Volume 695 Week 62 - Tuesday 10 December 2013(continued on Wednesday 11 December 2013)Text is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVolume 695 Week 62 - Tuesday 10 December 2013(continued on Wednesday 11 December 2013)[Sitting date: 10 December 2013. Volume:695;Page:15423. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Tuesday 10 December 2013(continued on Wednesday 11 December 2013)AppointmentsElectoral CommissionHon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice): I moveThat pursuant to section 4D of the Electoral Act 1993 and section 32 of the Crown Entities Act 2004 this House recommends His Excellency the Governor-General reappoint Hon Sir John Hugh Williams as Chairperson of the Electoral Commission for a term of three years.The Electoral Act 1993 established the Electoral Commission as an independent Crown entity. The commission is responsible for the administration of parliamentary elections and referenda; the allocation of time and money for the broadcast of election programmes; the conduct of the Māori electoral option; servicing the work of the Representation Commission; the provision of advice reports and public education on electoral matters; and electoral enrolment services for both parliamentary and local body elections.The commission has a board of three members comprising a part-time chairperson a part-time deputy chairperson and a full-time chief electoral officer who is also the chief executive. Appointments to the commission are made by the Governor-General on the recommendation of the House of Representatives. Sir Hugh was appointed as a judge of the High Court in 1995 and retired from the bench in 2009. He previously served as a Master of the High Court for 6 years and was for many years the chancellor of Massey University. He has a longstanding involvement in the administration of justice and significant governance experience as a highly engaged university chancellor.Sir Hugh was appointed as president of the former Electoral Commission in 2009 and then as chair of the present commission in 2011. He continues to provide the commission with strong legal leadership. I am proposing that Sir Hugh is reappointed for a term of 3 years. This will ensure that the chairperson position is reviewed within the 12-month lead-in time to the 2017 general election.ANDREW LITTLE (Labour): It is a pleasure to rise and to indicate Labour’s support for the appointment of Justice Williams to a further term of 3 years as chair of the Electoral Commission. Justice Williams has had an exemplary period on the bench and has fulfilled a number of other public roles as well. He was also chancellor of Massey University for a period he was a Palmerston North city councillor for a period and he has taken other public roles including now chairing the Electoral Commission.It is apposite in view of the role of this House in endorsing Justice Williams’ continued appointment to the Electoral Commission to reflect on that commission and its importance in our electoral system and therefore to our system of democracy. There is no question that having a system that is trusted and relied upon and that has the confidence of the people is a sine qua non of our democratic system. There must be proper and full oversight of our electoral processes and a commission that is truly independent of the Government and of all politicians whose election conduct comes within its purview and its oversight. So it is important that we have people of good standing and of high standing occupying these important roles. Justice Williams fulfils those criteria.There is another aspect though and I wonder whether at this time when we consider this appointment and when we reflect on it we can think about the role of the Electoral Commission. We do so in light of recent events not because I am particularlyconcerned with any particular individual but I am concerned about a system where when the commission was called upon to investigate and decide whether criminal sanctions were appropriate in an alleged breach of electoral law it was a matter that was referred to the police who exercised their prosecutorial discretion against prosecution. That was then picked up by a private citizen which led to the successful establishment of a prima facie case. That has now led to a trial being set up and the Solicitor-General stepping in and taking over the case.It raises I think the very important question in relation to our electoral law and the boundaries within which we must operate of whether it is appropriate to continue to rely upon the police to act as the prosecutorial agent in those sorts of cases. I think not just recent history but also more distant history tells us that the police resent it and find it very difficult when they are put in the position of having to prosecute in political matters. They often feel used and manipulated. I wonder whether now is a time for us to consider whether the Electoral Commission itself—given the seniority of the people whom we are now appointing to it the standing they have and the independence with which it conducts itself—is more appropriate to conduct investigations into alleged breaches and to exercise that prosecutorial discretion because the police clearly do not find this a task that is very easy to do or one that they are comfortable acquitting themselves with.On this occasion I raise that issue because I think that as we head towards—if it is not already then very soon—world’s best practice when it comes to oversight of our electoral system and the upholding of our democratic traditions and principles we need to make sure that we have the apparatus for ensuring that there is full compliance with our electoral laws but also that any alleged breaches are quickly brought to book through a competent agent a Government State agency that knows what it is doing. The Electoral Commission is that agency and it is the one that should be tasked with the full range of follow-up oversight investigation and if necessary prosecution of alleged breaches in a way that we do not have at the moment. But on that note we support the continued appointment of Justice Williams and wish him and the commission all the best in their endeavours during the remaining term of his appointment.STEFFAN BROWNING (Green): I rise to speak to the motion to reappoint Sir John Hugh Williams as Chair of the Electoral Commission. As chair of the commission Justice Sir John Hugh Williams will again offer the commission strong leadership. He has had longstanding involvement in the administration of justice and has significant governance experience as a highly engaged university chancellor.Sir Hugh was appointed as a judge of the High Court in 1997. He retired from the bench in 2009 but still holds an acting warrant. He previously served as Master of the High Court for 6 years and for many years as I said earlier he was the chancellor of Massey University. As the president of the existing Electoral Commission since 2009 Justice Williams is well informed on the issues and complexities associated with preparations for the next general election and his appointment will provide valuable continuity. Justice Williams brings a depth of experience to the role.I would like to acknowledge the MMP review also undertaken this term by the Electoral Commission. The Electoral Commission conducted a robust public consultation—the process that a clear set of recommendations emerged from. The review was carried out in a timely manner with a robust public submission process a high degree of engagement and a clear steer from the public on what they would like to see changed. Unfortunately the National Government undermined the process by ignoring the wishes of the New Zealand public in particular to abolish the one electorate seat threshold.Justice Williams does bring a depth of experience to the role. He has longstanding involvement in the administration of justice and significant governance experience as a highly engaged university chancellor. The Green Party will be supporting the motion to reappoint Sir John Hugh Williams as Chair of the Electoral Commission. Thank you.DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): New Zealand First recognises that the Electoral Commission plays a critical role in our democracy. The commission must of course be seen as totally impartial and objective in relation to its functions that support our democracy. We have no objection at all to the appointment of the Hon Sir John Hugh Williams as Chair of the Electoral Commission for a term of 3 years. We consider that he is a suited person to be nominated under this Government motion No. 1 and so New Zealand First will vote for the motion.However as we have said in the past we do have concerns with the process by which the commission is selected. In our view the process still does not fully take into account the nature of New Zealand’s MMP democracy. We are not fully satisfied that the current arrangements are valid as an expression of that democracy. This is no reflection on Sir Hugh but the public must have confidence that the procedures by which the commission is put together are fully representative and we do not believe they are. For that reason we repeat our previous calls that there needs to be a thorough and critical review of the way the composition of the commission is determined.We are also concerned about the way the commission currently makes some of its decisions. Our problem in this respect is with election funding for broadcasting which is on a party-by-party basis and appears to use as its factual basis opinion polls rather than the past voting record of a party. As New Zealand First has proved many many times opinion polls are utterly worthless as an expression of genuine public opinion and should not be used in processes of this kind. In 2011 for example two much more minor parties than New Zealand First were given considerably more funding than New Zealand First was. That was as I have said on the basis of the use of opinion polls to somehow gauge the public support for minor parties. That is an entirely unsatisfactory way of going about that sort of decision making. We think at least past voting records should be used in its place. All we are asking for after all is genuine fairness if not equality as far as these issues are concerned.So we think the commission needs to have a good look at itself and the way it goes about making decisions. We think the process by which it is appointed needs to be reviewed. So all is not well with the Electoral Commission and change needs to happen. New Zealand First again calls for that change to happen. In the meantime however we will support and vote for the current appointment as proposed by this Government motion No. 1.Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future): I hesitate to break the consensus but I do not support Government motion No. 1 and I want to just briefly set out the reasons why. A number of speakers have made reference to the fact that the Electoral Commission which was established in 1993 is there to oversee fairly impartially and properly the administration of our electoral system. That is the point of my objection. It is based on United Future’s experiences with the commission earlier this year over the matter of party registration and Sir Hugh I am afraid played a leading role in those discussions.What to my way of thinking breached the whole issue of fairness was that first of all the commission told us that what we were seeking was not possible because it was contrary to the legislation. It was in fact a matter of the Electoral Commission’s own internal rules not the legislation and the Electoral Commission refused to alter its rules to allow for the electronic registration of party members. So we complied eventually through the old system only to have the Electoral Commission which had told us that itwas not possible to have electronic registration change its rules to allow electronic registration less than a month after our process had been completed. That action breaches fairness. That action breaches the swift and proper administration of the electoral system that we ought to expect.I have to say with some sadness and due respect that Sir Hugh did not acquit himself well during that process. When I explained to him that the situation had arisen because parties supplying the statutory declaration needed to provide no other information and that had we signed a statutory declaration the situation would not have arisen he kept saying to me “But Mr Dunne that would have been wrong.” and I kept saying to him “That is precisely the point. That is the absurdity of this exercise.” He said: “But Mr Dunne you could not have signed a false declaration.” Of course—and we did not. There was a complete incapacity with due respect on his part to actually understand the problem.I think that as we face electoral situations in the future which will become complex because of the variety of parties that contest them because of the new technologies that are available and because of the pressures we have seen even as recently as the local authority elections in terms of what people expect by way of participation it is important that the Electoral Commission be as nifty smart and up to date with reality as is possible. I have no confidence that the combination of the current president of the commission—sadly because he has had a distinguished career—and a chief executive who seems to rely on the Nuremberg defence whenever challenged saying “I am merely carrying out orders.” does not give the public the confidence it deserves.So unfortunately I cannot support the motion. I think it is important in general that appointments of this nature enjoy unanimous parliamentary support and I am not going to be part of that today. I hope that the commission does reflect upon its responsibilities and does act in future in a way that is commensurate with the high obligation that Parliament has placed upon it to fairly properly and smartly administer our electoral law.Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour): It gives me pleasure to rise to support the reappointment of Sir John Hugh Williams as president of the New Zealand Electoral Commission. We are very fortunate in that we are a very small democracy here in New Zealand but we are able to draw on a range of people with extraordinary experience and ability whose integrity in the carrying out of their duties is beyond reproach. I see Sir John Hugh Williams as one of those people. His past career has been traversed by the Minister who moved the Government motion. He has not only been appointed as a QC in 1988 and a High Court Justice in 1997 but he also engaged with communities in New Zealand through being a chancellor of Massey University and even more significantly I think as a city councillor for Palmerston North between 1983 and 1989. That indicates that here is a person who has cared enough about his communities to put himself forward for elected office but also for appointment. It is critical that people who hold such positions as president of the New Zealand Electoral Commission have the confidence of this Parliament.In respect of the speaker who has just resumed his seat and whose vote against this motion will break the unanimous support of this reappointment I have only to say that it is important that every party be recorded for its view in this House and that theHansardreflects the speeches around this reappointment for posterity and that speech the speech just given by the Hon Peter Dunne will go down as the whining death throes of a minor party in its terminal state. It is not appropriate I think for a parliamentarian whose party has slipped below the threshold for registration to take the president of the Electoral Commission to task in such a way.It was a unique experience in New Zealand history and it represented a new challenge for the Electoral Commission. Perhaps on reflecting on that experience it may seek to do things differently in the future but I am not persuaded that it did anything wrong in the way that it carried out its decision making around the deregistration and the reregistration of one of the smallest parties in this country.But what will be important is that the other parties have registered their support. It is absolutely critical with this kind of appointment that it is a parliamentary appointment. It is a nomination by the Government for a reappointment in this case and the Government would not have moved to reappoint Sir John Hugh Williams without good reason. Labour shares those reasons—the confidence in the man; the confidence in his ability and his reputation—and it is essential that these comments are recorded so that at a later date when parties do perhaps disagree with judgments of the Electoral Commission it is known that it was a parliamentary and a cross-party appointment. That is part of the protection of the apparatus of our democracy.Although the Hon Peter Dunne may say what he likes in this House and that is his right and privilege as a member of Parliament it needs to be seen that the vast majority of parties in this House with perhaps the United Future party being the sole exception approve and support the reappointment of Sir John Hugh Williams. I am pleased to lend my support to my colleague Andrew Little’s comments in this respect. Labour will support this reappointment and will recognise that as a parliamentary appointment we have committed ourselves to that reappointment and that will stand for the duration of his appointment period. Thank you.Motion agreed to.Standing OrdersSessionalHon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): I moveThat the recommended amendments to the Standing Orders set out in Part 2 of the report of the Standing Orders Committee on Members’ attendance absence and suspension be adopted as a sessional order with effect from 1 January 2014 the sessional order relating to compassionate leave that was adopted by the House on 26 September 2013 be revoked with effect from 1 January 2014 and compassionate leave under the sessional order of 26 September 2013 granted by the Speaker for a period after 1 January 2014 be treated as permission to be absent granted under new Standing Order 37B(1). This motion recommends the amendments to the Standing Orders set out in Part 2 of the report of the Standing Orders Committee on members’ attendance absence and suspension. It requires that it be adopted as a sessional order with effect from 1 January 2014. Previously the House passed a sessional order relating to compassionate leave which was adopted on 26 September of this year 2013. That will now be revoked with effect from 1 January 2014 as these new provisions apply. Compassionate leave under the previous sessional order was to be granted by the Speaker and that arrangement will continue but will be given effect under the motion we are passing today.Parliament is somewhat unique in that members are elected to be free to come and speak in this place on behalf of those whom they represent but there is a requirement that they do in fact attend. Parties as they are structured under our system do have some leeway to allow people to do the things that the community expects them to do—to turn up to events and to offer the various points of leadership that people expect from this place—and that means that a party is restricted in the number of people whom it can have out of Parliament on any day. That means that there will be occasions when there will be personal circumstances when in any other workplace the member wouldbe able to take leave to go and attend to that business but because of the structures we have here he or she is unable to. There is also somewhat of an anomaly that exists around paid parental leave for those who have partners in the workforce. MPs are restricted from some of that access at the present time.Although this Standing Order does not deal with that it is a challenge for Parliament at some point. But what this will mean is that the Speaker upon representation from the various party whips and then having reported it to the Business Committee will be able to step outside of the requirements to have only a certain number away each day and to grant leave on a compassionate basis. I think this is just the sort of thing that exists in most workplaces. It lines this place up with what would be expected in a modern workplace and I do commend it to the House.SUE MORONEY (Labour): It is a pleasure to rise on behalf of the New Zealand Labour Party and also support Government motion No. 2. As the Hon Gerry Brownlee said Parliament is a workplace a little unlike any other. If I was in another workplace—say my previous workplace working for the New Zealand Nurses Organisation—and I left my office to go and have a meeting with union members I would still be at work. I would not need to seek leave from my employer to go and do my job outside of my office. But in this work environment—and many members of the public may not know this and why should they; it is a little unusual—if as a member of Parliament I need to go back to Hamilton to attend a meeting of importance in my area then I need to have specific leave from Parliament to go and do my job in another location to leave my office here in Parliament to go and do that. Even if I was to go down the road here in Wellington and meet with some people from the social development sector in my role as our spokesperson on social development I would also need leave to be off the premises to go and do my job somewhere else.So the application of leave in a parliamentary environment is a little odd. It is not necessarily—although sometimes it is—leave to attend to a personal matter. It does cover that as well but more often than not it is actually leave to not be here in the parliamentary precincts in order to do our job in another location. I think it is right and proper that we have a very robust process in the way in which that is monitored and I note that Government motion No. 2 certainly gives a lot more structure around that. I guess the changing feature this brings in is a systematic approach to recording unauthorised unpermitted absences from Parliament. It is right and proper that the New Zealand public should have confidence in our systems.This is designed to operationalise I guess a piece of legislation recently passed by this Parliament whereby if a member of Parliament was to be absent in an unauthorised manner for 4 or more days throughout the year there would be a financial penalty to their salary for that. That is right and proper because I think that does reflect the practices of workplaces up and down New Zealand—that there is a penalty if people have unexplained unauthorised absences from their employment. So without further ado I do rise on behalf of the Labour Party to recommend and support Government motion No. 2. It will be a new systems approach for us and I am sure that members of Parliament will treat it with the dignity and respect it deserves.Motion agreed to.Royal Succession BillSecond ReadingHon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice): I moveThat the Royal Succession Bill be now read a second time. The Royal Succession Bill makes moderate and considered changes to the rules of royal succession. These changes update the rules ofsuccession to make them more consistent with modern New Zealand society and values. I thank the Justice and Electoral Committee for its careful consideration of the bill. The committee received seven written submissions and heard from four submitters. I am pleased that the committee has reported back unanimously and recommended only one minor technical change. This unanimous agreement shows that the changes are positive for New Zealand’s system of government. I am aware that some submitters raised issues to the committee such as whether New Zealand should become a republic. Wider constitutional changes such as that are outside the scope of this bill.The bill makes three specific changes to the royal succession rules. The changes result from an agreement made at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Perth in October 2011. All 16 realms of which Her Majesty the Queen is Sovereign agreed to the three specific changes. The realms agreed to implement the changes simultaneously.The first of these changes is that an elder daughter will be allowed to succeed to the Crown ahead of a younger son. This removes gender discrimination which cannot be justified in the modern age. The committee recommended a minor amendment to the bill. The gender-neutral change will apply from 12 noon New Zealand time on 29 October 2011. This minor amendment is reflected in the committee’s proposed changes to clauses 3 and 5 of the bill. It takes account of British summer time and will ensure consistency with the other realms.The second change made by the bill allows a person marrying a Roman Catholic to succeed to or possess the Crown. The current restriction applies only to Roman Catholic spouses not to those following any other religion or no religion at all. The bar has historical reasons and can no longer be justified in modern society.The third change removes the rule that all descendants of King George II must have the Sovereign’s consent to marry. That is replaced with a rule that the first six in line to the throne must seek consent. If consent is not given the marriage remains valid but the person concerned will lose their place in the line of succession. The old rule will have affected many hundreds if not thousands of people. There is a risk that marriages may be technically invalid as a result even without the people concerned being aware. This bill addresses that problem by validating such marriages provided that relevant conditions are met.This bill improves the rules of royal succession to help ensure that they better reflect modern New Zealand values while preserving the essential features of the monarchy that underpin our system of government. I commend this bill to the House.ANDREW LITTLE (Labour): I rise to speak on this very important piece of legislation the Royal Succession Bill. I did partake in the early discussions in the Justice and Electoral Committee when I was on that committee before I transferred to that other august committee the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. It is the latter committee that probably had a little more to offer this bill perhaps than even the Justice and Electoral Committee. Nevertheless the mere fact that we are dealing with this bill at this time in this House on this day highlights the kind of anachronism that now surrounds our relationship to the British Crown.The Minister of Justice noted that of the seven submitters some of them made submissions about our status as a monarchy and whether we should be a republic. I simply say that that is hardly surprising when we are in this humble little House in this humble corner of the Earth thousands of kilometres away from the seat of the throne of the British monarchy and the person who is constitutionally our head of State. Who would have thought? It behoves us really to question exactly why it is that we are in this position and for how much longer we can go on.Very nice it is that the previously sexist provisions under which only a male heir could succeed to the throne have gone. It is very nice that we should abolish the discriminatory provisions on those who accede to the throne in respect of marrying a Roman Catholic. We all know the history of the papists and the Catholics in Britain and how reviled they were and the big schism between the British monarchy and the Catholic Church that allowed Henry VIII to remarry not just once but several times more after that. We all know and understand that but in fact we have had these discriminatory practices and provisions built into our constitutional system for this long. I think that as an independent nation free to express ourselves and proud to express ourselves in the way we do at some time—and I suggest that that is now—we should stand on our own two feet and say that much as we respect that which has been achieved by Britain and its monarch and much as we respect what we refer to as the royal family—because let us face it there are many of them around the world—the one that appears most often in our glossy magazines our monthlies our weeklies and occasionally in our daily newspapers it is time for us to stand on our own two feet.We should not in this House have to be legislating for the removal of discriminatory marital practices. I mean we did that early this year on a much more momentous and well-received occasion than this. The Catholics have not had to park themselves out on the front lawn of Parliament House. They have not called on Tau Henare or Chris Auchinvole or Paul Hutchison or others to give stirring speeches about the removal of discrimination. We have not had that in relation to the Catholics.Hon Tau Henare: So what about the Treaty relationship?ANDREW LITTLE: I ask Tau Henare what it is that he has got against Catholics. Why has he so far not got up to give a speech on this bill about how poorly treated the Catholics have been by the British royal family for so long? Where is that speech? Where is Maurice Williamson and his great colourful rainbow over his electorate office? When is he going to talk about stopping the discrimination against Roman Catholics by the British royal family? Where is that sweeping speech? Where is the invitation to be hosted by Ellen DeGeneres on her show to talk about the discrimination against the Catholics?Oh yes it is all very well for the gay folks in our community to have the discrimination removed against them but what about the Catholics and what about the British royal family? I am waiting for those stirring speeches because it has gone on for far too long—hundreds and hundreds of years of discrimination—and I think that if you were a British Catholic or indeed if you were a New Zealand Catholic who aspired to be the spouse of an heir to the throne compensation almost certainly is in order! There will be those who have got that close to entering the relationship of marriage with an heir to the throne of our head of State and who have been deprived of that opportunity and I think that at the very least an inquiry into that prospect must be undertaken and if necessary compensation paid!But notwithstanding that notwithstanding our shuddering horror at the sorts of laws we are being asked to pass in this bill we will nevertheless support it because at this point in our history our head of State is the British monarch our head of State is the Queen of England and all her realms and everything else that goes with it. But I will be one of those who will be first at the barricades when the opportunity arises to say that it is time for a change and it is time for our country our proud nation State and everything that it stands for to press its case in the world on its own with its own domestically chosen head of State so that we can truly hold our heads up high and say that we are New Zealand we are our people and we are united under the Southern Cross and all those wonderful things that we get down this end of the globe and say that it is time that we did it for ourselves. As the Blood Sisters say in that great song wecan ring our own bell—I think that is the term. If the sisters can ring their own bell it is time for the entire nation of New Zealand to ring its bell and to proudly stand and choose our own head of State.But let us say that while we still have the British monarch as our head of State let us remove those last vestiges of discrimination. Let us have the Roman Catholics roaming Buckingham Palace without fear and with impunity and let us see those royal young women succeeding the throne without the vestiges of primogeniture and all the rest of it that goes with it.We do support the bill but we do so in a spirit of hope that this might be the first step to a period of reflection so that we might make a change so that we do not have to pass more laws about an institution that is increasingly less relevant to us and about a bunch of people who have less and less interest in us.SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): It is a pleasure to rise and take a short call in support of this Royal Succession Bill notwithstanding Andrew Little’s papist republican rant. It is something that is important to us. It is a small bill. It is a small bill and it is an important bill. It is easy to make light of things that sometimes on the face of it seem a little trivial and of little consequence. However this bill is something that makes a small but very significant and important change to our basic constitutional arrangements. For many people it would seem unusual that our Parliament and parliaments in the other 15 Commonwealth realms have to pass special legislation to ensure that in future royal succession will be gender-neutral. These days it seems by our standards of society that anything other than a gender-neutral royal succession would be something completely unacceptable in a modern society.This bill is not long. It is not complicated. It does not seek to change anything in terms of our constitutional monarchy other than to modernise the rules surrounding succession by removing aspects of gender and religious discrimination. With the birth last year of Prince George it is going to be many years before the practical implications of this bill will have any impact at all. That in itself is not important. What is important is that the change has been made and will have effect in due course. Now when necessary no matter how far into the future it is the succession will be a succession that is appropriate and fitting by modern current societal standards.It was a pleasure to chair the Justice and Electoral Committee as we considered submissions on the bill. We received seven submissions. We heard from four and we made just one minor technical amendment to do with the time in order to relate to Greenwich Mean Time summer time and those sorts of things so it was a very minor change. But it is a narrow bill. It did not have any scope to consider the republican issues that Andrew Little raised. It is important that our constitutional institutions maintain their history and traditions and I support those but it is also important that the rules that govern those institutions evolve and sometimes change with the expectations of a changing society. This bill is a classic example of how our system can and does work to accommodate natural evolution.New Zealand is a young nation. We have a proud tradition of progressive history and of progressive social change within our history. This is a good bill. It is a small but simple bill. It is a bill with a simple and obvious intention. It is a bill that helps keep our constitutional monarchy relevant and in step with modern thinking. It is a bill I support and I commend to the House.Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour): It give me great pleasure to rise to speak to the Royal Succession Bill. There is an extraordinary coincidence of things happening on the Order Paper this morning. Very shortly we are going to be debating the Mokomoko (Restoration of Character Mana and Reputation) Bill and right now we are debating the Royal Succession Bill. One is tempted to use words like “sublime” and “ridiculous”in the reverse order of those things right now but I do want to place on record that although this bill is not ridiculous certainly the Mokomoko (Restoration of Character Mana and Reputation) Bill is closer to the sublime end of that scale.Can I just say also that members of the House of course will understand the speech delivered by my colleague Andrew Little. The Labour Party is full of Roman Catholics. We started off with Roman Catholics—if we go back to Michael Joseph Savage and the people before him and our founders on the West Coast—so he is representing a very significant voice within the Labour Party. So I do want to acknowledge that.Can I just say that for my own part there should not be any discussion about moving to a republic in New Zealand without proper consideration of the role of the Treaty of Waitangi. Te Tiriti and the impact of that on our psyche on our history and on our development as a nation would need to be compensated for because it is a treaty with the Crown. Should we become a republic similar or exactly the same provisions would need to be embedded somewhere—not with the Crown but with the Government of New Zealand. That conversation is not finished yet. It should not be rushed. And that is why this bill does not rush the decision about having Roman Catholics succeed to the throne.Of course Henry VIII separated the Church of England from the Church of Rome in 1534 so it has taken us 479 years to get this far. Sometimes those things take a little while. They take a bit of thought. So at least the modernising step that is being made in this bill is to allow the Sovereign to be married to a Roman Catholic but it does not allow a Roman Catholic to be the Sovereign because with the title of Sovereign goes the title Defender of the Faith—Defender of the Faith. Henry VIII set that up. So if the faith is—Hon Judith Collins: No he didn’t. The Pope gave that to him when he was a staunch Catholic actually. That’s the history of it. And then he kept it.Hon MARYAN STREET: Thank you.Hon Maurice Williamson: He was a Catholic. Henry VIII was a Catholic.Hon MARYAN STREET: Thank you. Yes yes everybody used to be a Catholic—Hon Maurice Williamson: Not everybody.Hon MARYAN STREET: Everybody used to be a Catholic until various bits split away. Of course the most famous secession from the Roman Catholic Church was that of Henry VIII which he did for his own purposes so that he did not have to deal with that nasty provision around divorce. So he had his own reasons—he had his own reasons for doing that. I am grateful to the Minister of Justice for her interjection.This bill is a sign of modernisation. We are slowly 479 years on making our way to the 21st century. At least the gender provision in the bill is something more modern. The Sovereign does not have to be the oldest boy; an older female sibling can accede to the throne. Of course with the birth of baby George we do not have to confront that issue for quite some time so quite when there will be another queen is yet to be seen. However this is modernising in the terms of these constitutional things.I would like to thank Scott Simpson the chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee for a very congenial and still thoughtful discussion and debate in the select committee. Although this bill does not appeal to all this is the constitutional reality that we have at the moment. Perhaps in another 479 years we may get to a complete constitutional and respectful self-determination state in New Zealand one that has properly and with a great deal of thought and care taken into account what should be our fundamental commitment to Te Tiriti o Waitangi.GARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora Mr Deputy Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a katou. Kia ora. Following on from the member Maryan Street I definitely hope we do not have to wait 479 years to finally get our constitution to get our house in order. TheRoyal Succession Bill is a relic of the past. It is an anachronism. It is a too little too late measure by the monarchy. It is a relic of the past. It is high time that New Zealand moved on. We are like that stereotypical kid that 30-year-old who is still living at home. It is time for New Zealand to leave the parents’ house get a flat on our own and maybe get some furniture of our own. Sure it is a bit cruisy at home—you do not have to pay the bills and maybe you do not even have to do the washing—but it is time to move out of home. It is time to stand on our own two feet.I am rising to abstain on the Royal Succession Bill. I am quite happy and proud to be abstaining on this bill.Hon Tau Henare: You came here to vote yes or no.GARETH HUGHES: I cannot vote for a bill that enshrines discrimination Mr Tau Henare. I cannot vote for a bill that the Labour Party said was a shuddering horror. I cannot vote for that. But I am also not going to vote against modernising and against ending sexist discriminatory practices which are what we have seen for hundreds of years under discriminatory monarchy. So what the Greens have decided to do is to abstain on this bill. What we will be doing is not voting for discrimination but we are not voting against the modernisation of a discriminatory institution. [Interruption] I think what we have seen is a hornet’s nest of interjections taking off from both sides of the House.I want to get to the substance of the bill. We want to acknowledge that the bill does do some good things. It is a modernising bill. It allows female first-borns to take the throne. It reduces the list of heirs whom the monarch can limit from marrying which dates back to 1772 I understand. But the Greens as I have outlined will be abstaining on it. We cannot support discrimination but we are not opposing a modernisation process. We would challenge other people—and I would like to be there on the barricades with Andrew Little. An abstention is a—Hon Tau Henare: You don’t have the right to challenge. Not voting—that’s right. So you should leave. Take your pāua take your crayfish and leave.GARETH HUGHES: Mr Henare an abstention is a perfectly legitimate parliamentary vote. And what I would have preferred—if members had voted for Keith Locke’s referendum on the Head of State Referenda Bill—is what we could have been having which is an actual conversation about where we go forward. This is a relic. It is an anachronism. I do not think that the member should be voting for such an old-fashioned discriminatory institution.This bill is quite simply too little too late. The entire institution is corrupt. It is inside. It is an institution that has no place in 2013. It is simply incredible that in 2013 we are finally getting rid of that sexist discriminatory primogeniture rule which has been around for hundreds of years. We have seen women’s liberation for decades in New Zealand and this Parliament and the other of the 16 realms that also have to pass this legislation are getting around to it only now. It is a discriminatory institution and that is why I cannot support it.What New Zealanders particularly the younger generation want I believe is to see a Kiwi head of State. What this bill does is discriminate against New Zealanders because what we are seeing is an English head of State for New Zealand. She is called the monarch of New Zealand but as we saw with the Iraq War where Britain went to war and we did not she was the monarch of Britain not New Zealand representing our interests abroad. This is a monarch who has been in New Zealand I understand only around 10 times. She lives a life fundamentally different from New Zealanders’ lives. I think we should end the discrimination and allow a New Zealander to be our head of State.Secondly this bill discriminates against Roman Catholics which we have heard about in this debate. When you look around this Chamber it is not the old relic Tau Henare who is the only relic in this Chamber; we have got relics like the Mace and we have got relics like the iconography of the monarchy and the prayer we start with. Again that is an Anglican prayer and it is time to ditch that discriminatory sectarian way we start our Parliament. We should have a way that all members of all faiths or members not of faith can feel comfortable with. This bill clearly discriminates against Catholics because the monarch cannot be a Catholic. They have to be part of the Anglican faith. It is fascinating watching the religious schism from the Protestant revolution still shaping our laws and our constitutional arrangements in 2013.Lastly although it is a modernisation and improvement that the monarch does not have to personally approve literally hundreds of marriages between potential future heirs—it has been limited to six—plainly and simply what we are seeing is arranged marriage. I cannot vote for a bill that contains arranged marriage. I think it is egregious and should not be enshrined in New Zealand law or Commonwealth law. But all in all—Hon Tau Henare: What happened with theRena? Oh yeah that’s all gone.GARETH HUGHES: I know that it is the last day of the year but I am going to try to ignore some of those inane interjections.What we are talking about is our constitutional arrangements and what I want to see is a proud independent New Zealand going into the future with confidence. I do not want to see a New Zealand that looks to the past. I heard the member Scott Simpson say that we are a young country. In reality we are the fourth-oldest parliamentary democracy in the world. We should be proud of our institutions but it is time—like that stereotypical adult child—to be leaving home to go and get our own house.I think New Zealanders want an independent head of State who is a New Zealander who grew up in a country like them who knows about the country’s history and who can represent New Zealand values on the world stage. It is time for New Zealanders to feel proud of a Treaty-based inclusive democracy that does not have a head of State living on the other side of the world who very rarely travels here and who knows very little about our day-to-day life. It is time that we listened to the people of New Zealand and had a genuine debate around the Treaty.As a member who supports the Treaty of Waitangi Te Tiriti o Waitangi as our founding document I want to see that enshrined in our constitutional arrangements. For too long the relationship between the Crown and iwi in the Treaty has been used as an excuse to not see action. Many petitioners over the decades have gone to Westminster to see the Queen and quite appropriately for our constitution arrangements under the 1947 Statute of Westminster Adoption Act the Queen has referred iwi petitioners to the New Zealand Parliament. The Crown in New Zealand statute is enshrined in the monarch’s representative the Governor-General and the House of Representatives. This is the Crown.If we are going to proceed into the future as a proud multicultural nation that sees the Treaty at the heart of our constitutional arrangements and political Government what we need to do is ditch that chimera that the Queen is somehow in a representative relationship with us. For 60 years she has batted those questions back to New Zealand. What I want to see is a true Treaty-based Parliament. We have got that old Upper House chamber. I would love to see a Treaty House of Parliament. What we have not seen in this debate and what we have not seen in the constitutional debates set up by the Government is a fundamental question: how do we embrace a Treaty nation? [Interruption]Although Tau Henare is not the only relic we see in this Chamber it is high time for New Zealand to go into the future with confidence. It is time to change some of this archaic iconography around this House. It is time to change our flag. It is time to change our constitutional arrangement. It is time to see a Kiwi as the head of State a Kiwi representing New Zealand a Kiwi doing us proud and a Kiwi whom New Zealanders can vote for.We do not want a monarch on the other side of the world. We want a new flag. We want a fairer democratic less discriminatory constitutional arrangement. New Zealanders want a proud independent nation that stands on the world stage as a proud independent nation representing ourselves not a monarch on the other side of the world. That is the future. It is my vision for New Zealand—a future that all New Zealanders can participate in not just a discriminatory anachronism a too-late relic of the past enshrined in this bill. Kia ora.Hon KATE WILKINSON (National—Waimakariri): I am proud to be part of this Parliament and to have the privilege of voting not abstaining on the Royal Succession Bill. I am proud to be a member of the Commonwealth I am proud to be a royalist and I am proud to support this bill.DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): I am also proud to say that New Zealand First—always the voice of calmness reason and good sense in this House—will support the Royal Succession Bill. We do not see that there is any need whatsoever to launch into a debate about republicanism as a result of any consideration of this particular bill. We are very pleased to leave that to the Roundheads and the Cavaliers in the various parts of the House whom we have heard those sorts of sentiments come from so far today. Nor do we think there is any reason to start launching into a debate about the Treaty of Waitangi and whether indeed it has any part in the constitutional arrangements of New Zealand at all or if so what they should be. In fact the bill has got a very narrow focus and does only three things. I might say that the Justice and Electoral Committee worked very hard to see that it did keep a very narrow focus despite some very provocative submissions made to it during the course of its deliberations.The Royal Succession Bill is a modernising bill. It takes only a few small steps forward but they are steps forward and we should see them as that. The first one is gender-neutral succession which is correct in principle although the New Zealand First spokesperson on women’s affairs tells me that she thinks that the change should go a little further—that it should be for women-only succession. However that is not New Zealand First policy. New Zealand First policy is in fact for gender-neutral succession so we certainly support that aspect of the bill. It reflects what the public expects and it has been needed for some time. It is good to see that happening at this stage.The second and much more difficult provision in the bill relates to the possession of the Crown by a person who marries or who has married a Roman Catholic. Removing that exclusion is also a step forward. We understand that many say that the Crown itself should be able to be held by a Roman Catholic or indeed by a person of any other religion. But New Zealand First does understand that we are only one of 16 realms concerned with these particular new provisions and that for historical reasons that we are all very very well aware of it is not appropriate for us down here in New Zealand to seek any further changes than that which is proposed. That is in fact something for the United Kingdom. If it gets round to making those changes then I am sure that many people in this country would welcome it. But it is simply not feasible sensible or possible to promote those sorts of sentiments at this stage and the bill does not do that. That is not within its scope.The last provision of course requires something that is just common sense. Currently all descendants of King George II require the Sovereign’s consent to marry.There probably have already been many occasions where that consent has not been obtained because there must be hundreds of people who are covered by the current provision. It is just common sense that we have a new provision that only the first six in line to the throne will need to seek such consent. That is just a carry-on from the provision that requires to the Crown to be the head of the Church of England.We see this as just a common-sense bit of legislation. We do not see any need whatsoever to look at republicanism the place of the Treaty or things that are clearly and obviously well outside the scope of the bill. I do not mind hearing some light-hearted debate about the matter but it actually is quite a serious issue. It has been well-thought-through. It has been agreed to by the 16 realms.There are some pretty sensible provisions made. All three of these are sensible. They are moving in the right direction. We should have no objection whatsoever to this bill. Therefore I am a little bit disappointed that the Greens do not see it in that way and cannot vote for it. It is just common sense and it would have been good if the House had been able to reach full consensus on the matter. So I regret that that is not going to be possible. New Zealand First has no difficulties with the legislation whatsoever and will vote for it.RAYMOND HUO (Labour): Kia ora Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise to take a call to support the Royal Succession Bill. This is a very important bill particularly this morning when we are going to debate the Mokomoko (Restoration of Character Mana and Reputation) Bill. This bill is probably important not only for our past and present but for our future as well because the reality is that MPs are required to pledge allegiance to the Queen as New Zealand’s head of State. Our system is a constitutional monarchy system. Every MP is bound by that system and every MP should swear their allegiance to the Queen. This is a relevant bill. This is not about somebody else’s head of State; it is about our head of State.My first encounter with the Queen—not a personal encounter of course—Hon Judith Collins: Why are you so disrespectful?RAYMOND HUO: What was that?Hon Judith Collins: Why are you so disrespectful of our traditions in New Zealand?RAYMOND HUO: Sorry?Hon Judith Collins: Don’t be disrespectful about our parliamentary traditions. Don’t bag the Queen.RAYMOND HUO: That is not a terribly constructive contribution from the Minister of Justice. My first encounter with the Queen was when I was studying at my first university in China. There was a paper called Queen’s English and Pub Talk. It was quite an interesting paper. For the first 2 years we had professors from England to teach us BBC English. But for the remaining 2 years we had professors from the United States to teach us VOA English Voice of America English so many students ended up speaking American English.Coming back to this bill it seeks to modernise historical royal succession rules by making three specific changes. Firstly it provides for gender-neutral succession to the throne ending the rule that a younger son precedes an elder daughter in the line of succession. Secondly it provides for succession to and possession of the Crown by a person married to a Roman Catholic removing the current prohibition. Thirdly it requires only the first six in line to the throne to seek the Sovereign’s permission to marry in order to ensure that their marriage is valid. Currently all descendants of King George II require the Sovereign’s consent to marry.The bill has a narrow scope. The changes to royal succession have been agreed by the 16 realms of which Her Majesty the Queen is Sovereign. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the submitters for their passion their commitment and theiranalysis especially Monarchy New Zealand and The Republican Movement of Aotearoa New Zealand. Generally submissions either supported or were neutral about the specific changes in the bill which are seen as improving the current rules of royal succession. However some submitters raised issues about the broader constitutional context behind the changes. I acknowledge my Green colleagues in that regard because they argued that the monarchy is outdated and that New Zealand should become a republic. The Republican Movement of Aotearoa New Zealand submitted that there should be a referendum on this issue and conversely other submitters considered that the bill should change the rules to allow a Roman Catholic to become Sovereign of New Zealand.As I said the bill has a narrow scope. Wider constitutional issues including the role of the monarchy are beyond the purpose of this bill and any moves for New Zealand to abolish the monarchy or hold a referendum on becoming a republic should be discussed in the context of a wider constitutional debate.Finally I think that the bill as drafted particularly under clause 8 reflects our constitutional arrangements. Under Section 15(2) of the Constitution Act 1986 any changes to United Kingdom laws will not automatically apply to New Zealand. In addition the Imperial Laws Application Act 1988 adopts imperial laws as at the date of enactment and it does not include subsequent changes. So any changes to United Kingdom laws do not automatically apply to New Zealand. That is a deliberate measure to ensure that United Kingdom Acts or amendments do not apply without being accepted by New Zealand’s Parliament. In line with this New Zealand’s general legislative approach is to mirror relevant provisions of United Kingdom law in New Zealand law rather than refer to United Kingdom Acts. Thank you.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the Royal Succession Bill be now read a second time.Ayes104New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 33; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Abstentions16Green Party 14; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Bill read a second time.In CommitteeJAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip—National): I seek leave for all parts of the Royal Succession Bill to be taken as one question.The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? It appears not. Leave is granted.Parts 1 and 2 and clauses 1 and 2ANDREW LITTLE (Labour): I am pleased to take a brief call in the Committee stage of the Royal Succession Bill noting of course that in addition to this being an important piece of legislation in its own right—notwithstanding our concerns about the monarchical theme of it—it is of course the last day of Parliament sitting for this calendar year. It is not uncalled for in fact on occasions such as this for there to be some cheap and tacky reference to the Zeitgeist. Last year when I was called upon to speak on a bill on the last day of the sitting year at a time when a dance style known as “Gangnam Style” was very popular I managed to weave that into my contribution to a very important piece of legislation. So having now sat through the second reading ofthis particular piece of legislation I am somewhat surprised that when the cultural item that leads our Zeitgeist today is the song “Royals” by our very own Ella Yelich-O’Connor trading under the name of Lorde—all very appropriate at this time for this time of the year and for this occasion—no mention has been made in the debate on the Royal Succession Bill to that very phonetic piece of music. It would be wrong for this bill to pass through this House at this time in our history both constitutional and monarchical but also cultural without an appropriate reference to that very important piece of cultural expression—that is to say the song “Royals”.Hon Maurice Williamson: Please don’t sing it. Please don’t.ANDREW LITTLE: I am going to reassure Maurice Williamson that I am not going to sing it but that is as far as my promise goes. I do however want to say when we are talking about a piece of legislation that is correcting a historical level of discrimination against Roman Catholics and against first-born girls that I think we should note that the lyrics particularly in the chorus of “Royals” would be very reflective I think of Roman Catholic young people who aspire to marry into the royal family. They would have been left saying: “And we’ll never be royals [because] It don’t run in our blood that kind of luxe just ain’t for us. We crave a different kind of buzz.” That is the claim to republicanism that is being made in “Royals”. And of course it would be left to the monarch of the day to have to say: “Let me be your ruler. You can call me queen bee and baby I’ll rule I’ll rule I’ll rule.” Judith Collins finds that very attractive I am sure. I do not want to draw reference to her leadership aspirations but that might be her theme song. When we hear that being played at the next National Party conference we will know that it is all on.But on this occasion I want to say that it is right in this very small funny sort of way at this time in our constitutional history that we should correct these anomalies—these discriminatory practices—within the royal family and it is very nice of the royal family to deign to have us and other parts of the realm pass legislation to remove these acts of discrimination. But it does leave that funny taste in the mouth and we need to say that maybe it is time we need to go a little further and break out on our own. On that note—that musical note in fact—we will continue to support this bill in its final passage.Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice): I will take just a short call on the Royal Succession Bill. It is not usual for me to agree with Andrew Little and I am not going to break the habit of a lifetime by starting now. I just want to correct a couple of things that have been said here today. The first is that actually the Queen is the Queen of New Zealand for us. She is the Queen of Great Britain and the United Kingdom when she is there but for us she is our Queen.I would also just like to remind the Green Party member Gareth Hughes—who spoke before and who after much impassioned rhetoric then decided to abstain—that it actually does not do any good for the status of the Treaty of Waitangi in New Zealand to then try to belittle the history of the Crown the monarchy and actually the establishment of New Zealand. I think that we should all just remember that the Treaty is in fact a partnership between the Crown and the iwi of New Zealand. It is not a partnership that went anywhere other than that. It was in fact that important. Some of the strongest supporters of the monarchy in New Zealand are in fact Māori because of that historical relationship.I think that it does not help us in New Zealand to forget where this Parliament came from. Actually it came from a tradition that started in the UK. We may well talk about Catholicism and all that sort of thing but until Henry VIII all of the monarchs of Britain were actually Catholic ever since Catholicism had been established. That was the religion of the day. In fact people did not get a choice as to whether or not they were Catholic; they were either Catholic or dead frankly.Hon Maryan Street: What’s changed?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Similar things happened and of course these things changed over the years.Of course this bill does help to modernise what many people in New Zealand would think is a very quaint tradition but it is a quaint tradition with a lot of history and a lot of importance to many other New Zealanders. I am one of those New Zealanders who is relatively ambivalent on the issue of whether to have a republic or a monarchy but I will say that for the monarchy to be of importance to New Zealand and for the Treaty of Waitangi to be important the monarchy needs to be given its fair due. I was shocked to hear the Green Party member criticise the number of times that the Queen has been to New Zealand. She has been here many many times. I actually thought that was outrageous. He should apologise to the Queen for that—not that she has ever heard of him and she probably never will I should hope.But anyway it is a good bill. It is a sensible bill. It is very moderate. It will never make the monarchy modern but it will in fact help to bring to the monarchy a little bit of what we have today—in other words gender neutrality and not actually excluding Roman Catholics. The reason for excluding Roman Catholics has well and truly passed. It was really all about who controlled Britain. Everything has now passed and it is time for us to come together and support this bill. I would like to thank everyone who has supported it.TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First): Kia ora Mr Chair. I was not going to take a call. I will take just a very short one. I rise as the New Zealand First spokesperson on women’s affairs to acknowledge the single clause of the three provisions that has the most importance for me which is the removal of the discrimination against women gaining the throne. I wish to make a comment about the fact that if we look at history we see that the two strongest rulers in history—in modern history anyway—were women: Elizabeth I and Elizabeth II. If you have a look at the tumultuous times—Hon Maurice Williamson: What about Victoria?TRACEY MARTIN: Victoria was wonderful too but let me just talk about Elizabeth I and Elizabeth II. Have a look at history at the tumultuous times that those young women—young women—lived through in an era when people thought that they could not do it and look at the amazing difference that they made to the world. Nobody should be afraid to have a woman in a leadership role whether it be as a monarch or as a Prime Minister. It is wonderful to see this House along with 16 other nations endorse the fact that a woman can stand there and rule equally as well as—if not better than—any man in history. I needed to stand and just say that. New Zealand First supports the Royal Succession Bill and I personally strongly support that particular clause.Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour): I also rise to take a short call in this Committee stage on the Royal Succession Bill. It is a truism to say that history is important to us. It does not matter whether we are Māori or Pākehā or of any other ethnic extraction each of us holds to our history with a fierce grip. The history of our tūpuna and of our relationships with the people whom our tūpuna had relationships with are of critical importance to who we are now. I feel as a Pākehā as strongly as Māori do about their tūpuna. I recognise that with my Pākehā pedigree I am linked back to England—and a little bit to Scotland but primarily England—and I cannot ignore that part of my heritage.When we are debating this bill I think we need to recall the significance of history because although I do not wish to delay the proceedings of this House in getting to the Mokomoko (Restoration of Character Mana and Reputation) Bill I do also want to reiterate the point I made earlier even at the Committee stage that any movement away from the constitutional relationship we currently have with the Queen of England whoas the Minister in the chair the Minister of Justice says is also the Queen of New Zealand has to be one that is thought through extremely carefully with those descendents of the people who signed a treaty with Queen Victoria. It was a treaty with Queen Victoria. If we are no longer to have a Sovereign in place in our founding document then we have to be very very certain that the Treaty of Waitangi is not eroded and that in fact it is enhanced in the process. So I am not quick to move to a republic because of that reason if no other.But I also want to respect the role of the Sovereign and in fact the lifetime of service that the current Sovereign has given in the United Kingdom but also across the Commonwealth where she has acknowledged and moved with the times as members of the Commonwealth have established their own constitutional arrangements their own parliamentary independence and their own separate status but remaining part of the extraordinary residue of colonisation that is the Commonwealth. That has both good and bad things attached to it but it is a residual vestige of colonisation that has transformed into something that can be and has been of international significance. That is not to be diminished by any of the light-heartedness that I brought to my earlier contribution to this debate.What we have in Aotearoa New Zealand is a unique debate about the role of the Sovereign. At this point we are modernising the royal succession in agreement with every other country that is one of the realms of the Sovereign. This has been agreed with all the relevant countries. It would be unhelpful unconstructive and in fact quite extraordinary if we were not to support this because it affects not only New Zealand but all of those countries that are represented at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting. In Perth in 2011 these changes were approved in principle by that family of countries and this is their final moment of fruition here in New Zealand.I want to just stress however that constitutional matters must always be informed by history. Our constitutional arrangements in New Zealand have had preponderance towards inheriting British traditions and British laws. Our point of difference in the world is Te Tiriti o Waitangi and we need to preserve that and our uniqueness at all costs. Thank you for your indulgence.GARETH HUGHES (Green): When the Minister in the chair the Minister of Justice is not calling people “numpties” she is misleading the Committee when it comes to the allegations that I was belittling our Treaty history. I was not intending to take a call on the Committee stage of the Royal Succession Bill but I just—Hon Judith Collins: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I take exception at being told that I misled the Committee.The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I am not sure that I am going to uphold that point of order. That is quite a frequent statement.GARETH HUGHES: Thank you Mr Chair because I do not want to make a personal explanation but I do want to explain where I am coming from as an individual member in this House when it comes to the Treaty in relation to this bill. Obviously in previous calls I have argued I believe passionately for a change of our constitutional arrangements for a New Zealand head of State which is different from what we see with the new provisions in this law. I acknowledged in my contribution the role of the Treaty. What I want to see is a genuine Treaty conversation in New Zealand about how we actually celebrate it how we educate about it and how we actually bring it into effect because—Hon Tau Henare: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. This bill before us is not about a republic. It has nothing to do with the republic issue so I would like you to bring him back to what is actually in the bill. It is actually quite narrow.The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Yes that is a valid point of order. Sometimes there is kind of a comparative thing made. I would ask the member to come back to the substance of the bill.GARETH HUGHES: Thank you Mr Chair. In the clauses of this bill we see the changes to the royal succession for female babies. We have heard from the Minister in the chair and from other members about the role of the Treaty in the constitutional relationship that the Queen of England has with New Zealand. I want to point out that when you look at those Treaty relationships brought up by the Minister—I was making the point that in fact under the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1947 the Crown has not been the monarch Elizabeth Windsor; the Crown has been the New Zealand Parliament and the New Zealand Governor-General. This is my point. The Minister is a lawyer. She should be aware of these points.I am not belittling the history of the Treaty; what I am saying is that I am excited about the opportunity from this bill that we can actually have a constitutional debate about how we best reflect the Treaty and how we best bring it into effect. I raised a suggestion around the idea of an Upper House a Treaty House. I do not believe that that is belittling the Treaty; I believe that it is actually looking to the future. I acknowledge the concerns because the Treaty was a historic unprecedented activity in global history and obviously is of great importance to both Māori and Pākehā and all cultures enshrined in New Zealand. It is something special that occurred only down here in Aotearoa New Zealand.I have a different opinion from that of my colleague Catherine Delahunty who is sitting next to me and no doubt many other members. I do not believe that the fact that it was signed by Governor Hobson on behalf of an 18-year-old Queen Victoria means it has to be put on ice for ever. I believe that constitutional arrangements can change. As a party that has Te Tiriti o Waitangi enshrined in its charter in the heart of our party what I could not countenance is changing our constitutional arrangements and lessening the role of the Treaty. What I am merely portraying—and I am not belittling the Treaty—is that I believe that our constitutional arrangements have been put on ice and we could actually go further do better and learn more about Te Tiriti o Waitangi if we actually embraced it and went forward with a genuine conversation about our head of State.Obviously what I want to see is a genuine Treaty relationship. I am obviously of Pākehā descent. My father emigrated from Wales and both of my two kids now have the blood of England Ireland Scotland and Wales. It has taken only 200 years for all the nations of the United Kingdom to be found in New Zealand literally on the other side of the world. I am fortunate to have grown up in Gisborne and unfortunate to have had very little to no historical education in school or training. I think it is a great tragedy that we do not teach our kids about history and the Treaty.I want to finish on a final point which is that if we are going to be talking about the Treaty we also have to have a conversation about tino rangatiratanga. If you look at New Zealand history this was not ceded in a treaty. This was ceded at the point of a musket. When you look at what happened on the beach at Tūranga-nui-a-Kiwa Gisborne the first contact between James Cook and Te Maro ended in bloodshed and nails left on a corpse. Let us have a genuine conversation about the Treaty. Let us not throw out allegations about belittling history as we saw from the Minister in the chair. Let us actually have a conversation. Let us have a conversation about how we can improve Te Tiriti o Waitangi with a new indigenous Pacific-centred constitutional arrangement for Aotearoa New Zealand.A party vote was called for on the questionThat Parts 1 and 2 and clauses 1 and 2 be agreed to.Ayes104New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 33; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Abstentions16Green Party 14; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Parts 1 and 2 and clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.Bill reported without amendment.Report adopted.Third ReadingHon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice): I moveThat the Royal Succession Bill be now read a third time.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the Royal Succession Bill be now read a third time.Ayes97New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 33; Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Abstentions16Green Party 14; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Bill read a third time.Mokomoko (Restoration of Character Mana and Reputation) BillIn CommitteeJAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip—National): I seek leave for all parts of the Mokomoko (Restoration of Character Mana and Reputation) Bill to be taken as one debatable question.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. The question is that the preamble Parts 1 and 2 the schedule clauses 1 and 2 and their translation into Māori be agreed to.Preamble Parts 1 and 2 schedule clauses 1 and 2 and the Māori translationagreed to.Bill reported without amendment.Report adopted.Third ReadingHon TARIANA TURIA (Minister for Whānau Ora) on behalf of theMinister of Māori Affairs: I moveThat the Mokomoko (Restoration of Character Mana and Reputation) Bill be now read a third time.Ki a koutou te w’ānau a Mokomoko ka nui te mihi rawa atu ki a koutou kua tae mai nei ki te w’akanui i tēnei kaupapa ō koutou.[A respectful acknowledgment to you all the Mokomoko family who have come to honour this important event of yours.]Today we honour the Te Whakatōhea rangatira Mokomoko and the generations of his family. This bill gives legal effect to the agreement to introduce legislation to givestatutory recognition to the Mokomoko pardon signed by Dr Pita Sharples on behalf of the Crown and Tūirirangi Mokomoko on behalf of the w’ānau at Waiaua Marae on 28 September 2011. A large number of w’ānau gathered that day kaumātua pakeke and rangatahi and also signed in support. I mihi to the w’ānau today gathered in the House and acknowledge the long journey that they have travelled to see justice for their tupuna.As the world mourns the loss of a great leader and pays tribute to the long walk to freedom that represented his life it is indeed fitting to consider the influence of his example across many lands including those who act as a similar force for change here in Aotearoa. I want to note the contributions of Tūirirangi Mokomoko and Matenga Biddle. Both passed away shortly before the first reading of this bill. During their lives Tūirirangi and Matenga helped carry the burden of this kaupapa and guided their w’ānau forward. I think of them now and the enduring legacy that they have left behind for their mokopuna to inherit. Moe mai rā kōrua moe mai rā.This bill will formally restore the character mana and reputation of their tupuna Mokomoko a rangatira of Te Whakatōhea who was executed by the Crown in 1866 for his alleged involvement in the murder of Rev. Carl Völkner. Some in this House will vividly recall that 19 years ago a free pardon was provided to Mokomoko for his role in this event. For others that history may be less well known. My hope is that with this legislation we as New Zealanders understand the grief that has haunted successive generations and learn from it.I want to emphasise the significance of this bill to the descendants of the Mokomoko w’ānau. It progresses the Crown’s express undertaking to restore the character mana and reputation of their tupuna Mokomoko and of the w’ānau by providing statutory recognition of the free pardon. It represents the efforts of the leadership group to bring this issue to the Crown’s attention and to enable the w’ānau to finally start their healing process. The bill is a sign of the Crown’s commitment to restore its relationship with the w’ānau by expressing its regret that the shame and stigma carried by them were not remedied by the pardon that was provided in 1992.Tried and sentenced to death for the murder of Carl Völkner throughout his trial Mokomoko maintained his innocence. The suffering shame and stigma associated with his w’ānau from the alleged involvement of their tupuna in those events has been carried by generations. Today we address the shame and stigma carried by those generations—shame and stigma that should never have been theirs to bear.It has been a burden few families have ever ever had to bear—a burden that saw the public execution of their tupuna Mokomoko at the Mount Eden stockade just after 8 a.m. on Thursday 17 May 1866. It is a burden that months earlier saw their tupuna the hoa rangatira of Mokomoko Kimohia repeatedly raped and bayoneted to death by Government soldiers. What sort of shameful history are we all a part of? It is a burden that saw Crown soldiers who raided the lands of Te Whakatōhea killing civilians burning homes and destroying crops. It is a burden that saw hundreds of thousands of acres of land taken by the Crown within the rohe of Te Whakatōhea Ngāti Awa and Tūhoe. It has been a burden that has seen generations of these descendants wrongfully blamed for this unjust appalling raupatu and killing.Over 147 years through generations this family has fought to clear the name of their tupuna the name of their w’ānau and they have fought to see justice pass. After generations of struggle a free pardon was granted for Mokomoko in 1992. This should have been a constructive step for the w’ānau. The Crown’s intention was right but the way that the pardon was provided compounded their grievance. The Crown did not consult w’ānau on the wording of the free pardon. The wording in fact implied it was done only because of similar pardons provided to the co-accused of Mokomoko. It didnot expressly restore his character mana and reputation nor the character mana and reputation of his uri and it did not record the pardon in statute. As a result we the Crown perpetuated the shame and stigma endured by this w’ānau and for that on behalf of the Crown I fully and unreservedly apologise.This bill intends to correct those omissions. The w’ānau has consulted closely on the wording of this bill and I hope it will go some way to restoring the character mana and reputation of their tupuna and their w’ānau. I want to mihi to this w’ānau once more for their courage and foresight in proposing to the Māori Affairs Committee that the recognition for their tupuna be provided in both Te Reo Māori and in English. Enacting legislation in Te Reo and in English is a first for our Parliament. Currently Standing Orders enable members to conduct many aspects of the business of Parliament in Te Reo Māori if they choose. This is the logical next step. It is a truly historic development and I thank you. I want to acknowledge the committee for this huge step that it has taken in establishing a precedent that is based on Te Reo rangatira.The committee also noted the w’ānau request for the wider historical narrative to be told and for an apology from the Crown. The committee noted that these issues will be addressed appropriately through future historical Treaty settlements. Until then I will on behalf of the Crown apologise to the w’ānau for perpetuating the shame and stigma heaped on te w’ānau a Mokomoko.I do note that the preamble records the background to the treatment of Mokomoko and the men of Ngāti Awa in relation to the murder of Carl Völkner and the Waitangi Tribunal’s findings in 1992 of a free pardon. In this respect the bill is confined to correcting omissions related to the 1992 free pardon. It restores the mana of te w’ānau a Mokomoko. Much of the history has been recorded by the Waitangi Tribunal in itsNgāti Awa Raupatu Report andTe Urewera: Pre-publication Part 1 report. This history will form the basis of discussions to be held with the Crown to settle historical Treaty claims.When this bill first came before the House earlier this year a reporter asked a w’ānau elder to tell her what motivated him. The koroua replied that his motivation was quite simple: “Our tūpuna our w’ānau our hapū iwi and our children and their children and their children and their children. We may not be the greatest w’ānau in the world but we are loyal we have fought for our country we are humble people and we have big hearts.”We say to that w’ānau who have big hearts that this is a huge understatement. Their incredible spirit of generosity enables us to stand before them today. The Crown is standing alongside them today to look at the past with its eyes wide open and it does not look away. All those things that this w’ānau have suffered and lost due to the actions of the Crown can never be replaced or forgotten and yet today they are here. Their presence honours this Parliament.Arrested tried and convicted and finally executed by the Crown while in prison Mokomoko composed a waiata that has become a guiding philosophy for generations of w’ānau: “Tangohia te taura i taku kakī kia waiata au i taku waiata” [remove the rope from my throat so I may sing my song]. Today we pay tribute again to ngā uri o Mokomoko who like their tupuna have had the strength to speak up who have refused to let the truth be silenced who are the reason why we are gathered here today to pass milestone legislation not just in the history of their family but in the history of our nation.Today we consider legislation that seeks to restore the character reputation and mana of a man a rangatira and his w’ānau. The dying words of Mokomoko are words that have never been far from his descendants’ hearts:“E mate harikoa ana ahau. Tēnā koutou Pākehā hei aha.”[I die happily. Thank you Pākehā and so be it.]Tēnā koutou te w’ānau. Tēnā koutou. I mihi to you and to your tupuna for having the strength the mana and the determination to speak up so that the truth will not be silenced. Thank you for your courage your compassion your enduring patience and your willingness to forgive. This nation is better because of your generosity. Nā reira tēnā koutou tēnā koutou tēnā tātou katoa.Hon SHANE JONES (Labour): Hei tīmatanga ake me mihi atu ki ngā uri o te kaumātua rangatira nei o tēnā pito o Aotearoa. Me pēnei te kī: ko Waiaua awa he rerenga roimata; ko Waiaua marae he rerenga kupu hei whakairo i a rau mahara—ā-ngākau ā-hinengaro ā-wairua. Tā koutou e tatū mai ai ki Te Ūpoko i tēnei rā ehara i te mea nā te hiriwā te koura rānei koutou i tae mai ai. Ehara nā te pānga whenua kāhore. Otirā hei whakatūturu i te ngākau hei whakatūturu i te wairua ka ea tēnei kaumātua ka murua ēnā whakapae i whiua ki runga i a ia. Kāhore pea he whānau tū atu i a koutou. I amo i waha i tēnei kīkauranga kārawarawa pai te tuarā taimaha atu ai tae noa mai ki tēnei rā. Uaua rawa te kite i tētahi whānau kotahi i roto o Aotearoa ka rite ki te wāhi e tū nei koutou i tēneki rā atu i tēnei rā. Nā reira tēnā koutou tēnā koutou tēnā tātau katoa.Ko tā mātau i tēnei taha o te Whare he tautoko i ngā kupu mai i tō tātau ruahine o te ao Māori i roto i te ao tōrangapū a Tariana. Me te mōhio i roto i ngā taukumekume o te ao tōrangapū he pakeke rawa he auau noa iho ngā wā ka kite mātau ngā kaitōrangapū i tētahi take pēnei. He take māku te kī e ngoto tonu ana ki te wairua o to tātau motu Aotearoa. I roto i ēnei tini tau ka pahemo ka whai wāhi ai tēnei Whare hei muru i tēnei hara. Ehara tēnei i te mahi māmā noa iho nei. E kore te whānuitanga o tēneki mahi e oti i a mātau te whakakaupapa mā roto i te kupu. Tā te mea mō koutou he kaupapa wairua tēnei. Nā reira ko tāku he mihi ake ki a koutou ā-Māori  ā-tōrangapū. Nā reira koutou Ngāti Patumoana Te Whakatōhea tēnā koutou tēnā koutou katoa.[Firstly I acknowledge the descendants of this chief Mokomoko from that part of New Zealand. The saying goes like this: the Waiaua river is awash with tears; the Waiaua courtyard is awash with words that fashion out hundreds of emotional mind-blowing spiritual and memorable reflections. Your arrival here in Wellington was not for silver or gold; it was not for land interests not at all. You came to settle the spirit and liberate your ancestor from the allegations that he faced. There is no family stronger than you. You bore the immense responsibility until this day. It is difficult to imagine another family in Aotearoa that has reached the point that you have accomplished. And so congratulations salutations and well done to you all.We members on this side of the House endorse the sentiments expressed by our esteemed elder of the Māori and political worlds the Hon Tariana Turia. We also know that within the political struggle it is extremely rare for politicians to witness an issue such as this. It is an issue that invokes intense feelings for our whole country. Over the past several years Parliament has dealt to this injustice. It is not an easy task and one cannot adequately describe how much work went into it. For you in particular it is a spiritual journey. Therefore I acknowledge you as a Māori and a politician. Ngāti Patumoana and Te Whakatōhea salutations and greetings to you all.]I take a brief call and as I have said in our Māori language this is an unusual day in the sense that we are dealing with a piece of legislation after many years have passed and it is almost as if we are laying to rest one of the ghosts of our colonial history. It is a very rare experience. Indeed a very rare status is now enjoyed by this whānau who as we have said in Māori have had to endure a very uncomfortable position both in their own tribal area and in the broad history of New Zealand knowing that they are descended from someone who suffered the most grievous wrong and paid ultimately with his life.When Te Ururoa Flavell first came into Parliament the kīnaki or the waiata that he sang when he made his original speech was the waiata contained in this bill. It may come as some surprise to him that I remember that. But I hope that in joining today with my Māori colleagues on the other side of the House and all of us as a community of parliamentarians we can as the stewards of the most senior court of the land—the House of Representatives—actually provide some closure and bid this man farewell in a way that befits his legacy. I encourage members of this House to learn the English translation where he sang: “Only then will I get peace and eternal rest”. So to Mokomoko I say as a parliamentarian and as a steward of this House rest in peace. Tēnā koutou tēnā tātou kia ora tātou katoa.Hon TAU HENARE (National): Te mea tuatahi ki a au ki aku rangatira tēnā koutou i haere mai i tēnei rā mō tēnei kaupapa. Nō reira ngā mihi ngā mihi ngā mihi.[The first thing for me my leaders is to acknowledge you. Greetings to you who have arrived here today in respect of this matter. And so salutations acknowledgments and congratulations.]Interestingly enough across the other side of the world or rather the other side of the southern hemisphere they are laying to rest—or are about to lay to rest—a man who I think we all understand is the master of forgiveness. We know about his long walk to freedom. I suppose we could say that what we are doing today is taking one more step in our journey to freedom—in our country’s journey to freedom. Today what we are doing is taking just one of those small steps but it is a big step towards the final goal of what I think Nelson Mandela was on about—that is being respectful to one another and of each other’s cultures. It is about remembering the past but not wholly forgetting what a lot of people have gone through.It was 147 years ago that a man was taken to the gallows in Mount Eden ostensibly on trumped-up charges. I have read the transcripts and the historical record of this case and suffice to say that if this had been in our court today it would have spent probably half an hour in the court and all charges would have been dismissed—and rightly so.I do want to congratulate the Ministers involved—in particular the Minister of Māori Affairs Pita Sharples. I suppose that there is a bit of serendipity that he is on the other side of the world representing New Zealand at a funeral for the man whom we have talked so much about these past few days. I also want to thank my colleagues on the Māori Affairs Committee because I think that what we achieved is I believe nothing short of a miracle—that is not in passing this legislation the Mokomoko (Restoration of Character Mana and Reputation) Bill but in the fact that we were able to convince the powers that be that the legislation be in our mother tongue in this nation’s only indigenous language. For the first time Parliament has taken this on board. I think that is just another huge step. I think that the whānau of Mokomoko can be quite proud of the fact that it was their tupuna who created the opportunity for us to do that.I will not take too long. Suffice to say that whenever I drive down the coast now to my wife’s area on the way down I look right and on the way back I look left and I never did that before. I pay my personal homage when I am driving State Highway 35 to Mokomoko and to those people who live there. I think that one of the things we have to understand in this country is that there are people such as the whānau of Mokomoko who have suffered 147 years of shame—147 years of being downtrodden 147 years of not being taken seriously. When you do that to a people the effects on their young people on their old people on all of their people are huge and I do not think we realise what can happen after generation after generation after generation of being treated like some sort of pariah. In many countries around the world if this was the same situation there would be hell to pay for generations to come.So we can stand up here and pontificate about how good we are but how good are they for all of what they have taken on board? These people were a thriving people—economically culturally and in every shape and form. Because of this heinous act for the last 147 years I think they have on the one hand suffered huge consequences but on the other hand they have shown the spirit of Mandela they have shown the spirit of Mokomoko. Although they have had to live with the consequences of what happened 147 years ago they have held their heads up high. They have said to the rest of the nation that there may have been an injustice but that what they would do every day every minute and every second is fight for the restoration of that man’s mana and that man’s kaupapa. So it is not only the likes of Nelson Mandela not only the likes of Mahatma Gandhi and not only the likes of all those people around the world who get recognition for that because in this country we too have our examples of the way to do it. So I take my hat off to the whānau of Mokomoko and like I said I look right and I look left when I travel State Highway 35. Kia ora.Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): Tēnei e tū ake ki te tuku i taku mihi maioha ki a koutou Te Whakatōhea te whānau o Mokomoko e tau mai nei i roto i tēnei Whare hei whakarongo ki ngā whakahaeretanga i tēnei wā. Tāpiri atu āku whakaaro ki ērā momo i waihotia i mua i a koutou i tēnei wā tēnā koutou.[I rise to deliver an affectionate greeting to you Te Whakatōhea and the family of Mokomoko who have arrived here in this House to listen to proceedings at this moment. I add my thoughts to those put before you so thank you collectively.]I rise to confirm Labour’s support for the third reading and final passage of the Mokomoko (Restoration of Character Mana and Reputation) Bill. I reflected on the preamble and for people who are new and listening to the debate in the House today the context of this particular bill is best reflected I think in the preamble. I want to draw from the first line in the whakataukī that has been offered by te whānau a Mokomoko to the Māori Affairs Committee to gain some appreciation of what we are trying to do here. They say: “Tangohia te taura i taku kakī kia waiata au i taku waiata—Have the strength to speak up and the truth will not be silenced”. I have to say that as the bill progressed through the select committee it was only with time with the consideration of the detail of requests and with understanding the long walk to reconciliation that has been taken that we began to have an insight into and an appreciation for why this bill is so important.The bill is set within the context of a broader historical narrative dating back to the 1860 Land Wars which has shaped the determination and tenacity of iwi to uphold those taonga so cherished by our tūpuna at the time and importantly the mana with which they undertook to preserve all that they held dear to them. The policy intent of the bill is to rectify specific omissions from the free pardon granted to Mokomoko on 15 June 1992. The free pardon did not provide for the restoration of the character mana and reputation of Mokomoko and his uri whakatupu. It was not provided for in statute and the whānau was not consulted on the wording of the pardon. And as we heard the submissions we began to really understand and appreciate the significance of why this bill was so necessary.The bill is the result of extensive consultation between Crown officials and the Te whānau a Mokomoko Leadership Group on the terms of the agreement underpinning the bill and the drafting of the legislation that we are currently passing today. I think we are taking a step towards the path of reconciliation alongside the whānau to ensure that those things that they seek can in part be addressed. Clause 3 and clause 6 of the bill really are the substance of the request and how it has been responded to certainly by the Government and the Crown. The bill contains in the schedule a reproduction of the free pardon that was granted to Mokomoko in 1992.I want to comment just briefly on the Royal Succession Bill which was debated in the House prior to this one and say that the Royal Succession Bill does to a strong degree reaffirm New Zealand’s connection to the Commonwealth and to the monarchy. It would seem to me that the free pardon on behalf of the monarchy is a significant recognition of wrongs that have been achieved within Commonwealth countries. So when I consider the request of the whānau to have the pardon and the apology contained within statute I for one certainly believe that that is the strongest affirmation that the Crown can give that a grave injustice has been done. That may not be adequately addressed by the select committee but Minister Turia in recognising your role on behalf of the Crown I think that in some way you have done an honourable act on behalf of the Government today.In the other parts of the bill that are contained in clause 3 and also clause 6 the Crown: “acknowledges with regret that the free pardon did not expressly restore the character mana and reputation of Mokomoko nor the character mana and reputation of his uri [whakatupu] and expresses the Crown’s regret for any ongoing shame or stigma this has caused for his uri;”. It “acknowledges that the Crown should have consulted te whānau a Mokomoko about the wording of the free pardon;” declares that it “restores the character mana and reputation of Mokomoko and the character mana and reputation of his uri;” and furthermore reflects that the legislation “does not prevent te whānau a Mokomoko from seeking through the Treaty settlement process the settlement of their historical Treaty of Waitangi claims.”The Māori Affairs Committee was informed by officials that the Crown is currently engaging with all of the te Whakatōhea groups including te whānau a Mokomoko to assist in the design of an inclusive and representative mandate for Whakatōhea that can uphold the mana of te whānau a Mokomoko through the historical Treaty settlement process. But by way of comment as I reflect on this it may well fall short of the expectations of te whānau a Mokomoko in that they are seeking specific redress for their grievances which we have acknowledged in part by the passage of this bill. If it were that policy prevented them from seeking specific redress then I think that the policy should be amended because what we are doing today is recognising that the nature of the grievance of te whānau a Mokomoko is identifiable. It has some tangible effects on a generation and generations following and therefore the nature of their grievance must be recognised by the Crown.Redress to settle the historical Treaty grievances of te whānau a Mokomoko including the Waitangi Tribunal suggestion of an appropriate tribute which in part has been noted in the preamble will be explored further with te whānau a Mokomoko—this is what the officials had informed us—through the Treaty settlement negotiations. We took that in good faith and believe it to be the case. I mention this because there was an expectation that the Crown would make an apology within the context of this bill the Mokomoko (Restoration of Character Mana and Reputation) Bill and enshrine it in statute.Our committee received a submission from the Te whānau ā Mokomoko Leadership Group on 8 May 2013 requesting proposed amendments to the bill’s preamble to include a historical account of the actions that took part prior to and during the conviction of Mokomoko and to also include an apology from the Crown for the fact that the pardon granted in 1992 was inadequate. In response to that request officials raised those proposed amendments with the Minister of Māori Affairs and the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations for their consideration and decision.The Māori Affairs Committee was advised that both Ministers wrote to the whānau confirming that it continues to be the position that an agreed historical account and any related Crown acknowledgments should be located within the context of Treatysettlements. Ministers also reconfirmed their views that clauses 6(1)(b) and 6(2) give appropriate effect to the agreement that the Crown entered into with te whānau a Mokomoko in September 2011 and reflect the Crown’s regret for its omissions in 1992 and the unintended consequences that impacted on te whānau a Mokomoko. Ministers also confirmed that at this third reading debate they would include in their speech an official apology to the whānau. I say that by way of explanation to again reaffirm the point that within the further progress of the Treaty settlement engagement with Te whānau a Mokomoko there is some way to go.The select committee received a number of submissions on the bill and gave them thorough consideration but can I say that probably the most significant request was to translate this bill into Te Reo Māori. In the 16 years that I have been in this Parliament this is the first time that legislation has gained enough recognition to be translated into both languages. After all Te Reo Māori is a national language. It is something that we should do more of but I am absolutely delighted that on a bill of this significance with such a weight of history and a responsibility to the next generation to get reconciliation better recorded we have managed to achieve that. Nō reira he iti noa nāku kia tuku i roto i tā tātou kete i tēnei wā hei whakakīkīngia mō ngā whakahaeretanga o tēnei pire tēnā tātou katoa. Kia ora koutou.[Therefore although my contribution into your basket at this time may be somewhat small in terms of filling in and adding to the governance of this bill I acknowledge us all and thank you collectively.]CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green): Tēnā koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki te whānau whānui o te rangatira Mokomoko me Whakatōhea hapū katoa. Tēnā koutou.[Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. A huge welcome to the extended family of the chief Mokomoko and Whakatōhea. Greetings to you all.]The Green Party wishes to acknowledge the physical and spiritual journey for justice that you have pursued. We acknowledge this whānau who have travelled here three times for this bill the Mokomoko (Restoration of Character Mana and Reputation) Bill and to reach this moment of celebration and sadness here today—inseparable realities. We acknowledge your beloved tupuna who was killed by the colonial State as it pursued its agenda of raupatu. We acknowledge the extraordinary dignity and beauty of his final waiata his final communication to the future. We acknowledge who has benefited from his murder and who has suffered.It is fitting on this day to acknowledge the tangi in South Africa for a great freedom fighter and leader who survived oppression with full humanity and that we reflect on the connection between the truth and reconciliation processes that both countries are engaged in consciously and unconsciously.This bill is the story of one whānau and the ongoing price they have paid for unjust myth-making to justify the taking of a life. There was an attempt by the Crown to pardon Mokomoko in 1992 but this attempt failed to satisfy the hurt. This is a very important matter. The State was the oppressor and it is profoundly true that the oppressor cannot dictate the terms of an apology or define what an acceptable basis for reconciliation is. The definition of an apology that can be accepted must be negotiated and be owned by those who have been hurt; otherwise they will not accept it. Why should they? An apology that is not accepted is meaningless—a gesture that satisfies one party but cannot heal the damage.One of the most challenging issues in the story behind the bill is being recognised here today but in any truth and reconciliation process there are some deeper issues that cannot be addressed. The bill can restore a better relationship between the Mokomoko whānau and the Crown and do it with clarity. We would like to recognise the goodwork of the Māori Affairs Committee to get this work done the Ministers and particularly Minister Turia’s ngā kupu ātaahua that she gave here today in her first speech. But the bill cannot return the land. The loss of land and all the terrible consequences cannot be put back together like a jigsaw. The cracks are still visible and the huge holes in the wealth and well-being of Whakatōhea and iwi katoa.When the colonial State used Völkner’s murder to confiscate and destroy it needed someone to blame and it paid little attention to the facts. Mokomoko was chosen to justify what followed. But the violence of the State is now being owned. The apology is being accepted. It is not the end of the processes we need in this country to not only restore truth and reconciliation but return resources.A young South African man who was a survivor of police violence told me that an apology alone can slip smoothly from the tongues of the powerful. He wanted more. He wanted genuine healing and a future. This bill today is a step towards healing and a future for the whānau. Story by story law by law we need to do this work. It is not over until every citizen knows the true history of Mokomoko and understands what this has meant to his whānau and to Whakatōhea katoa.How painfully are the scapegoats and their descendents disowned and disrespected by virtually everyone as the convenient myths do their work but today is a step into fresh air a better space and what is more a Te Reo Māori - based bill. I would like to just acknowledge your extraordinary achievement in this regard not only for the bill but for the language of the bill the gift of Te Reo Rangatira which I am afraid I am unable to give full justice to and to recognise that it is a gift to this country and that that language has come to be a natural and normal part of our legislative programme. Because Te Reo Rangatira is the first language of Aotearoa. It is not the second language; it is the first language.To te whānau o Mokomoko thank you very much for the gift to our country your persistence your generosity and your determination that the truth be recognised and owned. We here today must endeavour to take the story that you have given us through your dignity and persistence and make sure that our descendants whether they are tangata whenua or tangata Tiriti understand the price you have paid and the willingness you have given to forgive us for what has taken place. For us who have been beneficiaries of colonisation this burden is particularly on our shoulders. It is an opportunity for us to take it up with the same generosity that you have given to us. The Green Party would like to say again he mihi nui ki te whānau whānui o Mokomoko. Tēnā rā koutou tēnā rā koutou katoa.BRENDAN HORAN (Independent): Te whānau o Mokomoko tēnā koutou tēnā koutou tēnā anō koutou katoa. I rise to support this bill the Mokomoko (Restoration of Character Mana and Reputation) Bill. I feel very honoured to do so. Initially I was going to speak about the need for the apology within this bill but we hear the tūpuna singing and this is such a special special day. But I would ask the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations whether he could look further than large natural groupings when dealing with Māori claims. It is inappropriate for the whānau of Mokomoko to be included in Whakatōhea because this family suffered at the hands of many of Whakatōhea and other local tribes as well as well as the English. We see continually in our Māori Affairs Committee where people are unable to be heard because they are not recognised immediately as being part of a natural large grouping so those words need to be looked at. We need to get back to what is important. He tangata he tangata he tangata the people the people the people are what is important because it is our people. So I would ask the Minister to look at that and I would ask him to please meet with this family.Mokomoko—it has been said what an amazing man he was. If you look through Taranaki history you see that he is mentioned in Taranaki history because they recognise that not only did he help his own people but he would help anybody. As the Hon Tau Henare said and other speakers before 147 years is a long time to endure and Mokomoko and his descendants have endured like the great kauri. So today is such a special special day.I would like to talk just a little bit about the endurance of suffering. We can say “suffering” and it rolls off the tongue but we look at the East Coast today and I think about the 3000 acres that were confiscated from the Mokomoko family and what it meant to the descendants. What we see is that as Māori land was taken and rolled into blocks those Māori landowners who ruled supreme who were proud and who were at one with the land were suddenly serfs to European farmers who when they came here were starving and lived because of the generosity of Māori. These European farmers were able to graze their cattle. They were able to leverage off their land but Māori farmers were unable to. This has happened to nearly all Māori in the past 147 years. We see on the East Coast particular hardship because of this. I find it quite incredible that we have so many MPs from the East Coast and yet still there is such hardship there and we could not get even a little apology for this family.I will touch on the persecution of this family from the Māori side. That persecution is still alive and well today as the family well knows. But this restoration of character of mana and of reputation will ripple outward. Many of the family cannot see me but you can hear me and be assured that this will ripple out these words will ripple out throughout New Zealand and Manny can rest in peace and Mokomoko can rest in peace. As the Hon Shane Jones said taking that excerpt from his poem “Only then will I get peace and eternal rest …”. I would like to leave the Mokomoko family with best wishes from all parliamentarians from my family from my wife’s family out at Kutarere and with this poem from Tainui:Kia hora te marino. Kia whakapapa pounamu te moana. Kia tere te kārohirohi i mua i te huarahi.May the calm be widespread may the ocean be as smooth as greenstone and may the shimmer of light ever dance across your pathway forevermore. Kia ora.CLAUDETTE HAUITI (National): Ki te whānau o Mokomoko ngā mihi maioha ki a koutou katoa.[To the Mokomoko family affectionate salutations to you all.]“Take the rope from my throat so I may be able to sing my song. Violent shaking will not rouse me from my sleep. They treat me like a common thief. It is true that I embrace eternal sleep …Tangohia te taura i ō taku kakī kia waiata au i taku waiata. Have the strength to speak up and the truth will not be silenced.”On 15 June 1992 the Governor-General issued a free pardon to Mokomoko. The wording of the free pardon was prepared without consultation with te whānau of Mokomoko. The Crown acknowledges that it should have consulted the Mokomoko whānau about the wording of the free pardon. It also acknowledges that the Mokomoko (Restoration of Character Mana and Reputation) Bill does not prevent the Mokomoko whānau from seeking the settlement of their historical Treaty of Waitangi claims through the Treaty settlement process.We need to resolve these historical issues so we can move forward together as a nation. For what is mana? It is honour. And so today we honour our tupuna Mokomoko and today we honour the descendants of Mokomoko. Ka whakatuku ahau i tēnei pire ki tēnei Whare. Kia ora.[I commend this bill to this House. Thank you.]RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga):Tēnā koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Te Whānau o Mokomoko tēnā koutou tēnā koutou. Nau mai haere mai ki te Whare Paremata e takatū nei. Tēnā koutou tēnā tātou katoa.[Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. Greetings to you the family of Mokomoko salutations. Welcome to Parliament standing here in readiness welcome. Greetings and salutations to us all.]It is a great pleasure to speak at the third reading of this bill the Mokomoko (Restoration of Character Mana and Reputation) Bill. We have heard a lot about the background that has brought about the passage of this legislation. The enactment of this bill and the apology given by this House to Mokomoko as I mentioned in my second reading speech is proof of why it is important that we get things right and get things right the first time.The apology offered to the whānau of Mokomoko back in the 1990s was inadequate and his family felt that the mana of their tupuna had not been fully redeemed. That is why this House has had to go back and relegislate so as to restore the mana of Mokomoko. We now know how this great chief was wrongly accused and sent to prison. We know that he faced his accusers without fear believing that the Pākehā law would find him an innocent man. When he was found guilty he faced his impending death on the gallows with courage and a song in his heart.To our ancestors of olden times mana was an important aspect of everyday life and a key to maintaining social order. To impugn that by saying that Mokomoko was the killer of Völkner was a serious accusation. He was transported to jail in Auckland and there he was found guilty. He was hanged in an Auckland jail and buried there. In the second reading of this bill I quoted Abraham Lincoln who had this to say about mana: “Character is like a tree and reputation like a shadow. The shadow is what we think of it; the tree is the real thing.” His pepeha is to remind people that having character is a true blessing and that reputation is only what someone else thinks. The chief Mokomoko was hanged for a crime he did not commit. Is there anything more rotten in life than that? Where was the justice for this man who was carted away in chains because of a false accusation that the rope used to hang Rev. Völkner belonged to Mokomoko?It is said that the first casualty of war is the truth. It is as true today as it was back in the 1860s as New Zealand faced its own internal conflicts. The truth in this case was that Mokomoko was an innocent man wrongly accused tried and hanged for the murder of Rev. Völkner and with his hanging his whānau faced the shame the whakamā of their tupuna being called a murderer. For 147 years Mokomoko’s descendents shared their tupuna’s shame. They faced accusation and ostracism. They felt the burden and shame that their tupuna had. Mokomoko’s descendants lost their mana. They lost their good character and reputation.But this is not the first time a bill has been enacted to restore the reputation of Mokomoko. There was one in the 1990s but it was flawed because it related to two of his confederates in Ngāti Awa. An apology was later delivered in the free pardon but it failed to wholly redeem Mokomoko. Instead it made much of his two co-defendants who were in fact as I mentioned from another tribe—Ngāti Awa. So the family felt that their ancestor was not fully cleared and so came back to this House in what has been a very long journey to rectify what they saw as a continuing injustice.This House is only as good as the research it is provided with and back in the 1990s consultation did not take place. The process that took place made poor law and when the apology was first issued to the family of Mokomoko it was inadequate. So this time around we have made sure we have got it right. It has to be right or the whānauMokomoko will never believe that the mahi we do in this House is important work on behalf of all New Zealanders.The third reading of the Mokomoko (Restoration of Character Mana and Reputation) Bill as has been mentioned by many speakers today comes in the wake of the passing of freedom fighter activist protestor and former President of South Africa Nelson Mandela. I draw no comparison—they are men from different times and with different political motives. They do however share in having been poorly treated by the justice systems of their times. At the end of the day to be treated fairly and justly without being judged by one’s skin colour or race is what all human beings hope for. It is after all a basic human right.The whānau Mokomoko will finally receive the justice they have sought and fought so long for and it comes to them borne on the cold winds and chilly rains of mourning that have encircled the world these past few days. In the way that is unique to our culture the whānau Mokomoko will be able to bookmark the passing of this bill with the historical significance of Mandela’s passing.So I for one extend my good wishes to the whānau Mokomoko. In doing so I also include my own direct connections to the whānau Mokomoko through my grand-uncle Uncle Joe Bull whose proper name was Teone Aperira Mokomoko and his father was Makarini Mokomoko. So there is a connection for me in there. There are many Mokomoko whānau in the south. So I extend my good wishes to all the whānau Mokomoko and say thank you for sticking to your kaupapa and for making sure that this House and the MPs within it are held accountable and that we get the job done properly. Nō reira tēnā koutou tēnā koutou tēnā koutou katoa.MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Tēnā koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Ngā uri o Mokomoko kua tae mai nau mai nau mai haere mai. Haere mai ki tō Whare i te wā whakahirahira. Tēnei te mihi ki a koutou mō ō koutou kaha mō ō koutou tautoko mō te pire nei. Nō reira e te iwi tēnā koutou tēnā koutou ā tēnā tātou katoa.[Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. To the descendants of Mokomoko who have arrived here welcome welcome come hither. Welcome to your House on this auspicious occasion. This is my acknowledgement to you all for your great efforts and support for this bill. Therefore to you the people greetings salutations and congratulations to you collectively and acknowledgements to us all.]As the member for Ikaroa-Rāwhiti I am pleased to stand with my Labour Party colleagues to support the Mokomoko (Restoration of Character Mana and Reputation) Bill in its third reading. Mokomoko a rangatira from Te Whakatōhea was tried and executed in 1866 for the murder of Carl Sylvius Völkner. Mokomoko maintained his innocence throughout the trial. He was originally buried at the Auckland jail and courthouse but was reinterred at Waiaua Marae at Ōpōtiki in October 1989. Mokomoko was granted a free pardon in 1992 by the Governor-General who at that time was Catherine Tizard I believe.However this pardon was granted without consultation with the whānau of Mokomoko and it differed from the pardon granted to two men of Ngāti Awa for the same event. The whānau of Mokomoko were concerned that the terms of the 1992 pardon for Mokomoko did not expressly restore his character his mana and his reputation or that of his descendants who join us here in the House today.In September 2011 the whānau of Mokomoko and the Crown signed an agreement regarding the introduction of legislation to give statutory recognition to the Mokomoko pardon and to further the Crown’s objective of building healthy relationships with the whānau of Mokomoko and we do have a long way to go in that regard.There have been far more eloquent speakers who have talked before me about the pain and struggle of the whānau. I too want to acknowledge their patience and theircommitment in getting us here today. As a former Treaty negotiator with my own iwi I can say that we had a tipuna Te Kooti Arikirangi. By no means can I compare the two but I want to acknowledge the whānau’s work in terms of the patience and the commitment in getting us here today. It is not an easy road and I am not one to tell you of your own journey to be present here to pass this bill. It is a struggle not only to get agreement amongst whānau around how much we want but also to get agreement on what is the end outcome so I want to acknowledge you all here.I want to acknowledge the compromises that you have made for us to see this bill through. It is a very challenging role to negotiate the restoration of one’s tipuna one’s rangatira to the state he once was in and should always have been in. So I stand here in all humbleness to acknowledge you all for the work that you have done for your tipuna and particularly as I look and see the mokopuna who are up in the gallery it is important for them to realise that and acknowledge the mana that their tipuna had.Like I have said it is not an easy journey to get us here but I do want to acknowledge the work of the Māori Affairs Committee. I want to congratulate the committee and particularly the chair Mr Tau Henare. Sometimes I wonder as a new member of that committee whether he is on the right side of the legislation in terms of when we debate issues at that committee but I do want to commend Tau and the members of that committee. I particularly want to acknowledge the Te Reo initiative that you have brought through with this bill. Like the Hon Nanaia Mahuta acknowledged in 16 years of her time here she has never seen this happen so I want to congratulate the committee members on the kaha and I guess the tenacity with which you are bringing in this bill and the manner in which you are bringing it in with both the Reo and the English versions together.I have not much more to add but I would stand in absolute commitment and acknowledgment for this important bill. It is timely; it is probably well overdue. But I want to acknowledge all members of the House particularly members on the Māori Affairs Committee and the whānau for bringing this bill to the House. I commend the bill to the House. Thank you.TE URUROA FLAVELL (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Kia ora tātau katoa i tēnei rā. Ko te wāhi ki a au a Pāti Māori he tautoko i ngā kōrero katoa kua utaina ki runga i a koutou kei aku rangatira kua haramai i te wā kāinga kia tatū mai ai ki roto i ngā pakitara o te whare nei. Haere mai haere mai haere mai rā. I te rā nei kei te kōrerohia tā koutou tupuna a Mokomoko. Ko ia tērā kua riro. Ko rātau katoa e kōrerohia ake nei. Nō reira me pēnei rawa te kōrero hoki wairua mai rā e koro mā e kui mā. Kia rangona ō koutou taringa ki te wairua o te kōrero i te rā nei. Ko te hiahia o te ngākau o te Whare Pāremata kia ūkui katoatia ngā hara kei runga i a koutou. Mā koutou tērā kōrero e whakawā. Nō reira waiho rātau kia moe kia okioki engari kia hoki wairua mai rā i roto i ngā i te rā nei. Kia whakatau i te āhuatanga o te ngākau o te hunga mate otirā koutou ngā uri o rātau mā. Haere mai tēnā koutou tēnā koutou kia ora tātau katoa. Ko te wāhi ki a au he whakakōpani. Poto noa iho taku kōrero. I te mea i ngā kōrero i ngā wā e rua e toru pea kua hipa ake ā i kōrerohia ngā take. Kāre au i te hiahia ki te whakatuarua tuatoru rānei i ngā kōrero.Kua oti kē i a Tariana te Minita otirā aku hoa mema Pāremata te whakatakoto i ngā kōrero katoa mō te tupuna nei mō Mokomoko. Ko te wāhi ki a au kia whai tonu i te āhuatanga o te reo Māori i whakanuia e koutou i roto i te pire nei. Kua rongo koutou i te kōrero kotahi anake te pire kua tae pēnei mai ki roto i te Whare Pāremata i Te Reo Māori. Nō reira ko te wāhi ki a au he whakamana i tērā whakaaro rangatira i puta mai i a koutou nō reira ko te reo e kōrerohia ana ko te reo o ngā mātua o ngā tūpuna.Me pēnei rawa te kōrero. Tērā pea i ngā tau kua hipa ake i haere te Minita mō ngā take Māori nā runga i te karanga ki waenganui i a koutou. Me te kī atu i hoki ohoreremai. I hoki tumeke mai te Minita mō ngā take Māori i te mea i tae atu ia ki tērā o ngā marae ki Waiaua. I rongo ia i te tangi o te ngākau o koutou mō te āhuatanga o ngā pēhitanga i utaina ki runga i te tipuna nei o Mokomoko. Nā koutou tērā i whakaari ki mua i a ia. I tana hokinga mai ki te Whare Pāremata ki a mātau o te Pāti Māori ko tana kī mai ā kāti he take nui whakaharahara tērā ō roto i Te Whakatōhea tērā takiwā. Ā whakatakotohia te pire ki roto i te Whare Pāremata nā wai nā wai ka tae atu te komiti whāiti o te Whare Pāremata ki a koutou ki runga i te marae. I pērā rawa te āhua. I rongo i te tangi o te ngākau ngā auē ngā āwangawanga ngā anipā ngā mamae. Ko te aroha anō hoki ērā āhuatanga katoa i puta i a koutou ā i rongo te ngākau i tērā momo āhuatanga. A kāti nō te rā nei ko te whakatutukinga o ngā mea katoa nō reira ko te wāhi ki a au ko te tautoko ake me te mihi anō hoki ki a koutou nā koutou mātau i manaaki i te ekenga ki runga i tō koutou marae.E tika ana te kōrero a te mema o te Reipa a ShaneJones. Nāku tērā kōrero i whakatakoto ki roto i te Whare Pāremata. Tangohia te kakau i taku kakī. I pā tērā kōrero ki a au i te wā i āta mātakitaki au i tētahi whitiata tētahi pikitia nei. Ko te īngoa o te mea nei - mō ngā tamariki mokopuna tēnei kōrero—ko te īngoa o te mea neiOne Land Two People. Arā kei reira te kōrero e hāngai tonu ana ki tā koutou tupuna. Mēnā kāre koutou i te mōhio kimihia tērā kōrero. Kei reira tonu ngā kōrero e whakaatu nei i ngā kōrero katoa o tā koutou tupuna o Mokomoko. I wero tērā i ngau tērā kōrero ki tōku ngākau. I te mea koirā te auē o te ao Māori i roto i tēnei Whare Pāremata. Nō reira koinei au e whakatakoto i tērā kōrero i te wā i tū atu au i te wā tuatahi taku ekenga ki roto i te Whare Pāremata i ngā 8 tau kua hipa ake kei te rongo tonu au i tērā momo kōrero i tēnei rā tonu nei.Inātatanei i pātai mai tētahi niupepa tētahi reo irirangi ki a au ā kāti kua ea ngā take katoa o tēnei whānau mō ake nei. Ka kī atu ē taihoa kāo. Kāo. Ko te take i te rā nei he rerekē anō rā ki ngā whakataunga kerēme. Ko te take i te rā nei ko te mana o Mokomoko. Kāre i kō atu kāre i kō mai. Ko ngā take kerēme he rā anō mō tērā. Nō reira kaua e pōhēhē kotahi tonu te whakatau ka puta i te rā nei kāo. Ko te mana o Mokomoko koirā te kaupapa nui i te rā nei. Waiho ake ngā take mō ngā kerēme mō te wā.Ko tētahi kōrero i kōrerohia e te mema a Brendan Horan kei te āhua rata tonu atu au ki tērā kōrero. Ana ko tērā take i kōrerohia mai nā e ētahi o koutou i te ekenga atu ki runga i te marae i te kāinga. Ki taku mōhio i rongo nei koutou i te mamae mō ngā take e rua. Tuatahi ngaro te whenua i a koutou nā ngā mahi a te Kāwanatanga ka tahi. Ka rua kua rongo anō hoki koutou i ngā pēhitanga o te takiwā o ngā iwi o te kāinga. Anō nei ko te take o Mokomokokoirā te take i murua te whenua. Nō reira e rua ngā take kua tau nei ki runga i ō koutou pokohiwi. Kua ngaro te whenua engari e hāngai tonu ana te kōrero ki a koutou ko te whānau anō nei nā koutou a Te Whakatōhea whānui tonu i whakararuraru i tāmi nā ngā mahi a te Kāwanatanga. E aroha atu ana au ki tērā kōrero. Koinei au e kī nei i te wā i kōrerohia i te wā tuarua mā te Minita mō ngā take kerēme tērā e kōrero. I rongo mārika tonu ngā taringa he hiahia nō koutou kia whakawehewehe i te āhuatanga o tā koutou kerēme ki tā tētahi atu. Nā te aha? Nā ngā pēhitanga kua tau mai ki runga i te whānau. Kua rongo ake au i tērā kōrero ā mā mātau tērā e kōkiri ki mua i te aroaro o te Minita.Nā hei kōrero whakamutunga māku pea ko te mea nui ki a au ko te taenga mai o ngā tamariki. Ngā tamariki mokopuna ngā uri o Mokomoko. Ko te take e kawe haerehia nei e ō koutou mātua e ō koutou pakeke te āhua nei kua pā mai ki a koutou. Nō reira te tūmanako ia ā muri o tēnei rā ka tangohia katoatia ngā raruraru kua pā mai ki a koutou. Kia kore koutou ngā tamariki ngā mokopuna e rongo nei i te mamae. Pēnei i ngā māmā i ngā whāea i ngā koroua i ngā kuia. Nō reira tamariki mā ngā mokopuna o te tupuna nei. Haramai ki tēnei whare. Kaua e wareware i tēnei rā. He rā nuiwhakahirahira kaua e wareware mō ake nei. He wā tōna pea ka haramai koutou ki te kōrero ki te āhuatanga o tā koutou tupuna. Kaua e tere mai kāre he take o tēnei Whare engari ā te wā pea ka hoki mai koutou. Engari kei wareware i a koutou tēnei rangi me ngā auē me ngā taumahatanga kua roa e kawehia haere ana. E kawe haere ana e ngā mātua e ngā tūpuna. Nō reira ko tāku ko te kī atu nau mai. Waiho te take ki konei. Kia puta koutou i te kuaha kua mōhio. Kua ea kua ea kua ea. Tēnā koutou tēnā koutou tēnā koutou katoa.[Greetings everyone on this day. I speak on behalf of the Māori Party to support all of the acknowledgments to the family that has come here from their homelands to Parliament. Welcome welcome welcome. Today we have discussed your late ancestor Mokomoko along with other dearly departed. And so I urge the elders to return in spirit so they may hear the speeches today. The heart of Parliament wishes to extinguish the injustices that have beset you. I will allow you to judge that statement. And so may they rest in peace but be here in spirit to settle the hearts of the living and the dead. Salutations to you all.I will be providing a short summary because I do not wish to repeat what Minister Tariana Turia and other members have said about Mokomoko. My contribution will focus on your celebration of the Māori language in this piece of legislation. You heard that only one other bill to come before Parliament has been in Māori. And so I stand to recognise your noble gesture in our native tongue.Let me say this. A few years ago perhaps the Minister of Māori Affairs went to visit you and returned surprised. He was surprised because at Waiaua Marae he heard your heartfelt cries pertaining to the persecution of Mokomoko. When he returned to Parliament he told the Māori Party that this is an important issue in Te Whakatōhea. The bill was brought before Parliament and then the Māori Affairs Committee visited the marae and the same cries were heard. We felt the concerns the anxieties and the pain and sympathised with you. Today at the completion of the bill I take the opportunity to thank you for taking care of us at your marae.The Labour member Shane Jones was right about Mokomoko’s statement to “remove the rope from my neck” and it is something I touched on previously. I heard that statement when I watched a movie calledOne Land Two People. If you do not know then search for that movie which shows the history of your ancestor Mokomoko. It challenged me and struck my soul because those are the same cries of Māoridom in this Parliament. That is why I said that statement when I made my maiden speech in Parliament 8 years ago and I still hear those sentiments today.I was recently asked by a newspaper or radio station whether the family’s issues have all been settled. But I said no—no. That is because this is different from the Treaty settlements. This bill pertains to the mana of Mokomoko nothing else. Treaty claims are left for another day. So we must not make assumptions; this occasion is about the mana of Mokomoko. Leave Treaty claims for the future.I agree with what Brendan Horan said he heard when the select committee visited the marae. I understand that you were hurt for two reasons. Firstly you were dispossessed of your land by the actions of the Government. And secondly you faced persecution from your own people at home as if the situation with Mokomoko caused the loss of land. Therefore you have shouldered two issues: the loss of land and the persecution you experienced at the hands of your own people of Te Whakatōhea due to the Government’s actions. I sympathise with that history. That is why during the second reading of the bill I said it is the responsibility of the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations to speak on that matter. I heard clearly that you wish to have a separate claim due to the hardships that the family has gone through and I will take the matter to the Minister.In conclusion what is most important is that the descendants of Mokomoko are present. The cause that your parents and elders have carried appears to have affected you. The children and grandchildren must not feel the pain that their parents and elders experienced. And so to the descendants of Mokomoko welcome to Parliament. Do not forget this important occasion. In time perhaps you will return to speak about your ancestor. There is no need to come back in haste to this House but perhaps in the future. But never forget this day and the longstanding difficulties carried by your elders. Once you emerge from the door leave this matter here as you will know that the bill has been completed. It is done finished and dusted. Salutations greetings and congratulations to you all.]Bill read a third time.TE URUROA FLAVELL (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Kei te īnoi atu. E te whānau: kua whakaaetia mai e te Whare kia waiata koutou i tētahi waiata ēngari i te mea kia ea tonu tēnei āhuatanga ka waiho ake pea ka tono atu ki te Whare kia waiho ake mā koutou tētahi paku karakia hei whakakōpani i te āhuatanga o ngā mahi nei. Mā koutou tērā whakarite i mua o te wā ka whakakōpanihia i te rā nei. Nō reira he tono tēnei ki te Whare kia waiho ake mā ngā tamariki mā ngā mokopuna mā ngā uri o Mokomoko e tuku i tētahi karakia ā te wā ā e tika ana ki a rātau.[I seek leave. I say to the family: the House has given its approval for you to sing your song of embellishment and after that I will seek leave for the House to allow you to conduct a closing prayer to end these proceedings. You can decide that amongst yourselves before proceedings are closed off for today. And so I seek leave for the House to allow the children grandchildren and descendants of Mokomoko to conduct a prayer at the appropriate time that suits them.]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection.WaiataKarakiaReportsInquiry into Improving Child Health Outcomes and Preventing Child Abuse with a Focus from Preconception Until Three Years of Age (Volumes 1 and 2)Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (Chairperson of the Health Committee): I moveThat the House take note of the report of the Health Committee on the Inquiry into improving child health outcomes and preventing child abuse with a focus from preconception until three years of age. Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker and also the Business Committee for agreeing to this historic debate on our report. The timing of the debate—just before Christmas which celebrates the birth of arguably the world’s greatest child advocate reformer and philosopher—is more than fitting. It is almost immaculate.May I acknowledge and thank all my colleagues from parties across the political spectrum who have worked hard to achieve a consensus over a range of extremely challenging issues from reproductive health to optimal maternity care and from the socio-economic determinants of health and poverty and political leadership to an all-of-Government approach to improve nutrition and prevent the impending burden of long-term chronic diseases. I have really appreciated the thoughtfulness and contributions of Kevin Hague Annette King and many others who though we are miles apart on many political issues see improving children’s health especially in the very early years as a no-brainer. Some might say that our recommendations could have elements of nanny State but I would argue that from a libertarian perspective it behoves every parent aswell as the Government to do everything they possibly can to ensure all children have the chance to achieve their full potential but as adults to be expected to exercise individual responsibility. May I sincerely thank all the submitters and expert witnesses who so willingly and passionately assisted us with this inquiry as well as the Prime Minister the Minister of Health Tony Ryall and my colleagues in the National caucus who agreed to initiate the inquiry in the first place.We asked the Government to put more focus on and investment into the very early years—preconception to 3 years—because the evidence is overwhelming from science education health justice and economics that very early high-quality care and nurturing in a child’s life gives the greatest chance of that child achieving their full potential and leading a long and productive life. This is an investment approach from the work of Nobel laureate economist James Heckman: the rate of return for the dollar spent on a child is far higher the earlier the investment is made. He said: “The longer society waits to intervene in the life cycle of a disadvantaged child the more costly it is to remediate disadvantage.”This is a proactive preventive whole-of-Government approach that insists on a scientific evidence base and it complements the very important work the Government is doing on the Children’s Action Plan for vulnerable children as well as in early childhood education. We produced a graph demonstrating that a large proportion of Vote Health is spent in the last few years of life. An immediate reaction was: does this mean we would be taking away from the elderly? The reverse is the fact which is that by getting things right from the start of life the quality years of life are extended.The reality of how best to improve the effects of child poverty and the socio-economic determinants of health has different political approaches. As Professor David Fergusson cautioned the committee poverty is relative. Pouring money into a dysfunctional family materially rich or poor may give no benefit unless the interventions are evidence-based are made as early as possible and are associated with the right incentives and reciprocal responsibility.Our report has 12 major recommendations and 130 detailed practical recommendations across a spectrum of areas. We are calling on the Government to take this package very seriously to take it in its entirety and to not just pick up the easy issues.About half a century ago outcomes for New Zealand children were near the top of the world’s. Sadly this has eroded substantially. I cannot think of any New Zealander who would not agree that improving children’s outcomes as well as the economy should be right up on the political agenda in election 2014. Our childhood investment approach is a win for children a win for adults a win for the economy and a win for New Zealand. Thank you.Hon ANNETTE KING (Labour—Rongotai): Can I also begin by thanking the Business Committee for agreeing to this historic debate but also historic report because in my time in Parliament I have not seen a report that has had the agreement of all parties that sat on an inquiry. It has come about by us coming together with a lot of consensus concern and common sense—both economic common sense and social common sense. I think it has come about because we accept that here in New Zealand we really have reached a crisis point when it comes to the future of our very young children. It is timely also that we have our leaders over in South Africa attending the funeral of Nelson Mandela. One of the things that he said in very recent years was this: “We cannot waste our precious children. Not another one not another day. It is long past time for us to act on their behalf.” What I think this report is doing is saying it is time for us across this Parliament to act on behalf of the very youngest and most vulnerable in our society.I want to thank Dr Paul Hutchison as chair of this inquiry for leading in a very able way. I have found him to be a very compassionate man and he will be leaving a legacy for future Governments with this report. I can tell Dr Hutchison that I look forward to implementing it after the election next year. I also commend the members of the committee. You know the stories of politicians that all we do is bicker and fight can be dispelled by the work that went into this inquiry. It is about improving child health outcomes with a focus as Dr Hutchison said on preconception through to 3 years of age. It came about after many many submissions many discussions and a lot of expert advice.The result of all that work is a report based on the best scientific evidence available both here in New Zealand and internationally. In fact I believe that Professor Sir Peter Gluckman would be very proud of the work that we have done because this is an evidence-based inquiry and report. What it recommends is that the Government—any Government—in the future put more focus on and investment into children from preconception through to 3 years of age. As it states it is a policy that is backed by science by equity and by ethics as well as by good sound economic sense.The evidence is very strong that we ought to be investing into these very early years. It is fundamentally important to a child’s health outcomes. We also know there can be great gains and cost saving if we as a country are prepared to invest into effective evidence-based early intervention.Dr Hutchison mentioned James Heckman. He is a man who has done a lot of groundbreaking work on the quality of early childhood development which has proved that there are great economic gains by investment into those very early years. I like this quote from him. He said: “The real question is how to use the available funds wisely. The best… policy prescription: invest in the very young and improve basic learning and socialization skills.”There are 12 major recommendations and we cannot go into them all today. But I would like to just mention quickly two very important ones: the need for leadership and an integrated children’s action plan. This recommendation in the report says that the Prime Minister ought to accept the formal role of developing and implementing a whole-of-Government inter-agency action plan. It would also include monitoring outcomes and annual or biannual reporting of progress and the report said that there was a need to have a cross-party approach on the key recommendations. That I have to say was one of the things that was in our children’s policy at the last election: a Minister for Children a Ministry for Children and a priority on an action plan. This has been accepted in this report and I look forward to your seeing it in our policy again at the next election.The last thing I would like to say is on the recommendation to address the social and economic determinants of health and well-being. It is very important to address the disadvantage that many of our children in New Zealand face. Thank you for this opportunity to support a very good inquiry.Dr JIAN YANG (National): It is a great privilege to speak on the report about the inquiry into improving child health outcomes and preventing child abuse with a focus from preconception to 3 years of age. I would first like to commend Dr Paul Hutchison chair of the Health Committee for his outstanding leadership in the conduct of this inquiry. Dr Hutchison demonstrated his extensive knowledge of the New Zealand health system and his unfailing commitment to the inquiry. Without his leadership knowledge and commitment we would not have been able to produce such a high-quality and far-reaching report.This is the very first inquiry that I have participated in as an MP. I have learnt a lot. There were four doctors on the committee initially including Dr Paul Hutchison DrJackie Blue Dr Cam Calder and myself Dr Jian Yang. Dr Paul Hutchison used to say that I was the real doctor but the fact is that the other three doctors are genuine medical doctors; I am not. I have a PhD but know little about the New Zealand health system and medical issues. I have experienced a steep learning curve. This inquiry has helped me tremendously.I also learnt a lot about our democratic system. We had a large number of submissions and hearings from governmental departments institutions NGOs and individual citizens. I would also like to emphasise that the inquiry adopted a science-based approach.The inquiry makes 12 major recommendations and 130 detailed recommendations. Some major recommendations are to research the cost-effectiveness of early intervention programmes from preconception to 3 years to set a national health target for all women to have an antenatal assessment within the first 10 weeks of pregnancy to make sexual education mandatory in all schools and to increase access to long-acting contraceptives. The Government is currently considering the recommendations of the report. The response will be announced next year.The inquiry and its recommendations build on the work the Government is already doing. Young New Zealanders are getting a better start in life. A record 90 percent of 8-month-olds are fully immunised—a huge increase on only 67 percent of 2-year-olds under the previous Government in 2007. We remain on track to have 95 percent of 8-month-olds immunised by 2017. Ninety-five percent of children under 6 have access to free doctors visits day and night 7 days a week. We have insulated 235000 homes helping people to live warmer drier healthier lives and over 40000 children are participating in the Rheumatic Fever Prevention Programme. Budget 2013 is investing $24 million into rheumatic fever prevention.A further amount of $21.3 million is being invested to boost well child services. This will deliver an extra 54000 visits to around 18000 mothers who need this additional support. This means on average three additional well child visits up to the first 2 months of a baby’s life. Budget 2012 provided $1 million over 4 years for financial assistance for beneficiaries to access long-acting reversible contraception. We have also delivered 1300 more fulltime-equivalent doctors and 3000 more nurses.There is always more to do and we will continue to invest in our health services as part of our commitment to deliver better public services. Five years on we are proud to be delivering better sooner more convenient health care for New Zealand families. As a Chinese immigrant I tend to see New Zealand as paradise. We can work together and make our country an even better place for our children. Thank you.SUE MORONEY (Labour): It is indeed an honour to rise and speak in this debate on the excellent report from the Health Committee into improving child health outcomes. I particularly want to congratulate Dr Paul Hutchison on spearheading this very comprehensive approach and leading a multiparty approach to dealing with the issue that we should all be very concerned about in this country: improving child health outcomes. I want to recognise and acknowledge all the members of the select committee. I was not on the select committee but certainly through our Labour team of Annette King Iain Lees-Galloway and Louisa Wall I was able to have input into this report through the very good consultation that they undertook with Labour colleagues on the issue.It will be no surprise to anyone in this debating chamber that the part of this report that I want to spend a few minutes talking about is in fact the part that talks about paid parental leave because I do believe that this is an important factor for New Zealand children. Certainly the will of this Parliament and the will of the New Zealand public is that we make progress on extending paid parental leave. I want to acknowledge—and Ithink that this report from the Health Committee probably has something to do with it—the approach that I had yesterday from the National Party. It offered to extend the report-back date of my bill the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Rate of Parental Leave Payment) Regulations Bill and to extend paid parental leave to 6 months to enable discussions to take place about how we might move forward on that issue. I think that really is in the spirit in which this health report was brought together as well—that we can work in a multiparty way to make progress on issues that are of importance to children and their families. So I welcome that.I note that this report also looked into the issue of paid parental leave and did not quite come out with the recommendation around extending paid parental leave to 6 or 12 months. But it certainly did acknowledge that it had many submissions asking for exactly that. I think it is important for that to be acknowledged in the report. The recommendation of the report is in fact that the Government considers the possibility of providing more support for vulnerable women in the post-natal period to allow more opportunity for mothers to bond with their babies.I applaud the select committee for that because I think that that was right and proper. In the section of this report called “Social economic determinant of health and wellbeing”—and I think that that is the right place the exact right place to discuss paid parental leave—it chose to focus on the parents who are most vulnerable. It also correctly identified—and this is an issue that is close to my heart as well—that under our current paid parental leave laws some of the most vulnerable families miss out on eligibility. Those in seasonal and temporary employment are often the most vulnerable families and our current paid parental leave laws do not extend coverage for paid parental leave to those families. I certainly want to work with the Government to make progress on that issue alongside working with the Government on making progress on extending paid parental leave to 6 months.I note that there was a submission from the Ministry of Health and advice from the Ministry of Health about breastfeeding and whether extending paid parental leave had anything at all to do with extending exclusive breastfeeding rates. I am not surprised to see that the Ministry of Health does not see a link because it has told another select committee that I am sitting on exactly the same thing. However how does the Ministry of Health explain the figures that it has not even bothered to gather itself? It relies on the figures that have been gathered by Plunket. Plunket is of course an organisation with a very fine reputation and I am very happy to rely on its data—the Ministry of Health does also. But the figures show that since the year 2000 the 3-month exclusive breastfeeding rate has been increasing by roughly 1 percent per year. Then suddenly in the year 2003 it leaps by 3.2 percent—three times more the increase in breastfeeding rates in the year 2003.Iain Lees-Galloway: What happened in 2003?SUE MORONEY: Ask ourselves: what happened just prior to 2003? The Labour Government introduced paid parental leave at 12 weeks. That is what happened in 2002. Of course the exclusive breastfeeding rate increased by three times the amount in the following year. I ask the Ministry of Health whether that is not evidence enough. But I will leave that for a debate on another day because I do believe that what the Health Committee has done is absolutely moving in the right direction. I would be a little more challenging of the Ministry of Health on its assertion that breastfeeding rates are not affected by extending paid parental leave to 6 months. But again I reserve my right to discuss that at length on another occasion. Thank you.KEVIN HAGUE (Green): It is my pleasure—my genuine pleasure—to take a call in this debate on the report of the Health Committee. I want to begin by thanking our officials from the Ministry of Health all of those who made submissions—there weresome extremely good submissions and there were some not so good—and also those who gave us advice. I think particularly about those advisers and officials whom we went back to time and again to get it right. This was a long inquiry and I believe the report that has emerged has been a comprehensive one.There is something about children that perhaps has enabled the extraordinary cross-party approach that we have been able to take in this report. I think it may be because when we consider children up to the age of 3 and think about all of the things that might go wrong in their lives to that point nothing is ever the fault of those children. So whichever political party whichever political philosophy we come from we are able to agree on the need for us to do things that will make the lives of those children better and we were able to do so.One of the abstractions I guess that we made in this report was a recognition that in order to make the lives of those children better we could not focus solely on services targeting those particular children; we actually also needed to look at almost a life course approach recognising that the circumstances and the lives of the adults in the lives of those children have a profound effect on those kids. We also recognised and it is woven right through this report that the impact of the wider environment—the social environment the economic environment the physical environment—that those kids live in actually has a profound effect also.We had an interesting approach to building this report each of the members of the Health Committee taking particular chapters. The particular ones that I put effort into were around sexual and reproductive health and around nutrition and obesity-related disease. I am certainly proud of those chapters as I am of the whole report. It seems extraordinary to me that we have for example allowed until this point a situation where we know what best-practice sexuality education looks like in schools and yet we have not insisted that all schools implement that best-practice education. I think we are now ready to move on.In relation to obesity and obesity prevention I think one of the things that we learnt going through this inquiry was something that we remark on in the report which was that there is no silver bullet—not one that we are aware of anyway. There is no intervention for which there is comprehensive evidence of success. I draw on the comments Dr Hutchison made in his opening contribution in this debate around what Heckman’s analysis tells us about the importance of early intervention in the life of a child in order to have the greatest impact. What that says to us is that when we become aware of an issue the sooner we can intervene in that the better. What that compels us to in so many of these issues is an understanding that we will not have perfect evidence but that the urgency of the issue compels us to act in the absence of perfect evidence and to gather the evidence as we move on so we implement great evaluation frameworks around the things that we do.I want to finish by commenting on the extraordinary step of this debate in the House. I thank the Business Committee—the extraordinary consensus of the committee. I thank in particular as others have done our chair of the Health Committee Dr Paul Hutchison because his commitment has enabled an extraordinary result as we have seen by the universally positive responses of the news media of the specialists and of the Children’s Commissioner to our report. This is a great report. I look forward to the Government implementing it.SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): It is a great pleasure and a privilege to rise in support of Dr Hutchison’s motion to debate this report of the Health Committee. So many people who watch the proceedings of this place often criticise members in it for their partisanship for their lack of detailed analysis of issues of the day for their pettiness and sometimes for the shallowness of the debate that takes placehere. So as a new member with no particular expertise in health matters to find myself sitting on the Health Committee and participating in this very full inquiry came as something of a very pleasant surprise to me. As a new member I found that a select committee process can work to achieve a significant historic and very very important outcome for the future of our nation not just for the young people but for the whole nation. It is a rare and special privilege indeed.Without having any particular health experience other than as an occasional user of the system I found some of the information that was presented to me to be overwhelming in its compelling nature and to be so logical and sensible as to be undeniable in terms of its capacity to be accepted introduced and acted upon. The work of Nobel laureate James Heckman was particularly compelling. The evidence is overwhelming that investment made in the very early years of life is an investment made in the whole of life. That is not only a benefit to individuals but an absolute benefit to us as a society and a nation. Dr Hutchison is completely correct when he says that that does not mean there need be any less focus or spending on the health needs of those who are at the other end of the life cycle.This report has been exceptionally well received as Kevin Hague indicated in his contribution to this debate. The fact that it has been so well accepted and acknowledged by all parties in the House and indeed the media the public and health professionals around the nation is I think an absolute credit to Dr Hutchison and his contribution to leading this work. Without his vigour and enthusiasm for this project I do not think that we would now be debating this matter in the House.No child deserves a bad start in life. It is often said that a child of one is a child of all and then it is also said that investing in children pays a dividend in good and productive citizens. These are mantras that are often touted around the place without any careful analysis of what goes behind them in terms of actually achieving a practical outcome and turning mere slogans into something meaningful and beneficial to individuals and society. So to have us here in this Parliament of New Zealand today debating a unanimously agreed report of the Health Committee on such an important topic is indeed a historic and momentous occasion.This report has been very long in its gestation. Public submissions closed in May 2012. The report is far-reaching. In fact there are actually two versions of the report. There is the full report and then there is sort of a “report light”. I commend that those who want to take a view of it without getting into the real nitty-gritty of it read the “report light”. It is very compelling. It is an easy read. It is absolutely logical and coherent and it makes an overwhelmingly compelling case for the 12 major recommendations and the 130 more detailed recommendations that the committee has presented.It is an absolute privilege to have sat on this committee during the course of this inquiry. I just wish that more of our fellow country folk could see the work that was done on that committee. They would understand that actually the work of this Parliament occurs in weird and wonderful ways often in ways that do not meet with public approval but that in this case we can all as members of Parliament be enormously proud of the work that this committee has prepared. I commend the motion to the House.BARBARA STEWART (NZ First): I am very pleased to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak to this report. First I have to congratulate all of the members of the Health Committee on the substantial report that we wrote under the excellent leadership and chairmanship of Dr Paul Hutchison who I must say spent many hours ensuring that the committee was on track encouraging the committee to review the submissions and keep to the topic and ensuring that the recommendations that we weremaking were as realistic as they possibly could be and as perfect as they possibly could be. So thank you Dr Hutchison for your patience in that area.Also we have to give thanks to the select committee staff for their tireless work on this massive project. Thank you to the submitters the advisers and the many others who willingly and passionately gave of their time to ensure that the recommendations were achievable and realistic.It has been great to see a Health Committee report acclaimed by so many organisations and so many people including in editorials and various publications. The fact that there was general consensus within the committee shows that we wanted the best for New Zealand children regardless of our political affiliations.This report should provide a signpost for many years to come. We know that it is very important to invest in the early years and of course there have been very few reports written for this age group. The goal must be to ensure that every child has the opportunity to reach their full potential. A good start in life should pay dividends when school age is reached and further on. I am reminded of the words of my former late colleague the Hon Brian Donnelly who used to say on a regular basis that the quality of the children we leave for the future determines the quality of that future and this is an instance where it is absolutely accurate.One of the areas that I am very passionate about is oral health and I will always stand up for that area. I know that poor oral health affects learning self-esteem development and overall well-being. Dental decay is one disease that is chronic here in New Zealand but fortunately it is one of the most preventable in all age groups. Nothing is sadder than seeing the struggle that children have when they go to school and are trying to learn to read with no teeth. It is difficult to participate in classroom activities. Communication is very very difficult. It generally results in a degree of isolation from their peers and no child should have that. The eleven recommendations that we made in the oral health section are achievable without a huge financial input by the Government.One issue that divides the community is the issue of the fluoridation of water. We have traversed that in this particular report and have come up with some recommendations that hopefully the Government will ensure come into being.The ongoing monitoring of preschoolers who miss scheduled dental appointments is really necessary as this hard-to-reach group cannot be allowed to continue to slip through the cracks. Some administrative factors such as defining dental neglect so that it can be managed accordingly and further defining ethnicity in the category of “other” for children are absolutely essential to identify any groups that are at risk. In this section we attempted to ensure that the recommendations once implemented would significantly reduce the risk factors associated with children’s oral health and dental caries. Our dental therapists do a massive job often in difficult circumstances and we hope that this section assures them that Parliament is keen to support the hard work that they do.I look forward to the Government’s response to the recommendations.PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): It is a pleasure to take a call in this debate on the Health Committee’s report on theInquiry into improving child health outcomes and preventing child abuse with a focus from preconception until three years of age (Volumes 1 and 2). In continuing with the bipartisan theme of this debate and in the seasonal spirit of goodwill that seems to be emanating from the House at the moment I want to acknowledge all members of the Health Committee—not only the National ones and the excellent chair of the Health Committee Dr Paul Hutchison but also the Opposition members and cross bench members who served on the committee. In particular can I pay tribute to the former committee member Dr Jackie Blue who I alsosucceeded as a list MP and whose place on the committee I took up in May. I know she made a significant contribution to this report before I arrived and I would like to thank her for her service.This is a substantive and highly substantial inquiry with a hefty series of hard-hitting recommendations. The committee believes if implemented it will have a real impact on improving health outcomes and lowering abuse rates which tragically remain far too high in this country.Given the time constraints of this debate I want to single out one or two areas in which I believe there is particular importance. We report in the inquiry that immunisation is the most effective evidence-based way to prevent the spread of infectious diseases that previously caused severe morbidity and mortality rates. The committee had already undertaken considerable work in this area.A report was published in 2011 on how to improve completion rates of childhood immunisation so it has been very satisfying to see that immunisation completion rates for New Zealand children increased from a totally unacceptable 67 percent of 2-year-olds in 2007 to over 93 percent in 2013. The Minister of Heath the Hon Tony Ryall is to be congratulated on setting these high targets and on his unequivocal and unrelenting support for district health boards to deliver this essential prophylactic against serious life-threatening misery-creating and often very expensive communicable diseases.Twelve district health boards have reported that their Māori completion rates are now even higher than those for non-Māori. This is a historic achievement and one that other countries with disadvantaged indigenous communities could do well to emulate. The hardworking teams of professionals often using innovative methods to access hard-to-reach children deserve our gratitude for delivering on this essential target.Although the target of 90 percent of 8-month-olds completing their primary course of immunisation by 2014 is already met and a higher target of 95 percent of 8-month-olds by 2017 has been set there are still many children who are not immunised and to achieve this higher target New Zealand will need to make a strong commitment to children’s immunisation. We have done well but we cannot relax and we cannot sit on our laurels yet.This inquiry makes a number of recommendations for further actions in this area. We recommend to the Government that it requires the enrolment of children in general practitioner health services before discharge from the post-natal ward to ensure that they continue to engage with primary care and also Well Child services. We have suggested the continued implementation of the Ministry of Health’s action plan to enrol engage promote and monitor to achieve these higher immunisation targets. We recommend further improvements to local monitoring and engagement among health professionals and we support more choice for young people by allowing youth health services to advise on and manage vaccinations especially for rubella and human papilloma virus. We also back the implementation of the advice of the Immunisation Advisory Centre regarding hard-to-reach children and populations. We believe that these combined with some of the other recommendations in the field of immunisation will underpin a truly first class set of outcomes in this area and enable New Zealand to become a world leader in preventing the spread of infectious diseases so that we can ensure that the lives of the youngest members of our society are not blighted by such diseases.I would like to add my thanks to the thanks of other members to the officials and the advisers and in particular I thank our Health Committee staff Arwel Charlotte and Tina-Marie who assisted with the drafting of this report. I believe that this report’s recommendations from maternal and infant nutrition through to early childhoodeducation from oral health to alcohol and tobacco are very worthwhile. I commend it to all members and wish you Mr Assistant Speaker a very merry Christmas.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): The opening paragraph of the Health Committee’sInquiry into improving child health outcomes and preventing child abuse with a focus from preconception until three years of age states: “The major recommendations of this inquiry ask the Government to put more focus on and investment into the pre-conception period to three years of age and take a proactive health-promotion disease-prevention approach (based on scientific evidence) to improving children’s outcomes and diminishing child abuse.” That is the central theme of this report a report that has received support from across the House. In the spirit of bipartisanship that is on display today I want to gently—gently—point out that to achieve the aims stated in that first paragraph will require a significant change in policy from that which has been currently implemented by the National-led Government. I want to look at the current health targets and relate them to the aims of a proactive health-promotion disease-prevention approach to health.First of all we have shorter stays in emergency departments. That is a target focused on what you do after a child becomes ill or they are injured. It is not focused on preventing illness or injury. Improved access to elective surgery actually does not affect children all that much but again it is what you do after someone becomes unwell. Shorter waits for cancer treatment are again not about preventing cancer from happening but about how we respond how our health system is reactive to illness. There is increased immunisation and this is the one place where the Government can pat itself on the back. I notice that this is the one thing that the National Party members hang on to for dear life because it is the one place that they can be proud of. But I would point out that what is interesting is that in the fight against rheumatic fever one of the big objectives for the Government is to find a vaccine for rheumatic fever. That sounds to me like it is trying to find a vaccine for poverty. What we should be doing is preventing rheumatic fever by ensuring that our children grow up in warm dry homes and have good nutrition. The target for better help for smokers to quit again is what you do after someone becomes a smoker; you then try and help them quit. Having more heart and diabetes checks is not about preventing cardiovascular disease or preventing diabetes but measuring it finding it and then trying to do something about it. These targets reflect a health system that is reactive not proactive.It is fantastic that this evidence-based report that has support from all parties in Parliament promotes a proactive disease-prevention approach to our health system one which is quite different from what we have at the moment. Chapter 5 of this report refers to the social and economic determinants of health and well-being. Recommendation 18 says “We recommend to the Government that it continue to actively consider the recommendations inSolutions to Child Poverty in New Zealand: evidence for action and at least establish an overall action plan for reducing child poverty or Better Public Service targets …” for child poverty. As has been well debated in the House over the last week and the preceding weeks there is no target for this Government to reduce child poverty. There is no target for reducing child poverty and I am pleased that this report clearly recommends that we need a target for child poverty reduction.Finally I want to refer to chapter 5 which is about improving nutrition and reducing obesity and related non-communicable diseases. It says again that a health promotion approach directed through communities is what we need. We need a primary disease-prevention approach. It is sad that programmes like Healthy Eating - Healthy Action were cut by this Government because those are precisely the programmes that this report recommends. This is great report. It will be a report that future Governments referto and I look forward to its being fully implemented whatever Government is in place in the future.SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Mr Speaker—Hon Simon Bridges: It’ll be a National Government.SIMON O’CONNOR: Indeed it will be a National Government and it is a National member - led inquiry from which these results have come about. But I think there has been a great collegial atmosphere in the House today and it is a pleasure to rise and to speak to this report. Importantly I speak as a non-member of the Health Committee but I will come to that.I do want to acknowledge as colleagues across the House have done Dr Paul Hutchison who has the gravitas the energy the passion and the vision to have led this inquiry. Listening to colleagues speaking I can see the support he has gained and garnered from members across the House—from Labour the Greens and New Zealand First—to make sure that this report is tabled before Christmas. As everyone has noted this report is something that is not only time-critical in its nature—it is a report an inquiry about pre-conception to 3 years of age—but in an area that we as MPs across the House want to address quickly and thoroughly across a wide range of areas. So I also take an opportunity to thank Dr Paul Hutchison for the work he has put in. We are all conscious here that his time by choice is coming to a close next year but what a legacy to leave New Zealand and our children.I mentioned at the start that I speak as non-member on this committee. I sit instead on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and the Education and Science Committee but I find it quite appropriate to stand up because to me as an MP outside of this committee this report this inquiry has stood out. From the moment it was tabled until it reached my desk it was something I was interested to pick up and read through not only the light version I say to my honourable colleague from Coromandel but the full version as well. It is the result of enormous hard work and it has been a pleasure to sit in the House during this debate to hear all members speak about their particular areas of passion.I think that what I have heard underlying those speeches is the absolute importance of human life the absolute value of human life from pre-conception to 3 years of age and the need to put in place all that we can to help young men and women and our children our tamariki to live a good and full life a life that we respect a life that we celebrate and a life that we in a community draw together. I have always been struck in my years studying philosophy that one of the things I was taught and learnt was that from the very beginning we are born into community. We are never born alone be it a son to a mother a daughter to a mother and so on. We are born into community. [Interruption] Some of my colleagues I think are trying to emphasise health—they want to get away to lunch. But what I am trying to emphasise here is the real and important place of community. I think this report from Dr Hutchison and others on the Health Committee is emphasising that real importance of community our young people in it and all the elements of support that are needed.So again I note that my colleagues across the House in particular are keen to celebrate health by having lunch. I think they want me to sit down but I want to end where I began by acknowledging Dr Paul Hutchison for his leadership his chairpersonship of the Health Committee. To all members of the committee I say well done—kudos. We look forward to a Christmas break and to coming back in the new year to put these recommendations into action.LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Kia ora Mr Assistant Speaker. Thank you very much for the opportunity to contribute to this discussion about a Health Committee inquiry that will leave a huge legacy for our Parliament. I want toacknowledge the leadership of Dr Paul Hutchison in being the champion for children. I think that this inquiry report provides a template for whoever is the Government in the future to actually address what the heart of this inquiry was about. It was about improving child health outcomes and it was about preventing child abuse.What I want to highlight are some extracts from the report. One of the clear findings was that parents should be as healthy as possible prior to conception. I mean I think there is general agreement that in New Zealand we have a bit of a problem around conception. We have a bit of a problem about young people particularly engaging in sexual activity and not being in the right state to then be parents of the 64000 children who are born in our country every year. So one of the questions for me and for all of us was about who is giving birth to our children and where they are being born.I do also want to highlight that in parallel to our inquiry the Māori Affairs Committee has been doing an inquiry into the determinants of well-being for Māori children so I look forward to the recommendations in that report. To quote from the report: “Great effort must be made to ensure that Māori and Pasifika people have access to services and that those services are culturally centred.” I think actually that is one of the biggest challenges that we have.I would like to highlight two areas in particular. One is around sexual and reproductive health. The context I talked about earlier is really important because more than 40 percent of pregnancies in New Zealand are unplanned. So we do need a huge emphasis on sexual and reproductive health and well-being education for our children and it should be a priority. What this report does is say that we have to create young people who are aware and who are resilient. They go through biological processes that mean that they will engage in sexual activities. I think that it is in the best interests of all of us that our children and young people are doing that in a safe context where they have the tools to make decisions and also the tools to be able to grow up supported. So that is one of the areas I particularly wanted to highlight.The second area is around the national health target that says that for 90 percent of all pregnancies mothers should be booked in for antenatal assessment by 10 weeks’ gestation. I want to focus on where that recommendation came from because it was very specific. It came from an external review of maternity care from the Counties Manukau District Health Board led by Professor Ron Paterson. Why did the Counties Manukau District Health Board have this independent review? Well it had the independent review because between 2007 and 2010 2804 New Zealand babies died before reaching 28 days of age post-birth. In the Counties Manukau District Health Board that figure was 469 babies or 17 percent of the burden in that particular district health board.Why is it relevant? We have just under 9000 babies born in South Auckland every year and of those 50 percent are born to Māori and Pacific mothers. If we look at that 90 percent target what will that target actually achieve? It will mean that mothers have access to lead maternity carers and midwives so that we can assess mums we can help them prepare for baby and we can monitor their diet exercise and whatever else but firstly we will be able to help prevent these perinatal mortality statistics. Currently in the Counties Manukau District Health Board only 16 percent of mothers are receiving the treatment that they are entitled to.We need to ensure that we can identify the mothers who are at risk and that we can support them but overwhelmingly the biggest challenge that we have as a country is the distribution of our midwives. We may have 13.5 percent of the births but we have only 5.5 percent of the midwives. We are over 200 midwives short so I believe that this particular recommendation can make the biggest difference. Again I want to commend Dr Hutchison for his leadership. Thank you.LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): I am very pleased to be the final speaker on this debate on the Health Committee inquiry. As my colleagues from across the House have done I want to commend my National Party colleague Dr Paul Hutchison for leading this very significant piece of work. Like my parliamentary colleagues in the House today I do recognise that this will be a legacy piece of work. The Government will of course be officially responding but I think it is a very comprehensive piece of work that has looked at the most critical years of a child’s life. We in this House all know that every single baby and child of New Zealand is precious and we need to do whatever we can to protect them and make sure that they have the best opportunities as they grow up.I think one of the things that has been successful in the work we are doing in Government now is to continue and increase the investment in health overall. If you look at other countries with the economic conditions some have struggled to kind of keep up their investment. So I think it is important that we continue to do that and to make sure that that spending is focused on exactly the areas that count.My colleague Louisa Wall talked about the fact that many of our pregnancies are not planned. If we think about parenthood I consider it to be the most important job on the planet and so many of our young New Zealanders are not planning that particular role. So I think that children who are born into those families need more support than they get currently. This was a common theme that came up when I was a member of the Māori Affairs Committee in its work on the inquiry into the determinants of well-being for Māori children. There are a number of recommendations in the report that look at the whole concept of contraception and of education—about making sure that unwanted pregnancies can be prevented in the first place and that we support those with planned pregnancies.It was interesting that my colleague Louisa Wall referred to the recommendations in the report specifically around that early pregnancy intervention because that is what I also wanted to highlight from Counties Manukau. If you look at an example from New Zealand in Counties Manukau less than 16 percent of pregnancies had had an antenatal check before 8 weeks. If you look at the equivalent in Sweden it is 90 percent. So you are kind of getting a double hit because some of those women who are presenting in Counties Manukau will be of Pacific Island descent and unfortunately the statistic there is that 86 percent of those are overweight or obese. So before that baby is even born there are additional risks presenting from a health perspective for things like gestational diabetes which then presents a lifelong challenge. The more opportunity we have to intervene early the more we should look at that.The fantastic thing about those early antenatal checks is that through a range of different agencies and groups working with mums and families other potential risks are then able to be identified. With programmes like Whānau Ora and some of the other work that we are doing inter-agency we are able to make sure that the services are wrapped round that mum and family before baby arrives. I think that is one of the most important things we can do. It very much mirrors the work that Paula Bennett is doing in the vulnerable children space. It actually joins up with a lot of the Government’s work at the moment and looks more specifically at some of these areas. In that antenatal area for example getting more of our mums presenting earlier in their pregnancies is one very simple thing that this report highlights would make a significant difference.I am very clear and I want to quote the Prime Minister in closing this debate today when he said: “The basis of a country is not its Government but its families.” I thinkthat is a very true note. I want to close my address today by wishing every New Zealand child and family and my parliamentary colleagues the best of the season’s greetings.Motion agreed to.The House adjourned at 12.50 p.m. (Wednesday)