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

Second Reading

Hon NICOLA GRIGG (Minister for the Environment) (15:45): I move, That the Environment (Disestablishment of the Ministry for the Environment) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

The Environment (Disestablishment of the Ministry for the Environment) Amendment Bill, which we’ll call “the bill” from here on, will allow for the Ministry for the Environment to be merged into the Ministry of Cities, Environment, Regions and Transport, which we’ll call MCERT, alongside the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development, the Ministry of Transport, and the local government functions of the Department of Internal Affairs.

Of these agencies, the Ministry for the Environment was the only one that was created by statute, and that means that legislative amendments are required before its structure is changed. The primary function of MCERT is to unlock the potential of New Zealand’s cities and regions. It will reduce duplication and complexity and bring a joined-up approach that reflects the strong link that exists between environment, housing, infrastructure, transport, and regional development. It will provide a simpler and more responsible public service that will boost economic growth and productivity through lower transaction costs, and it means more integrated planning and investment.

The bill ensures that the functions being carried out by the Ministry for the Environment every day since its creation in 1986 will continue. These functions are being transferred as the responsibility of the Secretary for the Environment, who will lead MCERT.

Let me acknowledge the feedback of submitters and concerns that we have heard from some people that considerations about the environment won’t be prioritised or will be diluted in this new ministry. I can assure this House that this is not the case. There are no substantive changes to the functions of the ministry under the Environment Act 1986. The amendments are structural and technical only, and there is no reduction in environmental protections. As the Secretary for the Environment, the new chief executive of MCERT, he will be responsible to the Minister for the Environment for these functions whilst also having regard to important matters in section 17 of the Environment Act, which remain unchanged. Section 17, of course, covers key environmental considerations, like whether proposals or policies may result in increased pollution or have uncertain environmental effects. In fact, under the changes, there are new and stronger provisions that require the Secretary to report to the Minister on the ministry’s work annually, and I’ll provide further detail on the addition of clause 13A under section 34 later in my comments.

This reporting brings stronger accountability than the current system and gives the Minister the opportunity to seek assurances and ensure that decisions being taken are not ones that will be detrimental to the environment. In essence, the Minister will have more leverage to oversee good decision-making to protect the environment through this mechanism.

When we debated this amendment bill at its first reading, members across the House emphasised the importance of the natural environment to the quality of life that we so enjoy in this country. Members also spoke of the risks they believe this bill poses to the natural environment. I stand with members and their constituents who take pride in our natural environment here in New Zealand, but I do not share in many of the characterisations made about this bill. This is not about reducing the importance of the environment in New Zealand. Our natural environment is and will continue to be a source of great pride for all New Zealanders in our cities and regions and those based overseas. I remind the House that the Secretary for the Environment, through MCERT, will continue to advise the Government on all aspects of environmental administration, including the management of natural and physical resources and ecological systems. As has been the case since 1986, Ministers and the Government will still receive advice on improving the operation and effectiveness of environmental acts, assess and monitor environmental impacts, manage polluters through waste minimisation legislation and regulation, and identify and reduce exposure to natural hazards. The changes will modernise the existing accountability framework to better align with that of other Government departments. It will also enable other instruments under the Public Service Act 2020 to implement the Government’s desired machinery of government change. With the establishment of MCERT, the environment will continue to have a strong voice at the heart of decisions on long-term challenges facing our natural and built environment in the coming years.

I’m sure this House can agree that our natural and built environments are intimately connected. We see this every day. As severe weather events occur and there is greater awareness of natural hazards and of shocks to particular regions, we need to be thinking more about these connections across planning, housing, and transport, flood and natural hazard mitigation, waste, pollution, ecosystems, and, of course, our climate. MCERT will bring a joined-up approach with portfolios brought together that can coordinate better and help us tackle some of the country’s greatest economic and environmental challenges. This is about integration rather than silos and reflects the strong links that exist between environment, housing, infrastructure, transport, and regional development. MCERT will reduce duplication and complexity and provide a combination of advice to solve complex problems, backed by a strong economic engine and high-quality data and insights.

I’d like to take this opportunity to thank the Environment Committee for their work scrutinising the bill and all those who provided input on the bill through the submissions received in the oral presentations given. Through submissions, it became clear that the bill could be strengthened by requiring greater transparency around how important Environment Act functions are performed, so the committee has recommended the addition of clause 13A, under new section 34, that requires the Secretary for the Environment to report annually on the performance of their functions under the Environment Act. MCERT’s required to prepare this annual report under the Public Finance Act 1989. It is proposing that this will apply from the financial year beginning 1 July 2026. I support this recommendation and welcome the additional public scrutiny this change to the bill will bring.

As I’ve said and want to reiterate again, the functions being carried out by the Ministry for the Environment will continue when transferred to the Secretary for the Environment, who will lead system change as the chief executive of MCERT. It will ensure greater accountability for these functions within MCERT to Parliament and to New Zealanders who care deeply about our natural environment, and that’s something, I believe, this House can agree on.

In a phrase, this bill is about changing form, not function. Environment capability will remain a core capability of MCERT. The E in MCERT is there for a reason. By transferring the functions from the Ministry for the Environment to the Secretary for the Environment and, by extension, MCERT, we will be integrating consideration of the environmental system into the heart of some of the key decisions on the economic and environmental challenges facing this country. In many ways, this bill will be amplifying consideration of the environment rather than diluting it.

I wish to thank again all the public servants who have been working at these agencies for the benefit of all New Zealanders for up to four decades and who will continue to work through this period of change. We are establishing a high-performing agency in MCERT to match our intention in our delivery of high-performing planning, infrastructure, and funding and financing, and, of course, local government systems. I do believe that MCERT represents an opportunity to grow our economy and protect, preserve, and enhance our environment at the same time. I commend this bill to the House.

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

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (15:53): Thank you, Madam Speaker. What a sad day it is today. Here we are talking about the total flipping of the conservation land one minute, and, now, we’re getting rid of the Ministry for the Environment. These things are linked. Of course, in the 1980s, we had large-scale reforms that went into the 90s around our environmental institutions. We had the Environment Act that set up both the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment but also the Ministry for the Environment, which has this role in policy and monitoring and other issues as well. Plus we had the Department of Conservation stood up.

A lot of different agencies went into that as well, and then we had the resource management legislation. These things were all purposely done together to set up institutions and a framework whereby we have our conservation land, there are property rights involved with that and also the preservation of the biodiversity, of the heritage, and of the tourism aspects of that. We had the department, then, that’s active and operational. We’ve got regional councils with the Resource Management Act (RMA) when the RMA came into being—and it’s still the case. Regional councils are dealing with air and water and biodiversity issues, and district councils are dealing with those planning issues—district councils being territorial authorities and city councils as well.

This was all set up together, and, now, it is all being broken into pieces to undo what people in this House acknowledged was a problem in the 1980s, and that was that our environment needed protecting and that we needed to do better for it. We are doing exactly the opposite. Here we’ve heard from the Minister that this is no dilution and it’s just form over function. That is difficult to believe, given this Government’s attitude to the environment across all pieces of legislation. I am suspicious of anything that comes out of this Government that says that they are somehow going to do better for the environment. That is not their track record on any measure. If the Minister is so sure that there will be no dilution, I am interested in the speeches that will be given by her and her colleagues on how it will be that they will measure this no-dilution outcome, which she has just stated.

If they will somehow do what the Minister for resource management reform suggested in our annual review debates the other week and, in fact, somehow do better for the environment—we can hear these words wafting around with those words of “efficiency”, but I have seen nothing from that other side that says how it is that this will improve the environment and what the accountability will be. This is a question that I have brought to the Ministers for the Environment—various Ministers—time and time again and said, “Well, you say that you’re making this change and it’s not going to have a negative impact on the environment. How are you going to prove that? How are you going to demonstrate it?” All I ever get is crickets—crickets.

We also heard the Minister, just then, talk about the importance of integration in terms of the environment. I totally agree that an integrated approach to our environment is especially important. The environment is everywhere. But what do we have from this Government? We have legislation to repeal the RMA—after this Government brought back the RMA—that tries to separate the natural environment from the urban environment. It is totally different from this talk of integration. What this Government is doing—particularly the ACT Party; the under-secretary has said that this Government’s RMA reforms are there to end integrated management; that is what he said, Mr ACT member who’s heckling me at the moment. I want to know, from those members across the aisle, how it is that there will be more integration when their RMA replacement legislation is doing exactly the opposite of that.

Then we hear, from the Minister for resource management reform, that, suddenly, we need to reorganise local government in a way that regional councils just don’t matter and that that is somehow because of RMA legislation, which also requires the disestablishment of this ministry, he tells us that. This Government has got legislation, in front of the House, that separates the natural environment, the things that regional councils do, with the urban environment, the things that district councils do and the things that territorial authorities do. Their logic is a complete mess. Are we having an integrated approach or not? That is my question to those members.

What is the role of regional councils and catchment-based planning? What is the role of managing for improving our waters? That’s not necessarily a particular urban area. Most of our countryside is in un-urban environments—I’ve just made up a word there. In environments that are not urban, there is great swathes of land that is not urban, and so what are we doing to make sure that our rivers are swimmable?

How does getting rid of the Ministry for the Environment, and adding it in with housing and transport—how does that help that issue of our waterways in non-urban environments? I have not heard any answers to that question.

David MacLeod: What about the beaches in Auckland? That’s urban.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: There are people on the other side saying, “Well, what about the urban environment?” I don’t disagree that urban environments have environmental problems that need to be dealt with. Of course that’s an issue—of course it is—and so are our rural environments, as well. You can do both things.

David MacLeod: We are, and will.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Well, the members opposite are saying that they are going to do both things. That is interesting because we heard from a number of submitters—Marie Doole was one of them—that were talking about the need for officials to be going to a Minister, and we don’t even know if the Vote is going to be separate or not. Is the Vote going to remain? Is there going to be a Minister for the Environment? Within that department, how are they going to get separate advice on these environmental issues, and is it all just going to be muddled up with all of that other advice that goes to housing and transport?

Our concern is that that will happen, and we don’t know what the reporting requirements are and those public interest mandates will just fall off the wagon. Nobody will be advocating for that better water quality outside of urban environments, and that is what we are deeply concerned about.

We had the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment come and tell the select committee that the environment is not just a branch of planning law. We need policy that goes beyond that Resource Management Act and the planning law of urban environments, and that is what the Ministry for the Environment should be doing.

I’ve talked on this contestability of advice, and it’s a very real issue that I’ve not heard addressed by the other side. We are also concerned about the process of this legislation. We had a very short select committee turn-around period and we did not have a regulatory impact statement.

Grant McCallum: It’s very short bill. It’s a simple bill.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: I’m hearing members across say that, well, it’s a very short bill, and it is interesting that that is where this Government has got to now: “Oh, don’t worry about it. The bill is little.”

Cameron Luxton: No, he said “simple”.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Oh, the bill is simple; not just little. Disestablishing a Government department that is part of our environmental institutional infrastructure is not a simple thing, and I would remind those members to think about the people who are involved in these workplaces, as well. They have had to come and face up to our committee, telling us that they should be disestablished, and so I thank them for their work. Like everything else here, it’s a terrible piece of legislation.

LAN PHAM (Green) (16:04): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Where do I start with this? I think, firstly, I want to be really clear in thanking submitters, and that’s because the one thing that I take heart from this absolute abysmal action that this Government is undertaking is that the voice of submitters was so clear and so strong. I think what’s astounding in all of that is we’re hearing from Government members right now who were part of those select committee hearings that the significance of this bill and the disestablishment of the Ministry for the Environment is absolutely lost on them. What’s really clear with that is that they did not hear or they weren’t listening to the overwhelming submissions and the overwhelming response that said, “We do not want this to happen. This is a bad idea.” I think it’s really disingenuous for it to be painted as if there were two sides to this from submitters, because we had not one credible submission actually in support of this. We had one individual who literally said, “Oh, yeah, scrap the Ministry for the Environment. They’re a bunch of ecosocialists that are trying to ruin our economy.”

Now, I don’t know about anyone else, but that does not seem like a credible submission to me, particularly when we understand the fact that the backbone of our economy in this country is not any one industry; it is the environment and our relationship with it and the way that we manage or mismanage it. That’s exactly the topic and the concern that members should have heard because that’s what we heard from academics, from legal experts, from iwi and hapū, and from environmental groups, and it was unanimous, and yet this Government is pushing ahead with this bill. I think the concern with that, and with a number of things that the Government have brought to the House today is this. For one, it is the “Conservation Reform (Dress It Up and Sell It) Bill”, and for the other one, it is the news that the Government is actually legislating to prevent the prosecution of climate-harming corporations.

We know and understand that in a time line of human evolution, this is the low point. This is the low point, where we do not pay attention to people’s views, we do not pay attention to evidence, and we just go ahead and put through legislation like this without any due consideration, and that’s exactly what’s happened with this bill. Here we have 588 submissions. Again, they are almost unanimous in saying we don’t want this. Not one party campaigned on the disestablishment of the Ministry for the Environment, because if they had, they would not be in Government. They wouldn’t be in Government, because New Zealanders of any political stripes believe and understand that having a dedicated voice for the environment at the heart of Government is absolutely essential.

Now, let’s look at the purpose of this Ministry of Cities, Environment, Regions and Transport (MCERT). We’ve heard it time and time again that it’s not changing things and it’s not diluting things, but the Cabinet paper that literally establishes MCERT makes it really clear what the purpose of MCERT will be. It’s going to provide joined-up advice to solve problems, with a regional focus on deals and delivery, backed by a strong economic engine, and rich data and insights.

Apart from the “E”—the Minister has clearly pained herself numerous times to point out that there is an “E” in MCERT, which stands for “Environment”—I don’t see any assurance when it comes to environment being front and centre when it comes to this new mega-ministry’s functions. It was really clear in the departmental report, when officials pointed this out to us as a select committee, that the Secretary for MCERT will be tasked with jumbling the 15 environmental Acts that he is tasked with, with 54 transport, housing, land, and local government Acts. Now, I’m not sure, because, again, we haven’t had any assurance of this on select committee because we’ve had so little time to consider it, but that doesn’t sound to me like the environment is going to have priority or that the environment is going to have a clear voice.

We also heard from submitters that the very Cabinet papers that were used to establish this decision to disestablish the Ministry for the Environment and put in this mega-ministry—we heard from academic experts that Cabinet was presented with incorrect or misleading statements made by Ministers in charge of the bill. Again, I want to acknowledge the Minister Nicola Grigg in this, because this is the ultimate hospital pass from the previous environment Minister Penny Simmonds. Bronwyn Hayward from University of Canterbury has pointed out that the assurances in the Cabinet paper that say that stakeholders may fear environmental priorities will be diluted and these concerns are unfounded because other countries successfully integrate similar functions—she could find “no evidence of other countries that have successfully integrated such diverse oversight as Environment” with development and economic objectives. The only ones she could find were the Maldives and Kosovo, which have really unfortunate and concerning conflict of interest issues. She looked overseas and she found that other jurisdictions like Canada and the UK merged similar functions when it comes to the environment—like climate with environment, for example—not did not have environment subsumed into a mega-ministry.

Now, I also wanted to touch on the Minister’s thanks to the select committee for our scrutinising of the bill. I want to make it clear to New Zealanders that the disestablishment of their ministry—the Ministry for the Environment—occurred with just over three hours of consideration from the Environment Committee, and that included the time for public hearings. We had just two hours and 45 minutes of public hearings, where, again, everyone was telling us that it was a bad idea and they didn’t want it to happen. That was followed with 40 minutes of deliberation on the departmental report and the draft commentary, and that was pulled together, alongside no regulatory impact statement and no assurance on transparency about Votes coming into Budget in May. This is an absolute travesty for New Zealand, and this Government should be absolutely ashamed of themselves.

I want to conclude by reflecting on the disappointment of the significance of this moment being lost on Government members. That’s because of the history where, 40 years ago, New Zealanders decided that they wanted to elect a Government who campaigned on the establishment of not only the Ministry for the Environment but the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment because the environment matters. It mattered then; it matters even more now.

We know that it matters more, because we know from the Ministry for the Environment’s own work that environmental outcomes across the spectrum—whether it be air, water, ocean, or biodiversity—are going backwards. It’s absolutely shocking that we have a Government today that does not understand that and that so flippantly moves to abolish the one part of Government that could have had a clear voice, and we won’t have that any more.

What’s really shameful about that is I think when it comes to New Zealanders, it’s in our nature to care for the environment. It’s in our nature to actually understand that when we harm the environment, we ultimately harm ourselves.

The Green Party condemns this decision. We are so ashamed of it, and we will not be supporting it.

CAMERON LUXTON (ACT) (16:14): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, I rise in support of this bill. The Environment Committee did hear quite a few submissions—two hours and 45 minutes, the previous speaker Lan Pham said—and I believe that these have been properly addressed here. The Secretary for the Environment will now be required to report annually on the performance of their Environment Act functions, and that report will sit inside a new ministry, which will be created and will report to this House. That is the Ministry of Cities, Environment, Regions and Transport.

The reason that this bill is required is because, as previous speakers have said, as a stand-alone piece of legislation creating this ministry—I noticed there were no tears for the other ministries that are being brought into this. You would have to say that for too long we have had housing, transport, environment planning, and local government each in their own corners and siloed off. It’s just not good enough.

Let’s be honest about something. People have confused having a separate bureaucracy with protecting the environment, but they’ve never been the same thing. A logo on a door in Wellington does not clean a river, and a stand-alone ministry does not make a wetland.

We do not accept that this is an attack on the environment. We believe that you can protect the environment while also making space for the beautiful humans of New Zealand that live within the environment. We need space for everybody. We need joined-up planning, an end of the silos, and an end of the multiple ministries. This is a good piece of legislation. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Dr DAVID WILSON (NZ First) (16:16): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to address the Environment (Disestablishment of Ministry for the Environment) Amendment Bill. Look, we know there were many submitters who were fearful and worried about the disestablishment of the Ministry for the Environment, and fair enough—it is what we know. This is a bold change, and so we hear them. But one of the New Zealand First’s election promises was to set up a ministry for infrastructure, absorbing the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development and other infrastructure aspects. This is about integrated and spatial planning.

During the amalgamation of Auckland, we went through a whole lot of angst about how all of these things would come together on the ground. Aucklanders were sick and tired of roving around different ministries, different departments, different portfolios, and how many Ministers they needed to see just to get something done on the ground. That was the hardest thing. We had a siloed Wellington. Here we had the amalgamation of Auckland, looking at spatial planning for Auckland and where things go, both in terms of the physical aspects of that but also—I say to the member for the Green Party—the environmental overlays, the economic overlays, and the social and community overlays that need to be integrated into a spatial plan for a city region the size of Auckland. It’s very important to all of us that that succeeds.

What this is trying to do is to provide an opportunity for Wellington to address those kinds of concerns by being more integrated and having a better front door for all of those concerns to come together in terms of long-term planning—absolutely vital. We hear this. This all points towards having a more integrated approach, rather than a siloed one. We need to assist with spatial planning and developments on the ground, and it is forward-thinking. For those that are still sceptical—and there are some—I just point you back to how successful the spatial planning in Auckland has been and how integrated that has been, and we need to respond to all of the regions of New Zealand in an integrated way. We commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori) (16:18): Tēnā koe e te Pīka. Thank you. I stand in opposition of this particular bill.

What we’ve been seeing month after month, week after week, and hour after hour is the continual eroding of the protection of our taiao, and I heard the speaker before me talk about what it means in an urban sense. It should not be the excuse for “either/or”. We should surely be at the stage where we can “and, and”, and what we’ve seen is an erosion of another layer of protection of our taiao.

It’s an erosion that’s not supported in any way or form by iwi, who the Government has an obligation to have a partnership with. We’re continually seeing and hearing the excuses of why we should get rid of the only agency that has a role to protect our taiao, and that goes hand in hand also with some of the things that we’re seeing happening in local government—erosion here, erosion here. The thing that worries us the most is how our taiao loses representation and loses its voice and sight on anything that’s going.

Let’s take just one slice of what this impact has on iwi settlements. It’s really interesting that the Government is always ready to open the bonnet of settlements when it suits them, but it doesn’t open the bonnet when iwi are saying this legislation doesn’t work for us.

We are continuously seeing attacks on aspects that have been protective measures for all New Zealanders, and I’ll give an example of that. Most will know that I’ve been part of the seabed mining kaupapa and the opposition to what we don’t want to happen in our environment—for 15 years in fact—and when you get down to the crux of it, when you get down to winning in the High Court, to winning in the Court of Appeal, to winning in the Supreme Court, they all came down to the role of what iwi and Te Tiriti had in that aspect.

You cannot help but be really cynical about the agenda here. If it was just about effectiveness and cost economics and being able to be more fluid with what urban needs are, that would float, but it’s not, because there has been a reputation, inside this Government, of its view of opening wide the doors for any corporate exploitation and getting rid of any agencies, getting rid of anything that honours Te Tiriti, getting rid of anything that has partnerships within iwi settlements. That’s the cynical view that we have of the changes that are happening here.

I think, when we look at the minimising that is going to iwi all the time, minimising them to a position where they’re actually now reduced to being an advisory note—iwi becoming an advisory note—we are the last bastions of looking after our taiao and protecting our taiao. We need to be calling this out for what it is. It is a brutal attack on Te Tiriti, on the taiao, and on every New Zealander’s right to be able to live on land and moana and within an environment that has protection and recognition of future generations.

There were key aspects to us winning the seabed mining in Aotearoa, and one of them was the fact that the Supreme Court concluded that tikanga Māori must be a guide to assess that of mana whenua. It also talked about Te Tiriti principles. Now, those are aspects that this particular agency was established to help uphold in many of our settlements, and it is absolutely beyond me to understand how and what the Government is proposing to put in place to be able to honour those settlements.

We continuously see, again, the fact that it feels like this Government is trying to slam shut the door on any potential future decisions in the court that could go the way of tangata whenua, who are obviously here to protect all of Aotearoa, to stop the fact that we are going to be able to use our rights as tangata whenua, as Te Tiriti has promised, and be able to use our rights as tikanga and mana whenua.

This bill is a huge attack on the taiao. It opens up the door for corporate exploiters. It makes sure there are no winners here. The only winners are those investors who this Government is well reputed for protecting. The loser here is the taiao. We do not support what the Government is intending to do with this bill. Shame on you.

STEVE ABEL (Green) (16:23): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. Well, we’re 40 years on from the world-leading establishment of a standalone Ministry for the Environment, which occurred in the context of an environmental movement globally that came to its height in the 1980s. Recognising the existential threat that destruction of the world’s biodiversity presented to humanity, we as a nation, similar to the time we declared ourselves a nuclear-weapons - free nation, established a Ministry for the Environment. We passed homosexual law reform, as it happens, that same year: 1986. We set out the fact that protection of the environment was in the common interest. It was a recognition that something could not possibly be more important than establishing a basis for life on Earth and for the thriving of our society—and, indeed, the functioning of our economy—because, without that nest of natural existence on which we depend, there is no human thriving, there is no economy, and there is no health and wellbeing.

Well, 40 years on, this Government, dedicated to the war on nature, is blowing up the Ministry for the Environment, and we should not be surprised, because they have done everything, in every legislative realm, to diminish, to weaken, and to undermine environmental protection. They’ve passed legislation to weaken water protections, so that people’s drinking water is not safe, so the ambition that we might be able to swim in our rural rivers again is once again undermined.

Grant McCallum: Rubbish.

STEVE ABEL: They have allowed the expansion of dairying, Grant McCallum, in the Canterbury Plains, the primary cause of nitrate contamination, the primary cause of climate change. They have weakened the extensive measures that were taken, at one time unanimously in this House, for us to agree on a pathway to reducing our climate emissions, and they have even started subsidising the fossil fuel industry again: $200 million for the fossil fuel industry. They have, at every turn, taken opportunities to dismantle protections for the environment, and this is just the latest instance of it.

When the Minister says this won’t, as submitters warned, dilute the effect of the environment ministry, in fact, it will do exactly that. We heard from submitters that disestablishment of the ministry would weaken long-term environmental stewardship, dilute oversight, and signal a change of national priorities. It sure does signal a change of national priorities—as if the signal wasn’t loud and clear already. For them, the way they address the pollution problem is not by dilution of the pollution but by dilution of the ministry that deals with pollution. They are, indeed, weakening the agency that this core environmental ministry is set up to deal with.

Further, in terms of Crown-Māori relations, to echo the sentiments of my colleague Debbie Ngarewa-Packer, we heard from submitters that the merger potentially reduces visibility, accountability, and institutional capability to uphold the Crown’s responsibilities under Te Tiriti o Waitangi—surprise, surprise, another piece of legislation that weakens and harms and damages the Māori-Crown relationship, as well as trashing the environment at the same time. This Government, in their one term, will go down in history as the most environmentally destructive Government of New Zealand. I doubt that any Government will be as bad and as anti-environment as this one, and it is right that, in their final year, in the dying breaths of their final term, this one-term Government gets rid of the environment ministry. We should not be surprised that that’s what they will be doing.

We will indeed be opposing this, and when we get back into Government, we’ll fix this righteous mess they have made. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

CATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki) (16:28): We’ll just bring back a little bit of common sense. Look, on the side of the House, we are progressive. You can achieve development as well as protecting the environment at the same time.

This bill is structural, it’s administrative, and it is the first step to creating the Ministry of Cities, Environment, Regions and Transport—MCERT—and, of course, this is going to support housing, transport, urban development, environment, climate adaptation, housing affordability, infrastructure, and protecting our environment at the same time. It is going to support our new Resource Management Act framework, which is, of course, about getting things built and consented in this country, so that New Zealanders can get ahead. This is good, common-sense legislation. I commend it to the House.

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour) (16:29): It’s really interesting that the chair of the Environment Committee thinks it’s common sense to disestablish the environment ministry. At a time when we are going through a climate crisis, a biodiversity crisis, and we have the highest level of threatened species in the world, her Government is pushing through bills that will again weaken and water down environmental protections as she rushes them through select committee, and yet she thinks this is common sense. Thankfully, most of the 588 people who submitted on this bill don’t agree, and, today, I will go through some of their reasons for that.

I want to begin with a point that was made by the McGuinness Institute, who said that they do agree that we have a duty and we do need to improve New Zealand’s environmental policy, but they oppose this bill in its current form. They are concerned that the bill focuses on the short term, meaning long-term environmental policy will lose out in favour of short-term economic gain. I agree because that seems to be the trend with this Government and with a lot of their legislation that is in the environment and conservation space.

We have just today had the introduction of the first reading of the amendments to the Conservation Act, which will do exactly the same. That will change the function of the Department of Conservation away from protecting the environment towards overt economic growth and economic gain at the expense of the environment, and that seems to be what underpins this Government’s anti-environment agenda. The McGuinness Institute goes on to say this, as many other submitters have said this, as well. It makes the point that the Ministry for the Environment has been in operation since 1986, when the Environment Act established it in order to provide independent advice to the Government of the day, and I will come back to the importance of that in a minute.

This Government and Ministers, and members opposite, have stood up in this House and said that they’re doing this all in the name of efficiency, that they’re bringing together a number of ministries because of the silos that exist within the Public Service, and that they want to promote collaboration. We are supportive of wanting to promote collaboration. We think that there should be incentives for Government agencies to work collaboratively, but this is not it, and, as this particular submitter points out, they are concerned that this bill would lead to inconsistency, uncertainty, inefficiency, and increased costs.

I will come back to this in a minute, but I will also make the point that this is not something that this Government campaigned on, either. It has partly exacerbated the inconsistency, and the uncertainty is also exacerbated by what this Government is doing with regard to the two bills that will replace the Resource Management Act. They are the Planning Bill and the Natural Environment Bill—bills that, basically, are designed to focus on the urban environment, and then the natural environment, and where there will be a need to ensure that the trade-offs are managed in a way that makes sense, as well.

Many submitters were worried that that will not happen, and I will point to the submission by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment (PCE), Simon Upton, whose own position is established by the same Act: the Environment Act. He lays out quite clearly his concerns with this bill, and I’ll come back on a bit of a process point about the fact that there is no regulatory impact statement for this piece of legislation. He does lay out why that is, and he says quite clearly that no exemption was sought at the time when policy decisions were being made but that the Ministry for Regulation has now determined that these proposals would have been eligible for an exemption. He goes on to say that that’s because the Ministry for Regulation considers that the bill makes only sort of minor impacts, which is a point that we’ve heard raised by Government members in their very short contributions on the second reading of this bill, as well.

However, the PCE then goes on to say that what this bill will enable the Government to do will present a very different face to businesses, individuals, and not-for-profit entities. The current Government intends the ministry in charge of the environmental management to be a new consolidated ministry that, as we’ve heard, will be in charge of not only managing the environment but also will be responsible for cities, for transport, and the regions. He makes the very salient point that what is missing from this is a focus on rural New Zealand, which I find incredibly curious for a Government that purports to be the party for rural New Zealand. In fact, he goes on to say that that’s where, arguably, some of our biggest environmental challenges will lie.

He also talks about the specific risks in amalgamating all of these areas and including the environment in that. When it comes to the two bills that are going through the House and going through select committee at the moment, he makes the very good point that having contestable advice, which is what the Ministry for the Environment was set up to do, will “be critical to ensuring the trade-offs are robustly considered”, and that there is a “real risk with this ‘mega-ministry’ that the trade-offs will [now] be resolved within the organisation” by officials, whereas they should have been and should be elevated to ministerial decision-making where the accountability for those trade-offs will sit, and now we will no longer see that necessarily happening. He says that it would make sense for each bill, therefore, to be managed by a separate agency.

I also want to speak to this amalgamation. The Minister made the point that this happens around the world and that there are many jurisdictions where this has happened successfully. We’ve had a submitter, Professor Bronwyn Haywood, who has clearly pointed out in her submission that she cannot find any example of a comparable jurisdiction where this has happened successfully, and so that’s one point.

In the second point, I will speak to my experience when Labour was in Government and established the Ministry for Ethnic Communities, elevating it from an office that sat within the Department of Internal Affairs. At that point, the argument that we made—which is pertinent to this particular bill—that the chief executive at the time had about six to seven portfolios to manage and a number of different competing priorities, which meant that he couldn’t be expected to have the capacity to focus on ethnic communities, which were one part of the six or seven or eight portfolios that he had to manage, and so elevating it to a ministry would ensure that independent policy advice pertaining to those matters would actually see the light of day and would not be subsumed in a mega-ministry. This bill is taking us in the opposite direction. It’s taking us to a point—and it’s a point that many submitters have made—where the focus on the environment will be subsumed into this mega-ministry. It’s for those reasons that the PCE argues that the Ministry for the Environment should be left out of this amalgamation, and I would tend to agree, as well.

Other submitters go on to make the point that there’s a lack of evidence where mega-ministries have worked internationally. The fact that it relies on internal decision-making within the mega-ministry and it risks creating a concentration of powers without adequate checks and balances is also particularly important at a time when people are starting to lose their trust and confidence in public institutions. I don’t believe that this sort of rushed legislation, which lacks the transparency and transparent oversight when it comes to environmental legislation, is a good thing for us when it comes to democracy, either.

One of the other points that has been made is to put this in context of what we are seeing currently. The submission by Waiheke Resources Trust says, “Aotearoa New Zealand is currently facing escalating environmental pressures, including climate-driven extreme weather events, biodiversity loss, freshwater degradation, and growing ecological instability. At such a moment, the removal of a dedicated environmental ministry risks weakening policy leadership, diminishing institutional accountability, and undermining the coordinated national response required to address these challenges.” It goes on to make the point that community organisations are doing a heck of a lot of work in this space, but that it cannot replace strong national environmental governance.

To end, I will quote the process. This bill was introduced on 15 February, it had its first reading on 19 February, it opened for submissions on 20 February, and less than two weeks, when it comes to business days, was what people had to submit on a bill that will disestablish an important ministry. We had less than three hours of hearings, and bear in mind we had 588 submissions—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The member’s time has expired.

GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland) (16:39): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Before I take my call on this very important bill, I’d just like to acknowledge the reason we have so many visitors in the gallery is that today is the valedictory speech to be given by the Hon Judith Collins. She is someone who has contributed a lot to our party and to our country, and I’m really looking forward to seeing her and wishing her the best for her future endeavours because she’s certainly done a heck of a lot for this place.

Right, moving on to the purpose of this bill. Anyone would think, listening to the Opposition on the other side there, that we do not care about the environment. Well, that’s rubbish—absolute rubbish. What we are doing is we’re putting the environment at the heart of the decision-making process around when we’re combining transport, housing, and certain local government functions—making those decision-making processes. In particular, one of the key things this Government is trying to address is housing affordability because that is one of the key things that will lead to a much more coherent and unified society, and by making environment part of the process and working hard for it to be at the centre of the decision making, we will have a much stronger chance of achieving those goals. I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): This is a split call.

DAN ROSEWARNE (Labour) (16:41): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Thanks for that previous contribution over there on the other side of the House. Now I know why the House is starting to fill up and it’s not for this bill, the Environment (Disestablishment of Ministry for the Environment) Amendment Bill, and so that’s fantastic.

I’d just like to start with the Minister’s opening remarks. She acknowledged the feedback of submitters, but let’s take a look at how many submitters there were. There were over 580, and so I think, from here, there were 580 that opposed this legislation, there were four that were neutral, and then only one that actually supported it. So whether that acknowledgment actually took place, I’m not too sure, but anyhow, let’s crack on with the bill here.

The Hon Rachel Brooking has very well articulated how different districts and authorities plug into the ministry and how the disestablishment of the ministry would actually make things a lot more complex for preserving our environment. I must say that in my previous role, I used to have the pleasure of taking overseas visitors on tours of New Zealand. We would meet up with the locals, tour some of our local landmarks, and go over some of our world leading tracks, and they absolutely loved it. At a lot of places in New Zealand that we took for granted, they were overwhelmed, and they couldn’t believe that we would take some of this for granted and wind back the protections for this environment. They’d see it as our greatest asset.

One example was when I brought a Korean delegation over. Korea has a population of 51 million on a land mass smaller than the size of the South Island, and these people were just absolutely flabbergasted about how beautiful this country is. When we talked about winding back a lot of this legislation, they were just at a loss as to why we’d do it, and so that is definitely a worry. This bill actually winds a lot of those protections back.

The Green Party contribution talked about how no parties actually campaigned on the disestablishment of the ministry, and that’s a concern, because if you did that, it would have absolutely cost votes. Cameron Luxton—

Cameron Luxton: Labour only ever did things that you campaigned on when you were in Government, then?

DAN ROSEWARNE: —the ACT member who is heckling over there—you know, he was reading off his speaking notes and he was wanted to go back a bit. He was winding back red tape, but the political party that is all about reducing regulation and red tape has through this bill inadvertently added a lot more complexity and a lot more red tape to something that should be more simple and should allow this agency to actually protect our environment. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer quite rightly said that iwi were becoming an advisory note and the last bastion of protecting our environment. Effectively, this is slamming the door shut on tangata whenua, and that’s something that we all need to be worried about.

But we’ll go back to the bill. With regard to clause 9, which replaces section 29 of the Act, the Government has repeatedly told the House today through their contributions that it’s only kind of like a bit of a house-cleaning measure, but clause 9 tells a different story. It collapses the Ministry for the Environment into a single statutory office, with the Secretary for the Environment personally responsible to the Minister for all environmental functions. Now, that may look tidy on paper, but it weakens the institutional independence. A ministry can push back. A secretary answers directly to the Minister, who controls their appointment and their performance reviews and then their future roles, and so what we’re seeing here is a deliberate reduction in democratic oversight and accountability for our environment. Everyone in New Zealand should be concerned about that.

Environmental protection often requires uncomfortable advice from our agents. We need to rely on that so that we can provide legislation that protects our environment, and, unfortunately, that is absent with this bill. For that reason, I do not commend it to the House.

DAVID MacLEOD (National—New Plymouth) (16:46): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m pleased to take this call on the Environment (Disestablishment of Ministry for the Environment) Amendment Bill. This bill is actually quite a small bill—it’s only eight pages long—it has the intention of facilitating the Government’s plan to combine the functions of a number of entities, with those entities being the Ministry for the Environment, the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development, the Ministry of Transport, and also the local government functions within the Department of Internal Affairs.

During the select committee process—yes—there were a lot of submissions there that gave us lots of advice. One of the amendments that came from that was to strengthen the feedback from the Secretary for the Environment, who will hand the ultimate responsibility for this new ministry back to Parliament. We have inserted a new clause, and it’s requiring the secretary to report annually to ensure that he’s reporting on the performance of their function, as is required under the Environment Act.

We have listened, as a select committee. It is a small bill, and it sets in place a future for this new ministry, nicknamed “MCERT”—the Ministry for Cities, Environment, Regions and Transport. I commend the bill to the House.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour) (16:47): This Government has no commitment to the environment. If I look at what this bill is doing, it is removing our precious Ministry for the Environment and diluting all its powers by mixing them into a mega-ministry, where the focus on the environment will be lost. It’s a disgrace.

I don’t want to go over the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’s submission again, as my colleague Priyanca Radhakrishnan went through it beautifully, but the Parliamentary Commissioner of the Environment—a former National Party MP, and a man who was appointed to the role by Labour and reappointed by National—said, “For these reasons, the Ministry for the Environment should, in my view, be left out of this merger.” That’s a man of some eminence who is saying that that should happen. The Environmental Defence Society, which is a long-respected organisation in this country and an organisation which all parties are across this House engage with, has said that there is a huge risk of diluted functions within this new mega-ministry and that this merger should not go ahead.

I have a particular concern around this merger, and that is around the loss of focus on climate. Now, all the advice on climate for this Government, or the advice that comes from officials, comes out of the Ministry for the Environment—the Ministry for the Environment that is being diluted, and, along with that, the focus on climate. There are many challenges that New Zealand faces, but climate is a huge one.

Just last week, the Climate Change Commission came out with its climate change risk assessment for Aotearoa New Zealand for 2026. It pointed out key climate risks for New Zealand—key infrastructure risks to water infrastructure, to buildings, to rail and road networks; key risks to nature and the bioeconomy, and ecosystems and biodiversity and forestry; key community and safety risks to social and community wellbeing; to emergency management; to risks in te ao Māori, in the Māori world; huge decision and funding risks within central and local government funding, within decision making and delivery. Huge risks that this country faces, and the advice to Ministers around those risks comes from the Ministry for the Environment—and yet that ministry is now being diluted and lost within the mega-ministry. It’s a huge shame.

In fact, what this bill represents is yet another walk-back on climate. You know, the Government talks a big game on climate. It says it is committed to meeting Paris, to meeting net zero by 2050, which is what the world agreed in the Paris Agreement. But what has it actually done? What has this Government done on climate? It has reversed the ban on offshore oil and gas. It has excluded agriculture from the emissions trading scheme (ETS). It has ended the Clean Car Discount. It has gotten rid of the Climate Emergency Response Fund. It has weakened climate reporting. The world-leading Financial Sector (Climate-related Disclosures and Other Matters) Amendment Act 2021 is being watered right down. It has cut subsidies for public transport for young people—cutting it for young people in a cost of living crisis.

It has backed out of the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance. At COP30, the huge climate conference that is held every year, it refused to sign up to the pathway for transitioning away from fossil fuels, which about 80 countries around the world have signed up to, including the countries we usually like to compare ourselves to. It is allowed the ETS to fray, to decay, to the point where it is in danger of collapse. It has removed regulations for low-emissions buildings. It has diluted the Clean Car Standard. It has cancelled Auckland light rail. It has added road-user charges to electric vehicles, such that a light electric vehicle pays exactly the same road-user charge as a 3.5 tonne ute. Now, I’ve got no problems—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Can I ask the member to come back to this bill.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: I’m coming to it, Madam Speaker. It’s part of what this Government has done on diluting climate. A 3.5 tonne ute; you go ahead and drive it if you want to—that’s entirely a person’s choice—but let’s at least pay the costs associated with it.

Just today, in its walk-back on climate and its diluting on climate, it has removed the capacity to litigate—it’s said it’s going to remove the capacity to litigate—for torts around climate change. You know, this has been a very, very interesting decision, because the Supreme Court ruled that there was a case that could be taken with respect to torts on climate change. It said that you had to consider that.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Can the member please come back to this bill.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: This is part of the bill, Madam Speaker. This House, this Government, has diluted the Ministry for the Environment: it is removing its responsibilities and it is losing climate change in this mega-ministry. It is part of that Government’s huge walk-back on climate, a walk-back that continues day by day by day with decisions that deprioritise the climate. Today, they have removed the capacity to litigate. They have removed the capacity for an individual to take big companies to court and to hold them responsible for their climate emissions.

And, in fact, the reason that was given for this is saying—the Minister just said, well, it was creating uncertainty in business confidence. That is a very clear signal about what this Government is about. This Government needs to remember that business is a subset of the environment, not the other way around. Business is a subset of the economy. It is a subset of the environment—the economy is a subset of the environment. We cannot work in business unless we have a livable world. And, in fact, it’s a clear signal about what will happen in this big new ministry; a clear signal that in this big new ministry, the focus on climate will be lost. That is a shame. It is an absolute shame that that should happen.

You know, it’s pretty clear that this Government is actually just given up on tackling climate change. It’s given up on doing the hard work. It’s taken every step possible to dilute climate actions. It is not serious about climate, and that imperils our children; it imperils our children’s children; it imperils business, for goodness’ sake. A business may not be able to operate in uncertainty, but it sure as hell cannot operate when the world around it is being destroyed by climate change. It is time to have some long-term thinking on the part of that Government, instead of the short-term, “Let’s cram it all together and push it into one ministry.”

Let’s think about why we need a focus on environment. And it’s more than just that: the environment is responsible for biodiversity. It’s responsible for looking after the water that we drink. It’s responsible for the food that we eat. There are these sorts of fundamental issues that are considered by environment, and yet it is being diluted in this mega-ministry. It’s an outrage and a shame.

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Backtrack on the basics.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: It is. Thank you. It is a backtrack on the basics. So when this Government says that it’s serious about the environment, when it says it is serious about climate, where is the evidence?

In fact, in terms of the evidence of that—the way that they brush away trouble, brush away concern—let’s go back to the process for this bill. Let’s go back to the incredibly short process; the process where this bill was introduced on 15 February, the first reading was on 19 February, and then the chair of the Environment Committee, for reasons that no one could fathom, decided that it was appropriate to have less than two weeks allowed for submissions—a unilateral decision.

Now, that is a ridiculous thing to do. If that chair was really committed to the environment, the name of her committee, that would never have happened. Instead, we’ve had a rushed process with just a very few days of submissions—getting the nuisance of the environment out of the way. That is the attitude of that Government: let’s get the nuisance of climate, the nuisance of the environment, the nuisance of those who care about the world that we live in out of the way.

RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East) (16:57): Oh, that was so depressing. It was like a negative weather watch where the rain was coming down, the wind was blowing, and the flood was rising.

This bill is really quite simple. It’s about taking the environment ministry and putting it into another ministry. Nothing’s disappearing. There’s no drama. Cheer up; the sun is shining. I commend the bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Environment (Disestablishment of Ministry for the Environment) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Kapa-Kingi.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Amendment Bill

Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism (Supervisor, Levy, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Debate resumed from 30 April.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Members, when we were last debating these two bills, we were up to call No. 11—the Labour Party call. I also note that Te Pāti Māori has a five-minute call still available.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (17:00): Thank you, Madam Speaker. We move back to a different matter—from environment to money-laundering—and such as the varied subject matters that come across our desks when we are members of this House.

These bills are bills that have been heard together at first reading and second reading. They were sent through separate select committees: the Justice Committee and, I think, the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee—stand to be corrected if that’s wrong, but I believe that’s correct. Then, they came back to the House and had the same second reading, and then they were debated separately at the committee of the whole House stage. During that period of time, the Minister with conduct of these bills, the Hon Nicole McKee, I thought did an excellent job, actually, of answering our questions on money-laundering. So I want to acknowledge the Minister for that and for the time that she spent allaying some of our concerns and answering the detailed questions that we had in relation to money-laundering. That was in relation to, I think, the bill that I mainly focused on, the one that deals with the levy—I won’t read the whole title out again as that has been ably read out by one of our clerks just a few moments ago, but I want to acknowledge the Minister for doing that.

Sometimes with these types of bills, usually in the House, we have a shared view that there should be adequate effective laws and regulations in relation to money-laundering, and I think, often, the concern that members of the Opposition have is to make sure that those bills that are in front of us, that we haven’t had the same degree of consultation and involvement with that the Minister has had, are fulfilling those objectives. Certainly, I do think the Minister was able to answer many of our questions and allay many of our concerns, and I do promote that type of engagement to other Ministers because it does make it easier for us to then do what we’re about to do now, which is support both of these bills at third reading. That it won’t be a surprise to the Minister, because I think mine’s almost the last call on this bill. But I do think these are serious matters, and ones that I know the Minister gave due attention to and also that we have given attention to as well.

I will make a few more comments on both of the bills before we go to vote on them. The levy bill does create a single supervisor of the Department of Internal Affairs, and that is something that, I think, everyone is supportive of, in terms of having a single supervisor. I understand that’s the regime in Australia, which has shown to be effective.

This bill will introduce a tax, or levy, for this work. There were some comments made in previous contributions in the House on this bill that that is somewhat unusual, because we do expect people to comply with anti - money-laundering legislation. We don’t, necessarily, expect that we would institute a separate tax or levy for this work. But nevertheless, that is the way that this particular piece of legislation has been designed. Additionally, for that, it will allow new regulations.

I suppose the overriding concern that we had in the Labour Party was to make sure that when these simplification of regulations were occurring, that didn’t mean that there was a less robust regime in relation to money-laundering. I do note that in this bill, the levy bill, there is an annual review of what is occurring, and so I do wish to note it now that I do think that it will be necessary to look at that annual review to make sure that these particular regulations, although they are simplified, are meeting the needs of the public in relation to ensuring that we haven’t made money-laundering something which is easy. I accept the advice and the word of the Minister in the House that that’s not occurring, but I think, to be prudent, because of the seriousness of the matter, we should look to the annual review to ensure that that isn’t the case.

The other aspect which is important, and I think it relates to both bills, is also making sure that money-laundering isn’t used for some of the worst types of crimes that we have. Money-laundering in and of itself is, obviously, a crime. We want to make sure that we have appropriate laws, and the Minister’s incentive, I think, for making sure that this is simplified, is that this can be complied with whilst there is a regime which does prevent that. But it is also something that we must look to international transactions for as well, and also prevent the financing of terrorism. That’s, obviously, a really serious thing that we do look to in the prevention of money-laundering.

There’s also the national strategy with this first levy bill. So I commend the Minister—I think this is around half of the bills on money-laundering. These bills have been coming up with some regularity in the House, but that particular bill does set up a national strategy and I think that that’s going to be helpful.

The other thing that this bill does, I think, is it bans crypto ATMs, which members of the public may have seen popping up around the place. There was some discussion around that particular matter of whether there should be compensation—I think the Minister’s decision, in the end, was that that wouldn’t be the case.

So anyway, supportive of that bill and thanks again to the Minister for her engagement on their bill and for answering some of our concerns.

I will make some comments on the second bill. It’s a slightly unusual process. I know that we’re joined with some of our previous members of the House. We are debating, in fact, two bills at once at the moment, and so it’s incumbent on me, as our justice spokesperson, to at least make some comments on the shorter one of these bills. So this bill does focus on the prevention of funding of terrorism through making sure that money isn’t laundered to do that. It does so in a few different ways, but one of the things that it is also intending to do is to make it easier for real estate agents and also sole practice lawyers to comply with money-laundering regulations and rules and due diligence at the lower risk end. But also, obviously, realising and recognising that these particular types of professions—we know that real estate agents deal with large transactions and we know that there’s, obviously, therefore, the opportunity there and we also recognise that 99.9 percent of real estate agents in New Zealand are upstanding people and do not participate in money-laundering, but because of the nature of their work, and the large transactions that they’re dealing with, they need to have special provisions to ensure they can do business. Obviously, it’s within our interest to ensure that they do that, but also to make sure that there are appropriate controls in place.

And, additionally, with sole practice lawyers, that is particularly a situation where it is possible to have a trust account with a large amount of money in that trust account—in this sole practice situation, obviously, you don’t have the partnership situation that you might have in other law firms and you might not have the same particular staffing or resources as well.

So there are particular situations that the second bill has been looking at, and I want to commend the Minister. I think I only was on the committee stage for the first bill, and she did these two bills back-to-back. I know my colleagues who were dealing with this bill on the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee were also extremely grateful. In fact, they’ve said so in the Hansard, which I’ve read, of the previous contributions to this House.

So I think, overall, anti - money-laundering and having effective regulation to prevent anti - money-laundering is something that we can all agree is very important for New Zealand. The Minister has put forward proposals which look to simplify regulations without reducing the level of compliance needed in terms of paperwork, but without lowering the standards.

We do have some concerns that this will be looked at regularly. We hope that that annual review will be able to take place. We hope that this does work and that there isn’t an uptick in the number of people who are partaking in money-laundering, but we trust that because there are checks and balances in place, people will be able to ensure that the these bills are working effectively. They are complex bills and so we will be relying on the officials who drafted these bills and who’ll be monitoring them to give advice back to the House

But I just, in the closing moments of this bill and in my submission, want to acknowledge, again, the Minister for her work, for her engagement, and commend both of these bills to the House.

TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki) (17:10): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I appreciate you choosing me. It’s a pleasure to take a call as this is, I would hope, about to enter into law. There’s a lot of detail—and we’ve heard a rigorous 10 minutes of detail from Camilla Belich—but I’d like to just elevate it for one minute if I can, please, Madam Speaker.

We could talk about all the detailed provisions, but what this is really about, in one part, is supporting our small-business owners. These people are critical to New Zealand. These are the kinds of people that the National Party cares about. They’re the ones who get out of bed in the morning and go to work. They create the jobs, they create the growth, and if we have an opportunity to support them through bills like these, we could talk about clarifying existing obligations, but, really, what this is about is giving certainty to business owners, the kinds of mums and dads that are making this country work when there have been times of high inflation, high costs, and regulation and red tape that tie them up.

This is about cutting through it, and this is one more piece in the puzzle that this Government is doing to support every small-business owner in New Zealand, providing relief, reducing compliance costs so that they can do what they do best, running those businesses, providing jobs in our communities. I commend these bills to the House.

RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East) (17:11): Thank you, Madam Speaker. As the previous speaker, Tim Costley, said, this is really about providing certainty. It’s gone through a robust select committee process, and we’re pleased to commend it to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bills read a third time.

Overseas Adoptions Legislation Bill

Legislative Statement

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice) (17:12): I present a legislative statement on the Overseas Adoptions Legislation Bill.

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

First Reading

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice) (17:12): I move, That the Overseas Adoptions Legislation Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice Committee to consider the bill, and at the appropriate, I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 24 September 2026.

On 16 September 2025, I introduced the Adoption Amendment Bill to the House, which passed unanimously, under urgency, and came into force two days later. I acknowledge my parliamentary colleagues across the House for their support on that temporary change. As I set out at that time, many of the approximately 1,000 overseas adoptions each year saw children adopted into loving families, but our laws lacked basic safeguards, and that meant some children were adopted into homes where they were neglected, they were abused, and they were exploited. It is unacceptable that our overseas adoption settings were allowing this to happen. For this Government, the safety and wellbeing of children will always come first, and I want to thank in particular my colleague the Hon Karen Chhour for her unwavering advocacy for the most vulnerable children in New Zealand.

The Adoption Amendment Act was an urgent response to the significant harm suffered here in New Zealand by some children and young people who were adopted overseas. The Act introduced temporary measures to prevent harm coming to more children, including immediately and temporarily suspending the recognition of unsafe overseas adoptions for citizenship and immigration purposes. The Act also narrowed the jurisdiction of the New Zealand Family Court so that an international adoption application can only be made if there are exceptional circumstances or to formalise an international surrogacy agreement.

Last year’s urgent law change under the Adoption Amendment Act 2025 was always intended as a temporary fix. Those temporary measures provided time for the Government to develop an enduring solution to the problem. This Overseas Adoptions Legislation Bill is the solution. This bill will put in place an enduring system for international and overseas adoptions that supports the wellbeing and best interests of adopted children and young people. Under New Zealand law, adoption permanently transfers parental responsibilities, rights, and duties in respect of the child to the adopting parents. It is, therefore, essential that safeguards are in place to protect children, particularly if they are being moved across borders.

The bill will make three substantive changes to how international adoptions are to be made or recognised by New Zealand. Together, these form the enduring solution. Firstly, the bill will replace the temporary suspension on recognising overseas adoptions, with an immigration pathway for children adopted overseas by New Zealand expatriates or who are migrating to New Zealand with their adoptive parents. Secondly, the bill will create a new immigration pathway for children adopted in courts of designated countries by people living in New Zealand. And, thirdly, the bill will continue to allow adoption applications to be made in the Family Court where there is sufficient link to New Zealand or in other limited circumstances. It’s important to note that none of the changes in the bill affects the Hague convention pathway for intercountry adoptions.

I’ll now outline these three changes in further detail. For the first change—the recognition of overseas adoptions—the bill will lift the temporary suspension on recognising overseas adoptions. Currently, children adopted by New Zealand citizens or permanent residents from non-exempt countries cannot have their adoption recognised for citizenship or immigration purposes. Instead, the bill creates an immigration pathway to enter New Zealand, with appropriate safety checks. This pathway will be available to children adopted overseas who are either migrating to New Zealand with their adoptive parents or who were adopted by New Zealand expatriates who have been living overseas for 12 months or more for a purpose other than adoption.

The second substantive change is to create a new immigration pathway to enable children adopted by New Zealanders to enter New Zealand. To use this pathway, the adoptive parents must be ordinarily resident in New Zealand at the time of the adoption and the adoption must be made in a designated country. A country can become designated if our Government is satisfied that the country’s regulatory regime provides sufficient safeguards to prevent harm to adopted children. This new pathway will enable New Zealand to recognise its close cultural ties and relationships with other countries.

The third substantive change in the bill is to the jurisdiction of the New Zealand Family Court. The bill enables the Family Court to make international adoptions where exceptional circumstances apply and the application will promote the child’s welfare and their best interests. While the Family Court is well placed to assess the best interests of the children, it will not always be the right forum, like when adoption applicants or children are living overseas. To invoke this exception, the court must be satisfied that at least one adoptive parent or the child is living in New Zealand. This ensures a sufficient connection to New Zealand, hence, the Family Court is the right forum to make decisions in that child’s best interests.

Similar to the temporary changes, the bill continues to allow for adoption applications to be made in the New Zealand Family Court for domestic adoptions. This is when both the adoptive parents and the child are living in New Zealand. Adoptions to formalise international surrogacy arrangements will still be able to be made in the Family Court, provided the arrangements are consistent with the laws of all relevant countries.

Finally, the bill will make consequential amendments to make sure everything works smoothly. As the changes in this bill are intended to replace the temporary measures in the Adoption Amendment Act, they will need to be in place before July 2027, when the suspension enacted last year is set to expire.

While these enduring reforms may add some additional steps for some families, our top priority remains the safety of children. It is not acceptable that our adoption laws have been used in a way that harms children and young people adopted from overseas. We need to permanently close these legislative enablers, which is what the enduring measures in this bill will do.

I encourage anyone with an interest in adoption law to have their say when this bill goes to select committee. In particular, I want to urge our Pacific communities—where customary or cultural adoptions are common—to look at how this bill may impact them in the future. I welcome any suggestions of practical improvements that ensure that the law will work as it’s intended to, but one principle will not change: the safety of our children comes first. I commend this bill to the House.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (17:20): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is a pleasure to take a call on the Overseas Adoptions Legislation Bill at first reading.

I just want to take the opportunity to acknowledge the House and those here to acknowledge the Hon Judith Collins KC. She has been a previous Minister of Justice, and this bill relates to that portfolio. I’m wanting to acknowledge her service—if this is a fast opportunity, on behalf of the Labour Party, to do so—and those friends and family who are in the House to celebrate her tonight.

The Overseas Adoptions Legislation Bill is a really important bill in the sense that it is a bill which seeks to protect our most vulnerable. This bill was, as the Minister had suggested, first implemented as a temporary measure during urgency, recognising that there were some issues associated with New Zealand’s adoption scheme. This bill would make that permanent.

From our perspective, the most important aspects of this bill, moving forward, will be ensuring that the wellbeing of children and adoptees is at the centre of this particular change in legislation and also preventing exploitation, which, unfortunately, we have learnt has occurred under New Zealand law.

As the Minister has outlined, this really applies to those who are looking to adopt from outside New Zealand and those who are not subject to the Hague convention—which is the main international obligation to which New Zealand’s obligations in relation to overseas adoption apply. This bill really fills that gap, where that doesn’t apply.

It won’t be news to anyone in the House that the laws of adoption in recent years have changed somewhat and have taken on a different meaning through the use of surrogacy, and this bill does address surrogacy. I think an important aspect of this bill—and one that I would like to highlight to the House and the Justice Committee, to which this is being referred—is to ensure that the steps in relation to surrogacy are appropriate.

We know we have a situation in New Zealand where many surrogate parents, or intending parents, do have to go through the adoption route despite the fact that there may be a genetic connection. This is an important and complex process, and it’s important that the integrity of the child is at the forefront of that process.

It’s not something that is, I think, straightforward, and that’s why the select committee process will be of immense importance. I do encourage those families that do have a view or have been through an adoption process or a surrogacy process which they believe may be affected by these new changes, if they do have something to contribute, to make a submission to the select committee.

This does implement some of our international obligations. It implements article 21 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. That sets out a very high-level expectation on how adoption should be taking place and that the child should be at the centre of decisions that are made here. I have had a look through this proposal carefully, with the information that’s been available to date, and I do think, from what I have seen, that this has been the focus of this legislation.

Again, I thank the Minister for making sure that this legislation is something that is, hopefully, likely to receive support throughout the House, and I’m sure that she shares my desire that this is scrutinised in a really sensitive, appropriate way, with the child at the centre, and also making sure that we do everything we can to avoid any exploitation at all that may come with international adoption. I commend the bill to the House.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (17:25): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand to also support the Overseas Adoptions Legislation Bill. I also want to acknowledge the Hon Judith Collins for her years of service, and I will appropriately shorten my speech so that we’re not delaying the start of the valedictory statement by the Hon Judith Collins. And you know how much it pains me to shorten any speeches!

Regarding the Overseas Adoptions Legislation Bill, it is important to note that the Green Party did support the previous interim bill that the Minister introduced. I also want to thank the Minister for her transparency, and also her communication with the rest of the House, when that interim bill was coming into effect. It is important to say that this bill is on a similar line as what we saw in terms of the interim bill.

It is important to note that this bill has one single important focus, which is ensuring and supporting the wellbeing and the best interests of adopted persons, and particularly of children, under a number of international conventions—one of which is the Convention on the Rights of the Child, but also around the Hague convention as well.

For this particular bill, one of the things that we’ll be looking forward to during the select committee stage is the changes that are being made and additional levels of protection that will be introduced, particularly with the Family Court and also the immigration service—understanding that this is an omnibus bill, so there are quite a lot of complexities to do with this broader change of power.

One of the things for the Green Party, in particular, that we’ll be interested in is what this means for an adopted person and adopted child regarding their citizenship status—as we’re seeing that a new immigration track has been introduced—and what that would mean in terms of their ability to apply for citizenship by grant under the Citizenship Act 1977. I think, in particular, with regard to the Immigration Act, it would be important for us to analyse and to discuss during the select committee stage what happens when you have a child who has certain forms of disabilities or neurodiversity. We have seen children being denied visas, as well as particular statuses for any form of citizenship, and potentially being required or asked by Immigration New Zealand to be removed from the country, due to those kinds of status, away from their families. I think that is an important tie in with this bill, and something that we are looking forward to.

With that, I will actually leave it there. The Green Party is going to support this bill, and we look forward to the select committee process.

SPEAKER: Thank you. This is indeed a rare occasion, Mr Xu-Nan!

The House now, in accordance with the Business Committee, breaks from its programme to hear a valedictory statement from the Hon Judith Collins.

Debate interrupted.

Valedictory Statements

Hon Judith Collins

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura) (17:29): When I first came to this Parliament as the member for Clevedon—and later Papakura—I knew it was a privilege to be here. Twenty-four years later, I do not think that I contemplated either this length of service or what a journey it would be. I could not have done this, nor withstood the hours, the commitment, nor the lack of privacy—we all know about that, don’t we—without the love and support of my family, and I take this moment to publicly thank my husband, David, and my son, James, as well as my brothers, Gary and John, my sisters, Pam and Barbara, and their families, and my many friends for always supporting me in my work.

None of the last 24 hours—24 years; it feels almost like hours; well, time goes fast, right?—would have been without the support and hard work of the many volunteers of the National Party in Papakura. From my selection to stand in 2002 to now, so many have given their time, money, and enthusiasm to make every election for us a winning election eight times in a row. Yeah, it’s pretty good. My particular thanks go to those who have been the chairs: the late Roger Burrill, Chris King, Megan Wallace, and Adrienne O’Connor. You have given years of your lives to voluntary public service, at no cost. To my friends Annabel Young and Liz Coutts, thank you for encouraging me into politics and for your friendship throughout.

To my electorate staff over the years and those with me now—my dear friends Claire Schoeller and Kim Rush—and all my staff over the years, thank you for your competence and your loyalty. The many ministerial staff were best when both professional and apolitical in their work, and none more so than the Hon Barbara Edmonds. Some need particular mention: the marvellous Megan Wallace, Julie Johnston, and Rebecca Alo, who have worked with me in several iterations over many years. There is a saying that I’ve heard attributed to Sir Robert Muldoon—you’ll like this one—and that is, “An ounce of loyalty is worth a tonne of talent.” In the case of each of you, both your talent and your loyalty are measured by the tonne.

To my wonderful constituents, thank you for supporting me faithfully for—yes, again—eight elections in a row. I really could not have done it without you. To our dearest friends Richard and Mary, Christopher and Joy, Daniel and Sybelle, Megan and John, Claire and Jock, Jeff and Julie, Greg and Diane, and Niko and Melissa, thank you for all you have done for us.

When I first came to Parliament in 2002, the National Party suffered our worst defeat. It was something of a shock. I was a lawyer, regulator, and director, and had very little political experience except with the Law Society. The politics in the Law Society are, as I found out, quite a bit different from those of Parliament. I was a lawyer, not a politician, and I had extensively studied and practised law but never politics. I approached everything as a lawyer, looking to the facts, often oblivious to the way things would be portrayed in the media, and not really understanding that being fearless in my prosecution of issues, while admirable as a lawyer, might be seen as a little confrontational in Parliament. I have never had the patience for the concept of doing my time or, worse still, knowing my place. The Parliament and the National Party caucus room are a lot different from what they were then in 2002. As one senior MP told us, “Just because I smile at you, don’t think I like you.”

For a woman who has never known her place, I was not in a happy space. I was, with my 21 years of legal experience and several years of regulatory, business, and corporate work, given the less than weighty portfolios of associate health, internal affairs, and National Library. In a caucus of a mere 27 members, I received the message that not that much was expected of me and that I would either make something of not much or I would be an MP who came and went, so I decided to make the most of what I had since I knew that I am genetically incapable of sucking up to hierarchy in order to get ahead. It’s so true, isn’t it, team? I can be a bit brutal—behave, Prime Minister, behave!

Within that first term, I used my position as associate health spokesperson and member of the Health Committee to get, first, the backing of National and then other parties to get an inquiry into the use of Agent Orange and its effects on our troops during the Vietnam War. This was against the advice to both National and Labour Governments from the Reeves inquiry and the McLeod inquiry, where both concluded that the spraying of Agent Orange had not occurred where our New Zealanders were stationed and, therefore, had no effect on their health. So I was up against it.

Ross Miller of Northland and Colonel John Masters of Christchurch, as well as many other Vietnam veterans, provided information and evidence. I was able to use that information to convince National, ACT, New Zealand First, United Future, and the Greens that we should undertake the inquiry. When all those parties lined up in that select committee, we had the majority of the votes, and Labour Government members came and supported it too—well that’s great; never too late. What came about was that the evidence had been in New Zealand all along and was held in tapes and needed decoding. That evidence showed that these toxic herbicides had been sprayed at least 356 times in the Phuoc Tuy province, where the majority of New Zealanders were based. It was a lesson in working across parties. It showed me that the Government can eventually come to the party against its officials’ advice when a backbench MP does their work, brings others on board, and is willing to share the credit.

And, as has recently been revisited by media, yes, as a first-term MP, I held to account a senior Minister who had leaked to the media a lawyer’s legal advice letter to her 16-year-old refugee applicant client and then lied about it.

Some other achievements of which I’m most proud include banning smoking in prisons. Yeah, I did that. I really did not have the support of the Government. I was in Government. Well, PM John Key was quite keen, but I think I was on my own. Anyway, Corrections found a way through in 2010 by each prison manager—just amazingly, all by themselves—announcing a ban on smoking, matches, and lighters to be implemented a year later in 2011, just in time for the 2011 election. It was, as our kind campaign director told me at the time, a—and you’ll know this, team—“courageous decision”. You know, if it went wrong, it was all on me. Anyway—I think he was trying to tell me something—Corrections put in place smoking-cessation programmes and were very clear in expectations. It went ahead without a hitch, implemented a month early, and all the naysayers’ concerns about prison riots were wrong.

Around that time, though, a couple of youth justice inmates took to a roof in the facility in Hawke’s Bay and came back down, after a cold winter’s night on the roof, at the promise of a pie and a Coke. That was it. Eventually, the courts held that the ban was unlawful, but by that stage, Parliament was right on board with a no-smoking rule, and new legislation from my successor as Minister of Corrections made it permanent and it was passed without any problems. That smoking ban had several unintended consequences. First, it put more money in the pockets of prisoners’ families; it made our prisons a healthier environment for staff and inmates; and it almost overnight stopped prison fires. Corrections did an excellent job, and apart from the pretty-legal legal advice regarding prison managers’ powers, it could not have ended better.

For police—and I see there are some here today—there is nothing better that I could have done than getting them access to tasers and better access to firearms. All the frightened concern that our police would use tasers for torture was unfounded, and there is no doubt that the taser option has saved lives of both police and offenders. None of that would have been possible without the budgetary resources to put it in place, and my colleagues’ support was crucial.

I have been Minister of at least 18 different portfolios, and three of them twice. You will be grateful that I do not intend to run through all my greatest hits, because there are so many. However, there’s a few in this term of Government that are worthy of noting. First, as Attorney-General, I am proud as Punch to be the one who, after 16 years of litigation and 180 years of injustice, settled the Nelson Tenths litigation. For this, I credit the remarkable fortitude and decency of the Stafford family, the great work from Crown Law and Te Puni Kōkiri, the Hon Tama Potaka, the negotiators, and all my parliamentary colleagues—all of you—who agreed to the deal. Thank you. A reminder, by the way, that that legislation still needs to be passed in order to give effect to the settlement, so, Chris Bishop, you’ve got one for me. Take that one for me. Please finish it.

Secondly, the Legislation Amendment Act 2026 and its implementation to make all secondary legislation freely available to the public was one of those cross-party pieces of work that we started in the Regulations Review Committee I chaired in Opposition and that I was able to get into place as the Attorney-General. Thank you to all my parliamentary colleagues for supporting this.

As the first Minister for Space in the world, or even, dare I say it, for the universe—that’s pretty cool—I have officially consented every vertical launch approval for the past 2½ years, and there have been quite a few. Our space industry is now worth $2.5 billion to our economy in a year, and it’s growing every year. That’s an enormous increase, from zero dollars just 10 years ago—it’s amazing. Being a Minister for Space has got me and our space agency—and, therefore, our New Zealand tech, defence, and space businesses—into overseas meetings at the highest levels, increasing New Zealand’s reputation as a country of innovation, of tech, and of space. That appointment costs us nothing, because it doesn’t matter if you have three or eight portfolios, the price paid for the Minister is the same, as I know! I’m just joking, Prime Minister. It’s nothing personal.

I’m pleased we’ve come a long way in digitising Government, in reforming the science system and promoting technology as a Kiwi strength, in adopting AI in Government, and in being the Minister responsible for our intelligence security agencies—who are, no doubt, here, but you can’t tell—and in continuing to play our part as responsible and reliable partners in keeping our country and other countries safe. I’m pleased my Cabinet paper on setting up Invest NZ was accepted, and my colleague Todd McClay is now overseeing it, to great success. Well done, Todd.

But it’s in defence where I feel I’ve made the most significant contribution. It should be no surprise that the daughter of a World War II veteran—yes, it is “daughter”, not “granddaughter” or, dare I say it, “great-granddaughter”, no, “daughter”; it’s so ageing when people say that—and someone who has been, for 24 years, the electorate member of Parliament for our special forces would consider this to have been my political destiny. I’ve come to know many of our defence people well, and I would like to acknowledge them all, with a special shout-out to my friend Staff Sergeant Tina Grant, whose empathy and courage when faced with her husband, Douglas, being killed in Afghanistan is still an inspiration to me today.

Through Defence, well before I was its Minister, I’ve met the most humble and good people. I was a friend, until her death, of the last secret agent from World War II: Pippa Latour Doyle. Years ago, I was made an honorary member of the Long Range Desert Group and an honorary Sapper, and as the Minister of Defence, last year I travelled with Defence to Ukraine. I would like to congratulate our Parliament for its unstinting support for the freedom of Ukraine. I am proud to say everywhere I go in the world that our Parliament supports Ukraine, and good on us.

Of course, a time of trial occurred for us in Defence with the loss of the HMNZS Manawanui. I stand by my statements at the time. It was a difficult time, but with no loss of life, it was not a tragedy. It also had nothing to do with gender. I’m proud of backing our people and supporting them during a tough time. Many thanks to all of our parliamentarians for doing the same.

On a happier note, the Defence Capability Plan, putting combat readiness back into Defence thinking and supporting it with money, was a highlight of my time in Government. Thank you to the Ministry of Defence, the New Zealand Defence Force, my colleagues, Government coalition partners, and Prime Minister Christopher Luxon. Particular thanks must go to the Hon Nicola Willis for being the first Minister of Finance in many lifetimes to put our money where my mouth was! Many thanks, as well, to the Rt Hon Winston Peters and the Hon David Seymour for their sterling support. Thanks, too, to the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins for supporting it in principle.

Of course, there have been tough times. Thank you to those of my colleagues who worked hard to do the best in the worst of circumstances. In particular, I would like to acknowledge you, Mr Speaker; Dr Shane Reti; David Bennett; Jacqui Dean; Andrew Bayly; Stuart Smith; Nicola Willis; Todd McClay; Hon Louise Upston; Harete Hipango; and Maureen Pugh for your courage and your friendship during the toughest of times, when I was asked to take the reins, in 2020, as the third Leader of the Opposition in seven weeks, during the global pandemic and a few months before the election. Despite us all wishing to, we never gave up, and we never ran away.

It is often commented that I have a bit of resilience. Well, you don’t get to be resilient unless you have to be, and I sometimes quip that adversity is just an opportunity to show character—so much adversity, so much character—but I accept I am a resilient soul, and for this I blame my parents! It’s all their fault; you know how it is. I was brought up to think I could do anything I sought to do, as long as I was prepared to work hard. I was fortunate to have parents old enough to be my grandparents, who taught me to read before I went to school, who imbued in me a love of history, and who made me feel like my views counted. Some people would unfairly describe me, the sixth child by a long way, of being spoilt. That is not true, and you are not to repeat it. I just never understood that I should know my place, nor accept other people’s limitations.

In my choice of parents, I was profoundly blessed. My father always told me to never let anyone make me feel less than them, and my mother told me that I was mummy’s little baby all the way from Heaven. I sometimes think I was better at living up to my father’s expectations than my mother’s.

Hon Members: Ha, ha!

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: What do you mean? Why are you laughing? On a serious note, we members of Parliament need to be resilient. It’s a tough gig. It’s a lot tougher since social media, and the way in which some mainstream media have chosen to adopt social media standards. I’m told that it’s all about advertising clicks these days, and that’s why headlines often seem completely at odds with the substantive article. Some advice to the fourth estate, love you as I do: most of our media are utterly professional and give no indication of their political views; be those people. Report the news; don’t be the news. And, for the avoidance of doubt, the news should be the truth—the facts, not someone’s reckons. Everyone has an opinion; don’t mistake it for news.

However, I would like to acknowledge that the true news of my resignation—because I shall never retire—was greeted with an outpouring of love around Parliament, and it was so lovely that I thought I’d died! The National Party in Papakura was momentarily devastated, or at least they told me so. Now, they have the lovely Emma Chatterton to replace me as their favourite daughter, and I wish her well.

It feels great to be going out on the high, and for this I thank you, Prime Minister. You have given me the privilege of so many ministries, departments, and agencies. Sometimes I felt I had a little bit too much privilege, but when you phoned me following the formation of the coalition Government, you told me to get a pen and paper and sit down. You then proceeded to rattle off eight portfolios. I thank you for your somewhat extreme confidence in me. Thank you for wanting me to stay a bit longer and thank you for letting me go a bit earlier. And thank you to the leaders of parties in Parliament for supporting my decision to move to my next career without causing a by-election. I and the taxpayers thank you.

Thank you to the the Hon Paul Goldsmith for his excellent decision—excellent decision; one of the best I’ve ever seen in a Minister of Justice, and I was one—in appointing me to be the next president of the Law Commission. I truly, truly appreciate your support.

To my dearest friends in Parliament, to my caucus colleagues, and to my many good friends on the opposing teams, I bid farewell. I now leave politics behind and move into an apolitical world with gusto and even relish. I’m over politics and looking forward to going back to my first loves: my family and the law. Thank you.

[Applause]

Sitting suspended from 5.51 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Bills

Overseas Adoptions Legislation Bill

First Reading

Debate resumed.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The House is resumed. We’re on the first reading of the Overseas Adoptions Legislation Bill. We’re at call No. 4.

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty) (19:30): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. On 16 September last year, this Parliament unanimously passed temporary legislation to update the Adoption Act 1955. Now, this piece of legislation makes those changes permanent, with a number of key legislative changes, which the Associate Minister of Justice the Hon Nicole McKee outlined in her first contribution to this debate. I welcome the opportunity for members of the public to have their say through submissions to the select committee and to making sure we get this legislation absolutely right. I commend it to the House.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Minister of Customs) (19:31): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on the Overseas Adoptions Legislation Bill. This is, as has been traversed quite frequently, an important piece of legislation that we have stepped in to do the practical steps. New Zealand First is a proud and consistent supporter of protecting community and country, and this bill leads into those exact points, which is about stepping in to protect our vulnerable and ensuring that there is practical action taken to resolve an issue that has been longstanding. It has created vulnerabilities in our immigration framework, and it has, more importantly, created significant vulnerabilities to children.

This is a piece of legislation that the Associate Minister of Justice the Hon Nicole McKee should be applauded for bringing to the House, for recognising issues, putting in temporary measures last year, and now progressing to ensure that this loophole and that practical legislation is put in place to fundamentally put the protection of children first and foremost. It is a common-sense approach, and, as you know, New Zealand First is a very strong advocate of our common-sense commitments to delivering resolutions. Therefore, I commend the bill to the House.

CARL BATES (National—Whanganui) (19:32): Thank you, Mr Speaker. In relation to what this bill does, particularly in relation to citizenship, it means that an adopted person will only be a New Zealand citizen as a result of an adoption if they meet the requirements of both the Citizenship Act 1977 and they are adopted under the Hague convention, or they are the subject of an adoption order made in the New Zealand Family Court. Once in New Zealand, an adopted person may be able to apply for citizenship by grant as set out in that 1977 Act. It’s really important that we make this clear for adopted children coming into New Zealand. Therefore, I commend this to the House.

Hon JENNY SALESA (Labour—Panmure-Ōtāhuhu) (19:33): Noa‘ia and happy Rotuman Language Week, Mr Speaker. Talofa lava, mālō e lelei, and warm greetings to everyone in the House tonight. I’d like to first of all thank the Associate Minister of Justice the Hon Nicole McKee and her officials for the work that they’ve put into developing this bill, as well as the bill that they put through last year to ensure that we actually addressed overseas adoptions.

As you know, this is actually not a new issue or problem that Aotearoa New Zealand is dealing with right now. There have been quite a number of community leaders, community organisations and a lot of people that have sent through what they thought were loopholes and gaps in our adoption law and have asked many different Governments to please address this issue. We are supportive of this bill because this is a long-term solution to an issue that we have dealt with for quite some time.

When our adoption laws have a loophole that unfortunately does not protect our most vulnerable in society, our tamariki, our children, it is something that we as parliamentarians must do something about, because every child deserves protection, from us as lawmakers. Every child deserves our advocacy as their representatives and our unwavering commitment to ensure that they are safe and to ensure their wellbeing.

For us here in the Labour Party, it doesn’t really matter that much whether the child we’re looking at to ensure they are protected and safe is a child that was born in this country or a child that was born overseas. We believe that every child, no matter where that child is born, no matter how that child came to Aotearoa, needs us to do our part as lawmakers to ensure they are safe.

What the Cabinet paper and a lot of the documents that have accompanied this bill show us is that there are some sobering stories. Some of them have been covered in the media, and some of these stories are really quite shocking for us to hear and to read about. It describes some of our front-line workers, some of our leaders coming through and asking many of us to address this particular loophole. It tells us that the Adoption Act 1955, an Act that is 71 years old, does not protect all of our children, especially those who are adopted from overseas, in the way that many of us as lawmakers would expect our laws to be able to protect.

Section 17 of the Adoption Act of 1955, which this bill addresses, has allowed adoptions to be recognised in Aotearoa New Zealand without a New Zealand court ever seeing their file, without Oranga Tamariki ever assessing the home that the child is about to be placed in, without a single check on the criminal history of the adoptive parents, and without any inquiry into whether or not the birth parents in the overseas country truly consented. We know that around 1,000 children every year come through on these overseas adoption - related pathways—1,000 children. Some are welcomed into loving homes, but unfortunately some are not.

What we also know is that about 76 percent or so of those overseas adoptions that come through to Aotearoa New Zealand are from one particular Pacific country. Many of us would have seen and heard, when the former bill that’s currently in play right now was read through the House, the case of a man in 2020 imprisoned for 11 years for trafficking and for slavery offences in Hawke’s Bay of 13 Samoan victims; three of them were children that had been adopted through this way.

This is a law that we absolutely stand by, and it is something that all of us, I hope, in this House, agree that addressing section 17 of the current Act is something we can stand by. Thank you. We support this bill.

RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini) (19:38): This is a really important, deeply profound bill that we’ve started the journey of today. It has made me think about when children are adopted, that it’s done so in a way that, one would think, is all about love and protection and protecting their bodies, their minds, and their hearts. To see what has been happening in our beautiful country of New Zealand is actually horrific. This bill is important to address that horror. I commend the bill.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) (19:38): Thank you for the opportunity to take a call on the Overseas Adoptions Legislation Bill. From the outset, I want to say that Labour is supporting this bill to the first reading and we welcome the select committee doing a full inquiry into this, and I really encourage members of the public to make submissions on this important issue.

At the heart of this bill is child safety. Child safety is, and should be, absolutely paramount, and as the Children’s Commissioner said, children’s rights must be at the centre of this bill, and it should be done with a children’s rights focus on it. I will talk to what I hope might happen throughout the rest of this bill progressing through the House.

I want to acknowledge the Hon Jenny Salesa for her contribution and the cases that she spoke to, which are prominent cases that have shone a light on this issue, for wider Aotearoa New Zealand to be aware of, and have required us as a Parliament to consider it and to respond. Temporary changes were initially put in place and, as we have heard tonight, the purpose of this bill is to make those temporary changes permanent. We’ve heard the awful cases where children have been adopted and then, sadly, gone on to be abused and hurt by the people who adopted them. We welcome the opportunity to, through this legislation, address key risks and issues in our international adoption law which place children at risk of harm and exploitation.

As has been spoken about in the House tonight, and what I also want to put some emphasis on, we do acknowledge that there are customary and kinship adoption practices. As tangata whenua, whāngai is something that we have struggled with in Aotearoa New Zealand, to ensure that we understand that the cultural and customary practice of whāngai is not akin to the Pākehā interpretation of adoption. We have a similar issue and challenge here where we are talking about the customary and kinship adoption practices of other Pacific nations. We have to be able to strike the balance between protecting children through legal mechanisms in the law and our processes and practices, but also understanding and accommodating customary and kinship practices.

I know there are many who believe that we are able to achieve that balance, and so it’s really important that the select committee carefully considers that. I would strongly encourage communities to submit and participate in the select committee process so that the select committee can be guided by that and do their work and bring that back to the House. We support the bill to select committee, but we ask the Government that they work with experts in the fields of human trafficking and slavery and make sure that we get this legislation right.

I can think back to the first Budget, when I was alarmed that cuts were being made to Oranga Tamariki and a restructure was happening to front-line services. One of the teams that were going to be impacted by that proposed restructure was the team that works in international protection of our children. I am pleased that Oranga Tamariki did not make those changes and that we still have that team in place. There are other non-Government organisations who have an interest and work in this space. I think it’s really important that the Government works with human-trafficking and slavery experts so that we get this legislation right, and, as I said, we want to make sure that there’s meaningful consultation with Pacific communities.

I do note that Mana Mokopuna, the Children’s Commissioner, supports this legislation, supported the temporary provisions that were put in, and was encouraged by further work that was being done around it. There are a number of things that the Children’s Commissioner has asked us all to consider in this process: as I said, making sure that we’re taking a children’s rights approach and that we continue to work closely with other nations, especially in the Pacific region, such as Samoa, to collectively strengthen safeguards for children in international adoption, so that all harm to children is prevented in this context.

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

Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam) (19:44): Yes, it is a great, great pleasure to rise and speak in support of the Overseas Adoptions Legislation Bill in this first reading. We’ve heard that there’s about 1,000 cases of international adoption in New Zealand each year, and it’s a very emotional topic. Those adopted children bring much joy and happiness to many families and get another shot at life, but this is about making sure that the processes are in place and that not only will those children be protected from human trafficking but they’re going to homes where they will be loved and they will not be abused or not have a fair advantage at life. Therefore, I commend this bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

Referral to Select Committee

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono) (19:44): The question is, That the Overseas Adoptions Legislation Bill be considered by the Justice Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Justice Committee.

Redress System for Abuse in Care Bill

Legislative Statement

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Lead Coordination Minister for the Government's Response to the Royal Commission’s Report into Historical Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-based Institutions) (19:45): I present a legislative statement on the Redress System for Abuse in Care Bill.

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

Second Reading

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Lead Coordination Minister for the Government's Response to the Royal Commission’s Report into Historical Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-based Institutions) (19:45): I move, That the Redress System for Abuse in Care Bill be now read a second time.

The Government is committed to supporting survivors of abuse and neglect through a range of initiatives to improve the State redress system. While we can never undo the harm of the past that they have experienced, we are committed to meaningful change to address the wrongs of the past and ensure that they are not repeated.

In May last year, the Government announced an investment of $533 million over four years to improve the State redress system for survivors. As this bill is about the redress system for survivors of abuse in State care, I want to take this opportunity to highlight some of what we have achieved over the last 12 months. Improvements have included an increase in settlement payments, the delivery of top-up payments, and the development of a clear, consistent, timely, and fair approach to payments. The average redress payment was increased by 50 percent, from $19,180 to $30,000. We’ve also introduced top-up payments to survivors with settled claims to ensure consistency, and increased payments for new claimants. As of 5 May, a total of $24 million has been paid, to 2,130 survivors for top-ups, an average amount of $11,671 per survivor. A common payment framework has been implemented that ensures survivors receive a settlement payment that reflects the severity and the frequency of the abuse and neglect they experienced, irrespective of where they were in care or the abuse or the neglect that occurred.

The purpose of the bill is to strengthen trust and confidence in the redress system. I want to thank the 168 individuals and organisations who submitted on the bill, including 35 who made oral submissions. Submitters included survivors, survivor advocacy groups, legal representatives, and community organisations. These submissions demonstrated care and concern about how the State responds to survivors who have experienced abuse and neglect in State care, and I want to specifically acknowledge the survivors of abuse and care who submitted. Thank you for your courage and your willingness to be part of this process. I also want to thank the members of the Social Services and Community Committee for their careful examination of the bill and recommendations to strengthen and improve it. I know that many of the submissions you considered would have covered some very confronting and difficult ground. Thank you for the care and sensitivity you have shown, especially to survivors of abuse in care.

The bill introduces a new process for survivors with certain serious violent and/or sexual offences who have been sentenced to five years or more in prison for that offence. This process will be overseen by an independent decision-maker, known as the redress officer, to determine if making a redress payment to a serious offender would not bring the scheme into disrepute. The bill also supports more meaningful personal apologies to be made by the State redress agencies to survivors by specifying that an apology cannot be used in subsequent litigation. This responds to the desire for many survivors to receive more fulsome and specific apologies than agencies are currently able to offer because the standard for abuse to be taken into account as part of the redress process is different to a court or litigation - type process. It is the Government’s intention that apologies should acknowledge and take responsibility for the harm experienced by survivors and should include tangible actions that have been or will be taken to prevent similar harm occurring again.

The committee recommended that the bill pass, and recommended several amendments. The amendments strengthen and refine the procedural steps set out in the bill. The proposal in the bill that generated the most feedback from submitters was the presumption against the payment of financial redress to serious offenders who have been sentenced to five or more years for that offence. Many submitters were concerned that this proposal ignored the connection between abuse in care and offending later in life or that it diminished the level of responsibility the State has for abuse in care survivors. This aspect of the bill is in no way intended to diminish the abuse and neglect survivors suffered. Instead, its intention is to protect the integrity of the State redress system by ensuring a payment of financial redress to a serious violent or sexual offender does not bring the system into disrepute, and it is a similar provision in other countries as part of their redress scheme.

It is expected that the provision will impact a very small number of people. Of the survivors that have completed the declaration - criminal record checking process to date, less than 2 percent have been identified as being in the scope of the provision.

All survivors within the scope of presumption will still have access to other forms of redress such as an apology, access to care records, or wellbeing support. They may also apply to the redress officer to have this presumption overturned, and in other countries that happens in many occasions. It is also expected that many survivors who apply to have the presumption overturned will ultimately be awarded financial redress on the basis that doing so would not bring the system into disrepute or adversely affect public confidence in the redress system.

Two changes have been made to clarify the scope of the bill. A new clause provides the bill does not apply to redress for torture, recognising the response to torture is a separate process relating to New Zealand’s obligations under the convention against torture. Abuse in State care claims relating to the Lake Alice Psychiatric Hospital Child and Adolescent Unit have also been excluded from the scope of the bill to preserve the long-established separate process for those claims.

Improvements have been made to the redress officer appointment process. These include specified appointment length, allowing their removal in cases of incapacity or inability to perform their role, ensuring their independence from redress agencies, and allowing the Minister to appoint an alternative redress officer where the redress officer is not able to act.

The competencies required for the redress officer have also been strengthened to require them to understand the impact of abuse and neglect in care on survivors, as well as having the ability to work effectively with people from diverse cultures and backgrounds.

Several submitters raised the concern that the offence provisions in the bill would act retrospectively. The bill has been amended to remove the retrospective application of the offenses, consistent with good lawmaking principles.

The decision-making framework in the bill has been refined to ensure that it is clear and consistent with natural justice requirements. These changes clarify the test to overturn the presumption, clarify the weighting of factors considered by the redress officer, ensures the right of the applicant to make submissions, and requires the redress officer to communicate their decisions in writing with reasons.

The redress officer can also now consider more than one reapplication by a serious offender to overturn the presumption against financial redress. This would be where there has been a change of circumstances that could reasonably be expected to change the outcome of a previous decision to not award financial redress.

The committee also recommended changes to protect survivors’ personal information. Redress agencies will be required to disclose any information obtained as part of the criminal record check if the survivor is not a serious offender.

The bill also provides, for the avoidance of doubt, that criminal record information must not be used in relation to any assessment of a survivor’s redress claim.

Two Amendment Papers at the committee of the whole House stage to make further changes to the bill have also been released. The first, Amendment Paper 569, gives effect to the Government’s recent decisions around redress for abuse in State mental health facilities. As I previously announced, the Government has extended the State redress system scheme to include claims of abuse in State mental health facilities from 1 July 1993 to 30 June 2022. This is known as “Charlotte’s change”, and it will result in redress being available to more survivors of abuse in State mental health care.

Previously, the State redress system covered claims for abuse in mental health inpatient settings up to 30 June 1993. After that point, responsibility for these claims sat with many different organisations. Responsibilities for these claims were transferred to Health New Zealand after it was created as a Crown entity on 1 July 2022, but Health New Zealand does not have a formal consistent redress process in place to manage or respond to historic claims. Survivors of abuse are not responsible for it, nor should they carry the burden of a health system restructure or structural reforms or the way that the Government organises itself, and the person who is abused in mental health inpatient care should have the same ability to access redress as if it happened in 1988 or 2018, and I want to acknowledge the bravery of Charlotte and other survivors who fought for many years, through many processes and dead ends, to have the abuse they experienced in State mental health care settings since 1993 acknowledged. And the redress system expanded so that their claims can be responded to.

A second Amendment Paper—581—will amend the bill to respond to situations where survivors have a terminal illness or die before their claim is resolved. The Government has agreed that the redress officer will have the discretion to exempt a survivor from the serious offender process if they have a terminal illness with a prognosis of less than six months. This approach ensures survivors are not unfairly disadvantaged or delayed by the procedural requirements associated with the serious offenders process. They’ll also ensure terminally ill survivors have an opportunity to settle their affairs before they die.

Finally, the bill will be amended to confirm that families and estates of survivors can continue with claims through the serious offenders process if a survivor dies after registering a claim. This aligns with how redress agencies respond to claims from survivors who are not serious offenders.

I commend the bill to the House.

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

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) (19:55): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Labour remains clear about this bill. We oppose it. We appreciate the work that the Social Services and Community Committee has done to make some improvements to the bill, and the Lead Coordination Minister for the Government’s Response to the Royal Commission’s Report into Historical Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-based Institutions for recent announcements which we support. But the fact remains that the bill is unwelcome and ill-conceived—92 percent of the submissions to the select committee were opposed to this bill.

The bill goes against the recommendations of the royal commission—the explicit recommendations of the royal commission—and it goes against them in many ways.

First, I want to point out that there was no meaningful survivor involvement in the development of this bill. This bill was not developed with the active involvement of survivors. The royal commission was clear that survivors wanted to be involved in the process of any redress and to be able to have confidence that redress was appropriate for survivors’ holistic needs. If survivors had been involved in the development of this bill, I am confident that we would not be using up valuable time of this House to discuss it today.

It does not provide restoration or healing. The royal commission roundtable on redress highlighted that as well as being survivor led, restoration and healing should be central to any redress scheme—restoration and healing for survivors, their whānau, and communities. This bill, grandly titled the Redress System for Abuse in Care Bill does nothing to advance restoration and healing.

It denies the evidence between childhood harm and later criminal behaviour. In fact, the bill singles out for different treatment a group of survivors that the royal commission explicitly said should receive redress—full redress; not just bits of it that the State that abused them thinks that they should be eligible for. It is worthwhile quoting the royal commission on this. They stated, “we consider there should continue to be no exclusion for serious offenders or any extra criteria for them to meet. A large number of those in prison have been in care and the tūkino they suffered may have contributed to their offending. Most are Māori, and they and their whānau are likely to be among those most in need of help through the scheme.”

The evidence is robust regarding the relationship between childhood harm and trauma and criminal offending later in life. In its report—under “Pathway to imprisonment”—the royal commission found that imprisonment rates were high for survivors of abuse and neglect in care. Previous research found that one in five and up to one in three individuals who resided in social welfare institutions during the inquiry period served a criminal custodial sentence later in life. The experience was worse for those Māori survivors, who were disproportionately put into social welfare institutions and prison. And that is also noted in the Cabinet paper.

An example here is the notorious Whakapakari programme, where children were sent away to Aotea Island, isolated from everyone and everything they knew, and they experienced the most hideous abuse and trauma. The royal commission found that 100 percent of children placed in the Whakapakiri programme by Child, Youth and Family Services ended up in the adult justice system. Survivors who have been sentenced for crimes have experienced this punishment. They do not need to be punished further by being presumptively excluded from financial redress.

This bill also disregards the high-level design group’s work. I’d like to remind us all in this House of the phenomenal work that the redress high-level design group did to put forward a thorough and considered proposal on what a redress system could look like. This group was made up of survivors, of advocates, and of experts, acting on the need for a redress system to be designed by and for survivors.

This group was supported by a representative advisory committee. The high-level design group’s proposal echoed the royal commission’s recommendations that survivors with a criminal record who were in prison should be eligible for full redress, so, again, this bill flies in the face of what anyone thinks is the right thing to do.

I would note that after 20 years of financial payments, no sign of public concern has been raised. The bill is a reflection of the cynical and misguided views of the Government towards survivors. It is not necessary. The State has been providing financial redress for survivors, including survivors who have convictions for serious and violent offences, for 20 years. There has been no concern from the public about this. There is no need for a presumption against survivors who have sentences for serious and violent offences. The State breached the rights of children and at-risk adults in the State’s supposed care. These breaches must be addressed through redress from the State, including the option of financial redress.

There are a couple of other provisions in the bill that I want to speak to. In terms of the apologies, the bill has provisions in there that relate to the apologies, but they too are flawed and unnecessary. As expert submitters highlighted, the State redress scheme apologies are based on settlement conditions that prevent further civil proceedings. Survivors want and need apologies to them to be meaningful and genuine, otherwise they are not a proper apology, yet by legislating away any liability or fault, the apology immediately becomes insincere. This will mean that survivors continue to receive apologies that have no meaning and, therefore, do not help restore or heal their mana.

I note that the Minister has two amendments to the bill, which we will consider further in the committee of the whole House stage. Like the Minister, I would like to acknowledge Charlotte, whose story of abuse in mental health settings and her battle for redress led the Minister to put forward one of these amendments. Before closing, I do want to highlight that Labour will be putting forward a number of amendments to this bill that I sincerely hope will be given full consideration during the committee of the whole House stage.

In closing, the point I’d like to make is that survivors deserve more than this. They should have been consulted and involved in the development of this redress bill. They deserve what they have been asking for, and that is a redress scheme that works for them—one where they don’t have to prove themselves to agencies that abuse them, and one where they are not excluded and then required to jump through hoops to prove they are worthy of redress. I quote from the high-level design group’s report of their vision for a survivor-led redress system “that supports the reclamation of survivor mana, healing, and justice”.

This bill is not a redress system. It is a bill to presumptively exclude and make life harder for survivors who have likely experienced some of the most severe abuse and trauma. It is not the right thing to do. We do not support this bill.

TAMATHA PAUL (Green—Wellington Central) (20:04): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of Te Pāti Kākāriki to speak to this bill. I echo many of the whakaaro shared by the Hon Willow-Jean Prime before me.

I just want to state for the record: you know, this is not a bill that is just addressing the way that a system has been set up. This is a bill that was meant to be an attempt at addressing and acknowledging and owning the pain and the abuse and the torture and the harassment and the violence endured by hundreds of thousands of tamariki in Aotearoa at the hands of the State. That’s something that we all have to own in this room, because we are all part of that same State. We can see that even in the way that that harm has been addressed and acknowledged is further perpetuating more harm, rather than bringing this dark era in the history of this country to an end.

I want to begin by acknowledging some of the advocates—just a small number of many advocates and survivors and mōrehu that have been such an important part of this journey. In particular, I want to acknowledge Denise Caltaux, Eugene Ryder, Dr Rawiri Waretini-Karena, Mike Sansom, and Kenneth Clearwater. Those are just a few people who have been in touch with many of us in this House to let us know how we can make sure that the State implements all of the recommendations from the royal commission of inquiry.

I wanted to also add my thanks to the select committee for their diligent work on this bill and trying to improve it, and I also wanted to acknowledge my colleague Kahurangi Carter, who’s been leading this work for the Greens.

I want to quote the Prime Minister, because it was him who stood up on 12 November 2024 and offered the official apology on behalf of the State. In it, he offered “a formal and unreserved apology”—a formal and unreserved apology. Now, to me, an “unreserved apology” means an apology without conditions, but what this redress system and what this bill shows us is a system that is completely conditional. It’s completely premised on the condition that survivors meet a certain standard in order to have full redress for the pain and the abuse that they endured.

But it also raises some questions about the intent of the State. Is this really about acknowledging the harm that was caused by the State, or is this about covering the Crown’s self or covering the Crown’s liability by effectively diminishing the claims—by saying that if you accept this apology and if you accept this redress, you will never be able to use that evidence, your experience, in a court ever again? That really reminds me of one of the royal commission of inquiry’s findings, and that was that throughout the process of the royal commission of inquiry, the Crown’s goal was to “discourage other claimants and limit its liability for abuse in care.”.

I can’t help but think that that’s the purpose of this bill. It’s completely cynical. It’s not about remorse, and it’s not about victims—and for a Government that laments about how much they care about victims, I can’t believe how much victims have been completely disregarded in the creation of this redress system, because the royal commission of inquiry recommended a single redress system that was victim focused and trauma informed.

This is not a single redress system. This is a two-tiered redress system where, if you have committed a serious violent or sexual crime, you are not permitted to financial redress. You are not permitted to the full redress for the abuse that you endured. The reason given is that it compromises the integrity of the redress system. As my colleague Willow-Jean said—and this is in the Labour Party’s differing view—there are other payments that survivors receive within our financial system, and they don’t require knowing whether someone has committed certain types of crimes or not.

I think the principle for us is that you’ve got children who were sexually and physically and mentally abused while their brain was developing. The royal commission of inquiry made a point that violence was normalised and institutionalised throughout these kids’ upbringings, so why are we surprised that when these kids go into the real world, they think that violence is acceptable? It’s because it was taught to them. It wasn’t taught to them by their family or by their parents. It was taught to them by us—by the State. That’s the grand hypocrisy in this bill—that you’re penalising people who learned patterns of violence and who were taught those methods of violence by the State. That’s the grand hypocrisy of it all.

The other point that the royal commission of inquiry really emphasised is that a lot of these kids were disabled. A lot of these kids had conditions like fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. If you’ve been into a prison in New Zealand, you’ll understand that a lot of the people who are incarcerated suffer from mental or genetic disorders like fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, which impairs their ability to make judgments. It impairs their ability to not be peer pressured into violent behaviour because they have the mental faculties of toddlers or children in some cases. It just feels like this bill has been designed completely devoid of the reality of these kids, because you have to think about them as children and you have to think about how sensitive and fragile and gentle our brains are when we are kids and how all of the things that adults do to us will inform the way that we behave, the way that we interact with the world, and the way that we interact with each other. That’s the most disappointing thing about this bill.

Now, again, I tautoko all those points that I can’t perceive this bill as anything other than cynical. To me, this bill is about the State wiping their hands and feeling like they’re never going to have to talk about this again and they’re never going to have to address survivors again because they’ve done their job, but they haven’t, because they’ve ripped off survivors in the way that they’ve designed this bill. As I said at the beginning, in an apology, you apologise without conditions. If you are truly sorry or truly remorseful for your actions, you give that apology regardless of the way it might be received or regardless of what risk it poses to you in the future. If your apology is contingent upon what might happen to you in the future and that you might actually be held to account for the things that you were responsible for, then that apology doesn’t mean anything at all.

The other thing that we are really concerned about what this bill is that it excludes deceased survivors. We know, after hearing from survivors over the last couple of years and, indeed, in the royal commission of inquiry, that many survivors have passed on. In fact, many of those survivors took their own lives. We also have some research here from the New Zealand Medical Journal that says that childhood trauma actually limits someone’s life expectancy, so many of the survivors are suffering from debilitating health conditions, disabilities, and shorter life expectancies due to the way that they were treated as kids.

Now, to end this all, I really want to emphasise that this isn’t good enough. Not only is it not good enough because of the way that it’s been designed and the way that it totally echoes concerns that the royal commission outlined in terms of the State motivations behind this redress system, I also want to say it means nothing when you have a Government who continue to facilitate the abuse of children and continue to ignore evidence that the boot camps that they’re currently trialling—and that were a complete failure in their first pilot—will be another complete failure. They have ignored experts, children themselves, advocates, survivors of abuse in State care who have said that boot camps don’t work, and they continue to do them. Now, they’ve introduced the Policing Amendment Bill, which means that police will be able to pull up kids on the road, take their photos, take their fingerprints, and have that on record, creating, again, generational cycles of harm. Again, for a Government that says that they care about victims, this bill shows that you couldn’t care less about victims and their real experiences, lives, and trauma.

LAURA McCLURE (ACT) (20:14): I rise in support of this bill. I was part of the Social Services and Community Committee that heard these submissions, so, firstly, I just want to say thank you to all of those survivors that very bravely came forward to tell us their stories. I know that that must be really challenging and really difficult. I think the Minister outlined the changes that the select committee has landed on and what they actually mean, so I’m not going to go through all those, but what I will say, listening to the debates from the Opposition, is I’m challenging you. Will you change this? Will you do better if you’re in Government? I seriously, actually, question that and the ability to do that and how you’ll pay for it. That is always going to be a real challenge of any Government that is in position at any point in time, and this is a starting point. There could be more that could come out from this. I think the other thing I really want to point out is that there may not be financial redress for those that go on to commit serious crimes and harm a lot more victims than just themselves, but there is actually supports in place and other services and accessible things that they can actually access as well. It’s not an apology and that’s it; there are other things that are in place here.

Talking to somebody who is a survivor, in this situation and about this bill, about what they feel, they said that they would be really, really hurt and unhappy if their abuser who was abused in State care was to get some kind of financial redress. There is always, always two sides to the story, and I think we should always remember that. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Minister of Customs) (20:15): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on the Redress System for Abuse in Care Bill. I, firstly, acknowledge the trauma and the challenges that have faced so many people who are innocent and adversely impacted by a State that did not provide the level of support and care. This is a complex and emotive issue, and I acknowledge that. This is a challenging process, but I think that we have to ensure that, in our expression of emotion, we are not losing sight of the reality of the complexity of the system we’re trying to introduce. We’re trying to optimise the system and deliver something that is workable, that is sustainable, and that is meeting, as much as it can, the needs of those individuals.

Now, when there are statements made in this House that a person who has been convicted of serious, violent offending cannot get redress, that is just not true. That is not what this bill is saying. There is a different process. There is a different system in place that is fair and reasonable to ensure, as has been said repeatedly, that the integrity of the system is retained. The apologies that have been referred to as being “worth nothing” are not worth nothing. All of this work has been built around the fact that the State has acknowledged and will continue to acknowledge and deliver support as is needed. This is not an easy solution for anyone. There is much that has been achieved already in the delivering and improvement of the redress system and in ensuring that it is run effectively and properly. There are great people with huge heart, compassion, and empathy that are driving this system, and that is not to be discredited by a piece of legislation where we debate in the House and discredit the entire system. That is unfair to those that are working so hard to rectify the damage that has been caused to so many.

This bill is an important step forward in clarifying systems and creating clarity. This does create some support in the urgent solutions around those that pass away after lodging their claims, and it is going to be debated in the committee of the whole House. This is not an easy solution, but it is not a time where this House should be debating and throwing across the House that one side cares more than another. We all care. We all hung our heads in shame when this apology was issued, and we meant it sincerely. What we have to do is deliver practical solutions with a sustainable system that will continue to meet the needs of those that have been harmed, and that’s what this bill is working towards. It is not the only solution, and it is not the end solution. It is working towards ensuring that we have a good and stable system to meet the needs of those that have been harmed. Therefore, on behalf of New Zealand First, I commend the bill to the House.

RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori) (20:19): Tēnā tātou. Otirā kei te mihi ki ngā mōrehu i tūkinohia e te Kāwanatanga me ōna tari katoa, ngā hāhi i tūkinohia e ngā tāngata, ngā mōrehu e ora tonu i tēnei rā, me te hunga kāre i konei ki te rongo i ngā kōrero kua whiua ki roto i te Whare nei. Kei te tangi tonu i runga i te āhuatanga o tēnei o ngā kaupapa kei mua i a tātou.

[Greetings to us all. However, I acknowledge the survivors that suffered abuse by the Government and all of its agencies; the faithful that were abused by people, the survivors that are alive today, and those who are not here to hear the statements expressed in this House. I continue to grieve due to the nature of this topic that is before us.]

I want to acknowledge all survivors of abuse in State and faith-based care. All survivors deserve redress for the hell that the State and the church put them through. We would be supporting this bill if it delivered redress to all survivors, but it does not. This bill will exclude all serious offenders from receiving redress for the abuse they suffered at the hands of the State, and it will provide legal protection for the State agencies that enabled this abuse.

There is nothing more unjust than a system designed to punish survivors and protect perpetrators, but, somehow, this is exactly what we’ve ended up with. It’s been seven years since the royal commission of inquiry into abuse in care was established. Their final report, Whanaketia—through pain and trauma, from darkness to light, found that 200,000 people were abused in care between 1950 and 1999, and the report suggested 138 recommendations to provide justice to survivors to ensure that this abuse never happens again. It’s almost two years on from the release of this report, and the Government has yet to implement any significant reforms to the child protection system, and, now, they have decided that the best course of action—the best course of action—is to punish survivors and tell them that they are not worthy of redress or reparation.

This bill goes to the heart of the justice system of this Government’s tough on crime agenda. Now, I understand why they are so blind to the drivers of crime; they can’t even see when those drivers are the very institutions they control. We cannot forget that it was the State who inflicted this trauma. Exposure to childhood trauma is one of the leading drivers of adult offending. If our redress and justice system does not recognise this, the Government will continue to enable a cycle of abuse and incarceration that will impact our mokopuna for generations to come.

We must be the circuit breaker. The Government must amend this bill to provide redress to all survivors. If the threshold is torture, what does that look like? What is the threshold in regards to torture? If somebody is abused in State care—sexually abused, physically abused, and mentally abused—and that has worked towards the outcome of where that person is today, then what is the threshold? The low bar that this Government is setting through this particular bill is torture. Can somebody explain to me what that low bar is? What does torture look like?

Today, I am reaffirming Te Pāti Māori’s commitment to survivors and to our mokopuna currently incarcerated by the State. We will implement all 138 recommendations from the royal commission of inquiry into abuse in care. We will end the State care of mokopuna Māori. We will establish an independent mokopuna Māori authority, and we will empower the rights of mokopuna in legislation. Te Pāti Māori absolutely opposes this bill. Kia ora tātou.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (20:23): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand to also oppose the Redress System for Abuse in Care Bill at its second reading.

The apology and this bill should have been a moment for the victims of State abuse to have closure, for them and their whānau to move on with their lives, but this bill is antithetic to the very purpose that this bill suggests, and this sullies the apology that we have seen in 2024. As part of the select committee process, I want to acknowledge the bravery of all of the submitters who came forth to tell the committee, as part of the royal commission of inquiry process, their experiences. I want to acknowledge those who have been harmed by the State—those who are Māori, Pasifika, the rainbow communities, and the disabled communities.

I accept the fact that, as members of Parliament, we are expected to read on a bill, because that bill gives tangible effect to what we’ll be seeing out there in Aotearoa, but I also want to take a moment and remind people of the heinous acts that have been conducted on these innocent people by the State. For a moment, I want everyone in this House to put themselves in the shoes of those victims. The royal commission of inquiry shared some of those experiences where survivors said, “I peeked through the window and cried for my parents.”, “The staff made it clear that islanders didn’t belong to this world.”, and “The examination told me that adults had rights to my body.” These are the experiences of the survivors, and the Government, through this bill, has sullied those experiences and what people have asked.

The ask is simple. For this bill and for the redress to be in line with the recommendations of the royal commission of inquiry. What I have seen through the select committee stage is that, as the bill was put together, it lacked meaningful consultation with, and involvement of, the survivors. The survivors are reasonable. They know what the State is able to provide. They know what is needed. They know sometimes the time it takes for certain things to happen. They’re not asking for the world. They’re just asking for them and their families to be able to regain and reclaim their mana, and to regain and reclaim their culture and their place within our world. This bill—the process that has been proposed by this bill—has failed them yet again.

This bill and the system that is being proposed is looking to retraumatise these victims by asking them to go to the same people who have abused them in the first place. This is not about money; this is not about funding; this is about doing what is right. They have asked for the establishment of an independent survivor-led redress system. They have asked for the process of applying for financial redress to not be punitive. They have asked that everyone be considered as a part of this process, including some of the deceased survivors. These are reasonable asks by the survivors.

Again, I want to acknowledge and thank the survivors for coming forward because it is not easy for them. It is easy for us as parliamentarians to maybe debate on something like this, but we forget who is at the centre of all of this, and that is the victims. Their ask is simple. Adopt the full recommendation of the royal commission of inquiry. That is what the victims want, not empty words and not thoughts and prayers from this Government.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland) (20:28): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I rise to speak on the Redress System for Abuse in Care Bill in its second reading. I just want to start by acknowledging all of the survivors of abuse in State and faith-based care who may be watching this or may watch it later, and I acknowledge and deeply empathise with them. The apology in State care was a big moment, and I’ve heard from many, not only in New Zealand but also around the world, who heard that, and it affected them deeply. It’s an important moment, and this is another step forwards in realising what needs to follow from it, but there’s more to do.

Just on this bill, it provides a redress scheme operated by a State agency, which is to recognise a person’s experience of abuse in care, to offer an alternative to litigation, to provide for redress for abuse in care, including a financial payment and apology, and counselling, or other wellbeing support.

This is a matter that is very delicate and deserves careful examination. It has been a little disappointing to hear from the Opposition that they have been focusing on the 2 percent who have a slightly more stringent process; 98 percent will not. Ninety-eight percent of victims of abuse in care will not have that more stringent process. What is that more stringent process, and why is it there? It is not to minimise the trauma that those people experienced when they were children, when they should have been cared for, and when they should have been safe in the care of the State or in the care of a faith-based institution. They experienced trauma that should not have happened, and it should never happen again. There is a little issue, though, that we cannot ignore. Some of them regrettably went on to commit serious harm to others, and that’s what the 2 percent who come under the more stringent process is about—2 percent. Like I say, it’s not to minimise their experience, it’s not to minimise the trauma they went through, and it is not to take away the fact that people who have crimes committed against them as children which can traumatise them and can be a contributing factor to them traumatising others, but it’s to ensure that we keep the confidence of New Zealanders that this is a scheme that recognises harm done to all in different phases.

We have a more stringent process. If someone has committed a serious violent or sexual offence—and these are very serious violent or sexual offences—and they have continued to five or more years in prison, then this more stringent process will apply to them. I’ve spent years—a decade—working in courts across this country, and I’m well aware it is difficult to get a sentence of five or more years in prison for many offences. That is a very serious offence. I hear Mr Bennett. who I don’t think quite, maybe, has the same experience in the court system—

Glen Bennett: I have indeed.

JOSEPH MOONEY: Well, I’ve worked as a defence lawyer across Manukau District Court, the Auckland District Court, Tauranga District Court, the Christchurch District Court, the Invercargill District Court, Dunedin District Court, Queenstown District Court, Gore District Court, and Alexandra District Court, the High Court, and the Court of Appeal. I’ve done many, many judge-alone trials and many jury trials. I’ve been a mental health advocate, a youth advocate. I know this extremely well, Mr Bennett. To get five or more years’ imprisonment is for very serious offending, so to ensure that we retain confidence in the system, from all New Zealanders, and that everyone believes this is a fair and appropriate system, there is a more stringent process that will apply for the 2 percent who have committed a serious violent or sexual offence and have been sentenced to five or more years in prison. It does not mean they cannot get redress. It just means that there is a more robust process to assess their application.

This is an important step forward. It is not taking away anything from anyone and from their experience of harm that they should not have experienced. This is about maintaining faith in the system from all New Zealanders, which is critical to ensuring that this is an enduring process. We want to ensure that we have a process that properly acknowledges, properly redresses, and ensures that all people can be confident that we have got this right for all. I am confident that this is a bill that has done that, so thank you.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert) (20:34): Thank you. I work with Joseph Mooney on the Social Services and Community Committee, and I have a very different view of this matter, and I want to speak respectfully because he is right; he has been a lawyer in those systems. My friend Glen Bennett has looked after many children who have been affected by trauma. I think that both of those are perspectives that are important. I think there’s a wide Sargasso Sea between the Labour Party and the National Party on this one, and I want to explain why.

The first thing that I want to say is I don’t think this is a grown-up response. We have people in this country who were abused in State care, and we are the guardians of that in this place. I find it really hard to listen to people acknowledging the trauma and talking about apologies. Actually, that’s what we’re taught to do in media training—acknowledge the trauma, talk to the thing, acknowledge it, then move on, and do exactly what we feel like. That’s a cynical approach, and I don’t expect that in this place. I don’t want it in this place. In this situation, acknowledging the trauma and apologising is something that requires us to enter wholeheartedly because people were seriously damaged, systematically.

One of the things that we have seen, even in this very system and in this very process, is a tendency for institutions to minimise their responsibility. We had an issue recently where we had people saying that when they took these cases to court, they were put to the test and the Crown lawyers said, “That was our job. We had to minimise.” This piece of legislation is also minimising. It’s not paying people what they would get for the harm done to them. It’s limiting the liability.

While that might need to be done for the reasons that we just simply haven’t got enough money and we cannot, cannot ever have money actually redress this kind of harm, because it just will never be enough, we need to, first of all, acknowledge what we are doing honestly, which is we are putting a piece of legislation through that means that people will not be able to sue. Somebody who has been traumatised and who has been hurt severely by the State is no longer allowed to take a court action. This is what they must do. They must go through this process, which will have a limit on it. The cheque will be limited, and they are expected to accept the apology that this piece of legislation gives, which is a limited one. What we have here with this 2 percent and why it’s so important, Mr Mooney, to us is that this 2 percent are likely to be, actually, the most damaged. What we’re saying to them is, “We apologise, but.” We’re not saying, “We accept that the State hurt you and it actually destroyed a lot of your life.” We’re not doing that; we’re saying, “Nah, we’re not doing that today. We are just going to stop short of that. We will not be apologising fully.”

Now, I looked up a definition of “apologising” etc., and I got a sort of psychological definition, and it said that we need to own our actions when we have done something wrong, then we need to experience genuine remorse, and then we need to make reparations—this is the kicker—without shifting blame and excuses. We must fully accept our responsibility, and that’s got no causal connection with what that person did next. I am never going to say it’s OK for somebody to victimise someone else, but it’s got no causal connection for us, because we as a State and we as a society need to say that what we were involved in was actually evil, it was wrong, and it hurt someone, and it doesn’t actually matter what happened next. We must take responsibility. That’s why the royal commission actually made that point. It needed to be one system. It needed to wholeheartedly address the abuse that had happened. That’s what it had to do. That is a mature response from a mature society.

Now, the second part of that—there is another part of that—is that we are in a situation now where we have a group of people who will not be compensated in that way, and guess who’s keeping the money! Where do you think it’s going? I suggested at the select committee that, perhaps, we could look at some sort of compromise where it went to the victims of the next crime, but, no, apparently not. It couldn’t do that. It was far too complicated, so, actually, the State is keeping the money. That’s what’s happening. I can tell you that we had people coming in in the submission process who were in utter despair, because this undermines the very principle of the thing. We had one man who came in, and he was really upset because we had moved very fast on the later additions, and you could just tell he just had absolutely no trust whatsoever. That’s what we do. We’ve left people in despair when we could have made good. We might not have given everything, but we needed to give the essentials, and the essentials including no excuses and no shifting blame.

We had an issue, that gets talked about a bit, about the connection between the person being abused and criminal behaviour next. Often, I think, on this side of the House, we feel like we’re being told this is somehow woke and that this is not real and that we should be grown up and accept people are responsible for their own actions. Well, I don’t think those two things go together. I think people are responsible for what they do, but I don’t think any intelligent human being can ignore the correlation between the abuse people suffer in childhood and the fact they end up in prison. It’s absolutely overwhelming. About 98 percent of people in our prisons have been abused.

The first thing we need to do, if we are going to fix what is a sick society, is we need to acknowledge that. Instead, today, we put our hands over our ears again, and we say there are angels and there are demons and demons don’t get paid out. We won’t give them the money. We’ve turned this into something where we’re so afraid of our own shadows that we are saying that the public won’t understand this, and our reason for not giving them the money—our reason for not giving someone who’s been viciously abused the same money as someone else who’s been viciously abused—is because it wouldn’t go down well with the public and that it would bring the system into disrepute. That’s what we are saying.

Well, I don’t believe it would bring the system into disrepute. I think that the system would be stronger and our society would be stronger if we were prepared to accept responsibility for the actions of a State that were utterly criminal. I think that would be the thing that would raise us in the eyes of the public, because our public are real human beings and they know people who have been hurt and they’re part of this. This is really important.

It’s not a case where I accept that there is such a test. I think it’s a ridiculous test. I think, if we want a system with integrity, we need to start treating all people who were abused by the State in the same way and give them all the same respect. That does not mean not acknowledging—in fact, it actually means acknowledging—that people who are abused are in our prisons. Our prisons are full of them. That is why I cannot support this piece of legislation.

DANA KIRKPATRICK (National—East Coast) (20:44): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, to begin with, can I acknowledge all of those survivors and the families and the folk who presented to the select committee. I want to also thank the select committee—the Social Services and Community Committee—for the work on this bill, and the contributions from my colleague Joseph Mooney and from Casey Costello, particularly in their measured response to how this is playing out in the House.

I had just arrived at the select committee when they begin debating the departmental report, and I know the effort and commitment that went into this. The horrific and traumatic accounts from the submitters, many of them as survivors or their families and friends, weighed heavily on committee members, but nothing is as heavy as the circumstances that brought us to this point and what the victims and survivors endured themselves. They have fought so hard for this redress and for this moment in time.

I think, just to get back to the bill, the bill will ensure some clarity to continue in the process and recognise a person’s abuse in State care, as well as offering an alternative to litigation if they so choose, including one of three options: the financial payment, an apology, or counselling or other support, as appropriate. It will also address a number of other issues that were brought through.

I understand that a couple of amendments will be made by the Minister to the bill from the select committee process, but I think, largely, this is an important step to provide clarity and a way forward to continue that conversation and to reach an end for some of these people who have endured so much over such a long time. I’m sure this will be a debate that will continue for years ahead—there is still so much passion around this topic and this particular issue—but in order to keep us moving, I commend the bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): This is a split call. I call Ingrid Leary.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri) (20:46): Thanks, Madam Speaker. When I rise tonight, I’m thinking of Fa‘amoana John Luafutu from The White Guitar, a film made by my dear friend Nina Nawalowalo that I saw in Dunedin and pretty much cried all the way through. It was a harrowing story of a young Pasifika boy whose parents had come over from Samoa to New Zealand for the good life, who was bullied at school, and who was excluded and isolated at school through some language issues and through the dominant culture at the school and then taken into State care under the most ridiculously slim reasons, for very minor transgressions, and ended up going into the Ōwairaka Boys’ Home and then to the Kohitere Boys’ Training Centre, where he suffered horrific abuse, and where he suffered isolation and cruelty, was exposed to violence, was secluded, and suffered all kinds of mental distress; who suffered mental health issues; who came out and had to find his way in the world—a highly intelligent man with huge ability in the arts, who at some point got involved with a gang and, towards the later years of his life, contributed to one of New Zealand’s most musical families and who was awarded an MNZM in 2023 for his contributions to art and to the abuse in State care process.

I think of him, and I think of people like Ken Clearwater and others, and I apologise to him tonight, because I think this bill makes a mockery of the apology and the redress process that they have staked so much hope and optimism in. I note, when I listened to the speeches, that Erica Stanford spoke very quietly; I don’t believe she is proud of this bill. I don’t believe that she thinks this is the right thing to do, because she knows that this is not about strengthening the integrity of the system and ensuring it doesn’t get into disrepute. This is actually doing the opposite. This is bringing the entire redress system into disrepute.

It is making people who have experienced huge levels of abuse jump through hoops. It fails to treat the abuse that they suffered in a way that is consistent with the rest of the system. As my colleague Helen White said, the nexus of what they went on to do should be treated differently, but by carving out this 2 percent, it fails the whole system. When we look at what the royal commission wanted, it said it wanted an independent system. Well, these people, these survivors, were not even consulted. How does the system have integrity when it is about them but without them? There is no integrity. They were not consulted. That is a failure in this bill. They shared their pain, they shared their personal stories, and yet they were not included in the solutions. They were promised redress, and yet some of them will not get the redress. The risk here is that future royal commissions that rely on witness accounts and that rely on the bravery of those survivors will not have people stepping forward, because they will no longer trust the system. They asked for a trauma-informed system. Well, this is not trauma informed at all. This is punitive. They asked for it to be inclusive and holistic, and yet this segregates out victims of abuse and says some victims are more worthy than other victims. How does that stand? And if you look at the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act report, on page 60, which looks at the human rights implications, it is heavily redacted, but, basically, this defies what we need to be doing to meet our human rights commitments, and that is why the Government doesn’t want us to see the New Zealand Bill of Rights advice that it received.

I am apologising tonight to all the victims of abuse in State care and religious care because the redress system that should have had integrity, that should have had independence, that should have consulted them, and that should have treated them with respect and as one group has now failed them, is dividing them, conquering them, and saying there are good people and unworthy people, and it is bringing the whole system into disrepute. It is failing them.

RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini) (20:51): Madam Speaker, I appreciate the fact that I’ve been given an opportunity to add my kōrero to the second reading of the Redress System for Abuse in Care Bill. I’m not a part of the Social Services and Community Committee, but I do commend that committee for dealing with subject matter that is horrific and extremely confrontational. It’s hard to accept that it happened in our beautiful country of Aotearoa New Zealand.

Given the delicacy and the profoundness of the subject matter, it pains me to hear some of the contributions from across the House that, in my opinion, skate very close to the boundaries of politicking. I acknowledge there are different, strong views, and I appreciate that the strong views—I’m hoping—come from a very honourable place, but no legislation in this area is ever going to be perfect. This area, as I said, is a confronting area where no amount of Government contribution and redress will actually ever diminish the pain and the suffering—which, as we’ve heard, is intergenerational.

This bill is a step towards creating a clearer, a more transparent, and a more consistent redress system. What we’ve heard from the chair of the committee is quite compelling—what we’re hearing in a lot of the harsh words from the other side of the House relates to 2 percent of victims. They’re still victims, but they themselves have found themselves by their actions in a situation where they are perpetrators of serious violent and sexual crime. We’re not talking about jaywalking; we’re not talking about graffiti; we’re talking about serious sexual and violent crime, and we hear this often: two wrongs don’t make a right. Please, let’s approach this more respectfully. We’re all trying our best. I commend this bill.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour) (20:53): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. As I rise to reflect on this piece of legislation, I don’t know people’s personal stories in this House, but I imagine it feels a little bit like we are talking about a group of people that aren’t in the room. That, actually, is hard. That is one of the challenges of the Westminster system where we stand in this place and we pass judgment. We have our ideas, we have our thoughts or our political ideologies, and they come into this place. At the start of my contribution, I, as others have, really want to acknowledge survivors—those still living and those who have passed on. I want to acknowledge their families and the generational trauma—the hurt, the harm—that they have experienced.

As you look at the system of State and faith-based care, we pause and acknowledge the physical abuse; we acknowledge the sexual abuse; we acknowledge the emotional abuse, the torture, and the neglect, which no human—no matter how old, let alone how young—should ever have to experience, but we’re here because of the wrongs of the past and to look at how we move forward to right some of those wrongs.

I want to begin by talking a little bit about attachment. Many people in this House will know about attachment in the early years and how crucial they are for a child and for a baby’s life. Their first 2,000 days set them up for life. If you don’t have the connection, the safety, the security, the love, and the nurture, then it creates huge challenges. As we look at abuse in State and faith-based care, we look at the forms of deep emotional bonds that weren’t made, being passed potentially from caregiver to caregiver or from institution to institution, and we know that those early relationships teach a child whether the world is safe or whether the world is dangerous and whether a person is safe or whether a person is dangerous. When they move around caregivers and institutions, that is broken down, and children don’t get that sense of belonging and that sense of safety.

Why does this matter and why am I bringing it up at the start of this contribution? It’s to acknowledge that their challenges of attachment were broken because of this place and because of faith-based institutions that did not look out and care for these children. When these bonds are broken, it can lead to long, life-lasting implications when it comes to emotional development, to social development, to managing anger, and to managing emotions—even managing noises is another thing.

I start there, and then I want to move to Mother’s Day, just on Sunday. I was one of the lucky ones who has a mother, and I was able to take her out for lunch. During lunch, we talked about many a thing, but somehow some reminiscing came up from my mother around her days of living and working in Porirua, just down the road. This was 1969 or, maybe, 1970 or 1971. Somehow, she’d started talking about Porirua Hospital. In her line of work, she had the opportunity to go to Porirua Hospital. She explained, in detail, walking down these long corridors in Porirua Hospital where the people that we’re talking about tonight were kept and incarcerated. They were there for medical reasons or for welfare reasons or for health reasons, but, actually, she talked about the first time that she went there and about this long, narrow, corridor—you know, very sterile—and all of these doors that were running down the corridor and all these small windows and the fright that she got when someone would suddenly appear in front of a window. They would suddenly see and hear a human coming down the hallway, and, suddenly, they’d want to see who it was. She talked about the fact that, being the Salvation Army—I mean, music’s a big part of that—they would play some music down in the common room down the end and how they would change the situation in terms of that music, which is a universal language that all people can understand.

As I was listening tonight and reflecting on this piece of legislation, I was thinking about that long corridor that my mother used to walk down and the people that she used to interact with who relate specifically to this piece of legislation, and the lack of attachment that they have, which has lasted their lifetimes. I’m sure research would show that that can continue into the next generation and beyond, unless something is done.

Now, we look at the redress that we are debating. We look at the experience that a survivor has, and it’s not normally until they become adults that they start to look at the long-term impacts of their care in the situation.

In the royal commission, in terms of their findings, they talk about how abuse affected survivors’ behaviour, mental health, physical health, personal relationships, education, employment, and finances. This is from the royal commission. This then showed up in aggression, anger, alcohol and drug use, suicidal thoughts and attempts, poor education, poor job prospects, little financial security, more physical injuries, and criminal behaviours.

Now, we hear, as we’ve been discussing this evening, that it’s about the victims. We don’t want anybody to harm somebody. That is not a thing that we would ever condone, but when you listen to that list that the royal commission had in their report and if you think about attachment and what it means for a young person to have not had that, to not understand who they can trust or who they should fear or what is acceptable and what isn’t acceptable, we come to this place where we must find a way through this.

We’ve discussed percentages tonight. We’ve heard people talking about those numbers, and I get it, but an apology is an apology—an apology is an apology—and an apology should come with action, and it shouldn’t just be action just for 98 percent of survivors. It shouldn’t just be for the 98 percent of people that we apologise to. It should be for the full 100 percent of those we have apologised to. That’s why Labour does not support this legislation.

Now, I want to continue that there is a link—and it’s a proven link—between childhood abuse and criminal behaviour. I’m sure everyone understands that. The inquiry highlighted the pathways of criminality in prison for survivors, noting that survivors are more likely to engage in criminal behaviour precisely because of the abuse they have suffered. The Care to Custody: Incarceration Rates Research Report also found that people who have been in State residential care were usually about five to nine times more likely to be incarcerated than people that have not been in care.

Now, I want us, as a Parliament, to do the right thing. I want us to get this right, but that does take courage, and saying sorry and apologising is about, actually, stepping up. I hope, as we discuss this and as we continue, that Government MPs—and I hope that church leaders around the country—listen in and really pay attention to the facts that, yes, this is costly. It is costly to our bank balances. It is costly to the decisions that are made in this place, but I want us to remember how costly it has been for the survivors of abuse in State and faith-based care. We must do what is right. An apology should be an apology, and it should be doing what is right for everybody.

Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula) (21:04): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise in support of the Redress System for Abuse in Care Bill in its second reading. I want to acknowledge, as everybody else has, the survivors and the incredible amount of weight of their own experiences that they’ve had to carry for far too long. During this whole process and during the inquiry and the commission and this, there was such an incredible amount of courage in speaking out that was shown by survivors.

This bill really matters because it is providing a clear and consistent and fair way for survivors to get an apology and to get financial or other redress, including counselling or other wellbeing things. It’s very important that this is done in a sensitive way where some people, if they were given an automatic financial contribution where they themselves have become extreme violent and sexual predators and perpetrators who have ended up in prison, giving them an automatic payment, as is given to other survivors, would be inherently unfair. This is a way that those cases can be considered by a redress officer who is independent. They can make those assessments, which will be extremely complex and in very small numbers. This is not disallowing those people; it’s just making it so it’s not an automatic allowance.

I want to assure people that we’re not creating a system where we’re judging some people as worthy and others not; we are simply stating that it would be manifestly and potentially unjust and horrific for the victims of those people if they were to find out that their perpetrators had been given an automatic payment of money. It would be manifestly unjust. This is not the end of the work, there is more to be done, and I acknowledge that this is not perfect, but this is one more step, and it’s a system that is fairer, clearer, and more respectful of survivors. I commend the bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The question is, That the amendments recommended by the Social Services and Community Committee by majority be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Redress System for Abuse in Care Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Kapa-Kingi.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Regulatory Systems (Transport) Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Hon JAMES MEAGER (Associate Minister of Transport) (21:07): Madam Speaker, I present the legislative statement for the Regulatory Systems (Transport) Amendment Bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Is there a legislative statement? I haven’t got a record of that—just a moment. No, there is no legislative statement on this sheet.

Hon JAMES MEAGER: Very good. I move, That the Regulatory Systems (Transport) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Fantastic.

Hon JAMES MEAGER: This is one of those omnibus bills that does quite a lot of stuff. Now, there are many bills that pass through this House that do a few really important things. There are many bills that pass through this House that do a lot of important things, and a lot of clean-up of administrative things, as well. This regulatory systems bill is one of those bills in the latter category. I think members would recognise that it does a few really important, quite crunchy things that the House all agrees on, and it does a number of other administrative tidy-ups from years past that haven’t quite made their way into a substantive clean-up bill or a substantive reform bill, but have found their way into this regulatory systems amendment bill with the agreement of the House.

I would just like to once again acknowledge and thank the Transport and Infrastructure Committee for their work on this bill and getting it into shape and making those important amendments that were agreed to at second reading. I would also like to thank members of the committee of the whole House stage for their agreement on the tabled amendments around digital drivers’ licences.

Now, this bill does do a number of things across the board as we found out at length at the committee stage over many, many parts, so I’m not going to try and traverse everything that the bill does. I’m sure there are other members who will pick out their favourite parts as well. My favourite, let’s say, five, six, or seven things are as follows.

First of all, this is the bill that establishes the framework to enable digital drivers’ licences in New Zealand. Now, I was speaking to a colleague of mine—Todd Stephenson—before, who showed me his digital driver’s licence from another State. I won’t say where it is because I don’t want to disclose where he may or may not be eligible to drive legally in the world, but he has a digital driver’s licence on his phone. The irony of our system is that we can legally recognise a digital driver’s licence from other parts of the world, but not yet in our own jurisdiction. This bill will enable that framework to be put in place, and then there will be further work to come down the track in terms of actually producing, enabling, and processing digital drivers’ licences.

Now, it’s important to put on the record for the final time for those out there who had questions around whether digital licences would be compulsory that they will not be compulsory. They will be an option for people to choose. You will maintain your physical driver’s licence if you wish, and that will continue to be a valid form of identification and also a valid verification that you hold a licence in New Zealand. Those who are concerned that this is a push towards mandatory use of digital licences do not need to be so concerned.

The second key thing that I think this bill does is it shifts us further on from a paper-based world to a digital world, and one of the key things it does—and we traversed this at length in the committee stage—is those what I like to call stickers that go in the front window screen of your truck or your electric vehicle, if you’re so inclined. There is a legal requirement to display those stickers or those pieces of paper, and if you fail to do so, you may be hit with a $200 fine. Now, this bill removes that legal requirement to display and sets up the framework to provide an electronic version of providing those, and, actually, we already do a lot of this checking when the police check your details on your vehicle. They use their electronic database. They don’t go entirely reliant on what the sticker in the window says, but, again, for those people who like to use those stickers and those people who like to have that little reminder of when their rego might be due, they can still use them. They can still ask for the bit of paper, but it won’t be required, and for those of us who like to rely on an electronic form of that identification, we can do that, as well.

The other thing it will do is it will allow the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) to start sending out notices—in a sort of 21^st century way—by email. Currently, the agency spends about $16 million a year on sending out physical notices and physical fees to people. This will enable them with the opportunity to do so by email, and, of course, that will mean that we can reprioritise some of that funding that would have been spent on administration into key infrastructure projects—for example, fixing up our roads on our State Highway 6 on the West Coast. I’m sure that many members across the House would be enthusiastic about that being a very good use of money, rather than spending all our money on stamps and postage.

The third and fourth things it does are around State highways. There is a really interesting fact that NZTA, prior to this bill, didn’t have very broad powers to close State highways in terms of emergencies. This fixes that and enables them to respond in times of emergency for slips, for example, to close those State highways. Another thing is that if you are on a motorway and you’re a pedestrian—I think that most people know that you can’t actually use a motorway as a pedestrian. However, there was a quirk in the law that even if there was a footpath or a pedestrian access available, there was a lack of clarity in the law as to whether or not pedestrians could actually still legally use that, even though it had been set aside for them, and so this bill goes some way to fix that, as well.

It does a number of other things. It fixes up some administrative aspects of maritime law and it provides some protection to seafarers. It provides the Minister of Conservation new powers to regulate maritime safety in the Kermadecs and Subantarctic Islands, and, as the Minister for the South Island, who is slowly claiming territory over every island south of, perhaps, the Bombay Hills, I’m glad to see that the Subantarctic Islands are being taken care of, as well.

Finally, the other major, key thing in here is some additional powers for the NZTA when they’re undertaking rail investigations. This is just in order for them to not have to rely on the voluntary disclosure of information, but to actually be able to preserve the scene of an accident and to undertake the investigations that they need to undertake to ensure that our rail system is safe and fit for purpose.

That is what this bill does, in a nutshell. It does a number of other things that I’m sure many members are very excited to vote for tonight, but with saying that, thank you again to all of those who submitted on the legislation. I commend it to the House.

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

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North) (21:14): Noa‘ia, Madam Speaker. Kia orana, and thank you. It’s a great opportunity to take a call for the Labour Party on this Regulatory Systems (Transport) Amendment Bill. Just following on from the Associate Minister of Transport, who has just resumed his seat, I know that there are a number of different aspects there, and that’s the joy of having an omnibus bill. I was half expecting the Minister to perhaps pick out his favourite one of the 12 Acts that this piece of legislation seeks to amend, but I guess we will just have to wait for another time.

This is a bill that is going to make some discreet and minor changes, perhaps, in the bigger scheme of things. They are technical but important changes, none the less, not only in the roading and land transport space but also in the rail space, the maritime space, and in the air space, as well, and I’ll cover those off in my contribution this evening. This is one step in ensuring that our transport law in this country is modernised, and it seeks to, I guess, get rid of or reduce some of the slow inefficiencies that often come into play when we are looking at things like licensing, or when we’re looking at things about someone’s ability to ensure that they’re able to display the appropriate certifications on their vehicle and the like, as well.

I want to acknowledge the officials, who have done a fantastic job in terms of bringing this together. There were a number of aspects of technical assistance. I know that it didn’t seem that long ago that we were actually here in the Chamber dealing with this legislation, and the officials were working through that, as well, and so I want to acknowledge the Ministry of Transport, Waka Kotahi, Maritime New Zealand, the Office of the Clerk, and the Parliamentary Counsel Office, as well.

This bill does seek to tidy up some of the regulatory gaps that are in existence, and once this bill passes, that will no longer be the case. However, it is worthy to note that in having the Government seek to progress this piece of legislation—which the Labour Party will support at third reading—it still doesn’t address some of those key issues around affordability, the reduction of emissions, and, indeed, access to public transport that many in our communities are finding extremely difficult at the moment, as well.

This particular bill does focus on roading, rail, air, and maritime, and in the roading space, the Minister has talked about the ability for digital drivers’ licences to be introduced. Now, this bill doesn’t necessarily introduce them; it just sets the framework up for allowing them to exist in legislation.

Previously, the Minister has talked about his own rental car experiences and about his own driving abilities and perhaps leaving a licence behind. I’m sure there are many other members in the House that have had that experience on a—[Madam Assistant Speaker Pugh is smiling] You yourself, Madam Speaker? There you go, admitting that—good on you. From time to time, this does happen, and so ensuring that there is a digital option—which is not mandatory, as the Minister has said—is really, really important.

One of the other aspects that this bill does provide for is the dual nature of a licence. This is so that you can have a digital licence and you can also have a physical licence, which means that if you are in a prickly circumstance from time to time, you can rely on the digital opportunity, if that does need to exist for you.

One of the aspects that the Transport and Infrastructure Committee did cover off was the applicability of those who choose to be a donor. The committee was reassured that a digital licence is not going to prevent the clinical ability to access that information, and that is an important consideration that we need to be aware of, as well.

What we might see with this bill—and I guess that this is an example of something that is discreet but that will make a huge difference, potentially—is if we now have vehicles under this bill that might be able to have an electronic or a digital certificate of fitness, a warrant of fitness, or other forms of identification or proof that the vehicle is roadworthy, then we’re not going to have all of those littered across the windscreen. We are really moving into a new era of a digital nature, but we’re bearing in mind that that still retains the optionality for road users to have a physical copy, if they so desire.

This also extends itself into the infringement space, where the service of infringement notices or having fines make their way to someone could be done by electronic means. I think that most of us would think that that is a sensible option. That does mean that the bill itself has had to have a little bit of a tidy-up to ensure that those normal identifiers for infringement notices that would be served in that way are able to be done so under the legislation. Those are things like email addresses and those sorts of things, which might sound simple, but, at the moment, the law prevents that, and so this bill will certainly change that.

The Minister touched on the investigation arm and opportunities, and I think many in the House would be surprised to learn that the transportation agency Waka Kotahi doesn’t have the authority to close State highways, when it comes to safety issues, for an extended period of time. Now, we might think as we go about a particular journey from A to B that parts of the highway might be partially closed, but for extended periods, this would allow the agency to make a call, to work through a process, and to close State highway networks if they were considered—none of the roads of national significance, of course, because we’re not seeing many of them come to fruition at the moment, because there is no funding available for it, with the $56 billion hole in that space.

In terms of the investigations opportunity, in the maritime space the director of Maritime NZ—under this bill—would be given a little bit more flexibility to undertake investigations. The threshold, I think, is something where the Transport and Infrastructure Committee landed around “reasonable grounds”. This is a threshold that gives the director a little bit of flexibility but still needs to have the sort of basis of something in order to pursue an investigation. That was something that was called for, and we’re delighted to see that move into this bill.

Just in terms of the wider issue of maritime, I think one of the really important things that this bill does deliver on is that it brings New Zealand up to spec, really, in terms of international considerations. When we sign up as a country to international obligations and there are responsibilities there for us, it’s important that the legislation that we have here at home is able to ensure that we can—as global citizens, as a sovereign State—not just sign up to that but ensure that what we are doing and what we’re empowering the sector to do actually lives up to those expectations. When we’re talking about protecting the rights and providing the opportunities for seafarers in this country, this bill will deliver on that. That is something that the Labour Party is particularly proud to be able to support.

Often, we see a lot of change in the suitability of infringements as a form of deterrence, and when one first looks at the changes, particularly in the maritime space, that this bill will deliver for infringement levies—for penalties, really—for an individual they may not actually seem as though they are a substantial jump, but, for body corporates, they are significant increases in the penalty regime and structure that are in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. It is appropriate that that level of deterrence is what has, effectively, carried through in this legislation.

On the rail front, the discrete nature of rail exists in this bill. That is purely related to the investigation powers for rail incidents. I also just want to reiterate one of the issues that the Transport and Infrastructure Committee talked about, as part of a previous review and report, was the Transportation Accident Investigation Commission and how their recommendations—there really is no teeth or weight that is put behind those. I know that’s something that the committee was very keen to ensure. If we are giving the investigators the tools to be able to undertake this work and they prepare a suite of recommendations, those recommendations need to go somewhere in a meaningful way that the Government of the day can consider and do something about. While that’s not something that is delivered in this bill, because it it’s not really appropriate, I think it is still none the less important that we acknowledge that those recommendations do need to have a safe place where they actually land.

We are delighted to support this bill. It’s been a collegial and what seems lengthy process to get to this particular point in time. The final point is around aviation. This bill does also allow for Wellington and Auckland airports to effectively undertake activities that would be consistent with other airport operations. That is the fair thing to do. They have been constrained for some time because of bespoke legislation that for many years has allowed them not to operate as they should. It’s an easy fix. The Labour Party supports this bill this evening.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai) (21:24): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. This bill is one of those rats and mice bills. It’s got a lot of really important but relatively minor changes, across a whole range of issues; as the previous speaker pointed out, 10 different bits of legislation amended by this bill. We’re supporting the bill. It’s not particularly controversial. Obviously, the Government has to do this work and make sure that things are being kept up to date, but probably, right now, what the country needs is a little bit more bold action in the transport space so that people and goods can move with less energy, less imported fossil fuels.

Andy Foster: Are you supporting roads now?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: All of that is directly related to productivity. No, actually, the chair of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, Andy Foster, should well know that the way to move people and goods more efficiently is not by expanding road capacity. It’s investing in rail and passenger rail, it’s investing in public transport, it’s having time-of-use pricing in our cities—

Andy Foster: Well, we’ve already done that.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: —it’s making it possible to—well, no, there’s not a single council that has proposed to do time-of-use charging yet, unfortunately. We’d love to see Wellington bring that to the table.

There’s a significant number of amendments to the Maritime Transport Act 1994, and that’s good, but again, I would say that coastal shipping is going to become more important than ever because the cost of moving goods around the country is going to become a lot more expensive. Currently, our rail link between the North and South Islands has been severed, and the surcharges for people trying to get goods between the North and South Islands are suddenly much higher. If people want to be able to move goods around the country, having more coastal shipping would be good.

Some of these are really minor changes around seafarer employment agreements, employers’ duties in relation to seafarers of New Zealand ships on overseas voyages. It’s little things, but we’re not seeing the action on the big thing, which is ensuring that we have a domestic fleet of coastal ships and people who are able to operate them so that we can move goods at lower cost between the two islands, particularly because we’re missing the ferries right now. For some strange reason, the ferries that might have been here are not here.

Andy Foster: There’s nowhere to put them.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: There was a project to improve the wharves, and now we’re finding out that the Government is going to have to find some way of improving the wharves for the new ships as well. So it’s just going to be three, four, or five years later, at much higher cost.

Andy Foster: This is the problem: reds and greens can’t deliver anything.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: It was a Labour Government. The Greens were not actually in Government with Labour. New Zealand First was, but Greens have never been in a coalition with Labour. That’s the thing. This whole House is people saying things that are just the opposite of reality, constantly reinforcing it so that the public thinks it’s reality. But it’s all right; I will continue to correct the record and say what actually happened, even if it’s inconvenient for members opposite.

I mean, there’s not a lot of content in here. The railways changes: pretty minor. About investigating accidents and incidents: pretty minor. I totally support closing State highways when necessary to deal with problems, but, fundamentally, we are at a point in time when it’s becoming clearer than ever—I mean, it was clear to some of us 20 years ago—that our transportation system is highly vulnerable to oil-price shocks and generally not using land efficiently and not using vehicles efficiently and that all of that costs households and businesses more money to move things around. Saving five or 10 minutes on a two-hour journey is not actually a productivity improvement, but reducing the need of households to spend thousands of dollars a year running a car is actually a productivity improvement. Reducing congestion by investing in alternatives is a productivity improvement, because then those households and businesses can spend more money in the local businesses because they’re not spending so much money importing cars and filling up their petrol or diesel tank at the pump.

I know members opposite love a good culture war line on transport policy, but having more energy-efficient vehicles that rely less on petrol and diesel and use batteries and electricity is practical and a productivity improvement because it means we’re spending less money and less energy to move goods and people around. That is what the Greens have been saying the entire time and I look forward to someday the Government realising—and when I say “the Government” I should say that I look forward to someday seeing the National Party, and maybe the New Zealand First Party, and maybe the ACT Party understanding that genuinely all New Zealanders would benefit from a more efficient transport system, and that the way to get that is to invest in the missing modes, the things we haven’t invested in, and the way to get more efficient vehicles in the country is to have fuel economy standards and a price incentive at the point of purchase.

Andy Foster: What’s that got to do with the bill?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Well, none of these things are in the bill and yet they are the things that the Government—

Andy Foster: It’s a housekeeping bill.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: It is a housekeeping bill. It is a housekeeping bill, and I have to give it a 10-minute speech and make it relevant to the people watching at home, and the only way I know how to do that is—

Andy Foster: Filibustering.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: It’s not filibustering.

Todd Stephenson: It is.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Well, it’s not, because—

Todd Stephenson: Address the bill, then.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: I have been addressing the bill, and I’ve been talking about all the rats and mice, the infringement notices and the amendments to the Land Transport Act, the amendments to the Maritime Transport Act, the amendments to the Land Transport Management Act, “Part 5 Amendments to Railways Act 2005”, amendments to the Road User Charges Act 2012, and “Part 7 Miscellaneous amendments”.

The thing is that the elephant in the room is that our transportation system is highly inefficient because of many decades of Governments ignoring the thing that would actually benefit people, engaging in unconstructive culture-war debates, getting rid of things like the Clean Car Discount and the Clean Car Standard—which would’ve meant we’d have a lot more electric vehicles right now and fewer highly inefficient diesel utes, which now cost a fortune for people to run.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): I just remind the member that if it’s not related to this bill, it’s not relevant to the debate.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Well, this is the Regulatory Systems (Transport) Amendment Bill, and while it may do some necessary things, it is far from sufficient to deal with the fuel crisis we’re currently facing and the productivity issues that our transportation system is facing. It would be great if the Government could try to do some work on that, and by “the Government” I, of course, mean the three parties in the coalition—National, ACT, and New Zealand First—who have all at various times said that they want a more productive and efficient transport system but have yet to follow through with any funding or policy that would actually deliver that.

SIMON COURT (ACT) (21:32): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, it was a great shock and surprise, frankly, that the member of Parliament the Hon Julie Anne Genter gave up so easily when there is so much more to describe about the benefits of the Regulatory Systems (Transport) Amendment Bill. Julie Anne, we miss you on the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, we miss your energy, and tonight the House missed that energy.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): It would be appropriate to use the member’s full name.

SIMON COURT: Thank you, Madam Speaker. ACT supports this bill. It’s an omnibus bill and it fixes transport legislation that would otherwise be holding New Zealand businesses and workers back. It provides clarity about transport service licensing. What is that? Well, those are the licences that truck and bus operators need so that they can deliver people to their destination, on public transport, for example, or deliver food to the supermarket. It’s really, really important that legislation and regulations around transport service licensing is tidied up because that means that truck and bus operators will be able to be more efficient, probably pay their workers better, and deliver better services. It’s small things like that that improve New Zealand’s productivity and will let the New Zealand boat go faster—or bus go faster even.

The rail safety provisions are another really important piece. It gives the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) clearer investigative powers following rail incidents and accidents. That should improve responsiveness and accountability. We do have serious problems with people being harmed in the workplace and, obviously, the rail corridor is somewhere where even a small mistake can lead to absolutely awful consequences. It’s important that we have a rail safety regulator that can get on with the job, make findings, and then make sure that their recommendations are taken up.

But there’s something else that’s just all ACT—that is a digital registration for your car, replacing the paper-based system. Now, I don’t know if you’ve ever got one of those floppy plastic tickets in the mail to stick on your trailer. Honestly, they always fall off, particularly after a few months in the rain. Having a digital vehicle registration for my trailer on my phone will be the best thing, because I regularly take loads of green waste to the tip when I’m clearing out my section. In fact, this weekend I’ll be helping a neighbour, when they move house, take all their rubbish away. I’m like a community rubbish service for friends and family, but every now again, I notice that the little plastic tag has fallen off. I have to get on NZTA’s website, and I have to order another one, and then they send me an email saying, “Don’t worry, Mr Court. If you get pulled over you can show them this email.”, but what I will have is a digital registration on my phone. So that is really fixing what matters for a lot of Kiwis, particularly those of us who are often off to the transfer station or the green waste tip on the weekend.

Then, of course, there’s the digital driver’s licence, and many people have said, “We’re concerned—we don’t want to be forced to have a digital driver’s licence. We don’t want to be forced to have digital ID.” Many people are concerned that that is too much like the long arm of the State knowing where they are and where they’ve been, and they don’t like it. And that’s why, of course, we’re preserving a paper or physical document driver’s licence but we’re providing the digital driver’s licence so that people like, maybe some of the young guys are in my family who regularly lose their wallets—and not just after a night out; they actually have no idea where they lost their wallet. And the number of times that I’ve said to them, “Well, just show them your licence.”, and they’ve said, “Oh, lost my licence and lost my wallet again.” They will be able to have a copy of their licence on their phone, because there’s one thing—

Hon Rachel Brooking: What if they lose their phone?

SIMON COURT: Well, if they do lose their phone, they can go down to the phone shop and they say, “Could you map everything on my phone to the next phone?” So, yes, yes, and I’m sure that going down to the phone shop at the local mall to get their documents transferred will be much easier than trying to go to Vehicle Testing New Zealand and getting a copy of their licence.

It’s all about improving productivity. It’s about giving Kiwis more flexibility and more tools. That is why ACT supports this bill. We love being in this coalition Government when we get to fix what matters.

ANDY FOSTER (NZ First) (21:38): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak in support of this bill. When it went through the select committee, everybody agreed with it—all the parties, which was really, really good.

I just was sort of contemplating the conversation that’s been going on here in the House about how, you know, we’ve kind of missed a trick, possibly, during the committee of the whole House, about the name of the bill, because it seems to me that for some people it’s the sort of digital ID, whether it’s the digital ID for the vehicle or a digital ID for the person, or whether it’s a New Zealand Post extinction bill—because clearly if Simon keeps on losing his various certificates but doesn’t have to have them sent through the mail, clearly it will do New Zealand Post’s business no good whatsoever. But, Madam Speaker, in all seriousness—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): I just remind this member too that we are obliged to use the member’s full name.

ANDY FOSTER: Oh, did I not do that? I apologise, Madam Speaker. We’re all friends here.

There are a couple of things I did want to mention, which actually are in the bill, as opposed to things which are not in the bill, and I will come to that momentarily. The first one of them is the digital licences and also digital identification, effectively, of vehicles, whether it’s road-user charges or warrants of fitness, or whatever it might be. One thing that is really, really important for many, many people is that it is not a compulsory requirement. There is no intention of having a compulsory requirement to have a digital driver’s licence, and there is always the option there. You can have a digital licence, you can have a hard copy, if you like—a physical copy—or you can have both if you want to. That option is there. Why is that there? I guess that is a reflection that some people simply do not trust the State, and often the State gives them very good reason not to trust them, and so I think we should reflect on that.

I also would say we’ve had the reference to NZTA being able to send infringements through digital means. One of the things we do have to be very careful of—and I would say this to NZTA—is that increasingly you will get an infringement notice that purports to be from the NZTA, and you look at it and go, is that or is that not? I’ve seen that. Actually, the last one I think I got was a toll bill from NZTA, which looked vaguely as though it could be about right—the date could be about right, the location could be about right. I wasn’t quite sure if it was from the NZTA, so I checked, and no it wasn’t. We’ve got to do some education there and NZTA has got to be very, very careful about making sure that the design of these things is such that they are as immune as possible from fraud, because people will certainly try to do that and try to defraud people of money.

We’ve already heard about the legislative background for being able to close highways, to suspend transport operators, some increases in some fines, and so on, but I did want to reflect on one other thing there on the digital ID. It was really good to see the Associate Minister of Transport, in the second reading I think it was, talk about work being done on a digital ID. Now, we don’t want a digital ID, or an ID which is a universal compulsory ID, that is something which I think for many New Zealanders would be anathema, and for us as New Zealand First, it would be anathema as well. But we heard, as I said in the second reading, an impassioned submission, and we’d heard that in submissions on the, I think it was the Public Service Bill as well, in the Governance and Administration Committee, saying if you are not a driver—in this case, it was a person who was disabled, never going to be able to be a driver, doesn’t want to go through the cost of having a passport—having a credible ID is really, really important to being able to do a whole lot of different things, and so it was really good to see that. There is work being done, and the Minister confirming that there is work being done on a digital ID—not a compulsory one, but a digital ID for people in that situation, so that was good to see.

Those are the things which are in the bill. What was interesting—it was slightly tragic—in looking back through the second reading speeches, and we’ve heard it again here now, there is a whole lot of complaint about what is not in the bill; a whole lot of debate about what is not in the bill. If that’s the standard that we’re going to hold—this is basically a housekeeping bill. It’s doing some pretty basic sort of things. But if you say that it’s a housekeeping bill and you complain that it’s not built the house, when you do the vacuuming, you haven’t built the house. I mean, what is that about? That, effectively, is what some of the speeches both here and in the second reading have been asking us to do.

I would note that some of the things which were mentioned—I mean, we had the debate today about one of the most important things you can do in transport if you want to improve the efficiency of transport is actually in urban development. What we have done today is we have a bill which has gone through its first reading to essentially allow the merger of the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development, the Ministry of Transport, the Ministry for the Environment, the local government part of the Department of Internal Affairs, to bring things together so that we have a much more joined-up, coherent approach to transport and urban planning. If that is not going to help transport, I don’t know what is. If you’re going to bring these things together, that will help do that. Yet, I don’t know that the Opposition supported that. I don’t think they did. There is something which they say one thing and they do the opposite.

Now, the other thing which I heard in the speech that the Hon Julie Anne Genter made was about to clean car discount. Wonderful thing, except it wasn’t free—it wasn’t free. It was something like $350 million - odd I think that the Crown paid out in taxpayer money. If you want a subsidy for your Tesla, there it was. The taxpayer paid for that. Oh, and also, our hard-working tradies, our hard-working farmers, they were paying for it as well. I think it’s very nice to say this about clean car discounts, but it wasn’t free, and if that’s what the Opposition is going to say, they have to acknowledge that that is the case. I think I will leave it there, but just to say—

Hon Simeon Brown: No, keep going.

ANDY FOSTER: Oh, you want me to keep going? What this bill doesn’t do—it doesn’t fix the clean car discount. It doesn’t sort out whether ferries were going to come or not and what time they were going to come. And by the way, it was always a heroic proposition to say that there was going to be one ferry arriving in 2025. When KiwiRail said—and this was the old KiwiRail, if you like—that they were going to turn up with a—

Hon Member: Great speech.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): If it’s not relevant to the bill, it’s not relevant to your debate.

ANDY FOSTER: Well, Madam Speaker, I’m merely responding to something which you allowed before, so I don’t know what you’re going to do with that.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): I’ve given you enough latitude, Mr Foster.

ANDY FOSTER: OK. All I’m saying, Madam Speaker, is that there were many things which were raised in this debate completely irrelevant to it. I’m going to stop there, but I would appeal to the Opposition: please can you stick to what is in the bill as opposed to what is not in the bill? If that’s chastisement, you’ve got it.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Mike Davidson. This is a split call.

MIKE DAVIDSON (Green) (21:45): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise on behalf of the Green Party on this split call. Talking in support of this, as was described, housekeeping bill—the Regulatory Systems (Transport) Amendment Bill— which I note that we support, it’s a pretty straightforward bill that’s not controversial. I won’t focus on the amount of stuff that it does miss that could have actually fixed our transport system for the better. I’ll stick to the bill itself, which, obviously, we know covers a lot of different Acts and will change, I think it’s 12 Acts, some of them being the Land Transport Act, the Maritime Act, Aviation Act, Railways Act, and Government Roading Powers Act.

I did manage to sit on a few of the hearings while in the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, so it was really good to hear some of the conversations that were had. I was just having a look through the commentary and I did see that, obviously, one of the things was the electronic driving licences, and it’s quite good to note that both the paper version—or hard copy version—and your electronic can be kept. Although I don’t look it, I’m old enough to remember the paper licences we had that were for life and that didn’t last. I really hope that while we’re saying we can have both forms of ID, that does stay that way and it doesn’t change in the near future, because I think a lot of people spoke to that issue during the select committee process.

I was also there when the young man came and spoke about the universal accessible form of ID for people that cannot drive, and therefore cannot have a driver’s licence, and I guess the kōrero he was talking about was, actually, the humiliation he was suffering when having to go to the supermarket to buy alcohol and didn’t have a form of licence, and he shouldn’t have to be required to take his birth certificate or passport with him, and then they couldn’t work out why you wouldn’t have a driver’s licence. It was really good to hear that the Associate Minister of Transport was looking at a way to actually fix that issue. Like Mr Foster said in the previous debates, that is actually heard in a number of different select committees, so it was quite good that that has been picked up as an issue that needs to be rectified, because I think it’s very important for everyone to be able to have a form of national ID that’s easy to carry around with them in the wallet where this doesn’t currently happen and we’re excluding quite a number of people that we shouldn’t be excluding from society.

Obviously, within this, there were the changes to the Railway Act and giving Waka Kotahi, as the rail safety regulator, the powers to investigate accidents or significant cases of non-compliance within the railway sector. I’m the son of a railway man, and that’s going back quite a few years and as someone that actually drove a train probably as a six-year-old, I know there were many issues around the sector at that point of time back in the 80s when health and safety wasn’t really that strong, so it’s really—

Simon Court: But you survived.

MIKE DAVIDSON: I survived only because I had a great father that knew what he was doing. It’s really good to see that that’s been strengthened now to ensure that they have the powers to investigate, and it’s also good to see that Waka Kotahi has the ability to close parts of the State highways network if it’s necessary to protect public safety.

I think it’s really important, public safety, when we talk about our State highways to ensure that, actually, they have that ability because we’ve seen the amount of harm that is done on our roads from vehicle crashes. Actually, funnily enough—well, it’s not funny, it’s actually terrible—more people die from the emissions from vehicles than vehicle crashes, so it’s a shame we won’t do anything about that to actually fix that issue, but it’s good to see that something’s been done to actually give them a little bit more power in there. Also good to see that the road controlling authorities have the ability to prescribe parking overstay fees—that’s excellent—and some changes to the Maritime Transport Act which will align that with other areas.

So, all in all, it’s actually really good to see this housekeeping matter tidied up, and this is why the Greens are supporting. Like, yes, we would love to see a lot more transformation in transport, but at the same time we need to make sure we do these important housekeeping matters as well. So the Greens support this bill.

Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill) (21:50): This bill is just another example of the Government getting on with fixing the basics while preparing for the future. This bill addresses a broad range of regulatory issues across our land transport, maritime, and aviation sectors. Like other speakers mentioned, there’s nothing fishy here, but this is exactly the point. This is about making the system work better. It enables critical improvement such as supporting the future use of digital drivers’ licences and also correcting some technical issues. These may seem like minor changes, but they are fundamental. By getting the basics right, we create the platform for future innovation and efficiency. This Government is fixing the basics and building the future. I commend this bill to the House.

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour) (21:51): Thank you, Madam Speaker, and thank you for the opportunity to make a relatively lengthy contribution, I should imagine, at 10 to 10 on a Tuesday night on the Regulatory Systems (Transport) Amendment Bill. Unfortunately, I’m not going to be able to regale the House with some of the stories and the anecdotes of losing licences and phones and various other, sort of, trips down memory lane, I think, that we’ve heard tonight from various people making contributions in response to the concept of the electronic driver’s licence. Nevertheless, I will have a look at what this bill does, although I cannot commit to the fact that I won’t at least mention the ferries once—but I’ll make it very relevant, Madam Speaker.

Labour is going to support this bill. As has been said, and as the Associate Minister of Transport also noted in the very first contribution, it’s a technical bill. It does some useful improvements that probably should be done, and there’s a couple of things that it does that are actually kind of new and novel and exciting. We’ve got no problem with that. The concept, I think, of the digital licensing process makes sense, and it’s about time. When we first heard about it, obviously, it raised some queries and some questions about the implementation and the various potential fish-hooks, but the Transport and Infrastructure Committee had the opportunity to ask those questions and to work through all of those issues. I think everybody had a really clear idea and that kind of visual picture of how that system of having both, potentially, a physical licence and a digital licence—or having either/or, because the digital licence certainly isn’t proposed as being compulsory—would work in practice. We feel as if we landed in a position that we’re very comfortable with.

Having said that, it does do some useful things, and it is a technical bill. As has been noted, it’s certainly not transformative, and I note my colleague Andy Foster from New Zealand First’s comment, pleading almost: “Can we please stick to what’s in the bill and not what’s not in the bill?”, but life doesn’t quite work like that. Sometimes, when you are considering or ruminating or evaluating anything, the devil is in the detail, and what is missing or what could have been there is, you know, a potential for a lost opportunity. There are opportunity costs and all sorts of factors to consider, and I think it’s perfectly reasonable to lament somewhat the fact that there could’ve been additional things in this bill that we could’ve felt a little bit more excited about tonight.

Having said that, it tidies up some regulatory gaps. It doesn’t tackle those bigger issues like affordability, emissions reduction, and we would’ve really loved to have seen a few bits and pieces in the public transport sphere that could’ve easily been fixed up along with maritime, aviation, rail, and the various other applications of this. It, essentially, just reduces unnecessary paperwork, and, you know, that’s all right, but it’s nothing to get excited about. It’s a little bit boring, is what I’m trying to say.

But let me go straight on to the enabling of digital driver’s licences—clauses 7, 15, and 16—and providing for that electronic warrant of fitness, certificates of fitness, and certificates of loading. I do agree with Simon Court from the ACT Party—we don’t always agree on things, but we always surprise ourselves that there are some things that we do quite readily agree on. I think when they’re sensible and they’re about common sense and usability and functionality, then we do find ourselves feeling and thinking the same way.

The allowing of infringement notices and reminders to be served electronically: I think we mentioned this at second reading in particular. That always sounds good on the surface. For those of us who have been on the Justice Committee or spent any period of time on the Justice Committee, it tends to be something that’s coming up a little bit more frequently, included in various bills there, and it’s not always as simple as it sounds on the surface. There can be some actual fish-hooks in there that can render things somehow a little bit unfair if not implemented properly and if the policy doesn’t land in the right place, but it feels as if this bill is the benefactor of several attempts at getting that right.

When we talk about strengthening safety and enforcement, as has been mentioned, it certainly gives the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) the authority to close unsafe highways, and I concur. I think it was Tangi Utikere who said that—I think most people would be a little bit bewildered to note that NZTA didn’t previously have the authority to be able to do something. We could all imagine situations—often, you know, dangerous situations or chaotic situations—that can arise where the ability to be able to do that seems like that is well overdue.

It also provides the Director of Land Transport with immediate suspension powers for unsafe operators, which, again, in relation to clause 21, is something that is a technical but very worthy part of this bill, and it expands investigation powers for rail accidents and incidents, as Tangi Utikere said—really important when we think about the transport system, which is a system and should be relatively cohesive, that some of those powers of investigation in particular are extended across those various domains. And it increases maximum penalties for infringement fees and land transport offences.

With regard to the aspects of this bill that touch on the maritime sector, it raises maritime fines to align with international standards. As we’ve heard both through various readings and through various stages of this bill, we do have a long and very uncelebrated history of signing up to conventions and signing up to obligations without necessarily doing the work at home to make sure that those are workable and functioning the way that they were intended to do so. So this is a very small example of making sure that those are aligned properly.

I’m going to skip over the part where I said that I was going to very briefly mention the ferries, because with the benefit of some hindsight and with Madam Speaker looking at me intently, I’m less confident that they are as relevant as I started off thinking they may have been.

At the end of the day, it introduces some flexibility for regulators. These were all lessons, some of which were learnt through the COVID experience when people had to sort of do things differently and pivot and be a little bit—perhaps “more creative” is not the word that should spring to mind, but look at doing things operationally a little bit different. We have no problem with where we’ve landed on that.

I would like to acknowledge the select committee and especially all of the advisers. Just because the bill is a little bit boring and is very much focused on those technical fixes, it by definition means that quite a group of advisers have had to traipse through the process and sometimes repeat answers to those questions over and over whilst people get their minds around all of that technical information. So I want to acknowledge them and the select committee.

It’s a housekeeping bill. It certainly lacks ambition and doesn’t include all the things it could’ve included, but Labour will continue to support this bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The House is suspended until 9 a.m. tomorrow.

Debate interrupted.

Sitting suspended from 10 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Wednesday)

Extended Sitting

Wednesday, 13 May 2026

Bills

Ngā Hapū o Te Iwi o Whanganui Claims Settlement Bill

Legislative Statement

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Could I ask our visitors just to take their seats please. The House is about to resume. Mōrena, the House is resumed for the extended sitting. I call on Government order of the day No. 9.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) (09:05): I present a legislative statement on the Ngā Hapū o Te Iwi o Whanganui Claims Settlement Bill.

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

First Reading

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) (09:05): I move, That the Ngā Hapū o Te Iwi o Whanganui Claims Settlement Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Māori Affairs Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 17 September 2026.

Rau rangatira mā o ngā hapū o te iwi o W’anganui, nau mai, haere mai ki tō tātou Pāremata. Tēnei taku mihi mahana atu ki a koutou katoa i tēnei rā whakahirahira.

[To the many leaders of the hapū of the iwi of W’anganui, welcome, welcome to our Parliament. This is my warm greeting to you all on this auspicious day.]

I wish to thank Ngā Hapū o Te Iwi o Whanganui for making the journey here to join us here in Wellington for this significant milestone. It was only 11 days ago that we were together on a Kaiwhaiki Pā on the banks of the Whanganui River to sign He Rau Tukutuku, the Ngā Hapū o Te Iwi o Whanganui deed of settlement. A marvellous afternoon that was. I think of the autumn light and the poi flashing in the afternoon sun, the beautiful waiata, the haka, the speeches, and the eel afterwards in the hākari, and the wonderful conversation and laughter and tears—a wonderful day. I think, a fitting day. I want to acknowledge and extend a warm welcome to everyone who has made the journey here.

The redress arrangements in the bill are a tribute to the dedication and perseverance of your lead negotiator, Ken Mair, who I want to acknowledge today, and his negotiation team, your negotiation trust, the hapū, who worked tirelessly over the years to achieve the settlement. Many uri have carried the rākau who are no longer with us today. I acknowledge the emotions that come to the surface on a special day such as this. Naturally, people’s minds turned to those who have been part of this journey and are no longer with us today, so I want to acknowledge them. I also acknowledge the Crown team for their efforts over the years, including previous Ministers Christopher Finlayson and the Hon Andrew Little and also the chief Crown negotiator, the Hon Rick Barker, who is sitting here in the House this morning.

This first reading is a significant milestone for Ngā Hapū o Te Iwi o Whanganui. While the negotiations started in July 2017, ngā hapū have been seeking recognition and acknowledgement for the Crown actions for generations, with the first claim filed with the Waitangi Tribunal in 1987. The settlement is grounded in the Crown’s acknowledgement and apology for its many breaches of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and these include its conduct during the warfare of the 1840s, the failure to complete the 1848 Whanganui Block Transaction fairly or in good faith, and the outbreak of war in Whanganui in the 1860s. The Crown acknowledges, also, the grave impact of the native land laws system on the hapū and iwi of Whanganui and the alienation of land.

We also acknowledge that the hapū of Whanganui have acted with great mana, always remaining committed to their whenua, their rangatiratanga, and their people. The Crown failed to protect their collective control and instead promoted legislation that facilitated the alienation of land and resources.

The Ngā Hapū o Te Iwi o Whanganui Claims Settlement Bill seeks to give effect to the settlement package, which provides for financial and commercial redress of $30 million and includes the transfer of forestry land, the Te Puna Hapori site, Whanganui Intermediate School, and the former Aramoho School. The settlement includes cultural revitalisation funding of $15.5 million as a platform for marae and te reo Māori revitalisation and other social and cultural aspirations yet to be determined; the return of 27 sites of cultural significance, including Moutoa Gardens Pākaitore, which will be vested as a historical reserve, and the establishment of a joint reserves board, Ngā Tutei a Maru, with the Whanganui District Council to administer sites owned by iwi and the council.

Of course, it goes without saying that no settlement can fully compensate for the loss and prejudice that the people of Ngā Hapū o Te Iwi o Whanganui suffered. It is something, however, that we believe the settlement lays the foundation for social, cultural, and economic benefits to help shape their people for generations to come. It will support iwi and hapū in their future endeavours and in realising their aspirations.

This is the first reading of three in the House. From here, it goes off to the Māori Affairs Committee, where the details will be considered. No doubt, there will be much more discussion before it comes back to the House for the second and its final reading; then it’s passed into law, and then it will take effect thereafter. This has been a very long-fought settlement; the wounds that it seeks to address have been carried for generations, and it’s a great privilege for me on behalf of the Crown and, as the Crown, the people of New Zealand, to be the generation that reaches this point and this settlement and this acknowledgment with its apology as we look forward to a shared future.

I consider that the bill should proceed without delay to the Māori Affairs Committee, and I commend this bill to the House.Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) (09:13): E te Māngai o te Whare, tēnā koe. E ngā mana, e ngā reo, e ngā karangatanga maha o ngā hapū o te iwi o Whanganui kua tae mai nei ki te Whare i tēnei rā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, huihui mai tātou katoa. Kia ora.

[Mr Speaker, thank you. To the authorities, the representatives, to the many relatives of the hapū of the iwi of Whanganui who have come to the House today, greetings and thanks to us all gathered here. Hello.]

Today is a significant day for those gathered in this House. For generations, the grievances have been carried, long before this bill even arrived at Parliament, so it’s important to mark the passage of this legislation and it’s first reading today. As the Minister has already noted, no settlement can fully restore what was taken, and no apology can erase generations of hurt, but this settlement is an acknowledgment by the Crown that it failed in its obligations under Te Tiriti o Waitangi and that those failures caused deep and lasting harm.

At the heart of this deed is He Rau Tukutuku—the woven strands brought together. The settlement is grounded in the principles of Toitū Te Kupu, Toitū Te Mana, Toitū Te Whenua: integrity, inherited authority, and an enduring relationship between people and whenua.

The historical account that lays in the bill on the Table makes for difficult reading. It recounts, right back, how millions of acres were stripped away from the hapū of Whanganui; how martial law was used to do this; how the Native Land Court was used to do this; and even when there were ways sought out to retain collective ownership of land, this was also undermined. The deed also records the social impact of those actions: poorer health outcomes, lower educational achievement, reduced employment opportunities, and the punishment of children for speaking te reo Māori in schools. Those experiences have shaped generations. When land is lost, it’s not just the loss of economic opportunity, it’s also of connection, security, identity, and that has a ripple effect right through.

This settlement cannot change that history, but I think it can help lay the foundations for the future. The redress package reflects that broader purpose. There is significant investment into cultural revitalisation, including the funding for te reo Māori revitalisation, marae, and governance structures to support the future aspirations of Ngā Hapū o Te Iwi o Whanganui. It’s important to see that those traditional place names will also be restored, restoring names such as Pūtikiwharanui-a-Tamatea-pōkai-whenua, Puketūtū, and Kākata as part of restoring the visibility of that history within the landscape itself. The settlement also creates enduring relationships between Ngā Hapū o Te Iwi o Whanganui and Crown agencies for education, health, housing, conservation, justice, and social development. These are wise and important relationships to continue for future generations, and it’s important to see that those are there.

There will always be people who question Treaty settlements or ask why these conversations are necessary and must continue. My answer is straightforward: a country cannot move forward honestly while ignoring the consequences of its past. The impacts of dispossession and marginalisation do not disappear simply because time has passed; they continue to shape outcomes for communities and generations later. Treaty settlements are part of confronting that history openly rather than pretending it did not happen. They are not about assigning blame to anyone, and while no settlement is perfect, these agreements remain one of the most important nation-building projects undertaken in modern New Zealand. This settlement reminds us that Te Tiriti o Waitangi was never intended to sit quietly as a historical document, disconnected from modern life; it was an agreement about relationships, authority, responsibilities, and how people would live together in this country.

Before I finish, I want to acknowledge that the Crown breached those obligations and communities suffered. The principles I’ve mentioned—Toitū Te Kupu, Toitū Te Mana, Toitū Te Whenua—speak not only to this settlement but to the kind of country we want to live in in New Zealand, all of us together. Nō reira he mihi mahana ki a koutou katoa. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Therefore, warm greetings to all of you. Greetings and thanks to all of us.]

STEVE ABEL (Green) (09:18): Tēna koutou, Ngā Hapū o Te Iwi o Whanganui. To extend on the reflection in this deed of settlement, which outlines the values of Ngā Hapū o Te Iwi o Whanganui: Toitū Te Kupu, “A relationship of innate integrity founded on both the intent of one’s word and the truth of its expression”; Toitū Te Mana, “A relationship of inherited authority founded on the recognition of iwi and hapū permanence and the shared responsibility to uphold that mana”; Toitū Te Whenua, the relationship of sustenance founded on humanity having an inalienable connection with, and responsibility to, te taiao, and its health and wellbeing. That is indeed a doctrine worthy of founding a nation, and I concur with my colleague Ginny Andersen that that is a very fine basis for the relationship that we should seek to fulfil and that we seek to make amends for through this settlement.

The harms and the evils of the Crown committed against your people are uncontested in this House today. We stand in unanimity in recognition of those harms and those evils, and we here seek to make amends for them through this settlement. It is but a token, a sliver, a fragment, of an offering that we make to your people in recognition of the harms of the Crown. You, in your generosity and your dignity and your kindness, accept that offering. Kia ora for that. We, as representatives of the Parliament and today speaking, thank you for that—thank you for that generosity.

It’s notable that your tūpuna were some of the first people who were subjected to the total immorality of the New Zealand Company in 1839—the willingness of those first settler capitalist colonisers to dishonestly deal with the indigenous people of Aotearoa New Zealand. There began a long and tawdry battle to get recognition of the land lost and the land taken, and some of your tūpuna joined in the struggle against the invasion of Aotearoa by the British in the Kīngitanga resistance in Waikato.

In this term of Government, we recognise now that those who fought in the New Zealand Wars—the first New Zealanders to defend this land from British invasion; among whom are your ancestors—we now recognise them as heroes who were standing and defending our nation as part of our Anzac recognitions. Now, those who fought in the New Zealand Wars are recognised, so we acknowledge your ancestors as well for that.

My final point is on the impact of the forbidding of the speaking of your language, te reo Māori, in schools. We are very critical of this Government not expecting schools to uphold Te Tiriti o Waitangi. If we would understand why it is so important, it is the simple fact that one of the primary failings of the Crown in upholding Te Tiriti was forbidding the speaking of the language in our schools. That is certainly an injustice against te iwi Māori and against your iwi, Ngā Hapū o Te Iwi o Whanganui. We support this bill.

CAMERON LUXTON (ACT) (09:24): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou e ngā hapū o te iwi o W’anganui. Nau mai, haere mai ki tēnei Whare.

[Greetings to the hapū of the iwi of W’anganui. Welcome, welcome to this House.]

I stand to speak in this first reading, and the first reading for many of us is our first chance to actually look at what the bill contains. Reading this bill, you first start with the historical account, which is—as has been said, undisputed in this House today—an account of swindling, of war, of abuse of power, and of treating people in abominable ways from abominable people, and a lack of morality on the Crown’s part. The resulting alienation and outcomes are further expressed in the historical account, and we humbly ask for this bill, when it becomes an Act, to write into this record of a nation an apology from the Crown. But this is a first reading, and it has got many more stages to go.

The bill contains cultural redress, recognition of rohe, of whenua, of connection, and recognition of cultural rebuilding and of working together. We are, as a country, trying to continue to build a country that we can be proud of. That requires grace, that requires forgiveness, and that is what is being asked for today.

No Treaty settlement will ever completely fix the wrongs of the past, but recognising them, putting them down in every record that we can, and trying our damnedest to work together for a future that is better for the entire citizenry of New Zealand, of everybody who defended this—thank you, Steve Abel, for mentioning that—country from the first invaders, as we do now at Anzac Day, and the people who bring that pride as those invaders became part of this country and became what we are today as we open our hearts to each other and try and create a country that’s worthy of all of our tūpuna. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First) (09:26): E ngā kaumātua me ngā kuia o ngā hapū o te iwi o Whanganui kua tae mai ki tēnei Whare o Pāremata ki te tautoko i te kaupapa o te rangi nei, tēnā koutou katoa.

E tū ana ahau, he uri nō Te Taitokerau, ki te mihi atu ki a koutou. Ka nui aku mihi maioha ki a koutou, tēnā koutou.

Ka mihi hoki ahau ki a tātou katoa kua huihui mai nei, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[To the patriarchs and matriarchs of the hapū of the iwi of Whanganui who have come to this House of Parliament in support of the legacy of this day, greetings to you all.

I stand, a descendant of Northland, to acknowledge you. Many kind regards to you, greetings.

I acknowledge all of us who have assembled here; greetings and thanks to you, indeed, to all of us.]

I begin with greetings to the uri o Ngā Hapū o Te Iwi o Whanganui who have travelled to be here today to witness the first reading of the Ngā Hapū o Te Iwi o Whanganui Claims Settlement Bill. We’re not just debating legislation today; what we are witnessing is the weaving together of a fragmented history. We’re here to acknowledge He Rau Tukutuku and the many strands of grievance, resilience, and hope that has brought us to this moment.

On 2 May this year—not so many days ago—Ngā Hapū o Te Iwi o Whanganui and the Crown signed the deed of settlement, He Rau Tukutuku, at Kaiwhaiki Pā, a settlement that acknowledges generations of grievance; it restores mana, though, and it sets a pathway forward—and it’s looking forward that is so important here today as we can draw a line in the sand and move forward. This milestone marks a new chapter in the journey of the iwi, acknowledging past injustices and paving the way for cultural, social, and economic development to follow.

For generations, Whanganui hapū have carried the impacts of land loss, marginalisation, and breaches of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. The history of this region is marked by the Crown’s failure to act in good faith during those early land transactions, most notably the 1848 Whanganui repurchase. These actions led to the unfair loss of kāinga and left the hapū virtually landless, causing immense and lasting harm to their social, cultural, and economic wellbeing. For over a century, the people of the lower and middle Whanganui have carried a very heavy burden: they’ve lived with the scars of the 19^th-century old land claims, the pain of the 1848 Whanganui purchase, and the devastating impact of the Crown’s military actions. These weren’t just losses of acres. They were losses of identity, of economic mana, and the ability to care for the land as kaitiaki.

While many settlements have common themes, I’d like to highlight some of those which I find particularly impactful. Despite a lack of evidence, the Crown unjustly exiled five prisoners to Tasmania in 1846, which included Hohepa Te Umuroa, a tupuna of Ngā Hapū o Te Iwi o Whanganui, who died while imprisoned there. The Governor acted in bad faith, misrepresenting the prisoners’ offences and asking the authorities to treat the prisoners harshly.

Martial law in 1847: there was no sufficiently serious emergency or threat to justify extending martial law in Whanganui in March 1847, but it was still in place in April 1847 when five Whanganui youths were captured after the murder of a settler family, and they were tried by court martial. Four of those youths were then swiftly executed as an immediate example. These are just some of the losses, the mamae, from that period in time, which we should all be ashamed of.

Today is a new day as we begin a new step forward, and the redress package will include transfer of 27 sites of significance alongside statutory acknowledgements over reserves and conservation areas. The settlement goes beyond a dollar value; it’s about restoring mana, it’s about recognition and truth telling, and it’s about creating opportunity for future generations. To the people of Whanganui: the settlement cannot erase the past, nor can it fully compensate for generations of struggle, but it does signal a new dawn. As the river flows, so too must this process move forward. I commend the bill to the House.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori) (09:31): Tēna koe e te Pīka. Ua-mai-rangi māturuturu iho noa, ka taka ngā roimata e rua o Ranginui, ka māpuna ki te whenua, ka rere kōawaawa, kawea ā-uta, kawea ā-tai, mai i te Kāhui Maunga puta atu ki Tangaroa. Ko au te awa, ko te awa ko au.

Kua tae mai ngā ‘apū o W’anganui, kua tae mai He Rau Tukutuku; toitū te kupu, toitū te mana, toitū te whenua. Ōku whanaunga, tēnā koutou, ata mārie.

[Rain-from-the-sky trickles freely, two tears of Ranginui fall, they pool on the land, they flow through the valleys, carrying through from inland to the coast, from the Mountain Clan out to the sea. I am the river; the river is me.

The hapū of W’anganui have arrived, the deed of settlement has arrived; commitments honoured, mana upheld, the land endures. My relatives, greetings, good morning.]

It was the first time that I’ve arrived in the House and the House was waiting for the manuhiri. The House was waiting for Ngā Hapū o Whanganui—and koirā te āhua o te rā nei [that is the nature of this day]. That, to me, is the tohu of the start of the opening, the thriving, the pushing of the door that today represents for us as Ngā Hapū o Whanganui.

I want to mihi to the negotiators, to all their teams, and the hard work that they’ve done. I want to mihi to all the hapū and the negotiators for the Crown and hapū. I want to mihi to all our hapū, our trustees, our workers, and our kaimahi. I’ve seen, and I’m grateful as an uri for what it is that you’ve done for us. I want to mihi, especially, to their whānau—to their wives, their husbands, their mokopuna, and their tamariki, who have gone without them as they have gone and fought the fight for us with the Crown.

It is a thankless job. There is time that they give, and we are ruthless as a people. We’ve lost faith in what it is that we have to do when we negotiate with the Crown. It is the whānau who have had to wear all the knocks from the cousin who thinks they could do it better and all the knocks from those who have forgotten what it is like to believe in ourselves. It is them that miss out on time with their whānau members, and I don’t think the rest of Aotearoa know what happens behind the scenes to get here in the first place, so I mihi to them all and recognise all the sacrifices you’ve made for us.

I think the really important part is that, yes, we are survivors of muru raupatu. We have endured some of the worst prejudice, attacks, violence, and State-sponsored evils that indigenous peoples have had to wear. But that doesn’t define us, because one of the things we have never lost in all of this is our values—our values to protect each other, our values to protect our whenua, our values as taught by our awa—and that is what this moment provides to the rest of Aotearoa: the aroha, the manaaki, the forgiveness, the huge humility that our people endure and wear and give to this nation, accepting settlements that are neither equitable, neither fair, neither just, but they are hope.

Today, I stand in honour for our people who show their hope for this nation. I think Ken said it best when he said, “the Crown, both present and future, must not … diminish … Te Tiriti”. You enjoyed our manaaki; they enjoyed having you. Please do everything you can to make sure that that is honoured.

Settlements are a time for us to not only show the world our values but for us, this generation, to show and provide something for the next generations. It is never about today. We’re all responsible for developing something, and the movements in developing something two or three generations after muru raupatu are really taxing, really hard. It’s with hope that I share some of the words that I saw shared from rangatahi, and Te Ari Paraniri said it so well. She said, “Settlements create opportunities for growth, leadership, and connection to our identity. There is a pathway for better support in education, employment, and cultural development. It means our generation can continue to thrive. It gives rangatahi the leadership to uphold our tikanga and contribute to the future of our iwi, our hapū, our whānau.”

Those are the words of who we represent as a future in Aotearoa. Those are the words of hope, unity, and humility. I stand in absolute homage, not only for the work done from today’s generations, but for tomorrow’s generations. To my whanaunga: go well. Go well, go steady, go knowing that we’ve got your backs. Kia ora rā.

CARL BATES (National—Whanganui) (09:36): Thank you, Mr Speaker. E ngā mana, e ngā reo, e ngā iwi o te motu, tēnā koutou katoa. E ngā uri o W’anganui, e ngā hapū o te awa, tēnā koutou.

[To the authorities, the representatives, the peoples of the nation, greetings to you all. To the descendants of W’anganui, to the hapū of the river, greetings.]

Just over a week ago, I stood at Kaiwhaiki Marae alongside whānau, hapū, and leaders of Ngā Hapū o te Iwi o Whanganui for the signing of He Rau Tukutuku, to be present for that moment and witness history in the making, to see generations represented, and to feel the weight of the journey that has brought everyone here.

In reflecting on that journey, I asked Ken Mair what you wanted shared in this House. He said, “We would like to acknowledge Kaumatua John Mahi of Ngāti Pamoana for his unrelenting support of this land settlement over many decades. His tireless work, wisdom, and steadfast commitment helped ensure that the Whanganui land settlement was finally completed and signed on 2 May 2026.” Ken continued, “Behind every team there are always those who spend countless hours, days, weeks, years doing the hard yards. They expect no accolades. They simply get on with the work because they believe in the kaupapa.”

Today we acknowledge Tracey Waitokia and Aimee Simon. Your extraordinary energy, total dedication, and unwavering commitment to the Whanganui Land Negotiation Trust will never be forgotten. You are both true leaders and this settlement carries the imprint of your hard work, your integrity, and your aroha for your people.

I also wish to acknowledge all the negotiators, kaumatua, and representatives, some of whom are with us in the gallery, and those who have passed as well. This House recognises the decades of work, the perseverance, and the leadership that has brought this settlement to this point. This bill gives legislative effect to all of that mahi. It address and records the details of profound and longstanding breaches of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. It also records the values of Whanganui iwi, which are at the heart of the settlement and were consistently emphasised throughout negotiations. Toitū te kupu, toitū te mana, toitū te whenua—that commitments must be honoured, that mana must be upheld, and that land and health must endure.

A clear expectation was expressed at the signing that the Crown acts in good faith and recognises these important values. As your local MP, I will continue to ensure this occurs in practice. On behalf of Whanganui District Council Mayor Andrew Tripe, he asked that I share the following with this House this morning: “I offer heartfelt congratulations on the first reading of He Rau Tukutuku. This milestone reflects more than 40 years of resolve, courage, and manawanui by hapū and iwi leaders, kaiwhiriwhiri, kaumātua, and w’ānau. While no settlement can undo the injustices of the past, this moment honours the truth of that history and looks to the future—titiro whakamuri; kōkiri whakamua [cognisant of the past; progress towards the future]. The council looks forward to working alongside you for the wellbeing of all W’anganui.”

This settlement is not an end point. It is a platform for cultural revitalisation, for economic development, and for a stronger relationship between iwi, the Crown, and the wider W’anganui community, through which we can all grow and prosper. Ngā Hapū o Te Iwi o Whanganui, I acknowledge your resilience, your leadership, and your unwavering commitment to your people. It was an honour to stand with you at Kaiwhaiki. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour) (09:41): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou e ngā hapū o Whanganui, ngā mihi ki a koutou i whakarangatira i a mātou i tēnei wā. Tēnei te mihi ki a koutou.

Ngā kaiwhiriwhiri, ki a koe hoki, e Ken, pai ki te kite i a koe e hoa. E tika ana ki te tautoko i ngā whakaaro e pā ana ki ngā kaiwhiriwhiri. Tracey, e tika hoki ki a maumahara ki a John Maihi.

Engari i tēnei wā, Ken, i pīrangi au ki te maumahara i te mahi a Tariana me Nick Tangaroa. E kore e wareware i a mātou tā rāua mahi ki te kōkiri i te kaupapa o Pākaitore, ne? E tika ana ki te maumahara i tā rāua mahi, me whakanui tā rāua mahi i ngā rā o mua.

Engari e hoa, ngā mihi ki a koe, ko koe te negotiator ināianei. He rerekē i tō mahi i ngā wā o mua, when you were the chief troublemaker. Engari tēnei te mihi ki a koe.

[Greetings to you, the hapū of Whanganui; greetings to you who have honoured us at this time. This is my acknowledgement of you.

The negotiators—to you also, Ken, it is good to see you, my friend. It is appropriate to support the consideration of the negotiators. Tracey, it is also appropriate to remember John Maihi.

However, at this time, Ken, I want to commemorate the work of Tariana and Nick Tangaroa. We will never forget their work to progress the Pākaitore initiative, right? It is appropriate to commemorate their work and celebrate their work in former times.

However, my friend, congratulations to you; you are the negotiator now. It’s different to your activities in prior times, when you were the chief troublemaker. But congratulations to you.]

It’s a huge comment, I think, on the Treaty settlement system that the biggest troublemaker, or one of the biggest troublemakers of the last generation, is now a very polished and well-to-do chief negotiator for Ngā Hapū o Whanganui. I want to congratulate Ken Mair on that. I never thought he’d make the transition, given his escapades in the past where he stopped the Te Karere programme from going on television. I’ll never forget that, Ken, and I think it’s important for our people who come here to remember the mahi of your chief negotiator, and it’s a comment on the system.

Minister Goldsmith was talking about some of that this morning, about how we can be very adversarial and then kia whakakotahi for the kaupapa [to unite for the work]. I mean this, Ken. I was thinking about Tariana and Nick and all of them, and Pakaitore. And, oh, Tari—you were managing her all the time as well as trying to manage yourself. The fire they had in their eyes, eh, in terms of who the Government was. It didn’t matter whether it was National or Labour, we were all sell-outs. Then Tony came and joined us. But the fire in their eyes and what they went through was incredible, and where we are today is incredible. Yes, as Deb Ngarewa-Packer says, there is no equity. We all know that, settlement process—we don’t like it. You know, we can’t stand this one and that one, and then we all come down here and we do the settlement because, through the peanuts, we can see hope. We see opportunity; we see our young people, some of you who are in the audience today. There’s an opportunity that we have seen come about—best examples being Ngāi Tahu and Tainui—and I wish the same with Ngā Hapū o Whanganui.

This is such a chance and such an opportunity to remind Aotearoa of the concession that te ao Māori makes at these moments; of the concession and the commitment that we make to Aotearoatanga, or to New Zealand, where you could be still protesting and asking for a $500 million or whatever, Ken, and you and the team. You have conceded, you have compromised. What’s the answer at the end of the road? Will the Crown continue to support Ngā Hapū o Whanganui? That’s the question, Minister Goldsmith. Too often, settlements are made and then settlements are forgotten. Too often iwi are left on their own. That’s not a criticism of National; that’s a criticism of the system. It’s a criticism of the system. I saw former Minister Andrew Little, now mayor of Wellington, this morning. We talk about the problems that are in front of us.

I just want to congratulate Ngā Hapū o Whanganui, the Minister, and former Ministers who have put this together but remind ourselves that there’s still so much to do. I’ve read some of that kōrero since the signing, and I want to mihi to all of you for committing to this. But we as a Crown, as a Government—and us, obviously, as the future Government—have to put a plan in place so that our people are just not left on their own, otherwise Ken Mair will be out there protesting yet again, and we want to keep Ken at the negotiating table.

Engari he hōnore ki te tū ki mua i a koutou i tēnei wā. Tēnei te mihi ki a koutou, ōku whanaunga kua tae mai nei i tēnei wā, tēnā koutou, tēnā anō tātou katoa.

[However, it is an honour to stand before you at this time. I hereby acknowledge you, my relations who have come here at this time; greetings to you and all of us.]

SUZE REDMAYNE (National—Rangitīkei) (09:46): Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. It is an honour and a privilege to speak here to the first reading of the Ngā Hapū o Te Iwi o Whanganui Claims Settlement Bill. The bill gives effect to He Rau Tukutuku, the deed of settlement between Ngā Hapū o Te Iwi o Whanganui and the Crown. I want to recognise the scale of the collaboration that’s taken place to get to where we are today. Ngā Hapū o Te Iwi o Whanganui is a collective of 17 hapū, whose rohe stretches from Pipiriki to Te Korowai o Te Awaiti and dot along the weave of Te Awa Tupua, the mighty Whanganui River, until it reaches the sea.

The unity you’ve displayed under the banner of the Whanganui Land Settlement Trust has been a great source of strength for your people. Today, here in Parliament, we gather to recognise that strength, that unity, and your commitment. Haere mai ki te Whare Pāremata.

[Welcome to Parliament House.]

It has been nearly 10 years since the Crown recognised the mandate of the Whanganui Land Settlement Trust to negotiate the settlement, but the history of this moment dwarfs a single decade. It reflects resilience, persistence, and aroha passed down through your kaumātua, your negotiators, and your whānau over many decades.

I pay tribute to the resilience and leadership of you all, and your collective willingness to progress. There are many to acknowledge and thank: Ken Mair, Rick Kingi, Des Canterbury, Tena Ruru, Erana Mohi, Hone Tamehana, George Matthews, Kahurangi Simon, Naveena McGookin, Dr Rāwiri Tinirau, Dr Te Tiwha Puketapu, Tina Rupuha Green, Turama Hawira. Your lead negotiator Ken Mair has also asked that we make special mention of the McCaw Lewis lawyers who stood behind the scenes throughout this long journey, especially now Judge Aidan Warren, Renika Siciliano and Carmen Mataira. Their expertise, guidance, and steadfast support made an important contribution to the successful negotiation of the Whanganui land settlement, Ken said. To Minister Goldsmith, thank you for the dedication and care shown throughout this process and for continuing the work of your predecessors, the Hon Andrew Little and Chris Finlayson.

Today is the day to acknowledge you all, Ngā Hapū o Te Iwi o Whanganui, your strength, your dignity, and your unwavering pursuit of justice. For generations, your people have carried the weight of the Crown’s actions. Today, the Crown seeks not to erase history but to recognise it, to apologise for it, and to look to a shared future. The settlement includes both financial and cultural redress as a means of restoring your mana and enabling a new era of prosperity and self-determination. It recognises your deep and enduring connection to your awa, your whenua, and your taonga tuku iko.

More than redress itself, this is a foundation; it’s a platform from which you can continue to grow on your own terms, in line with your aspirations, and grounded in your tikanga.

Chair of Ngāti Apa, Pahia Turia, told me last week, “It’s great to have another one of our neighbours moving through the settlement process”. He acknowledged that it’s been a long road for Whanganui, and today is a day to celebrate and acknowledge that milestone. Elijah Pue said that the most important thing to consider is the opportunity this settlement creates for our region, and for us all.

The name of your post-settlement governance entity, He Rau Tukutuku, both represents and signifies unity, the interweaving of 17 hapū, their histories, and their values into a single cohesive agreement, just as the tukutuku panel is created by the weaving together of horizontal and vertical strands to create something meaningful and enduring—something beautiful. You knew before the Crown acknowledged it that unity is a key driver of any collective endeavour. He Rau Tukutuku reflects and celebrates this kaupapa.

To the people of Ngā Hapū o Te Iwi o Whanganui, thank you—thank you for your generosity in engaging with this process, for holding your mana, and for walking a path that was never easy but always principled. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

SHANAN HALBERT (Labour) (09:51): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. Rapua te huarahi whānui hei ara whakapiri i ngā iwi e rua i runga i te whakaaro kotahi. Tihewa mauri ora.

E ngā whanaunga o W’anganui awa, tēnei te mihi ki a koutou i tēnei rā. Nau mai, haere mai ki tēnei Whare, te Whare Pāremata. Nō reira e mihi kau ana ki a koutou.

He mokopuna ahau a Henry Dargaville Bennett, nō reira e te whanaunga, tēnei te mihi ki a koutou i tēnei rā. Mai i te Kāhui Maunga ki Tangaroa, ko au te awa, ko te awa ko au.

[Thank you, Speaker of the House. Seek the wide path as a pathway to bring together the two peoples under a shared understanding. The breath of life.

To the relatives of the W’anganui River, I hereby acknowledge you today. Welcome, welcome to this House, the House of Parliament. Therefore, greetings to you.

I am a grandchild of Henry Dargaville Bennett, therefore, to my relative, I hereby acknowledge you today. From the Mountain Clan to the sea, I am the river; the river is me.]

Today, I want to acknowledge the many people who carried this kaupapa over decades. Treaty settlement negotiations require extraordinary patience and determination. There are kaumatua who began this journey and are no longer here to witness this debate today. There are whānau who protected kōrero, evidence, and whakapapa so that the history would not be forgotten. This House owes them recognition today as well, and I acknowledge the Whanganui Land Settlement Negotiation Trust for the work undertaken to bring this settlement to this point and first reading today. I want to acknowledge the negotiators, historians, researchers, legal teams, and community leaders who contributed to this process.

Most importantly, I want to acknowledge the uri o Ngā Hapū o Te Iwi o Whanganui here in te Whare Pāremata i tēnei rā. Your presence in the gallery gives this parliamentary debate real meaning. It’s the first step, where we share the history, the hurt, the pain, and the past in order to move forward as peoples of Aotearoa in this country today.

This settlement is not simply a legislative exercise; it is about our people, our whānau, the generations who carried the weight of these grievances while continuing to uphold their identity and connection to whenua. One of these strongest themes that runs through this settlement is the inseparable relationship between people and the whenua. This deed repeatedly returns to whenua, to awa, wāhi tapu, and to environmental stewardship of our taiao. That reflects a worldview where land is not treated as a commodity alone but a tipuna—an ancestor, a source of belonging, and a responsibility handed from one generation to the next for our rangatira mō āpōpō [leaders of tomorrow] to take forward on our behalf.

Treaty settlements are part of confronting the history openly, rather than pretending it did not happen. Today, we acknowledge that this settlement also creates an enduring relationship between Ngā Hapū o Te Iwi o Whanganui and Crown agencies across education, across hauora, across ngā kāinga, conservation and taiao, justice, and social development. Those relationships are intended to ensure that iwi are not simply consulted after decisions are made but are recognised as enduring partners with knowledge, history, and authority within their rohe. The financial and commercial redress package includes $30 million plus interest, alongside rights relating to the Crown properties, forestry land, rental proceeds, and carbon credits. It provides a platform for future economic development and intergenerational investment.

It is also important to say plainly that Treaty settlements are not compensation in any full sense of the word. No financial package can truly account for the generations of land loss to our whānau, language suppression, social dislocation, and economic marginalisation. E te whānau, I acknowledge your first reading today of this settlement, but I also note the challenging times that are before us; as we recognise the past, we have to acknowledge the present challenges that we face. Nō reira e te iwi, e te Whare, e mihi kau ana ki a koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, mauri ora ki a tātou katoa.

[Therefore, to the people, to the House, respectful greetings to you, greetings and thanks to you, health and wellbeing to us all.]

DAVID MacLEOD (National—New Plymouth) (09:56):Tēnā koe e te Speaker. Te mea tuatahi, e ngā uri o W’anganui, nau mai, haramai ki tō Whare, te Whare Pāremata i tēnei ata.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker. Firstly, to the descendants of W’anganui, welcome, welcome to your House, Parliament House, this morning.]

It’s a privilege to stand and take the last call in this first reading of Ngā Hapū o Te Iwi o Whanganui Claims Settlement Bill. This is just before it moves on to the next stage, which I will be privileged to be involved with, which is the select committee process. As the Māori Affairs Committee, we are privileged to be able to visit the whenua of many of the settlements that come before us at the committee itself. Just this morning, we had a mihi whakatau for a number of iwi of the Hauraki area. These journeys that the committee goes through are quite emotional journeys; we learn of the many, many wrongdoings of the Crown in the past.

I’ve always said to people, if you want to learn about the history of Aotearoa, the first place you can go to with confidence is going to Treaty settlements and looking at the acknowledgments and the history that is held within Treaty settlements themselves. It is said to be the true and accurate account of actually what happened. It was absolutely the case for myself when I read the Treaty settlement that we have before us here.

I was born and raised in South Taranaki, in the Manaia-Kapuni area, and I read with interest what has occurred. These settlements are only for a point in time, from the signing of the Treaty up until 1992, but I look at it and it brings back memories—memories of Moutoa Gardens. I see Ken up there, and I’m sure many of your other whanaunga there were part of what some might call the unrest that occurred at the gardens there some time ago. As a young person, I really didn’t truly understand what that was about, but reading your settlement here, it becomes clear to me not just what it’s about but the importance of it. I learnt about Pākaitore, your fishing kāinga, and what that meant for you. But more so the fact of what that occasion, when you were protesting, was all about; the fact that with the dealings that have been spoken about by fellow members of the debating chamber today about the wrongdoings with regards to the land acquisitions by the Crown, by the New Zealand Company and all that, of trying to fix those wrongs. It’s a learning and it’s something that should be acknowledged and it’s something that should be fixed.

When I learnt of the actions at Moutoa Gardens and particularly Ken—I met Ken, actually, personally, for the first time as a young person at the squash club and I saw him on the court there, and he was playing against my older sister, and I’m sorry to say, Ken, but I think she actually beat you on that occasion. But, what I did see was the absolute competitiveness of Ken in everything that he approached. I knew that with Ken there, with the other trustees involved in a settlement here, the Crown was going to be held to account with that. And I acknowledge that.

I acknowledge all of the people that have been involved with the settlement today and we’ve got Rick Barker here sitting in the House, but also the Ministers—the successive Ministers—we mentioned the Hon Chris Finlayson, the Hon Andrew Little, and, of course, the present Minister, the Hon Paul Goldsmith.

It takes time, these settlements, it takes a long time, but it’s good to finally have you in the gallery here to take this next step. Yes, there will be time before we get back here to the final stage of the third reading before it goes to Royal assent when it actually becomes law. I look forward to partaking in that process. I look forward to meeting you on your whenua during the select committee process and the submissions. And with that, I commend the bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): There will now be a series of procedural motions and at the end of those motions, if there was the will for a waiata, that will be the time for that.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

Referral to Select Committee

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor) (10:02): The question is, That the Ngā Hapū o Te Iwi o Whanganui Claims Settlement Bill be considered by the Māori Affairs Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Māori Affairs Committee.

Instruction to Select Committee

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) (10:02): I move, That the Ngā Hapū o Te Iwi o Whanganui Claims Settlement Bill be reported to the House by 17 September 2026.

Motion agreed to.

Waiata—“Ngā wai o W’anganui”

Haka—“Ka haere ngā weri”

Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu Claims Settlement Bill

Ngāti Tara Tokanui Claims Settlement Bill

Ngāti Hei Claims Settlement Bill

Legislative Statement

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members, in accordance with the determination of the Business Committee, the debate on the associated third reading of these bills will be up to two hours and 30 minutes.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) (10:17): I present legislative statements on the Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu Claims Settlement Bill, the Ngāti Tara Tokanui Claims Settlement Bill, and the Ngāti Hei Claims Settlement Bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Those legislative statements are published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

Third Reading

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) (10:17): I move, That the Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu Claims Settlement Bill, the Ngāti Tara Tokanui Claims Settlement Bill, and the Ngāti Hei Claims Settlement Bill be now read a third time.

Tihei mauri ora.Ki te mana whenua o tēnei rohe, e Te Āti Awa, tēnā koutou.E ngā rau rangatira o Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu, Ngāti Tara Tokanui me Ngāti Hei, tēnā koutou. Piki mai, kake mai ki Te Upoko-o-te-ika. Tēnei taku mihi atu ki a koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[The breath of life. To the territorial authority of this region, Te Āti Awa, greetings. To the many leaders of Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu, Ngāti Tara Tokanui, and Ngāti Hei, greetings. Welcome, welcome to Wellington. I hereby acknowledge you, greetings and thanks to you; indeed to us all.]

Madam Speaker, it’s great to be here to speak today for this rare occurrence of three Treaty settlement bills being read for a third time together. It’s a notable occasion as it brings a significant step closer to completing the individual settlement journeys for Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu, Ngāti Tara Tokanui, and Ngāti Hei. Their journeys have been long and, some might say, arduous, and I want to begin by acknowledging those from Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu, Ngāti Tara Tokanui, and Ngāti Hei who join us in the House this morning—many who have travelled long distances to witness this occasion.

I also want to acknowledge those who are tuning in on live stream or listening on the crystal sets back at home in the Coromandel. It was wonderful to have some time together this morning to hear from your speakers and to sing together and to have some food together. Thank you very much for the opportunity to do that. As I said this morning, to take a break from the tumult of politics and to consider some of the deeper things that we are considering through Treaty settlements and recognising the three settlements together today shows the deeply intertwined relationships of the Hauraki iwi, which have been a feature of the negotiations. These agreements will allow each groups’ bill to progress to third reading today. I just want to thank everybody for being a part of that.

Recognising the three settlements together today shows the deeply intertwined relationships of the Hauraki iwi which have been a feature of the negotiation, and these agreements will allow each group’s bill to progress to third reading today, and I just want thank everybody for being part of that.

I want to pay tribute to the tūpuna and kaumātua who took the first and many subsequent steps to seek justice for Ngāti Rāhui Tumutumu, Ngāti Tara Tokanui, and Ngāti Hei. Their path wasn’t easy, and as I said this morning, we do acknowledge the emotions that come to the surface on a day like this when we remember those who have been part of this over many generations but also, quite recently, who are no longer with us today.

I want to thank the iwi for their unrelenting efforts and especially acknowledge the mandated negotiators: for Ngāti Rāhui Tumutumu, Jill Taylor and Nicola Scott; for Ngāti Tara Tokanui, Amelia Williams and Russell Karu; and for Ngāti Hei, Peter Matai Johnson and Joe Davis.

A special mention for three people who have played a significant role in the iwi settlement, who are no longer with us. I refer to Mapuna Turner, one of the original negotiators for Ngāti Rāhui Tumutumu; Kiri Karu, a trustee of the Ngāti Tara Tokanui Trust, who, sadly, passed away earlier this year; and the late Peter Tiki Johnston, the original negotiator for Ngāti Hei. Their leadership has not been forgotten, and it’s a great sadness that they are not physically with us today. All of those who shouldered the heavy mantle of representing their iwi over the last 15 years have acted honourably and reasonably in our negotiations. We’ve sat across the table at the end to get this concluded. We’ve been pragmatic, and we’ve got things done. I’m grateful for that.

I also want to acknowledge that the previous Treaty settlement Ministers—Christopher Finlayson and Andrew Little—and the many Government agencies representing the Crown. I also thank the Thames-Coromandel District Council, the Hauraki District Council, and the Waikato Regional Council. I also want to extend my thanks to the Hon Rick Barker, in the House today, and Michael Dreaver, who were chief negotiators for much of the negotiations, and also to Brian Dickey KC, the chief negotiator in the final stages, supported by the officials from Te Tari Whakatau.

Today, we recognise that the Crown severely wronged each of the iwi in the years after the signing of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, the Treaty of Waitangi. The history is set out in the

Waitangi Tribunal’s 2006 Hauraki inquiry report. The historical record shows that successive generations of iwi raised these concerns and these grievances, and successive Governments failed to deal with them. Recognition of, and redress for, these grievances are long overdue. In each settlement, the Crown has acknowledged historic Treaty breaches and offered an apology, which will be permanently enshrined in our nation’s law through the legislation passed today. For all the iwi, the Crown apology acknowledges that its actions and omissions left their people, essentially, landless. It eroded tribal structures and dislocated iwi members from their pā and their kāinga. Itcaused physical and spiritual hardship that remains deeply felt today.

While there are many commonalities between the three, each iwi has a unique experience, and Ngāti Rāhui Tumutumu sent men to Waikato to fight Crown forces and, as a result, suffered the confiscation of land in which they had interests in the Tauranga area. Over the next century, Ngāti Rāhui Tumutumu, who lived on land surrounding Te Aroha maunga, lost most of that land largely through Crown purchasing. This included land that the Crown promised to reserve for them in 1880 when Ngāti Rāhui Tumutumu entered an agreement to enable the opening of the gold field. Over time, this deprived Ngāti Rāhui Tumutumu of their rangatiratanga over significant sites, including Te Aroha’s mineral springs.

Ngāti Tara Tokanui also lost land in which they had interest through the Crown’s confiscation and acquisition of Tauranga land. The Crown then used monopoly powers and advance payments to individuals to acquire collectively owned Hauraki land goldfields. In the following years, Ngāti Tara Tokanui kāinga on the banks of the Waihou River and the Ohinemuri River suffered significant pollution to their water supply after the Crown authorised the discharge of mine tailings, including cyanide-treated waste, into those waterways. The impact on the health of Ngāti Tara Tokanui was significant.

Ngāti Hei hold a unique place in New Zealand history. In November 1769, the first written account of a pōwhiri between Māori and Pākehā occurred when Captain Cook was invited to the fortified pā of Ngāti Hei paramount chief Toawaka in Whitianga. He and his crew stayed days. Despite this positive beginning, the impacts of Pākehā settlement affected Ngāti Hei even before the Treaty was signed. A Crown investigation into pre-Treaty land transactions saw Ngāti Hei lose much of their coastal whenua. From 1858, the Crown acquired significant areas of land in the Ngāi Hei rohe, without providing reserves and sometimes without consultation. This left Ngāti Hei unable to participate in the new economic opportunities and challenges emerging. These settlements, acknowledge the impact of Crown actions, provide redress that recognises the traditional cultural and spiritual association.

The Ngāti Rāhui Tumutumu redress includes financial redress of $5.5 million with the right to purchase two commercial redress properties. This includes the vesting of 17 individual and joint cultural redress properties. The significant seven of the cultural vestings and significant overlay classifications are on the slopes of Te Aroha maunga, the ancestral maunga at the centre of their existence.

Ngāti Tara Tokanui redress includes $6 million in financial redress and the right to purchase and lease back to the Crown the land underlying Paeroa College; seven individual and two joint cultural redress properties, including Ngāti Koi Domain in the transfer to Ngāti Tara Tokanui.

Ngāti Hei redress includes financial redress of $8.5 million, with the ability to purchase three commercial properties, including Whenuakite Station when Ngāti Tamaterā complete their settlement. It includes also the vesting of 15 individual and two joint cultural redress properties in the foothills of Te Paeroa-o-Toi to the beaches around Whitianga.

Each iwi is also party to the Pare Hauraki Collective Redress Bill, which contains shared and individual redress for Hauraki iwi. The Crown remains committed to advancing that bill once the collective deed has one more signatory.

This settlement represents a commitment to reset the relationships and to start a new journey, and I heard the speeches this morning about the need to continue that conversation, and we will do that. We won’t always agree, but we will continue the conversation.

I conclude by looking to the future. The passing of these bills means that each of the iwi post-settlement governance entities has initiated, or within a year will initiate, trustee elections. Moving towards governing significant assets is an exciting phase, and I wish each iwi well as they do that. Ngāti Rāhui Tumutumu, Ngāti Tara Tokanui, and Ngāti Hei, the Crown looks forward to working with you as you elect those who will represent you in the future. I commend the Ngāti Rāhui Tumutumu Claims Settlement Bill, the Ngāti Tara Tokanui Claims Settlement Bill, and the Ngāti Hei Claims Settlement Bill to the House. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

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

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) (10:28): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. Ko te mihi tuatahi ki te Atua nāna nei ngā mea katoa. Ko te mihi tuarua ki te Whare e tū nei, tēnā koe.

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

He mihi mahana ki a koutou, Ngāti Hei, Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu and Ngāti Tara Tokanui. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Thank you to the Speaker of the House. The first greeting is to God, to whom all things belong. The second greeting is to the House that stands here; greetings.

That which is joined remains an unbroken line of descent, the deceased with the deceased. That which is joined remains an unbroken line of descent, the living with the living.

Warm greetings to you, Ngāti Hei, Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu, and Ngāti Tara Tokanui. Greetings to you, greetings to you, greetings to us all.]

To the representatives of all iwi gathered today, a warm welcome. It was a pleasure and an honour to be invited along this morning to join you to share in your speeches and waiata, so thank you for the opportunity of doing that first thing this morning.

To the kaumātua, to the kuia, to the historians, researchers, trustees, to the negotiators, Rick Barker and Michael Dreaver, those two battle-worn negotiators, thank you for your effort in bringing the three separate settlements to this point in time—three separate pieces of legislation, which are, for the first time I can remember, being brought together in one final reading speech. I’d like to acknowledge that it was done with the agreement of all three iwi that we would have an extended third reading speech that brought all of these three separate negotiations together, but I would also like to note my personal view. We’re always told in in politics not to have a personal view, but my view is that the least we could have maybe done today is have three separate third reading speeches. You’ve come a long way, you’ve travelled a long way to be here, and the least we could do was to have three third readings for your settlements today and not have them brought together quickly. But I acknowledge that you chose to do that, and on Labour, we agreed because that was your choice.

These settlements are the result of people refusing to allow the experiences of your tūpuna to be forgotten. They are also reminders of the responsibility that this House carries when the Crown has failed to uphold its obligations under Te Tiriti o Waitangi. No settlement can ever fully compensate confiscation of land, raupatu, destruction of economic foundations, the suppression of authority, or the grief that has passed from one generation to the next. This House has no power to undo what has happened, but settlements like these can be acknowledged by the Crown that the wrong was done, that obligations were breached, and the relationships must be rebuilt on a different foundation.

Today, we recognise three iwi with distinct histories, distinct experiences, and distinct relationships with their whenua and their waters. I’ll start with Ngāti Hei in Coromandel. Many New Zealanders know those places that are yours: Whitianga, Cooks Beach, Hāhei, the coastline surrounding Te Whanganui-a-Hei. But behind that beauty that so many New Zealanders enjoy is also the history, which maybe many New Zealanders don’t know, and I hope through this legislation more will understand the history of your area.

The historical account shows how Crown purchasing practises and the Native Land Court placed huge pressure on customary systems and the fragmentation and land loss that ensued after that that was imposed by the Crown. Like many iwi, Ngāti Hei experienced the cumulative effect of those forces that had massive impact over time. In the apology in the legislation, the Crown acknowledges that these actions breached Te Tiriti o Waitangi and caused lasting damage. Those acknowledgements are important because they place the Crown’s responsibility clearly on the record, as do our speeches in Hansard today.

The cultural redress within your settlement reflects the enduring connection in areas across your area. Those sites are not simply parcels of land; they carry memory, they carry identity, whakapapa, and also obligation, which is passed through in the next generations. What stands out strongly in your settlement is the determination of Ngāti Hei to protect and restore your relationship with the natural environment. The coastline, the harbours, the waterways of eastern Coromandel are central. They are places where generations gathered kai, maintained pā, and had a real relationship over time from one generation to the next. It’s my real hope that the provisions in that settlement strengthen that and maintain that connection for many generations to come.

I acknowledge all of those who contributed to reaching this point, particularly the negotiators and the whānau who carried the weight of the claim on their shoulders over time. The responsibility of ensuring that history of your people was properly recorded and properly recognised. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, Ngāti Hei.

Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu—this is the point where I find it a bit jarring, right. We’re just going to another iwi, but kei te pai. This settlement tells the story of an iwi whose relationship with the Crown was marked with raupatu, warfare, marginalisation, and also loss of land. We know that Crown military action across the central North Island and the long shadow of conflict cast across generations. Large areas of land around Taupō western shores were lost through Crown purchases and practises, again of the Native Land Courts, as occurred elsewhere across the country. For Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu, those losses were profound because whenua was a foundation of that economic independence, which was sustenance, identity, and also the social wellbeing that came from that.

The Crown’s apology, which lays before us on the Table in legislation, acknowledges the breaches of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and recognises that damage done through actions and admissions. Despite generations of pressure, the iwi has retained its identity, connections, and determination to seek justice through this process. The cultural redress in the settlement reflects the continuing relationship with those sites that are deeply significant. Those places hold stories of tūpuna, of conflict, and also of survival.

Treaty settlements are often discussed in financial terms, but the financial component is only a fraction of part of these agreements. What many iwi seek is strong recognition of what happened, the wrongs that were done, and the experiences that were gone through. For many whānau, this process has taken decades. Some of those who began this journey are no longer with us to see this legislation pass, but we feel their presence here today. The reality should never be lost that so many have worked over the years to bring this point in time to now.

Thirdly, with two minutes to spare, Ngāti Tara Tokanui, I would like to acknowledge you in this House today. I would like to acknowledge the historical account that is a part of your bill, that between 1865 and 1868, the Crown confiscated 290,000 acres of land around Tauranga. Ngāti Tara Tokanui interests were included in those confiscations. The Native Land Court, again, processed and accelerated that land loss. By 1875, six of the seven owners of Owharoa had sold their interests, and today, only two acres of those original holdings remain in Māori ownership.

Ngāti Tara Tokanui entered agreements that enabled gold mining within their rohe, yet those benefits, that economic activity did not flow fairly back to iwi. Rental income was applied by the Crown towards repayment of advances, and at the same time, the environmental degradation and consequences were laid with iwi. Mining waste and cyanide-treated tailings were discharged into the Waihou and Ohinemuri rivers. By 1900, Crown officials themselves acknowledged that parts of the river system were polluted and unfit for human or animal consumption.

The Crown apology in your settlement acknowledges the wrongs that were done, not only the land loss, but those environmental damages that were done; and the cultural redress package recognises the enduring connection of Ngāti Tara Tokanui to important sites, including Mimitu Pā and Te Pou o Tiki Te Aroha, and others including Ngāti Koi Domain.

This settlement is also important because it recognises the relationship between the environmental damage that it’s done and the cultural harm. When waterways are polluted, when wetlands disappear, and when traditional food sources are no longer available, that has a direct impact upon people. It affects identity, tikanga, and the relationship between people and place. That history deserves to be acknowledged honestly in this House.

In conclusion, these three separate settlements are different in their history, different in their details, but they do share common threads. Each records the damaging impact the Crown actions undermined tino rangatiratanga, alienated whenua, weakened tribal structures, and left enduring consequences for generations to come. Despite this, we are here today, and despite this, we have three separate bills in front of us that we are passing a third and final reading, and it is my genuine, heartfelt wishes that you take all of this and make it the best you can for the future generations of each of your three iwi.

He mihi mahana ki a koutou i tēnei rā. Nō reira tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, huihui mai tātou katoa.

[Warm regards to you today. Therefore, greetings and thanks to you, to us assembled here.]

STEVE ABEL (Green) (10:39): Kia ora koutou, Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu, Ngāti Tara Tokanui, Ngāti Hei. I wondered, Ginny, if the iwi agreed to hear it all at once because they’re sick of hearing the politicians talk and want to get on with it, which I’ll interpret that being the reason behind it and respect that.

I do want to give a gentle rebuke to the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations. Minister, I feel that we can do better, sometimes, than cramming in so many things in the space of a morning around iwi settlements. The pōwhiri was powerful this morning, but the Māori Affairs Committee members had to leave before the end of the pōwhiri to attend hearings of Ngāti Ruapani mai Waikaremoana. That was only a half-hour hearing, at 8.30, that we had to attend, and then we had to get back to the House for W’anganui, first reading. I think we can do better than that, Minister, and give a bit more time for each of those iwi, for us to afford the respect that we are here to show as part of reparations for the atrocities of the Crown and the evils of the Crown.

To those of you here in the gallery, the iwi represented today, I will try to run some sort of theme in the logic. Each of these settlements is unique; each of the experiences of your iwi is unique, but there are these chilling themes that run through the settlements. Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu, we visited your beautiful maunga in Te Aroha and understood your gifting of the maunga to the Crown with an understanding that you would still have use of your tapu springs, the hot springs there. But by the early 20^th century, Māori no longer had free access to the springs or input to the management of this tapu site. I mentioned this in the second reading, but it was a chilling experience for us to see the segregation that occurred on the flanks of Te Aroha maunga, where the actual iwi, who are mana whenua, were given a little building down the bottom of the hill where they were only allowed to use the springs, and the main part of the springs was for tauiwi. It was segregation, undeniable; an example of segregation in our history.

The Crown also regarded Māori that defended Aotearoa New Zealand from the invasion of the British and the Waikato as rebels, and Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu tūpuna were punished. Land was confiscated in the Tauranga district between 1865 and 1868. This is a familiar story, and now—and I mentioned this earlier today—we recognise that those who fought in the New Zealand Wars in defence of Aotearoa New Zealand are heroes in our history, not rebels.

What is another familiar theme is that the promise of what would be attained by iwi Māori in the relationship with settlers very rarely came to fruition. The land that was taken was exploited in ways that invariably destroyed the cultural and the economic base of iwi Māori. In the case of Ngāti Tara Tokanui, these examples are glaring as well.

There’s a theme across all three iwi of gold mining, the negative effect of gold mining. There was no income from the gold mining that occurred in Tara Tokanui’s rohe. Between 1877 and 1882, the monopoly powers claimed by the Crown meant that Māori had no option but to alienate their land to private parties if they needed to sell it. As Ginny Andersen pointed out, the discharge of the mine tailings in the Waihou and the Ōhinemuri led to cyanide poisoning of those wai—300 people needed an alternative water supply. We’re still doing this mining—can you believe it? Mining is still happening in the Hauraki District, and it still produces cyanide.

The other striking thing which we see across Hauraki is the destruction of the magnificent rākau—the incredible forests, the kahikatea wetland forests that grew massive buttress trees. The tallest trees that have ever stood in Aotearoa New Zealand were in the Hauraki District. They were cleared, they were burned, and the wetlands were drained. Here in the bill is recognised the draining of the Hauraki Plains, which were a significant source of food and other resources for Ngāti Tara Tokanui in the early 1900s, when the Crown established the Hauraki Plains drainage scheme to drain that land and develop it for farming. By the end of this whole process, in 1896, there were only 232 acres remaining as Māori freehold land. So, again, the promise of the benefits of the relationship with the colonisers turned out to be ashes in the hands of the iwi.

Ngāti Hei: likewise, *“The Crown acknowledges that the degradation of the environment arising from gold mining, gum digging, flax milling, commercial fishing, deforestation … associated burn-off, siltation, introduced weeds and pests, farm run-off, and other pollution has been a source of distress and grievance to Ngāti Hei. The Crown further acknowledges that this greatly harmed traditional sources of kai, and that Ngāti Hei actively protested environmental damage in their rohe.” Ngā mihi, kia ora, you who defend te taiao.

There is another phrase in the Ngāti Hei settlement which I want to finish on: “The Crown acknowledges the harm endured by many Ngāti Hei tamariki from decades of Crown policies that strongly discouraged the use of te reo Māori in schools.” The relationship between the Crown and Ngāti Hei might have been one of mutual advantage. Mutual advantage was the promise of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. The promise of Te Tiriti was mutual respect and mutual advantage. Māori welcomed the opportunity for cultural and economic exchange in a binding relationship, and their goodwill was exploited and betrayed.

The Treaty is for ever. It is not something that can ever be settled. It is more than merely a contract; it is a covenant. This is a settlement, but the relationship between the Crown and te iwi Māori is a living relationship. We must lean into that principle that there might’ve been mutual advantage, and there must be mutual advantage and mutual respect in the relationship from here onwards. That is the promise of these settlements. That is the commitment that we should be making as the Crown, Minister and colleagues of the House, because there can be no thriving in Aotearoa New Zealand if there is not justice for Māori. There can be no cohesion and no unity if we do not uphold that promise of our founding agreement, Te Tiriti o Waitangi, which recognises the tino rangatiratanga of iwi Māori. We commend these three settlements to the House today. Kia ora.

CAMERON LUXTON (ACT) (10:49): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Tēnā koutou e ngā mana whenua o Hauraki rāua ko Coromandel. E ngā uri o Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu, o Ngāti Tara Tokanui, me Ngāti Hei. Nau mai, haere mai ki tēnei Whare. Tēnā koutou katoa.

[Greetings to you, the terrestrial authorities of Hauraki and Coromandel. To the descendants of Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu, Ngāti Tara Tokanui, and Ngāti Hei, welcome, welcome to this House. Greetings to you all.]

A triplet of settlement bills is before the House today. The Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu Claims Settlement Bill, the Ngāti Tara Tokanui Claims Settlement Bill, and the Ngāti Hei Claims Settlement Bill represent an immensely important step in acknowledging historical injustices and restoring the relationship between the Crown and these iwi of Hauraki and eastern Coromandel. I thank you three triplets—if I can say that—for agreeing to read these bills together, as has been agreed by every party of this House. I have been able to speak on the three bills separately at previous stages, and I’m grateful to contribute to this special third reading of these three settlement bills together.

These bills represent an important moment for each of these iwi and for the Crown, which we are speaking for here in the House. They are the result of many years of work, negotiations, research, and perseverance by whānau, kaumātua, historians, negotiators, and everybody who has carried this, as we’ve heard, for generations. At the centre of these settlements is a simple truth: the Crown failed in its obligations under the Treaty. Each of these settlements have parts in there where the historical account is put down, importantly, for posterity for New Zealanders to always be able to see the apology as well as what we can make in the form of redress.

For Ngāti Tara Tokanui, the Crown itself acknowledges that its actions severely undermined the wellbeing of the iwi—severely. It eroded tribal structures and resulted in the loss of most of the ancestral lands.

For Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu, whose rohe extends across the Te Aroha, the Kaimai Range, the Hauraki Plains, and the Coromandel Peninsula, this settlement recognises the enduring impact of confiscation, of swindling and Crown purchasing, and of mining activity, on the iwi and its people and the whenua.

For Ngāti Hei, whose deep connection to the eastern Coromandel and all of those beaches and heads stretches back many generations, this bill gives legislative effect to the deed of settlement first signed in 2017, and records and acknowledges apologies made by the Crown. And may I take a second to congratulate you on your involvement in the fisheries in that area at the moment.

There is no settlement which can fully compensate for the loss suffered. No financial redress can ever truly measure the damage caused by the erosion of language, identity, and economic opportunity, and the intergenerational connection that has been attacked. Settlements matter because they are an acknowledgment, an acknowledgment that the Crown failed to uphold the promises. But, importantly, these bills are not just about addressing the past, they are about the future, they are about creating a platform for development, cultural revitalisation, and an opportunity for generations to come—generations of Kiwis—to live together. These settlements, which have been worked on for so long, span many generations. The work began on this journey a long time ago, and many did not get to see the conclusion, but many are represented by the uri here in the House.

It is also important to recognise that these settlements reflect the endurance and resilience of these iwi. Despite the injustices, despite land loss and marginalisation, these three iwi have retained their identity, whakapapa, tikanga, and connection to their rohe. These three bills, read together in this unique way, are part of New Zealand’s ongoing Treaty settlement process, a process that, while imperfect, remains an important mechanism for confronting our history honestly and building a strong future together. As members of this House, we have a responsibility not only to settle historic grievances but to make sure future generations inherit a country where the mistakes of the past are neither forgotten nor repeated, but, as I say, are a foundation to make our country stronger for every citizen that calls this place their home. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First) (10:54): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First in support of the Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu Claims Settlement Bill, the Ngāti Tara Tokanui Claims Settlement Bill, as well as the Ngāti Hei Claims Settlement Bill. It is a privilege and an honour to stand here today in this House and speak to these three Treaty settlement bills. I just acknowledge the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations for bringing these bills in for a landing today in their third and final reading. He noted that it is, in fact, a notable occasion—because of those deeply intertwined relationships across this particular area, the agreement to have these three final readings read here in the House today. I’d like to send my warmest greetings and that of my leader, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, as well as Matua Shane to whānau of Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu, Ngāti Tara Tokanui, as well as the whānau of Ngāti Hei, who are here in the House today.

It’s always with some trepidation that I speak to these bills, because it is so impactful when you read the historical accounts set inside each and every Treaty settlement bill. You’d have to be a real cold fish if you didn’t get moved by what you read in the historical accounts, and so I think it’s very important for every member of Parliament to take the time to read about what has happened in our past. It is great how we can come together, as a Parliament, from all political parties and speak in unison as we move these bills forward—albeit making note that Steve Abel did give the Minister a bit of a growling. But, together in the House, we are combined in our kaupapa today.

I would like to extend my greetings to the whānau of Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu who have travelled here to witness this moment. As I mentioned, it is an honour to stand before you as we move the Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu Claims Settlement Bill in for its final reading. This is the final legislative milestone of a 15-year journey, but, actually, just that last part is 15 years, because we’re in the House today to witness the moment of justice that has been over a century in the making. The history we acknowledge today is one of profound loss. Through the Crown’s historical actions, unjust land laws, and the confiscation of land, Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu were rendered virtually landless. That was not just a loss of soil but a severing of a physical connection to the maunga Te Aroha and also their ancestral identity.

A financial redress package of $5.5 million—the Ngāti Tumutumu Trust will have the resources now to invest in its people, but, as we know, the heart of any settlement actually isn’t just about the pūtea, it’s about the return of the land. The heart of that settlement lies in the land. During the select committee stage, submissions underscored that while financial redress is, of course, necessary, it’s the return of the land that causes the healing, so I wish, for all of those in your iwi, that that healing process has begun.

This bill gives effect to the return of 17 sites of immense cultural significance. We also acknowledge the commercial redress, including the land at Te Aroha College, ensuring that iwi have a stake in the infrastructure of their own rohe. While this bill marks the final legal resolution of these historical claims, submitters during the select committee stage also noted that it is a beginning. It’s a new way forward for the people of Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu.

I now turn to the Ngāti Tara Tokanui Claims Settlement Bill. I’d just like to make a note that, while we’re reading these bills together—there is a saying in my whānau “Same same but different”—I want to speak individually to each of these because of the differences. While there is some collective historical grievance, what I feel is important for me to do is to speak individually to these bills.

Ngāti Tara Tokanui, today we are also acknowledging a significant milestone for you. The passage of this Treaty claims settlement bill is not just a legislative formality, it is a profound act of recognition, a very long overdue apology, and a commitment to a shared future. Once again, your historical reading and the account in this bill makes for, actually, very sombre reading. It details a history where the Crown’s actions and its failures to act—just as importantly—had a devastating impact on the people of Ngāti Tara Tokanui. So, to whānau of Ngāti Tara Tokanui, this settlement cannot undo the decades of struggle, nor can it replace the tūpuna who did not live to see this day.

However, it does offer a new beginning; it’s a new way forward where the mamae of the past can be acknowledged but not embedded into the very DNA of the generations to come. No settlement—and we all in this House can acknowledge that—will ever fully compensate for the magnitude of loss. This package, though, does provide a foundation for the future. There’s a $6 million redress package that will provide a foundation for economic self-determination, and also the vesting of seven sites of cultural significance, including the Ngāti Koi Domain—stewardship of ancestral lands finally returned to their rightful kaitiaki.

I’d like to speak now to Ngāti Hei and their claims settlement bill in its third and final reading, also today marking the culmination of a journey that has spanned generations. It’s a day of profound significance, not just for Ngāti Hei but for all of New Zealand. I want to acknowledge the negotiators, the kaumātua, and the whānau of Ngāti Hei, who have worked tirelessly for decades to reach this point. Many who began this journey are no longer with us, but their spirit and their dedication are woven into the fabric of this settlement. Your perseverance has ensured that the voices of your ancestors have been heard and that the rights of your mokopuna are being secured. As we gather in this House to finalise this settlement, we acknowledge a history of resilience, a struggle for justice, and a commitment to a shared future.

This bill, based on the deed of settlement signed in 2017, represents our collective effort to address these historical wrongs. It’s not a complete remedy for the past, however—no legislation could ever truly undo the pain of loss—but it is a vital step towards reconciliation and restorative justice. The historical record is clear: Ngāti Hei suffered the loss of their ancestral lands, the erosion of their traditional authority, and the marginalisation of their culture and identity. These were not just historical events; they were deep wounds that have impacted the social, economic, and spiritual wellbeing of Ngāti Hei for over a century.

The redress provided in this bill, both cultural and financial, is a testament to the endurance of Ngāti Hei. The vesting of culturally significant sites, the statutory acknowledgments, and the financial resources are more than just legal transfers; they are tools for the future. They provide a foundation for Ngāti Hei to revitalise their culture, strengthen their communities, and pursue their own economic aspirations on their own terms.

In closing, let us honour the past, celebrate this milestone, and look forward with hope to the future that Ngāti Hei will build. I commend the Ngāti Hei Claims Settlement Bill, the Ngāti Tara Tokanui Claims Settlement Bill, and the Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu Claims Settlement Bill to the House.

HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE (Te Pāti Māori—Hauraki-Waikato) (11:03): Tōia Tainui tapotu ki te moana. Mā wai e tō? Mā tātou e tō. Mā Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu e tō, mā Ngāti Hei e tō, mā Tara Tokanui e tō.

Nau mai ki tō koutou Whare i tēnei rangi. Nau mai ki te Whare Pāremata. Nā koutou tēnei rangi, waihoki ngā ruruhi koroheke, ō koutou mate i whakawhārikihia i te ata tonu nei ki te āta kōwhiri.

Nā koutou, Te Āti Awa, te reo pōwhiri ki a mātou o waka, waihoki o Hauraki whānui i tēnei ata. Nei rā te reo mihi.Tainui

Kua ara ake ahau i te papa o te whenua, kua kite ahau i ngā whetū e tū takitahi ana: Ko Matariki te kairūri, ko Atutahi kei te taumata o te Mangōroa. Kei tō tātou Arikinui, Kuīni Nga wai hono i te po, koe e whakakanohi i a tātou ki Ingarangi i tēnei wā tonu ki ngā kāhui ariki o reira. Rire rire hau, pai mārire. Pai mārire.

Ko te whakahirahiratanga o tēnei rangi, koinei ngā kerēme, ētehi o ngā kerēme whakamutunga o te waka o . Kātahi anō, i ngā tau tata nei, i whakanui i te 30 tau o mātou, ngā uri o te raupatu, i roto i ngā kerēme raupatu.Tainui

Nā reira tangihia rā ngā mate, tangihia rā ngā mate, kawea mai ki konei ki te Whare o te raiona, ki te Kāwanatanga me ngā uri o te raupatu. Tēnā rā koe e te Pīka.

[Haul the Tainui all the way down to the sea. Who will haul her? We will haul her. Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu will haul, Ngāti Hei will haul, Tara Tokanui will haul.

Welcome to your House today. Welcome to the Parliament House. Today is yours, and, also, the elder ladies and gentlemen—your deceased, who were arrayed this very morning.

It was yours, Te Āti Awa, the voice of welcome to us of the Tainui confederation, and also of wider Hauraki this morning. Here is the voice of thanks.

I arose from the bed of the earth; I have seen the stars standing alone. Matariki is the one who serenades in farewell, and Atutahi is at the zenith of the Milky Way. To our great monarch, Queen Nga wai hono i te po, you who represents us in England at this very moment among the royal families of that place: peace and goodwill be upon us. Goodwill be upon us.

The significance of today is that these are the claims, some of the final claims of the Tainui confederation. It has only been in recent years that we celebrated the 30-year anniversary of ours, the descendants of confiscation, in the context of confiscation claims.

Therefore, grieve for the deceased, grieve for the departed, and bring them here to this House of the lion, to the Government and the descendants of the confiscation. Thank you, Mr Speaker.]

Settlement bills often arrive in this House wrapped in language of closure and resolution. But let us be honest: in this House today, there is no settlement that can truly compensate for what was taken from our people. No settlement can restore generations lost to land alienation. No financial quantum can fully heal the mamae of displacement from ancestral whenua. No Crown apology can undo the erosion of mana motuhake, the disruption of whakapapa relationships, or the intergenerational harm inflicted through decades of Crown breaches of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

Across all three of these settlements, we see the same patterns repeated: the erosion of whenua, the undermining of tribal authority; the disruption of mātauranga Māori, and the passing down of tikanga between generations. These are not simply historical grievances locked away in the past; these impacts continue to be lived realities for our people today.

For the iwi of Hauraki especially, these histories are deeply connected to whenua and wai. For Ngāti Tara Tokanui, the Crown’s pursuit of extraction came at enormous costs to the people and to the environment. The Waihou and Ohinemuri—the very pepeha that we try to protect today in even the fast-track legislation bills—carry the burden of mining, pollution, and environmental erosion, while the iwi carried the burden of loss.

For Māori, environmental destruction is never simply environmental destruction. When the wai is harmed, the people are harmed. When the whenua is stripped and exploited, something within the identity of the people is also impacted, because our relationship to the whenua and wai is not symbolic; it is ancestral.

For Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu, Te Aroha from the summit of the maunga to the Waihou River is a wāhi tapu. An early name for the maunga is Puke Kakariki Kaitahi, the place where the kākā parrots flocked to feed. This is symbolic of the abundance of food and resources the maunga supplied, Te Tatau ki Hauraki whanui, the doorway to Hauraki widespread. The mountain has two names, one for each of its two peaks: Te Aroha ki ta and Te Aroha a tai, meaning “love for the land” and “love for the sea”, the names originating in Hawaiki.

The hot springs at Te Aroha, because they flow from the heart of the maunga, are also part of the mountain, symbolising the giving, caring nature of the maunga and the ancestors of Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu. The environmental damage done to your sacred maunga as a result of mining has eroded your capacity to fulfil your kaitiaki responsibilities and created deep mamae.

For Ngāti Hei, the relationship to Te Tai Tamahine, to Tikapa Moana, and to Te Whanganui a Hei remains central to who they are as a people. Those places are not tourist destinations. They are not commercial brands. They are ancestral landscapes layered with whakapapa, tikanga, wāhi tapu [genealogy, traditional practices, sacred sites], and memory. When ancestral names are restored through settlements like this, something powerful occurs. The ancestor returns visibly to the landscapes; the stories return; the people return; and public memory begins to shift. Te manawanui o ngā iwi [the resoluteness of the people]: despite everything that was taken—despite every Crown breach, despite generations of marginalisation and dispossession—our people endured. That is the story sitting beneath each of these bills: the endurance of iwi who never relinquished their identity, who never surrendered their obligations as kaitiaki, and who maintained ahi kā, whakapapa reo, tikanga [the home fires of authority, genealogy, language, traditional practices], and connection.

I te rangi nei ka whakamaumaharatia ngā whakareanga kua tae mai i mua i a koutou.

[Today, we commemorate the generations that came here prior to you.]

A lot of people die for settlements to get across the line. Recently, at the pōwhiri this morning, I talked about some of our own stalwarts who championed the Waikato-Tainui settlement, such as Shane Solomon. Many of the iwi here today have brought in their loved ones who never got to see this day.

E whakamānawa ana, e maumahara ana i ō koutou mate.

[We honour and commemorate your deceased.]

Those who petitioned, those who travelled, those who sat through hearings, those who documented histories, those who relived painful stories over and over again simply so the truth would finally be placed on the record of this nation—because the settlement process itself asks a great deal of our people; it requires whānau to revisit histories of trauma in order to seek justice. It requires us to be confrontational with each other. That is a hard part. Sometimes not the Crown part but with ourselves as hapū, and it’s those mamae where it’s divide and conquer strategies. That emotional labour must be acknowledged in this House today.

Kāore anō kia oti ngā mahi.

[The job is not yet finished.]

While we support these settlements wholeheartedly, we also say clearly that settlements are not an endpoint of justice. They do not extinguish Crown obligations under Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Te Tiriti is not confined to historical settlements processes—Te Tiriti is a living document.

Hei tirohanga whakamua [as we look to the future], today we acknowledge the pain that made these settlements necessary, but we also acknowledge the strength, the resilience, and the vision of the iwi themselves.

Ngāti Tara Tokanui, Ngāti Hei, Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu, nā koutou tēnei rā. Whakanuia tō koutou rā i tēnei rangi ki tēnei papa o te Whare Pāremata.

[Ngāti Tara Tokanui, Ngāti Hei, Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu, today is yours. Celebrate your day today on the floor of Parliament House.]

To your tūpuna who carried these grievances before you, and to your mokopuna who will inherit the outcomes of your perseverance, may these settlements support the rebuilding of your aspirations.

Māku anō tōku nei whare e hanga. E kore tēnei whakaoranga e huri ki tua o āku mokopuna. Anei ko ngā tongikura a Kīngi Tāwhiao ki a mātou.

[I will erect my own house. This struggle for restoration will not go beyond my grandchildren. These are the royal statements of King Tawhiao to us.]

May they strengthen the connection of your future generations to whenua, wai, and moana, and may they contribute towards a future where the mana of iwi is restored. Me te mea anō hoki kāore anō kia oti ngā kerēme katoa o Hauraki.

[Furthermore, not all of the Hauraki claims have been completed.]

I look forward to the day where we see Ngāti Pāoa, ngā hapū maha o Hauraki whānui kua tae mai ki roto nei, ki te Whare Pāremata [the many hapū of wider Hauraki come here inside the House of Parliament]. Nō reira tūrou Hawaiki, rire rire hau, pai mārire.

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green) (11:12): Tēnei ka mihi atu ki runga i ngā āhuatanga i whai wāhi ai koutou ki te haramai ki tēnei o ngā Pāremata. Ko tēnei haerenga ehara i te haerenga māmā, ehara i te haerenga ngāwari, engari he haerenga mokopuna, he haerenga rangatira nō reira tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora mai tātou katoa.

Tēnei o Te Taitokerau, o Hokianga, o Te Rārawa, Ngāpuhi, o Te Tairāwhiti hoki, o Ngāti Porou, o Waikato Tainui, o Ngāti Tahinga e mihi kau ana ki a koutou. Kia ora rā.

[I hereby acknowledge you, in the context that you have had the opportunity to come to this particular Parliament. This journey is not an easy journey, nor is it a simple journey, but a journey for your grandchildren, a noble journey, and, therefore, greetings and congratulations to you, hello to us all.

This is one from Northland, Hokianga, Te Rārawa, Ngapuhi, the East Coast also, Ngāti Porou, Waikato Tainui, and of Ngāti Tahinga that acknowledges you. Hello, there.]

I last had the honour of speaking to a Treaty claims settlement bill back in 2024. Today we had a last minute and late notice opportunity for an extra 10 minutes for us to be able to acknowledge this incredible day and achievement for Ngāti Rāhui Tumutumu, for Ngāti Tara Tokanui, and for Ngāti Hei. It’s an opportunity that we wouldn’t normally have had. And yes, it was late notice, but we decided to take the opportunity. That is why I find myself here with the privilege of being able to speak, to acknowledge your mahi, your mokopuna, your tūpuna, your whakapapa, your maunga, your awa, your mahi.

The reason why it has been some years since I have spoken on Treaty claims settlement bills is because I am proud that we have now got more of us. It doesn’t just depend on me to be able to uphold Te Tiriti as Te Pāti Kākāriki, not the least my colleague Steve Abel, our tangata Tiriti spokesperson, and Hūhana Lyndon, our Māori affairs and Māori development leader, and you will hear from all of us today. If we can, please, similar to these bills, take all of our speeches together as well, because there is absolutely no way that any one of our speeches can do the full justice, to squashing three. I understand that with your generosity you have agreed also to having these bills taken together and you want to get on with the mahi. I respect and honour that. I, therefore, am going to do my best to acknowledge each of you all in your own rights while remembering that you also have intergenerational connections, stories, and relationships.

OK, so I actually decided that I would try and use my short time that I had to prepare to acknowledge the actual bills and to focus on the injustices, because Aotearoa, all of our generations need to fully understand just how generous—just how generous—our iwi and hapū always have been when it comes to settling claims, and understand that these claims and the settlements and the redress in them, as all of our colleagues have said, go absolutely no way to the actual injustice, but provide an important platform, an important point for continuing the mahi mokopuna work that you all are doing.

I earlier in the readings today did happen to hear an actual mokopuna singing their tangi out to the House. I say, nau mai, tangi mai, Whakatau mai, mokopuna [welcome, welcome; grieve and welcome, child]. This is your Parliament and you belong here, and so does your tangi.

I’m going to start—OK, got my papers in the order that they’re in. I’m going to start with the Ngāti Hei Claims Settlement Bill. My colleague is having a chuckle because we’ve just got to go with it. I want to highlight that some of the injustices that Ngāti Hei have faced are about the loss of much of their coastal whenua in some, I suppose, quite shady and unclear trades that were happening around the 1830s. Then we had Crown purchasing. This happened throughout settlements, and certainly across these settlements, where the Crown processes of acquiring land, of stealing land, of buying land were often done in a way to pit other iwi and hapū against each other. The Crown purchased Ahuahu from other Hauraki iwi without evidence that Ngāti Hei were actually consulted on that purchase. There was permanent whenua alienation from Ngāti Hei.

I think I’ll go back to quickly mention the history of extractive industry in Ngāti Hei rohe, including kauri logging, kauri gum digging, and the damage that that did to their precious whakapapa environment and the impacts and the grievance that holds.

Continuing to particular public works agreements. I want to acknowledge my colleague Hūhana Lyndon again for continuing to hold a public works member’s bill that would just say no—no more land alienation for the little bit of land that Māori have left through public works acquisition. That is a whakapapa that continued from Catherine Delahunty actually, and that I was also proud to hold and push. Public works acquisition injustice also for Ngāti Hei, which had many impacts, including the separation of Ngāti Hei—being left virtually landless, the socio-economic deprivation, the discouragement of te reo. Discouragement is a word, I suppose—it was violent. The discouragement of te reo across our generations was, in fact, a violent discouragement.

With that injustice, then, there is redress. There is some financial and commercial redress. There is some returning of sites of cultural significance to Ngāti Hei, and there are agreements and protocols to have an actual relationship and working properly together.

We know—I’m going to say this after every single iwi, hapū—it’s good, it’s positive. I know you will do the best with it, Ngāti Hei. And we know it’s generous for Ngāti Hei to enable the Crown to have this type of redress, in this case. Kia kaha koutou. Ngā mihi aroha ki a koutou. Kei konei a Ngāti Tara, kei konei koutou o Ngāti Tara.

[Be strong. Loving greetings to you. Ngāti Tara is here; you are here, Ngāti Tara.]

I want to again talk about the injustices for Ngāti Tara—looking at the clock. The goldfields at Ohinemuri. The accumulated debts through having to try and chase up the injustices, which then led to owners being forced to sell off land. Ngāti Tara Tokanui did not receive any income from gold mining in their rohe. There were the further Crown purchases, the further Crown alienation, and the discharging of mine tailings into the Waihou and Ōhinemuri rivers—tūpuna awa.

There was the disregard for the whakapapa of Ngāti Tara Tokanui, and the wetlands—the wetland areas of the Hauraki Plains. There was drainage to develop it into farmland, and, once again, public works acquisition in relation to the drainage scheme, where, again, it has left a tiny bit of freehold land today.

Ngāti Tara Tokanui, I acknowledge the years of work, and the generations of the people who, as with all of these claims, are no longer here to celebrate their mahi and the mahi to come for future generations. Kei konei koutou, Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu. Kei konei koutou, kia ora mai.

[You are here, Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu. You are here; hello, there.]

I wanted to acknowledge the Crown-initiated war in the Waikato, with armed forces crossing the Mangatāwhiri stream, and the confiscation punishment that was often an injustice from the Crown for anyone standing up for their whenua, for their hapū and iwi, or for their mokopuna. I want to acknowledge that deeds were supposed to provide for reserves and those reserves were not provided for. I want to acknowledge the Crown purchasing and the ongoing, shady receipts of payment, and, once again, the land gifted by iwi to the Crown in order for them to have ongoing rights to the springs, but, actually, those ongoing rights, which were supposed to be part of the deal, no longer remain today. Once again, it was an injustice.

Your hard mahi done by your people and your generations is now arriving at the announcement and the starting point from today, but overall, e te iwi, once again, we face a grown-up conversation, I would hope, about the place of te ao Māori and iwi and hapū across our country. What can happen when we call for accountability is that, in actual fact, we see iwi and hapū generosity once again, but we also see iwi and hapū working hard to uphold the integrity of te taiao—our living systems—and uphold the living conditions, social justice, and economic justice, for we are wanting to see not just Māori do well but all of our communities across Aotearoa do well.

I want to acknowledge that working together with the Crown, instead of the Crown working over the top of our communities, actually leads to benefits for all of us, and in today’s celebrations and the joyous recognition of the work that you have done and the travel that you have committed to, I acknowledge you all. It was a privilege to be able to come back to this House to speak to all of your settlement claims today. Nō reira, tēnā koutou katoa. Kia ora.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (Minister for ACC) (11:22): I want to join with others from across the House in welcoming representatives to this place, to this Parliament—to the people’s House—who have travelled a long way today to be here for what in some aspects is a conclusion. In reality, it’s not actually a conclusion—more of a beginning than an ending—but it is a marker along the way for three iwi that have three different pathways to being here in this place today. They are three different iwi with their own histories, their own burdens, their own challenges, their own debate, and their own internal anguish that has gone on over the years to get us to this point today, and so how did we get here and where are we going?

Well, earlier this morning at the pōwhiri, I had an opportunity, thanks to the gracious endeavours of my colleague Tama Potaka, to speak briefly at the pōwhiri, and I was reflecting on the broader picture of what the Treaty settlements mean and how they came to be. I reminded those folk at the pōwhiri this morning that late last year, I had attended the funeral of Jim Bolger, the former Prime Minister, and it was Jim Bolger who, along with Doug Graham and others, embarked upon this process without really knowing quite what it would do, how it would be formed, what shape it would take, or how it would be manifested. But they were, with their colleagues, sometimes under intense scrutiny, criticism, and challenge from within their own ranks, but they were determined to embark upon a process to do what Jim Bolger said was the right thing—to do the right thing—and they were brave.

So how have we ended up here, all these years later, debating in this House the third readings of three important pieces of legislation that are relevant to three iwi in the area that I have the honour and privilege to represent in this Parliament? It is the area across the Coromandel and the Hauraki, through to Te Aroha, and down into the Bay of Plenty? They are important, beautiful parts of the country, but they are not without their challenges, and as we mark today the constitutional, the legal, and the parliamentary process that we are finishing here, I’m very conscious of what is yet to come.

It was at Wharekaho in November 1769, as the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations said earlier in his presentation, that James Cook had the first pōwhiri with Ngāti Hei. That was in and of itself remarkable because on a personal note, that’s where my great-grandparents came to live, at Kūaotunu, which is just a beach or two around from Wharekaho. Those members of my extended family are still resident there, my roots are still there, and that shared land, that shared whenua, is very much part of my personal story and family, as well as it is for the iwi of Ngāti Hei.

We have a journey to gather and to traverse together from that first contact in November 1769 to today, to the vision and the hope and the aspiration that was thought through by Jim Bolger and his colleagues back in the day. After hours, days, months, and years of negotiation, of meetings, and of interminable hours spent to get to this point, we have arrived today, and I want to congratulate you and those who have gone before and who are not with us today on that input of dedication and commitment to do the right thing—to do the right thing.

Now, does it mean for one minute that everything is going to be sweet and dandy tomorrow? Does it mean that everything is going to be sweetness and light? Does it mean that every issue will be resolved and that there will be nirvana across the rohe? Probably not, but it’s a step along the way. It’s a step along the way for three important iwi who are, I think, going to use this process to move forward, not just for themselves and not just for us who are here today in this place and our generation, but for the future of the generations that we are privileged to guide a pathway for. My hope and aspiration is that as long as I have an opportunity to be a representative in this place, I and my colleagues will continue to walk that pathway with people who want to engage positively not only for the future of their own iwi and their own whānau but also for the future of our nation and its collective wellbeing.

Later today, when we have completed this process and we’ve had the vote—and it will be happening, you’ll be pleased to know, mercifully soon—we will then have a document. There will be three separate bills that will go to the Governor-General. The Governor-General will, on behalf of King Charles III, complete the Crown’s obligations in terms of this process—this legislative, parliamentary, legal process—and it’s that relationship with the Crown that is important and it should not be forgotten today. The Minister and the Crown have apologised. That is of itself significant and worthy of a starting point for future discussions because there are many issues that remain unresolved. There are many debates still yet to be had. There are many, many issues that we must collectively unite to find.

Others have traversed the specific detail of each part of the redress and the compensation: the financial, the cultural, and the land. I’m not going to traverse that again, but I do want to commend these three pieces of legislation to the House, and I wish those of you who have travelled here today well. Thank you for making the time and taking the effort, and thank you for your sincerity and commitment to this process. Kia ora. Travel well.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour) (11:30): Ki a koutou, Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu, Ngāti Tara Tokanui me Ngāti Hei, tēnei te mihi ki a koutou i whakarangatira i a mātou i tēnei wā. He hōnore nui ki te mihi ki a koutou, e mōhio ahau he rā nunui, he rā whakahirahira mō tātou katoa. Tēnei te mihi ki a koutou.

Ahakoa he rerekē tēnei tikanga, ngā pire e toru, ko te mea nui kei konei. Koinā te mea nui i tēnei wā. Ahakoa e whakaekehia ana te Māori i ia wiki e tēnei Kāwanatanga, ahakoa he whakaparahako i ia wiki e tēnei Kāwanatanga, i te iti rawa, kei te whakanui tonu rātou i ēnei whakataunga.

Koinā te mea nui, pea, i tēnei wā. E tika kia whakakotahi mō te kaupapa, ahakoa tino hōhā, tino riri te ao Māori i tēnei Kāwanatanga i tēnei wā. Koinei te mea nui i tēnei wā.

Nō reira tēnei te mihi ki a koutou, tātou katoa i tae mai nei ki te tautoko, ki te whakanui i tēnei kaupapa.

[To you, Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu, Ngāti Tara Tokanui, and Ngāti Hei, I hereby acknowledge you who have honoured us at this time. It is a great honour to greet you, I know that this is a big day—a significant day for all of you. I hereby acknowledge you.

Despite this unusual arrangement—the three bills—the main thing is that we’re here. That is the main thing at this time. Despite Māori being assaulted every week by this Government, despite the discrimination every week by this Government, though it may be small, they are still celebrating this settlement.

That is the important thing, perhaps, at this time. It is appropriate to unite for the work, despite the irritation and the real anger of Māori society towards this Government at this time. This is the most important thing at this time.

Therefore, I hereby acknowledge you, all of us who have come here to support and to celebrate this work.]

Good to see everyone here and hear the challenges this morning at our pōwhiri. I was thinking back to when Ngāi Te Rangi came down here and we actually were very, very close to a bit of a whawhai on the forecourt out here, such were the emotions of our people. It was a reminder—I’ll never forget that day, when Andrew Little was the Minister, and we were challenged as a Government in terms of our handling of the kaupapa, in terms of, obviously, tribes of Hauraki. Jan Tinetti was there, she was a Minister at the time, and out there giving tautoko to the kaupapa, and MPs from all sides. It was a reminder, as it was a reminder this morning, of how difficult this process is—incredibly, incredibly complex, so many compromises, so many concessions. On that day, I was wondering—and I’m serious, I thought we were close to violence on the forecourt.

Hon Marama Davidson: Yep. Yep.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Violence on the forecourt, hey Marama? It would have been terrible, but it was that close. I put myself in the other side’s—I can understand that. I’m not condoning violence, but that’s what our process does to us. I’ve been having good kōrero with the negotiator over here, Rick Barker—he’s an old friend and former Labour Party Minister—as we were going through it. I mean, how do you navigate your way through things? It was interesting when Jim Bolger and Doug Graham were going through stuff, and Rick was explaining you’ve had the overlapping claims, you had the interlapping claims, and then the best way through that, Doug Graham and Jim Bolger were saying, was that we must have a collective. I’m not sure if that was the best way, but here we are today.

Then you have to traverse your way through a system, so you have Tamati Kruger, who’s not exactly the favourite of Tūhoe, is he? But I mean, brilliant man, Tamati, brilliant man. He tries to help Ministers like Minister Goldsmith and formerly Minister Finlayson and Minister Little, and in many ways within the system you have to choose between winners and losers and people who miss out. I was going over it with Rick, and then Tamati talks about how you have to break things down in the different areas in terms of who has the mana. He says, first of all, you have areas where iwi are dominant; secondly, you have areas where iwi have influence; and then, thirdly, you have areas where iwi have interests. If that helps the people, I’m not sure—it certainly helped Tamati, anyway, didn’t it? He’s working his way in terms of Tūhoe, obviously.

This is the complicated system and process we have, but I was listening to our man Koro over there—kei konei tonu a Koro? [Is Koro still here?] Ā, kia ora e hoa, pai tō kōrero i tēnei ata. E tika ana ki te wero atu ki a mātou, e tika ana. E mihi ana ki a koe, e hoa.

[Yes, hello, my friend. You spoke well this morning. It is right to challenge us—it is right. I acknowledge you, my friend.]

We had challenges this morning to—we have to come and kōrero e pā ana ki ngā piki me ngā heke [discuss the ups and downs]. Because, as has been said 100 times by members in this House, the system is almost against our people, but our people find a way through it—putting iwi against iwi, hapū against hapū, whanaunga against whanaunga, and never, never more exemplified than that day we had out on the forecourt.

It’s a tribute to former Ministers and this Minister—and I don’t mind to give him congratulations even though he’s not been particularly good on other kaupapa, as you all know, and even though he wants to get rid of Treaty references and hammering our reo and he’s generally confused about a lot of kaupapa Māori at the moment. But apart from that, he’s done a good job with this kaupapa and I want to mihi to him today. I want to mihi to our people because we find our way through even though we’re dealing with the Government, we come together i tēnei wā kia tutuki ngā moemoeā me ngā hiahia me ngā tūmanako, eh—koinā te mea nui i tēnei wā [at this time to realise the dreams and desires and hopes, eh—that’s the most important thing at this time]. We’re able to put the current issues aside where we want to deal to this Government and kia whakakotahi for the kaupapa i tēnei wā [to unite for the work at this time].

So congratulations to all the whānau, all the hapū, and all the iwi who’ve come today. I won’t go through all the intricacies of it because that’s already been traversed, but I just think that it’s—when I think back on the history and I think of what the Ministers have had to work through, and people like our negotiators, Rick over here, Rick Barker, and Mike Dreaver, who might still be here—it really is a tribute to this country that we’re able to find resolution even though we can be angry at each other. We can be furious in terms of history, we’ve got all the hapū, iwi stuff, we’ve got the change of Governments, but it’s a tribute to our people and to this country that we’re able to get there in the end.

As Marama Davidson said, the country owes Māori—we are owed in terms of the way we’ve compromised and the way we’ve said, “Well, yes, we’ll take the pittance, we’ll subsidise the country, we’ll do a Treaty settlement process”. I don’t know what it is at, Minister Goldsmith, maybe it’s $1.5 billion, maybe $2 billion now—not too bad an amount when you consider the concessions from iwi all around the country. So that’s how desperate we are in terms of getting on with things, and so the challenges remain for our Hauraki collective and the different hapū, different iwi, to find a way to utilise the pūtea—which does not at all compensate for the loss, but find a way to fulfil all the dreams, the hopes, the aspirations within the system that we have now.

I always look forward to that. I am so pleased that you’ve been able to whakakotahi for this. Hauraki iwi, of course, has a challenge because, again, we know that there’s the huge iwi who get all the kudos, who get all the support, who get all the publicity—that’s Tainui and Ngāi Tahu and probably Ngāti Whātua. But it’s iwi like the three groups we’ve talked about today who have to make their mark now, so I wish you well. I wish you well and congratulate you and I also thank you, Koro and others, for the challenges laid down today—rightful challenges that we in Labour will look forward to taking up.

Nō reira he hōnore nui ki te kōrero ki a koutou. Tēnā koutou, tēnā anō tātou katoa.

[Therefore, it is a great honour to speak to you. Greetings to you, and again to all of us.]

GREG FLEMING (National—Maungakiekie) (11:40): Ki a Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu, ki a Ngāti Tara Tokanui, ki a Ngāti Hei, tēnā koutou. Nōku te tino maringanui ki te tū ki tō koutou tirohanga, ā, ka whakanui i tō koutou haerenga, tō koutou manawanui ki tēnei rā.

He maha ngā whāinga o te tukanga o te kerēme. Akenepea ko te whāinga tuatahi ko te whakapūāwai o te reo Māori puta noa i te motu nei. Nā reira ka kōrero au i te reo Māori anake i tēnei ata. Manawanui mai.

Huri ōku whakaaro ki te mihi whakatau i tēnei ata, inā koa ki te kōrero e pā ana ki tō kaikōrero tuarua. I pēnei, kei konā te kōrero, kei konei te hōhā, te raruraru. Kei runga te kōrero, kei raro te hōhā. Ā, i a au e whakarongo ana ki a ia, i huri ōku whakaaro ki tēnei Whare, ā, ka whakaaro koirā te āhua o tēnei Whare, ne? Tēnei te hōhā, tēnei te wāhi o te raruraru, ā, ki a koutou, koirā te wāhi o te āta kōrero, te āta whakaaro, te āta whakarongo.

Nā reira, tuatahi e mihi ana ki ngā kaiwhiriwhiri kua whiriwhiri i tēnei kerēme. Ahakoa te uauatanga o te tukanga, ehara i te tukanga hapa-kore, heoi he tukanga pai, he tukanga tūmanako.

Ahakoa tērā uauatanga, te pierenuku, akenepea, o tērā tukanga, kua kōkiri ki tēnei wā, ki tēnei whakanuitanga, ki tēnei mutunga.

Ka huri ōku whakaaro hoki ki tō kaikōrero tuatahi, ā, tāna mea mai, “kāore au e kume i te kōrero”. And pai tērā ki a au. Waihoki kāore e roa taku kōrero ki a koutou i tēnei ata.

Tuarua, ki te tukanga, he aha ngā whāinga o tēnei momo tukanga, and ki ōku whakaaro e toru ngā otinga, e toru ngā hua. Ko te tuatahi, whakaaetia te hītori. Nā reira kaua tātou e wareware te hītori. Koirā te mea tuatahi.Tuarua, ko te whakapāha. Ko te mutunga kē mai a te Kāwanatanga ki a koutou mō te hara o ngā tau kua hipa.Tuatoru, ko te whakahokinga o te whenua me ngā pūtea kia tautoko ai i tō koutou whakarauora o tō koutou hapori.

Tē taea e mātou, e te Kāwanatanga, te whakarauora ngā hapori. Tē taea. Kāore tērā i te haepapa, kāore tērā i te āheinga o tērā momo rangapū.Koirā te mana o ia hapori, ā, nō reira ko te tino whāinga o tēnei tukanga kia tautoko i te whakarauora o tō koutou hapori.

Mai rā anō tō koutou mana kia whakahaere i tō koutou wāhi, heoi mā te awenga o ngā hapa a te Karauna ki a koutou, kua whakaiti tō raukaha. Nō reira, ki a au, ki a mātou katoa, ko te tino tūmanako o tēnei tukanga kia whakapapa, kia whakanui i tō koutou raukaha, tō koutou āheinga, kia whakamōmonatia ai te ora o tō koutou hapori.

Nā reira, tēnā anō koutou mō te haere mai ki tēnei rā, ki tēnei wāhi. Kua kitea ngā whakaahua o ō koutou tupuna kua mate i te pononga o tēnei haerenga roa. Tēnei whakanuitanga, tēnei whakatau, ko te wawata i wawatatia e rātou.Nā reira, ka tuku i te pire nei ki te Whare.

[To Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu, to Ngāti Tara Tokanui, to Ngāti Hei: greetings to you. It is my good fortune to stand in your view, and to celebrate your journey and your perseverance today.

There are many objectives of the claims process. Perhaps the first objective is the flourishing of the Māori language all across this country. Therefore, I will speak only the Māori language this morning. Your forbearance, please.

My thoughts turn to the formal welcome this morning, particularly the speech from your second speaker. It went like this: “There is discussion, there is irritation and trouble. Discussion is valuable, and trouble is undesirable.” As I was listening to him, my thoughts turned to this House, and I thought that such is the nature of this House, right? Here there is irritation, this is a place of trouble, and to you, this is the place of careful discussion, careful consideration, and thoughtful attention.

Therefore, first I would like to acknowledge the negotiators who have negotiated this claim. Despite the difficulties of the process—and it is not a process without problems—it is a good process, and a hopeful process. Despite those difficulties—the calamity, perhaps, of that process—it has progressed at this time to this celebration, to this conclusion.

My thoughts also turn to your first speaker, who said, “I will not drag out the speeches.”—and that seems good to me. Therefore, my speech to you this morning will also not be a long one.

Second, to the process: what are the objectives of this type of process? In my opinion, there are three results, three outcomes. First, history is acknowledged. Therefore, we must not forget the history. That is the first thing. Second is the apology; the epitome of Government to you for the sin of past years. Third is the return of land and funds to support your revitalisation of your community.

We, the Government, cannot revitalise the communities. It cannot be done. That is not the responsibility nor the ability of that type of organisation. That is the remit of each community, and, therefore, the primary objective of this process is to support the revitalisation of your community.

Your authority to manage your own places is long established; however, through the power of the Crown’s mistakes with respect to you, your capacity has been diminished. Therefore, to me, to all of us, the true hope of this process is to empower and celebrate your capacity, your capability, and to expand the wellbeing of your community.

Therefore, I thank you again for coming today to this place. The portraits of your ancestors who passed throughout the duration of this long journey are seen. This celebration, this settlement, is the dream that they dreamed. Therefore, I commend this bill to the House.]

HŪHANA LYNDON (Green) (11:46):Tēnā koe e te Speaker, tēnā anō tātou katoa. Tēnā koutou e ngā uri o Tara, koutou o Ngāti Tara Tokanui. E mihi ana ki ngā rangatira o ngā iwi o tērā rautau, Tūwhakaea, Matarehua, Tiki Te Aroha, Te Whakamaro Maioro.

Koutou o Hei me Tia, ngā tamaiti a Atua Matua, nau mai rā. Ngā uri o Moehau maunga, te ahi kā o Hauraki, tēnei rā te mihi atu ki a koutou.

Mai i Onemana ki te tonga, ki Whakapaua ki te raki, me ngā motu o Tīkapa Moana, nau mai rā.

Te Aroha te maunga, Waihou te awa, Tīkapa Moana te moana, Tumutumu te marae, Te Ruinga te tangata. Tēnā koutou, Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu.

E mihi atu ana ki a koutou ki runga i ngā tū whaiāhua o te wā, otirā i tēnei, te pānuitanga whakamutunga mō ā koutou kerēme Tiriti te take.

Me taku unu i taku hē mō taku korenga i te pōwhiri i tēnei ata. E māuiui ana ahau engari e tika ana me puta mai ahau ki te tautoko i a koutou ki te whakawaha i te reo tautoko o te Rōpū Kākāriki ki mua i tō koutou aroaro, e ngā whanaunga o Hauraki. Tēnei rā te uri o Ngāti Whanaunga e mihi atu ana ki a koutou. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātou katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker, greetings to us all. Greetings to you, the descendants of Tara, those of you from Ngāti Tara Tokanui. I acknowledge the iwi leaders of the last century, Tūwhakaea, Matarehua, Tiki Te Aroha, and Te Whakamaro Maioro.

Those of you of Hei and Tia, the children of Atua Matua, welcome. The descendants of Moehau mountain, the home people of Hauraki, I hereby acknowledge you.

From Onemana in the south, to Whakapaua in the north, and the islands of the Hauraki Gulf, welcome.

Te Aroha is the ancestral mountain, Waihou is the river, Tīkapa Moana is the marine waterway, Tumutumu is the marae, and Te Ruinga is the noble leader. Greetings to you, Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu.

I acknowledge you all with regard to the current considerations, indeed, in this, the final reading for your Treaty claim.

I also apologise for my absence during the formal welcome this morning. I was sick, but it is appropriate for me to come to support you to convey the voice of support of the Green Party before you, my relations from Hauraki. This descendant of Ngāti Whanaunga hereby congratulates you. Greetings, thanks and congratulations to you, and to all of us.]

It is a humble pleasure to stand before this House with words of tautoko, alongside colleagues of all sides who come before, humbly, the people of Hauraki as they roll out. They’re rolling out to see this final reading of legislation long overdue. I am also mindful that our people have had to endure generations of harm, generations of landlessness, of dislocation and loss, and then had to endure a 7 o’clock pōwhiri this morning.

Nā wai i teka e tika ana tērā, kia puta koutou i te whitu karaka i te ata mō tētahi pōwhiri? Āi e mara. Nō reira e mihi ana ki tō koutou kaha, tō koutou kaha me te whakaiti ki te whakaae ki tētahi pōwhiri i te whitu karaka i te ata.

[Who said that is appropriate, that you come out at 7 o’clock in the morning for a formal welcome? Geez, man. Therefore, I acknowledge your strength, your strength and humility to agree to a formal welcome at 7 o’clock in the morning.]

But here we are, and I won’t take long, i te mea he roa rawa tā koutou noho ki konei []. But e tika ana me mihi atu ki a koutou, ngā tūpuna, ngā kaumātua, ngā kaikerēme, rātou i pīkau i ēnei o ngā kerēme ki tēnei wā tonu. Me te pakeke haere, te pakeke o te wehetanga o te iwi, te tohe tātou i a tātou, anō ngā tohe ki te Kāwanatanga kia tika ā ratou mahi. Ko ahau tētahi o ērā e totohe tonu ana ki te Kāwanatanga i roto i aku hapū, anō hei mema Pāremata. Nō reira tū kaha koutou, tū kaha koutou.Tērā pea he tīmatanga tēnei mō koutou, mō tātou, mō ngā hiahia me ngā wawata o te iwi.because you have been sitting here for a long time

[But it’s appropriate to acknowledge you, the ancestors, the elders, the claimants; those who carried these particular claims to this point. And the growing difficulty, the challenge of division of the people, the fighting amongst ourselves, and fighting the Government to do the right thing.]

E tātou mā, of course I’ve got an issue with these Treaty settlements, because our people are so gracious in accepting the 1 to 2 cents in the dollar for the immense loss for the people of Hauraki. When you read the settlement and you understand there is, what, some 2 to 3 percent of whenua left in the hands of our Hauraki people, the three iwi that come before us today are humble. You are very gracious and patient with the House that had taken so long to come to our side of the bridge.

You know that arawhiti? It’s the Māori that always have to hīkoi across the bridge, engari ināianei ka āhua haere mai te Kāwanatanga ki tēnei taha, kōrero ai ki te Māori[but now the Government has kind of come across to this side, to speak to Māori]. Nō reira ki roto i ēnei momo whakataunga, tihei mauri ora. Tihei mauri ora mō tō koutou kaha. Tihei mauri ora ki tēnei Whare te tae mai ki te tautoko i ēnei o ngā kaikerēme, ngā iwi e putaputa mai ana i ia marama.

[So, within these types of settlements, hallelujah. Hallelujah for your strength. Hallelujah to this House that has come to support these particular claimants, the people that come out every month.]

You are one of a number of iwi that are coming before us right now and you know that the journey can be a decade, it can be 30 years to get to this point. We commemorate those who worked hard but we also look to the future. The future is in your hands, with the settlement redress of a dollar, of relationship agreements, of some assets, whenua, what you may have that comes back to you for mana whakahaere. It’s a start and I think it opens the door, but again, as colleagues have already shared in this House around the building of that bridge and the connection and the desire for the ongoing enduring relationship, the relationship that can span across generations and see honourable kāwanatanga meet mana ki te mana with you as hapū, iwi, marae, iwi kāinga, ahi kā.

For Hauraki has lost so much, and for you as Ngāti Tara Tokanui, Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu, Ngāti Hei, I thank you for your patience and your grace in coming to the House for this, the final reading, but may this be the piriti. May this be the bridge of connecting generations within our own tribes and protecting our whanaungatanga and inter-tribal relationships too. Through the building of your capacity, your capability, and what you might receive, there are opportunities for mahi tahi, for together we are stronger.

For our mokopuna it is the āpōpō—and I see mokopuna in the room and we’ve heard mokopuna in the House. It is an exciting time to be Māori, to be from Hauraki. As a mokopuna raised in the north but with deep connection to Hauraki through Ngāti Whanaunga and my tupuna Ripeka Titiparu, who moe-ed into our whānau in Ngāti Hine, we come home often and spend time and really have to reflect on the battles of the past. It was through battle, the hononga that brought us together as tribes but also the enduring connection to place. Whilst you may only retain at this time some 2 to 3 percent of whenua, it is your enduring ahi kā, the way that you have been on the whenua, pou te whenua, tiaki i te taiao, tohe ki te Kāwanatanga, tohe ki te kaunihera hoki []—don’t forget about the kaunihera. Ko koutou tērā.embed the land, protect the environment, struggle against the Government, struggle against the council, too [That is you.]

While we are celebrating a win today, it is the āpōpō that we look forward to and the strengthening of the bridge and the relationship with Crown and those tari kāwanatanga that you will have these relationship agreements with moving forward—the way with which you are receiving assets, resources, whenua, and some financial, commercial redress as a start. And, of course, acknowledging our trustees, those that have to do the mahi to pīkau the aspirations of the people. It’s not an easy task. Sometimes you need a stab-proof vest, eh, when you’re going into the hui. Do you survive the AGM? It’s torturous sometimes—a bit torturous like some of our kauwhau today, too, you know, because you’re waiting for the mahi to get done. I’m just so happy that we are here as a united House to tautoko this occasion and know that this is an opportunity for growth, for potential, for a strong taiao, for a strong mokopuna, our future generation. Kia tōpū te reo, kia tautau tonu i te ahi kā, ko koutou tērā e noho nei, e pakari nei ki runga i tō koutou, ō tātou whenua. Nō reira tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātou katoa.

[So that the language is consolidated, and the burning fires are stoked, that is who you are, seated here, strong upon your—indeed, our—lands. Therefore, greetings and thanks to you, to all of us.]

DAVID MacLEOD (National—New Plymouth) (11:55): Tēnā koe e te Māngai. Ki ngā uri o ngā iwi e toru, Ngāti Tara Tokanui, Ngāti Hei, Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. Nau mai, haramai ki tō Whare, tō Whare Pāremata.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker. To the descendants of the three iwi, Ngāti Tara Tokanui, Ngāti Hei, and Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu, greetings and thanks to you all. Welcome, welcome to your House, to the House of Parliament.]

Welcome to you all. It’s a pleasure for me to stand in this third reading, the last part of what the Minister described as a bit of an arduous task, the Treaty settlement itself. I acknowledge all those that have been involved with this in all degrees—obviously, the people of the negotiating teams from the three iwi but also our Crown representatives in the negotiations and members of Te Tari Whakatau, etc., that actually has got this to where it is today.

I personally currently play a part in the Māori Affairs Committee, and I did have the wonderful occasion of visiting Te Aroha and being wonderfully hosted there by Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu. Unfortunately, I wasn’t on the committee for the other two settlements that we’re actually talking about today, but I also want to join Steve Abel’s comments earlier on—my apologies for not being able to stay for the full mihi whakatau this morning. I would have liked to have heard the further speeches, but as Steve said, we actually had another settlement that we had a hearing for back here that we had to return for to do that in itself. I welcome you here for this very, very important occasion.

I want to talk about the wrongdoings. We had another settlement that we had a first reading from this morning, Ngā Hapū o Te Iwi o Whanganui, and it wouldn’t surprise you that there are similar traits throughout all settlements, particularly with land loss and the significant land loss—we’re not just talking about small parts—to the point where it’s repeated in the historical accounts that iwi are left virtually landless. Opportunity is taken away from you when you lose your access to whenua, and as a result, many of your people have to move away for work and to survive in that.

What you have today is trying to turn that back around. Although you all have ahi kā, the fact is that many of your people—and if I look at the number of people that are registered with each of your iwi, many are not ahi kā any more, and for very good reasons. That is the injustice that has been imposed on Māori that has caused that to actually happen.

I look back at the many travesties and my head shakes. It’s almost like how could that ever be what the Crown of the day did? I think of the opportunity that was lost and the anger that that must bring and the huge disappointment that that must be on all Māori when it comes to looking at the challenges that exist today. A lot of the work we do down here in Wellington is trying to get better outcomes for all New Zealanders, but particularly for Māori, because of the results of the wrongdoings of the Crown in the past. It’s absolutely appropriate that this is recognised. I’ve always said that if you want to understand the history of our country, your first visit should be the historical accounts, the acknowledgments that are within Treaty settlements. If you read your Treaty settlements—if your kids, your tamariki of your schools in your rohe were taught the history here, that is a great basis of understanding where things are today; why there are challenging conversations today; why there is anger at the Crown that remains today. It’s because of this history here.

We talk about teaching our tamariki Te Tiriti o Waitangi; that’s important, but I tell you, I’d almost say that all the adults of a place need to be taught this history as well. A lot of our neighbours and our community of locals, they look at the anger that’s actually expressed, and they think, “What’s that all about?” Well, read these settlements, and you’ll get an understanding of what this is all about. We have people, individuals who are not too many generations from us today, who we’re talking about here—people who have lost their lives over time because of the wrongdoings of the Crown—in Treaty settlements.

History is important. Without understanding your history—without understanding your past—how can you appreciate where you are today and move forward as a community? I thank you for, as many other speakers have said, making the compromise of what Treaty settlements are—the huge compromise; Hūhana Lyndon said the 1 or 2 percent of what it’s worth; well, in fact, it’s probably a lot less than that, to tell the truth. The fact is that Māori make compromises with every Treaty settlement with the purpose of trying to move forward, to rebuild—and I say “rebuild” because you have been deconstructed. We have been deconstructed so much because of the wrongdoings of the Crown.

This process that we’re running now is just a moment in time, but what’s so important is how we take this acknowledgment, this apology, this recompense, this cultural redress—everything that’s within settlements—and use that positively to move forward as a people and to be able to contribute to a wonderful nation that Aotearoa can actually be.

I look forward to this getting Royal assent, but it is just the beginning—it is just the beginning of the new phase of where we’re going to. It needs to be recognised, it needs to be acknowledged, but now it also places a very important part on the Crown once this gets Royal assent. The commitments that are written in here—the Crown needs to make sure that it does not fail again into the future. That is one of the very important subjects that the Māori Affairs Committee looks at annually. We measure the Crown’s performance against settlements that we’re not just going back to where we’ve been, and that we’re fixing the wrongs of the past, not creating new wrongs.

I look forward to the new beginning; I look forward to you all prospering with what these settlements provide you. The monetary recompense is a pittance, really, but we need something for you to start off with, and I hope you do well with what this opportunity presents. With that, I feel privileged; I think every time anybody in this House is speaking on a Treaty settlement, we write ourselves into the Hansard of this place here. We become part of the history of what this is, and it’s actually a privilege, I think, for us to be able to partake in that. I’m very happy to commend these bills to the House on this third reading, and I wish all of you all the very best. Kia ora.

Hon JAN TINETTI (Labour) (12:04): Thank you, Madam Speaker. E Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu, Ngāti Hei, Ngāti Tara Tokanui, kia ora, ngā mihi nui ki a koutou .

As my colleague across the House David MacLeod just said, it is very much my honour to be able to stand here and speak on your settlement bills in the third reading today. We remember today and farewell the tūpuna who have paved the way, protected mana, and held fast to the cause. To those here today and watching from afar at this moment, we honour your communities’ perseverance, your faith, and strength in pursuing justice and truth. Despite the long journey, this stage has been reached, and what an exciting day it is—but it has been a long journey.

I want to start by acknowledging my colleague Willie Jackson’s speech about the time that we stood out on the forecourt quite a number of years ago. It was really disconcerting. It was such a traumatic moment for us all—for you, and for us. That was a moment that actually started well over 150 years ago when rights were taken away from you. The pathway and the determinations of the Crown at that time caused that traumatic experience that we witnessed those few years ago.

I’m excited that we are at this point; I’m excited for you that we have reached a resolution and that you’re at a new beginning right now. People will say that this is the end of the process, and, as I’ve just heard from across the House, this is actually the new beginning. We get to the end of one process, and we get to the start of a new beginning. The new beginning, as we’ve heard, is about an apology; it’s about a monetary figure; it’s about land being given back to you; but it never will make up for that hurt and that mamae that you have suffered for so many years. Some of you have suffered, and your tūpuna have suffered, and suffered, and suffered. It gives us the opportunity to make sure that your mokopuna, your tamariki, going forward, won’t suffer any more. This is the opportunity for the Crown to say that enough is enough, and from this day, we move forward together in that new beginning.

Can I also say that the Crown has also been on that journey. It is a journey, again, on which I have heard, “How could this happen? How could the Crown have done what they did?” That is horrific when we see it, and it is not acceptable, but the Crown has been on a journey to get where we are today for this acknowledgment. We’ve heard about some of the players that have been there over time, and my colleagues around the House have mentioned previous Ministers and previous Prime Ministers. I also want to take this opportunity in the third reading speech here today to acknowledge some of the main players that actually started that process. One was Matiu Rata, who established the Waitangi Tribunal, and which he said himself would settle the deeply felt and longstanding grievances of the Māori people over the Treaty, which they regard as the foundation of their rights. That was a kind of start and a point in time that the Crown stood up and changed.

Someone who was also a personal hero of mine in the work that he did was Geoffrey Palmer, in 1985, leading the work where Parliament granted the Waitangi Tribunal retrospective powers to hear grievance dating back to 1840. I just wanted to make sure that those two people were acknowledged here, because it was part of the journey that we have been on as a Crown, so that we can acknowledge the hurt and the pain that you have been through, what has brought you here today, and what has got us to this point of this new beginning.

Like the previous speaker, I had the absolute honour of being on the Māori Affairs Committee, albeit for a short time. It was only about nine months that I was on that committee for, but I remember saying, in the second reading of the Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu Claims Settlement Bill, that I believe that every member of this House should spend time on that committee. It’s about that understanding of history, and we heard again from the previous speaker how important history is. That’s why I’m such a passionate advocate for the now wiped Aotearoa New Zealand’s history curriculum. I’m absolutely passionate that we tell history from all perspectives. Your history has been silenced for so long, and that’s something that today rectifies, but we need to rectify that long into the future.

That visit that I had that particular day to Te Aroha and where we sat listening to the submissions that were being put forward on that particular bill was such a moment of change for me. It had such an impact on me that I went away from that day thinking we have to do better. We have to make sure that we take these moments where we’re working together in partnership and do better going forward so that, again, tamariki, mokopuna, and future generations will never have to share that same pain that you and your tūpuna have been through for so many generations.

I’ll never forget having that moment of clarity around what had been taken from iwi, how they had been treated in the journey, the promises that had been made, and the many broken promises that had occurred. Again, this is something that every member of this Parliament, and future members of this Parliament, needs to experience to understand how we can strengthen Māori’s hopes and ambitions. I shouldn’t say it quite like that. It’s about you telling us your hopes and ambitions and what can we do to support you. That’s what today is about, the new beginning around you taking control of the next stage of this journey, because it is about that next stage and it’s about you having control over where you want to go with your hopes and ambitions for today’s generation and future generations as well. Again, today doesn’t make up for that hurt. Today will never make up for that hurt, but it goes some way for you to start the next chapter for you and your people going forward. It’s a new chapter of a partnership that we can walk alongside, or behind, and support where you want to be for your future as a people.

I too want to say that it is, again, as I started, the greatest honour to be able to stand and support your part of the history of where you are going today. I don’t take that lightly. It is something that I will forever be grateful for and see, when I finally leave this place, as being the highlight of my career, being able to stand here and support that. Even though I spent a very short part of that time on select committee, it meant the absolute world to me. It makes me think, what can I do now going forward to help future iwi like yourselves? Enjoy today. I hope that it is a true celebration for you. I hope that you feel the joy that we have for you. I really sincerely want to look forward to seeing where you take your hopes and your aspirations in the future. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa. Kia ora.

RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini) (12:14): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s also my quiet pleasure to stand up and add my kōrero in support of this bill where we’ve combined the settlements of three bills, the Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu Claims Settlement Bill, Ngāti Tara Tokanui Claims Settlement Bill, and Ngāti Hei Claims Settlement Bill. I’d like to start by also bestowing a warm welcome to everyone that’s in the gallery today, and I thank you immensely for showing us, once again, how milestones like this are so important. We all know that travelling around is extra difficult these days with what’s going on overseas affecting us here, so thank you very much for being here today, all of you guests in the gallery.

I really love how our beautiful and young Hana-Rawhiti said that with moments like this, the public memory begins to shift. That really resonated, as I listened to Hana-Rawhiti’s speech, because it’s true. I don’t whakapapa to any Māori iwi, I whakapapa to Lebanon, but I can continuously and consistently learn about the grievances that our Māori brothers and sisters have endured in our past. It’s really quite a contradiction, and I think I’ve mentioned this before, that Aotearoa New Zealand is so beautiful—we have such beautiful landscapes, a lot of beauty—and yet there’s such, in some ways, an ugly history.

As Minister Goldsmith said in his speech, the Crown recognises and acknowledges the severe wrongs, because the wrongs were severe. Yes, we’ve placed these three third readings in one third reading because, as Willie Jackson said, this is how desperate we are to get along with things. So we are. We’re desperate for our guests and your whānau to get along with things.

I’d like to acknowledge the words that were mentioned this morning by Matua Koro. Although I’m not fluent in the reo and I didn’t understand everything that was said in the kōrero, I do feel that my heart understood the undercurrent. I thank you, Mr Koro, for sharing what you did, and I thank you for the challenges that you put to us because they were from your heart. One thing I know is that our Ministers listened, and my heart listened as well.

I too was not involved in the beginning of the processes for Ngāti Hei and Ngāti Tara Tokanui settlement bills, but the common thread is the severe loss of land in three of these settlements.

When I think of Ngāti Hei, in my first trip to New Zealand—because I was born in Australia to Lebanese parents—my beautiful husband took me to the Coromandel Coast, and I remember as we were driving there, he said to me, this coast is considered one of the most beautiful in the world. When I arrived there, yes, my heart broke with happiness with how beautiful your coastline is. I’m really glad. I’m very pleased that part of the cultural redress is that the key redress includes the vesting of Te Puia Hot Water Beach Domain, and the recognition arrangements over Cathedral Cove and Cuvier Island Nature Reserve are also part of that redress.

With respect to Ngāti Tara Tokanui, one of the 12 iwi and hapū with customary interests in the wider Hauraki area, again, there was major land confiscation and unfair dealings, and there’s little evidence to show that Ngāti Tara Tokanui actually signed sale agreements. Sometimes when we wonder why there is so little trust between some of our Māori and Government agencies. I guess history like this can make people stop wondering and understand more.

We were really pleased and very blessed to go to the whenua of Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu, and I mentioned this in my last speech—I loved it. Thank you very much. We were around the mountain of love, and we absolutely felt the love. In closing, I do wish all of the iwi well. I know that you put your mokopuna at the forefront of your minds when you’re going forward with these settlements. I hope, to a small extent, that at least some of the burden can be lifted, and I know you’ll make your ancestors proud. I commend this bill to the House.

GEORGIE DANSEY (Labour) (12:19): Thank you. I’m honoured to rise to speak to the third reading of the Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu Claims Settlement Bill, Ngāti Hei Claims Settlement Bill, and Ngāti Tara Tokanui Claims Settlement Bill. Nau mai, haere mai ki Pāremata.

I would like to start by acknowledging the iwi, the hapū, and the whānau who have come to the House today for this very important occasion, and commend you on your mahi and getting these bills to the third and final reading here in Parliament. I wish you all the very best for the future. Once this settlement is concluded, I hope that your whānau and hapū flourish, and that this settlement gives opportunity to all of your tamariki and mokopuna.

I sit on the Māori Affairs Committee, so it’s a real honour and privilege to be able to contribute to this process, to hear from iwi about the wrongs done, and to see that Crown apology written into legislation. Every settlement we pass in this House is a significant milestone for Aotearoa New Zealand and our journey in truly recognising Te Tiriti o Waitangi. But what we do here is such a small part; it is the iwi, the hapū, the whānau who do the real mahi working with the Crown to get the bill into legislation, accepting a settlement, and then working to ensure that that settlement provides opportunity for whānau while protecting your whenua.

Earlier in the year, as part of the Māori Affairs Committee, we had the opportunity to go and visit some iwis who have had their settlements concluded. Some of them were concluded in the last few years. Some of them were 20 years old. It was a really interesting kaupapa, because we were able to learn about what the iwi we did post-settlement: what they put the money into, what they did with their whenua, what they did as part of the redress. That’s a fascinating journey, and I hope, in years to come, that I can hear what it is that your iwis do in the future with this settlement.

It was a really huge privilege to attend the whakatau this morning and hear from you and celebrate this milestone with all three iwi. To hear your kōrero from the kaikōrero this morning was a real privilege. One of the important whakaaro that came out of it for me was the presence of ancestors, of tūpuna—that this settlement, as well as acknowledging the hurt, the apology, and the journey, really acknowledges those who have gone before. I think you articulated it much better than I, but I’ll give it a go: the whānau that endured that suffering, the loss of their tikanga, reo, and whenua—that sacrificed so much; the real honour is them today. It was incredible to see their photos there at the mihi whakatau and to see them in the gallery today.

Some of your kōrero today sends a strong message to the Government about the importance of honouring Te Tiriti, and I commend you for that. Settling a Treaty bill is one thing, but truly honouring Te Tiriti o Waitangi is another, and we must go further. Frankly, right now, I don’t think we’re heading in the right direction. I’d love to see a true partnership with Māori; I don’t think we’re there yet. In order to achieve that full partnership, we must ensure that our tamariki and our rangatahi have the knowledge and history of Aotearoa New Zealand and the hurt that was caused. I hope that as part of your settlement, you’re able to share that kōrero and that journey with your mokopuna tamariki.

Through this settlement, the Crown seeks to atone for the injustices done and rebuild a relationship based on trust and honourable Treaty partnership. Other speakers have spoken to it never being enough, and I tautoko that: it’s never enough, but it’s a start. As I mentioned, I really look forward to seeing where you go with this and what opportunities you take for reconnection of your people to their whenua, tikanga, and reo so that the mokopuna of your iwi feel connected to their whenua, their awa, their tikanga, and te reo Māori.

It is with great pleasure that I commend all three of these bills to the House. Nō reira nei rā te mihi ki a koutou katoa. Kia ū, kia māia, kia manawanui. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Therefore, I present my greetings to you all. Be steadfast, be courageous, be resilient. Greetings and thanks to you all.]

CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti) (12:25): Tēnā rawa atu koe, e te Māngai o te Whare.

Ehara i te mea nō nāianei te aroha

Nō ngā tūpuna i tuku iho, i tuku iho

[Love is not a thing of the present alone

It was passed down by the ancestors]

Nā reira ki a koutou, ngā uri tuku iho o Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu, Ngāti Hei, Ngāti Tara Tokanui, tēnā rawa atu koutou katoa.

Tēnei hoki te mihi atu ki a rātou mā e kawea nei i roto i ngā whakaahua, rātou i tae whakaahua mai, rātou i tae o roto o te whare o mahara, i roto i ō koutou ngākau, i roto hoki i ō koutou tūmanako.

Huri noa ki a tātou, tihei mauri ora. Tēnei te mihi atu ki a koutou katoa i tae mai i runga i te rau o te aroha.

[Therefore, to you, the descendants of Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu, Ngāti Hei, and Ngāti Tara Tokanui, many greetings to you all.

We also extend our greetings to those whose images are displayed here—those present in these photographs, and those held within the house of memory, within your hearts, and within your hopes.

Turning to all of us here—the breath of life. We extend our greetings to everyone who has arrived here, borne on the leaves of love.]

Although I don’t sit on the Māori Affairs Committee, it is indeed my pleasure to be here and take what will be the last contribution of this House in the third hearing of your bills.

Tēnei te mihi nui atu i a koutou i tae mai i runga i te rau aroha, i runga hoki i te hūmārie. Koutou i tae kotahi mai, ahakoa i tae mai koutou katoa i runga i tōu ake mana motuhake.

Kua tae mai koutou hei kanohi mō rātou mā kua wehe atu, kua tae mai koutou ki te kawe i ngā tūmanako o rātou kāre anō kia whānau mai ki tēnei ao. Ahakoa he ngāwari noa iho te waiata i tīmatatia nei e au, he waiata e kawe nei i tērā āhuatanga e tino whakapono ai tātou, te iwi Māori, arā te aroha.

Nā reira ahakoa ngā taumahatanga i pēhi nei i runga i ō koutou tīpuna, i tangohia ō koutou whenua, ō koutou moana, i tae mai koutou i runga i te aroha mō rātou mā; i runga i te aroha mō ō koutou whānau; i runga i te aroha mō ō koutou maunga, moana, awa, whenua; i runga i te aroha mō tō koutou whenua, o Aotearoa.

Nā reira tēnei te mihi atu ki a koutou i tae mai i runga i te rau aroha kia neke ai tātou katoa o Aotearoa ki mua. Tēnei te mihi atu.

[I hereby greet you who have come here with compassion, and, also, in humility—those of you who arrived together, even though you all come under your own particular authority.

You have come as representatives for those who have passed on, you have come to bring the hopes of those who have yet to be born into this world. Despite the simple song that I began with, it is a song that conveys that particular thing that we, the Māori people, all very much believe in; that is, love.

Therefore, despite the difficulties that impacted your ancestors, that resulted in the taking of your land and your ocean assets, you came with love for those who have passed; with love for your families; with love for your mountains, oceans, rivers, and lands; and with love for your nation, Aotearoa.

Therefore, I hereby greet you who have come here with compassion so that all of us in Aotearoa may progress. Thank you.]

Earlier in the House, we heard Winston Peters talk about the peanuts that are received from these settlements—

Steve Abel: Winston Peters?

CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL: Oh, sorry, Winston—no, I don’t think he said that! Willie Jackson. Easy mistake—easy mistake, whānau. We’ll leave them to decide who was either praised or insulted by that mistake.

Hon Tama Potaka: Brothers in arms. New coalition—new coalition.

CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL: Future coalition, Tama Potaka reckons! Let’s not start rumours. Let’s stick to you guys, whānau.

He talked about—actually, I’ll quote him: through peanuts from these settlements, we see hope. That is true: although it’s been acknowledged across this House that the compensation received doesn’t even go near compensating for the wrongs that were done, there is hope.

I want to talk about the hope that Māori brings to this country that can sometimes be forgotten and refer to the amazing Māori economy, which is now worth $126 billion—$66 billion made-up by Māori business and employers, 14 by trusts and incorporations, and 19 by self-employed Māori. Our entrepreneurial nature has been there mai rā anō [ever since], and while this doesn’t go anywhere near compensating you for the wrongs done throughout generations, I look forward to hearing amazing reports of the contribution you make to this Māori economy as we move forward, because, let me tell you, the world is ready to do business with us all. Tēnei te mihi atu ki a koutou.

[I hereby acknowledge you.]

Heoi anō rā ko taku kōrero ki a tātou [however, what I would say to us all]—it’s awesome to hear the contributions, the reo, the empathy, but how do we carry that on outside these walls? We must champion everything that’s being said across this House, not just in the way we write legislation moving forward but as we move through our communities in Aotearoa. Attitudes towards settlements and attitudes towards the contribution that our whānau, hapū, and iwi make as good kaitiaki, as good partners, must be carried beyond the legislation we write to our attitudes in our communities.

Heoi anō rā, hei whakakapi, tēnei te mihi anō ki a koutou, ngā uri o Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu, Ngāti Hei, Ngāti Tara Tokanui. Tēnei te mihi atu ki a koutou katoa mō tō hūmārie, mō tō aroha nui ki tēnei whenua o tātou.

[However, to conclude, I hereby acknowledge you, the descendants of Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu, Ngāti Hei, and Ngāti Tara Tokanui. I hereby acknowledge you all for your humility, and your great love for this land of ours.]

Motion agreed to.

Bills read a third time.

[Applause]

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): I understand there will be a waiata.

Waiata—“Aakau o te Aroha (Ko Hauraki te Whenua)”

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Members, the House stands adjourned until 2 p.m.

The House adjourned at 12.34 p.m. (Wednesday)

This early draft is automatically published - it is not yet complete and reviewed.