Draft transcript - Wednesday 20 May 2015First draft - subject to correction.Draft transcript - Wednesday 20 May 2015Waitangi National Trust Board Amendment BillSpeech - Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato)Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato):The Minister has covered much of the consideration of the select committee but I thought it would be useful to share some of the considerations of the select committee when we made the changes that were referred to. Much of the history with regards to the gift of lands and the establishment of the trust board was leaned upon to consider the submission request certainly of Arapeta Hamilton and the recommendation that thought be given to equity of representation of family members. I wanted to draw the attention of the House to Vernon Reed’s history and recollection of the Bledisloe gift because that is the basis upon which we thought it would be only fair to consider the addition of Māori family members of those stated. For those who are history buffs I would call on your own thoughts surrounding the way in which members were added to this particular board. Indeed in a brief way Henry Williams and Tāmati Waka Nene were the first-named representatives on this board and then Edward Gibbon Wakefield was added and then that fell to identified representatives of Hone Heke Maihi Kāwiti and Pōmare to be included. What was not factored into the process was that for the four Māori whanau one representative actually had to give voice to those interests whereas for the other whānau each family member was able to have a representative of their own. I have heard the Minister say that a transparent process should occur for the selection of those members and I am sure that the current convention of those four Māori whānau to select their representation has some process to it. Far be it from me to try to articulate that but the point should be made that there would be—certainly within those family members—an agreed way to be able to select their particular member. Of more interest and note I think in our deliberations was the submission from the board. The board appeared keen in its submission to ensure that the future thinking about the way in which the Waitangi National Trust Board conducts its business and affairs were within the frame of modernising the scope and power so we welcome—certainly as a select committee—the indication from the Minister that there will be a review. In fact when the Minister appeared before the select committee to answer to some of the questions that we had in our own minds around clarity for the review we were heartened to know that a broad review would take place that there would be consultation with the board and that it would be in quite a defined time frame although no reference was made to urgency on the legislative timetable—we know how these things work Minister. So that was a very comforting kind of response. However that said we did continue to believe that it was within the scope of the bill to include representation of the Māori members and that is how we have reported back on this particular bill. We also believe that some of the powers that were identified by the board’s submission were useful to raise in this House as well. The board wanted practical things: powers to manage and protect the trust’s assets into the future—that would be a part of the modernisation process. It stated that it was important to consider the scope of the trust to be able to borrow to remove some of the lease restrictions that were on them and to include further provisions relating to the management and utilisation of the forestry block in the Waitangi endowment land. For my part in reading the submission and trying to understand the current operating limitations perhaps of the board I thought that these were all very genuine useful suggestions and they could be picked up in the review that the Minister has committed to. One of the things that it raised in its submission was the ability to increase penalties for offences and breaches of by-laws. I did not kind of pursue a question line along this frame but it seemed to me that if the board has asked for it it might well be something to consider going forward. We did ask the question as we considered the two particular land blocks that are associated with the trust—firstly the forestry block and then the endowment block—were any of these two pockets of land subject to Treaty settlements?[Continuation line: In relation to the forestry block]Hon NANAIA MAHUTAIn relation to the forestry block we were informed—and officials had this contained in their advice—that this is solely private land and that it would not be subject to settlement. However the potential for the endowment block being subject to settlement because it is actually owned by the Crown is a potential. Can I say for my part given that the original Bledisloe gift was for the benefit of New Zealand the Bledisloes have done our country a great service to ensure that the document that defines our country the Treaty of Waitangi  and the place for where those celebrations can occur should be something that we can continue to support in the spirit of what the Treaty represents for this country. It would be a sad day if the transfer of the endowment was handled in a transactional manner that did not take account of the significance of Waitangi as the place where our founding document was signed. So I place that on the table. Maybe it is something that will be debated at some later time and in another type of debate. Can I say that we are really privileged at the Māori Affairs Committee to have the kinds of conversations and debates that require us to pursue with some diligence the issues that would in other select committees divide a committee—divide their views on a number of things—but that did not happen in this particular instance. Where we felt that there was some tension around expanding the membership in front of a review we took time to consider what we were trying to achieve here. Can I say in the spirit of our committee that we have basically landed on the fact that it is about equity of representation. Yes perhaps the board is a large board; yes perhaps it could make decisions around the table somewhat lengthy. However the spirit of the decision making at this particular board I would hasten to say is probably a little bit different to that of some other boards. On that note the decision around shortening the time of service of the members on the board to a maximum of three terms—we had some further discussion on this and this may also come up in the review. Certainly in relation to the membership of the Māori members where mana is recognised and where the contribution of service is recognised often it is a lifetime appointment and nothing an individual can do can get away from that. So although in this particular change to the bill there is a stipulation of a 3-year maximum term I would much rather think that in the review this may be one of the issues that will be revisited based on how representation over time has conducted itself in the best interests of the people of Māori but certainly in the spirit of the Waitangi National Trust Board to ensure that our overall interests as a country can be represented on this particular board. I am looking forward to the opening of the new centre. I am looking forward to continuing to see young people go to Waitangi as a part of their national education programme about the history of our country just as I enjoy going to Anzac ceremonies and seeing that particular day celebrated in the way that can make us proud as New Zealanders. Kia ora tātou. We support the bill.[Continuation line: Nuk Korako]Waitangi National Trust Board Amendment BillSpeech - NUK KORAKO (National)NUK KORAKO (National):Before I begin I too would like to acknowledge the passing of Ērima Hēnare and in particular his service on the Waitangi National Trust Board since 2007.I am proud to stand as a member of this House and as the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee for the second reading of the Waitangi National Trust Board Amendment Bill. I tautoko the previous speakers who have done a sterling job of giving a very good overview of the bill to date. I want to keep it high level but talk about two important things that were covered by the Māori Affairs Committee and also acknowledge the wider review that will pick up a lot of what the previous speaker highlighted. Many consider the first Waitangi Day to be 6 February 1932 although Waitangi Day was not celebrated annually for another 15 years after that and even then there were no Māori present. So 1932 is a special year in Waitangi history. It was on that day that the then Governor-General Lord Bledisloe gifted the former home of James Busby where the Treaty was signed to the nation. The house and surrounding grounds were dedicated as a public reserve and placed under the guardianship of the Waitangi National Trust Board. We have come a long way since 1932. Waitangi Day is now widely recognised as our national day—the day that marks the birth of our nation. The historic Treaty grounds now play a central role in our annual celebrations. If Waitangi Day marks the birth of our nation then the Treaty grounds are indeed its birthplace. As such it is appropriate that we stand here today in this House having recently marked the 175th year since the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi to consider a bill that updates and modernises the arrangements for guardianship of this great taoka this national treasure. That was 79 years ago. The Waitangi National Trust Board was legally established by the passing of the Waitangi National Trust Board Act 1932. The Act appointed two types of members to the board. Under the original Act the trust deed there are eight representative members representing the following groups: the family of Archdeacon Henry Williams the families of Hone Heke Maihi Kāwhiti Tamati Waka Nene and Pōmare Māori living on the North Auckland peninsula Māori living in the rest of the North Island Pākehā living in the Bay of Islands Māori and Pākehā living in Te Wai Pounamu the South Island the family of Edward Gibbon Wakefield and also the eighth member a prominent person in the life of this country Aotearoa. In addition there are four ex officio members: the Prime Minister the Minister of Conservation the Minister for Māori Development and the Governor-General if he or she chooses. This bill is the result of a review of the Waitangi National Trust Board Act 1932 undertaken by the Ministry for Culture and Heritage between 2006 and 2008. That review concluded that there is a risk of an actual or perceived conflict of interest between the constitutional roles of members of the executive and the roles they serve on the trust board. So that is the first point particularly about part of the make-up of the board and the roles. It would not be good enough to just remove the Governor-General and Ministers as this would sever an important link a very important link between the trust board and the Crown. Instead the Prime Minister the Minister for Māori Development and the Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage will make up a Crown representative group. This group will ensure continued communication between the trust board and the Government. In addition the Governor-General may choose to be an honorary patron of the Waitangi National Trust and this preserves the historic link between the Treaty grounds and the Governor-General stretching back to the original donation by Lord and Lady Bledisloe. To replace the ex officio members on the board two members of Parliament will be appointed. One will be chosen by the Prime Minister and the other by the Leader of the Opposition. Of course members of Parliament can also be members of the board in representative roles and I acknowledge Pita Paraone for his work as chair of the Waitangi National Trust Board. The bill as it was sent to us on the Māori Affairs Committee also introduced terms of 3 years for board members with a limit of 3 years to be served by each. This was the second point particularly around tenure. This provision will also be applied to current members of the board. The current term of each member will effectively end on the next 3-year anniversary of their appointment. If on that date they would have served for 9 or more years on the board they will be eligible for one further term. It was suggested to us by the Ministry for Culture and Heritage that we amend the legislation to prevent current members from serving an additional 3-year term. We did consider this change. However we decided the transitional provisions in the bill as originally proposed do strike a sensible balance between complete retrospective application of the three-term limit and allowing current members to serve a further 9 years. I come now to the significant amendment that was highlighted by our Minister which we on the Māori Affairs Committee have recommended. We received a submission from Arapeta Hamilton who pointed out the disparity between Pākehā and Māori members on the board. There are seven families represented on the trust board. The families of James Busby Edward Gibbon Wakefield and Archdeacon Henry Williams are represented by one member each—three members in total for these three Pākehā families. The families of Hone Heke Maihi Kāwhiti Tamati Waka Nene and Pōmare are represented by one member for all four families. Of course the member currently in that role is Pita Paraone. Although he is the chair and some may suggest he is as good as three other people there is an obvious disparity in the representation between Māori and Pākehā. This sort of disparity in Pākehā and Māori representation may have been a normal thing in 1932 but it certainly would not be accepted if such a trust board were established today. Members of the Māori Affairs Committee took the view that this situation is serious it is unfair and it should be addressed soon. The Ministry for Culture and Heritage suggested that this representation would be best considered as part of a planned wider review of the role and composition of the board. The Hon Maggie Barry has been clear in her commitment to hold such a review. We are grateful to her for engaging with the committee and for providing us with the details of what the review will cover. Given the wide-ranging nature of the planned review the Minister of course could not be specific about when any changes resulting from the review would come before this House to be enacted. Given the seriousness of the inequity that we believe currently exists in the make-up of the trust board and the uncertainty as to when the proposed review process would make changes to the structure there was a strong feeling within our committee that we should take the opportunity we currently have to correct this anomaly. For that reason we have recommended that when Pita Parone’s current term comes to an end his position is replaced by four positions representing those Māori families.[Continuation line: We acknowledge that this change is not perfect]NUK KORAKOWe acknowledge that this change is not perfect. We do acknowledge this. It will increase the size of the Waitangi National Trust Board to a size that some would suggest makes it even less effective. But we acknowledge that this may mean that members representing these families serve on the board for a short period before changes resulting from the review change the make-up of the board yet again. That is really crucial. Finally I thank my committee the Māori Affairs Committee and the Minister for all of the hard work that we have done to get the bill to the second reading. I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.[Continuation line: Henare]Waitangi National Trust Board Amendment BillSpeech - PEENI HENARE (Labour—Tāmaki Makaurau)PEENI HENARE (Labour—Tāmaki Makaurau):At this time I want to turn to this particular amendment bill the Waitangi National Trust Board Amendment Bill a bill that is close to my heart. I want to start by reading just a very brief passage in a letter from Sir Apirana Ngata to Sir Peter Buck who talked about and was of course instrumental in the establishment of the Waitangi National Trust Board and of course its centenary celebration in 1940. He says here: “You have already heard the news of the death of Taite and Tau”—in that respect he was referring to my great grandfather not my cousin—“To mention the politicians first. Their ideas will be carried on by many younger men whatever be their political allegiance. I found the north at the Waitangi centennial celebrations very sound and intent on carrying out the policies Tau gave his life for.” I wanted to read that as a start first around the historical landscape of course of this particular taonga known as Waitangi. We know of course as mentioned it was the signing place. We know of the house of Busby. We also know too of the great gift of the Bledisloe family to this nation. What is not mentioned is at the centenary celebrations the opening of Te Whare Rūnanga a carved meeting house that stands alongside the Busby house. On the inside of that house there is a small but very poignant saying and that saying goes “ko au anō tētahi i reira”—I too was there then. What that refers to is the failure at the time of recognising the Māori input in the conversation around the Treaty of Waitangi. Te Whare Rūnanga went a long way to give Māori voice on the Waitangi national grounds and it is an important part of the history. It is also important to remember that at that time in 1940 it was also the place where Apirana Ngata and indeed the nation sent off the 28th Māori Battalion to World War II. Why I cover this historical landscape is to paint a picture of just how important this place is to the country. My fear in painting that historical landscape is that in an attempt to create a more business style or model in the running of the Waitangi national grounds I fear that this shift detracts from the significance the historical significance of the Waitangi land. I want to before I continue say that we do support this and I do want to commend the Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage on her desire to review this piece of legislation because it is outdated. One of those examples is of course as mentioned in the bill the travel reimbursement where once it was reimbursed only to those who came by railway. This one is a very good positive step to make sure that those people such as my father who actually spent most of his time in Wellington do not have to catch the train to Waitangi. So it is important that these types of developments in the bill’s history carry us on into the future. We also welcome—and I support the kōrero in the House—the broader review of the Waitangi National Trust. We are encouraged by a lot of its functions at the moment spreading the word and the history of our country to our young people because if there is one thing that my father was passionate about it was young people. As much as he was a storehouse of knowledge for Māori and in particular for the people of Te Tai Tokerau he always had one eye on the future and it is important that we share the story of our nation with as many of our young people be they Māori or non-Māori as possible. I want to get back to the membership now. Of the 83 years of the trust I want to point out that for 65 years of that my family have been involved. The first member you will see on the history provided by Parliamentary Service is Tau Hēnare  my great grandfather who was on the board. Upon his untimely death in 1940 my grandfather Sir James Hēnare took over on the board and as far as I know has served the longest time—49 years—on the Waitangi National Trust Board before his untimely death in 1989. In more recent times of course there was my father who has been mentioned from 2007 to 2015 upon his untimely death. I had a bit of a chuckle to myself when I consider my whanaunga the member Pita Paraone who serves currently on the trust. It was mentioned to me at my father’s funeral how perhaps the trust is the departure lounge and there is a word of caution in there for those who wish to take up a role on the Waitangi National Trust. So kia tūpato e te pāpā—be careful! But the reason I draw out my family whakapapa with the trust—I also want to mention Sir Tumu te Heuheu who was involved—is that it joins on to what my esteemed colleague the Hon Nanaia Mahuta was talking about about the mana of the positions. It is the mana of those positions that carries the history of this country. Sir Tumu te Heuheu’s tupuna Iwikau te Heuheu at the time of the Declaration of Independence in 1835 and of course the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840 was resident in the Bay of Islands at the time. So it is only fitting that Sir Tumu te Heuheu continues his role on the Waitangi National Trust. It is amazing how fast 10 minutes disappears on you so I do not want to labour too much more about the particular bill other than to say that we support it and I want to finish on a couple of notes for the future.[Continuation line: We know that there is a case for developing the Waitangi National Trust]PEENI HENAREWe know that there is a case for developing the Waitangi National Trust and its capacity. One of the dreams of my father and indeed the people of Te Tai Tokerau was that the actual document of Te Tiriti o Waitangi which is currently held in National Archives here in Wellington be returned to the sacred lands in which they were signed. We know that the trust is looking at building its capacity to hold such a precious taonga because we know that it is precious and it is important that it is looked after appropriately. It is our dream to see that returned to the land of Waitangi. We also have another dream in the north that other sites of significance gain just as much mana and conversation in this House. It is 170 years coming up in January—the commemoration of the battle of Ruapekapeka—since the final battle in Te Tai Tokerau. It is one of four significant battles in the north—as well as the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi. If we are serious about our history and about acknowledging the birthplace of this nation at Waitangi it is important that we do it warts and all. Nō reira e te Mana Whakawā kāti. Ki a tātou tēnā koutou katoa.[Continuation line: Hon Judith Collins]Waitangi National Trust Board Amendment BillSpeech - Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura)Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura): It is indeed a privilege and a pleasure to be able to speak on the Waitangi National Trust Board Amendment Bill. It has been really interesting listening to the contributions from around the House and I always think and often say to people that apart from the fabulous work we do on select committees—I see my colleague Catherine Delahunty agreeing with me—it is actually on Waitangi legislation and the Treaty of Waitangi settlement legislation and everything to do with Waitangi where this House generally comes together without any acrimony and genuinely and generally tries to come to solutions to bring about justice for those who make claims but also for everyone really. I think it is something that we generally do very well. So when I have been listening to some of the reasons that are being given around why we need to update and amend this bill I thought that they all sound very sensible to me. Quite clearly things have moved on from when the trust board was originally set up and it is important to have the families who feel the greatest commitment and obligations to the trust board to be represented separately although I note that our colleague Pita Paraone does apparently the job of four people—I am sure he does. But I think it is important. I think too that this is a bill that actually has constitutional significance in perhaps not the black letter law way but certainly within the general sense of it. The Treaty of Waitangi is something that is not solely important to Māori and it is not solely important to the Crown; it is actually of significance to all people who wish to be New Zealanders and who are New Zealanders. When I look at my own whakapapa and I am not going to run it all out for you today although I would be happy to do so at any stage should anyone want it.Catherine Delahunty: Ha ha! Feel free to do it.Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Oh Ms Delahunty you are just too kind. But I can say that I have no other home than New Zealand. I am like many New Zealanders. No other country can call me theirs and probably no other country would and I would call no other country home. My family has been in New Zealand in various parts of the country. My ancestors whom I have found so far were first recorded in New Zealand in 1841 a Captain Walker of Nelson—you see this gene of wanting to be in charge is something you just cannot get past—and he was a ship’s captain but a whole lot of the family came in through the years. There is no other home. That is not unusual in New Zealand although pretty much I am quite unusual for Pākehā for having been here for so long as a family. I grew up in the Waikato. I grew up in a situation where my parents grew up in the King Country—born there grew up there. We are not people who are fazed by cultures other than Pākehā - New Zealand culture. Having said that lots of New Zealanders now do not have that background and do in fact want to engage in and want to know more about not only the Treaty of Waitangi and New Zealand and New Zealand’s constitutional history but also where we are now and where we want to be going. It is important that these new New Zealanders be able to feel part of our team our team New Zealand or team Aotearoa whatever—our clan where we are loyal first and foremost and only pretty much to our country. So I wonder whether or not this trust board change—and I hope it will—will help to settle some of the issues that we routinely and unfortunately see at Waitangi on Waitangi Day each year. I actually am one of many New Zealanders who have felt somewhat distressed by some of the behaviour that has been displayed particularly at Te Tii Marae when guests have been humiliated or abused. I know that that is not Waitangi. I know that that is a small group—we probably all know who they are—Catherine Delahunty: I’m one of them.Hon JUDITH COLLINS: —who wish to—oh yes Catherine Delahunty is one of them. A dear old mate Catherine. But it is actually for a lot of New Zealanders particularly new New Zealanders really intimidating and it actually sets up quite a barrier to wanting to get engaged more. It sets up also for New Zealanders like myself a bit of a barrier to wanting to be involved and hoping to be welcomed. So I like to hope that all these sorts of things that we do are the sorts of things that will mean that the attitude and the behaviours will improve and be more welcoming. I know that there have certainly been instances in the past where people have felt quite rightly so that they should be able to protest on things and of course you can. But I just would have this plea about this. I know that this particular board works very hard to maintain what is a treasure for our nation given as we have said to the nation by Lord and Lady Bledisloe. You know this is a tremendous gift that they did not have to make but they did it out of a commitment to New Zealand and an understanding of the importance of Waitangi and also the Treaty of Waitangi to us as New Zealanders. So I would say that it would be lovely to have Waitangi Day being celebrated all around the country but particularly at Waitangi and always understanding that things are never going to be perfect—nobody is ever going to be happy with everything. One of the great things in New Zealand is that we are always trying to do better and I think that is something where we want to be able to give some credit where it is due. There has been a tremendous amount that has been done wrong over the years actually which we as a country are now addressing. This particular Government since we have been in office just over 6 years have signed 46 deeds of settlement. As at February this year there have been 72 deeds of settlement signed—so that is not just this Government but the previous Government as well—and 43 of those deeds of settlement have been enacted in legislation. This is a huge effort by quite a lot of people actually and it is something where both those representatives of the Crown—in other words the rest of New Zealand—and the Māori involved in this as claimants should be very proud of the effort that has gone in and the goodwill. By the end of 2017 we would like to if possible have all deeds of settlement signed but that is actually very much dependent on both sides being willing. Obviously iwi need to be able and willing to sign as well. You cannot force approval or agreement; people have to want to do it. So these are really good things that we can point to. Point out to me anywhere else in the world where we have that sort of coming together and that sort of commitment to righting the wrongs of the past—point to any other country that has that history. That goes back not just because we are all fabulous people here in Kiwi land; it actually goes back to the very essence and the wording of the Treaty of Waitangi and what it was all about. No other country that I can think of that was colonised in the 19th century by Britain or any other country ever actually ended up with a document such as the Treaty of Waitangi. No other country. And that is actually something we should be very very grateful for. It enabled settlement in New Zealand of people other than the indigenous Māori population and it also enabled a protection of rights and conferring of rights as well and a protection that we should be very proud of. No matter what we do in this area there is always going to be someone to complain. That is nature of democracy; it is a fabulous thing. There is nothing wrong with complaining—I have done a bit myself. But I would say that when we come to these bills we do a great job. I would like to acknowledge the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee and all the members for the hard work that they have put into this and also the Minister for bringing this bill to the House.[Continuation line: David Clendon]Waitangi National Trust Board Amendment BillSpeech - DAVID CLENDON (Green)DAVID CLENDON (Green): Kei te mihi ki a koutou. May I begin by also acknowledging the very untimely and sad passing of an extraordinary man. Ērima Hēnare had a lifetime—a far too brief a lifetime—of service to his hapū to Tai Tokerau and indeed to all of New Zealand and in the tradition of that family I must say. It was an honour genuinely to be present at Mōtatau for his final farewell. The atmosphere the speeches and the very presence that was at that place reflected something of man himself. I think we can be assured that our colleague Peeni Henare in his time in this House and indeed outside this House will continue to add mana to the name he bears. Kia ora. I would like first to reflect on the fact that the wide and genuine support for this bill is a reflection on the good work of the Māori Affairs Committee. It seems to me that that committee has ways of its own of getting things done. It works in mysterious ways on occasions but it seems to generate good work and gets good outcomes. This bill is I think a good example of that. I admit I must say that I was initially sceptical when I saw the first draft of this bill because the first thing that struck me about it was that it has the Government and senior politicians giving away power and authority and that is completely counter-intuitive to anybody who has been in politics for any length of time. But indeed that is in a sense what is happening with this bill; it is reallocating responsibility and authority for the management of that unique place for Waitangi. I do think it is a move for the good. As I say my initial scepticism was laid to rest and it does indeed seem a genuine attempt to update a governance and management structure that was in need of some work and in need of some attention. I think that what has come out is something that will serve us well acknowledging of course there is to be a further review—and that is a good thing too—just to see that we do get this right. It is difficult to overstate the importance of Waitangi—the house the grounds and the area around it—to this country not least of all culturally. It is the site of the signing of the document that gives this Government of which we are all part legitimacy and that gives the Crown its legitimacy in this country. We must continue to return to that—that it is absolutely fundamental; it is a living document that is as valid today as it was in 1840 when it was first signed. I must confess that even to this day when I meet New Zealanders who have never visited Waitangi it is always a surprise—but OK for some people it is a long way from home. My own memories of it go back to when I was sort of 4 or 5 and I am privileged to still live nearby so I am a regular visitor. It is extraordinarily important culturally politically constitutionally and dare I say it disciples say it has some economic importance for Northland particularly. It is important that the governance and management structure is right so that we maintain the quality of the experience for the people who visit that place and that we seek to enhance that experience not only because of the fact that it is literally the place where our nation Aotearoa New Zealand began but as a site of historical significance I think we need to ensure that we do our very best to ensure that it retains the value and qualities that ensure that people go there remember the experience reflect on it and tell others about it. Indeed as an aside I think that we are nowhere near exploiting the potential of the wider heritage of Northland and of the sites—and some have been mentioned—of Waitangi Russell Paihia Mangungu Waimate Kerikeri the mission house and dare I say the Clendon house. The more that people become aware and start to join the dots about the extraordinary stories of those remarkable people both Pākehā and Māori actually who made this remarkable agreement and who lived through those times in the late 18th century through to the 19th century and who did some extraordinary things—I think to some extent all history is social history. I think we are very fortunate in New Zealand that we still have the artefacts like the homes and furnishings and indeed the very close relationships. A generation or two back we can look to people who were actually there on the day in Waitangi and that is something to be treasured I think and to be shared not only with each other with New Zealanders but with others who come here to find out what this—to some people—remote country is all about. That is slightly an aside but I have to say that I think the bill has advanced the management and governance potentially of the place. We are particularly pleased of course and the point has been mentioned already that embedded in this bill is a commitment to having a presence on the board of descendants of Hone Heke Maihi Kāwiti Tāmati Waka Nene and of course of Pōmare. At one point it seemed as though that inclusion might need to await the review which could have delayed it for some time so I am particularly pleased that as I say the interesting machinations of the select committee have ensured that that commitment is embedded in this bill at this point. I do hope that the bill goes through without further delay at this point. I see no reason why it should not. It is a good document it will achieve some good things and we certainly look forward to the work that we hope the board will do in future to continue to add value to enhance that place and to get the visitor centre there. To have the original document there would be extraordinary and would be a wonderful thing. So we hope that this is as successful as we all hope it will be. Kia ora.[Continuation line: Pita Paraone]Waitangi National Trust Board Amendment BillSpeech - PITA PARAONE (NZ First)PITA PARAONE (NZ First): Tēnā koe Mr Deputy SpeakerFirst of all I would like to acknowledge the Minister Maggie Barry and the fine gesture she made after making her presentation joining our chairman of the Māori Affairs Committee which is really an example of the collegiality that members of that committee share within one another albeit that we sit on opposite sides of this House. When we are considering matters that come before the Māori Affairs Committee there is that collegiality which obviously because other people have made comment may not necessarily be exercised in other select committees. So I want to acknowledge the Minister for that. I also want to acknowledge the Minister for her commitment in seeing this bill through in a timely manner taking on board the commitment to carry out a wider review of the Waitangi National Trust Board Act and of the machinations of the board. For me I felt that a lot of the concerns that the board had were already known to the officials and I know that a number of members of the board felt that those issues and those concerns could have been added to this bill.[Continuation line: However I take the Minister on her word]PITA PARAONEHowever I take the Minister on her word and notwithstanding the comments made by the honourable member from Tainui Waikato about her reference to the legislative programme I feel confident that the concerns we expressed in the Māori Affairs Committee process will certainly be addressed in the wider review. Waitangi is being described as the most significant historical place in our country and it is a privilege of mine to be first of all a member of the trust board responsible for the maintenance and care of the estate and also to chair it. I know that my membership of the board may have caused some disquiet some concern within other members of the House but I want to reassure both them and this House that in order to retain that sense of integrity to ensure that there would be no accusation of conflict of interest or patch protection I did not participate in casting votes in terms of the decisions made by the select committee and also I stood down as chairman of the board during the discussions with the board and with officials concerning this bill. I am pleased to be able to report that to the House. I want to say that the board has a very important responsibility. In recent years it has adopted the position that its responsibility should be confined not just to the care and maintenance of the estate but to ensuring that the history of Waitangi is shared amongst our fellow New Zealanders and as the member from the Green Party David Clendon alluded to the number of New Zealanders who have not visited Waitangi. I suppose there are various reasons for that and the honourable member Judith Collins made reference to that. As I hear such comments I feel a little bit annoyed—I am not annoyed at her—about the assumption that that part of Waitangi is allied to the Treaty grounds. In fact those of us from the north know that it is almost like two separate worlds two different planets. However that is the perception that many of our fellow citizens have of Waitangi. This bill looks not only at the structure of the membership of the board but also at increasing the representation of those Māori families. I must say that it has been a real privilege and a pleasure to represent the families of those four tupuna. I want to make this comment. In terms of the particular family that I descend from—and this is a question that has always bothered me— Maihi Kāwhiti is one of the sons of Te Ruki Kāwiti of Ruapekapeka war fame. Maihi’s part in history was that every time his fellow tribesmen cut down the flagstaff he promptly put it up. Maihi is the son of Te Ruki and one has to ask the question of why you would put the son ahead of the father. To this date no one has been able to tell me why. Perhaps there may have been a confusion in terms of the descent because when the original Act was discussed in the second and third readings Sir Apirana Ngata referred to Te Riri Kāwiti as the grandson of Maihi. In fact he was the son. So I do not know. I just want to confirm that New Zealand First will certainly be supporting this bill. We look forward to the Committee stage and I cannot see too many difficulties during that process. We certainly look forward to seeing it enacted although I personally will be affected but it is something that I certainly support. As a closing remark I just want to tell those who are already lining up to become members of the board that we do not pay a fee. And I just want to say that the administration cost that we have imposed on visitors has caused some disquiet amongst our fellow citizens. I am anticipating that during the wider review of the Act some consideration will be given to an annual gratuity from the Government to the board along the lines of Te Papa.[continuation line: Jo Hayes]Waitangi National Trust Board Amendment BillSpeech - JOANNE HAYES (National)JOANNE HAYES (National): Tēnā koe Mr Deputy Speaker. Before I start my korero I too want to pay respects on the passing of our Ngāti Hine rangatira Ērima Hēnare and I wish also to pass on my aroha to you Peeni and to your whānau. Kia ora. The other person I would like to acknowledge is the Hon Maggie Barry our Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage who is shepherding this bill the Waitangi National Trust Board Amendment Bill through the House. It is a very important bill even though it is quite narrow focused but it is an important one in the history of this country. The purpose of the bill is that it aims to make changes to the Waitangi Trust Board membership and that is why it has such a narrow focus. Before I talk about that focus and the membership and the kōrero we had at the Māori Affairs Committee I just want to take us on a little trip down through the annals of history because without the history we would not be here discussing this bill today. The background to this bill is that the property the house was owned by the Busby whānau. During the 19th and at the beginning of the 20th century the land and the building kind of changed hands a bit. In 1932 as we have heard a former member of Parliament Vernon Reed came along and he had this passion that the Treaty house and the grounds it was on were a historical place and needed to be nurtured. Therefore that is why he invited the then Governor-General Lord Bledisloe and Lady Bledisloe to come and have a look at the grounds and the Treaty house to encourage them to make sure that that house was going to be preserved. Lord and Lady Bledisloe obviously did more than that as we have heard from previous speakers. They bought the grounds. Lord Bledisloe also invested £1000 into the Waitangi restoration fund to start the process for restoring the Treaty house itself. The Government of the day also added another £500 to that restoration fund. Therefore the first form of restoration started back in 1932. It was also the time when the 1932 Act began. To stand here as a mokopuna of this land I stand here and I am absolutely grateful and thankful to the Bledisloe whānau for their contributions for gifting the Treaty house and the grounds to this nation. Anyway as I was saying this Act in 1932 gave statutory effect to the Waitangi Nation Trust deed and it also established the trust board. The Bledisloes did this in the time of the Great Depression. Our country was going through the Great Depression. There was high unemployment and this was a way for the Bledisloe whānau to be able to help people by giving them employment in the restoration of that house. It was also another way that Lord Bledisloe could settle up the relationship between our Pākehā and our Māori.Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.JOANNE HAYES: Just a little more historical facts that have happened on the Waitangi Treaty grounds. In 1834 the Confederation of the United Tribes of Aotearoa first raised their flag on the lawn of the Treaty house. It was very historical. As we all know 6 years later in 1840 the Treaty of Waitangi was first signed although only a few days later was the biggest signing which was held across at Te Mangungu Marae. I was privileged to be at their 100-year celebration this year with the Minister the Hon Maggie Barry. The Waitangi National Trust Board Amendment Bill does modernise the governance of the board members of the trust. I just want to acknowledge our New Zealand First member Pita Paraone. I just want to say that it is a very humble thing for him to step away from the discussions in the select committee. I know he was bursting to actually get involved in those discussions but the gentleman that he is he sat back. Also he went off the trust board so he did not have many conflicts of interest there. I just want to say that I was pleased to hear from him that the trust members were supporting this very important bill. That is not to say that the membership discussion within the select committee was not debated very vigorously. I just want to thank the chair and my co-members of the Māori Affairs Committee for the debate and also for the members of the Parliamentary Counsel Office who came in with their report and listened to our discussions around membership. We have heard from other members in the House about that membership. I just want to reiterate that the current membership of the trust board has four ex officio members including the Governor-General the Prime Minister the Minister of Conservation and the Minister for Māori Development and we are starting to look at how that is going to pan out which I will talk about a bit later. There are family representations from the Archdeacon Henry Williams Edward Gibbon Wakefield and James Busby as well as a family member and I think it is Pita Paraone at the moment of the whānau Hone Heke Maihi Kawiti Tamati Waka Nene and the Pomare families. There is a representative of the Māori people north of Auckland peninsula which I think was the position that the rangatira Ērima Hēnare held on the trust board before he passed away as well as a Māori or Pākehā representative living in the South Island a Māori representative south of Auckland and a prominent person who has experience either a historian or an archaeologist. So those are the current members of the board. What we are proposing is as the Minister outlined in her speech that the Governor-General and the Ministers will be removed as ex officio members on the board. The Governor-General will became an honorary patron of the trust and the Prime Minister the Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage and the Minister for Māori Development will form the Crown representative group. Hopefully this will foster good relations and share information with the board. The two members of Parliament one representing the Government and one representing the Opposition will be appointed as full members of the board. By removing these ex officio positions on the board it removes the risk of conflicts between constitutional roles and other roles of the trustees. As I said before the bill creates a clear separation between the Government and the board while providing a means to ensure a positive working relationship through the Governor-General’s patronage of the trust the creation of the Crown representative group and the appointment of two members of Parliament as members of the trust. Currently there is no statutory tenure limit for the board members on the trust. The bill proposes that we implement a limited tenure of no more than 9 years although our select committee did debate the fact that current members once the bill is implemented may have a further 3-year term in their positions on the board. In closing this is a narrowly focused bill. It is a bill that is supported by from what I have heard in the House everybody in the House. It incorporates the Waitangi National Trust board which as we know administers the Waitangi ground and associated lands. It gives more power to that trust to be able to do things that it had not been able to do in the past. I look forward to what is planned through the Waitangi National Trust. I also look forward to the modernisation of this bill and its fruition. Thank you very much. I commend this bill to the House.[Continuation line: Mr Deputy Speaker: Catherine Delahunty 5-minute call.]Waitangi National Trust Board Amendment BillSpeech - Mr DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Catherine Delahunty—a 5-minute call.Waitangi National Trust Board Amendment BillSpeech - Mr DEPUTY SPEAKERCATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green): Tēnā koutou e te Whare. I would just like to start with a mihi to the Ngāti Hine and te whānau pani o Ērima Hēnare. Moe mai e rangatira—an acknowledgment to Peeni Henare as the son of that very very honourable whakapapa and that we mourn today the loss of his papa. I would also like to acknowledge that we have the chair of the Waitangi National Trust with us as well Pita Paraone and also everyone here from Te Tai Tokerau. There are layers and layers of history associated with Te Tiriti o Waitangi and therefore with this bill. Although it belongs to all of us it is guarded the most fiercely in my experience by those of the north. Having spent every Waitangi at Waitangi for the last 15 years except for one I have had a real education in the passion of Te Tai Tokerau not only for the national trust and for the marae but also for the other sites of significance that have been referred to tonight: the lower marae te rau rangatira and the places where He Wakaputanga o te Rangatiratanga o Nu Tireni was signed in 1835; all of the different aspects of the history. There are many complex layers and in speaking about it we need to acknowledge that there are people here in this Parliament who descend directly on both the Pākehā side and the Māori side as does my colleague David Clendon and others who have much greater whakapapa relationship with the site that we are talking about tonight. I had a brief experience on the select committee working on the bill and I would like to acknowledge the select committee. As always I find the Māori Affairs Committee a really welcoming and positive place to come into. At the time there was quite a lot of debate going on when I left after my short sojourn on the issues of equitable representation. So it is very pleasing to see that once again the Māori Affairs Committee has found a pathway before there is a major review which we also support and that the Minister the Hon Maggie Barry came and discussed very graciously with that committee. There has been a pathway for some immediate resolution as well. Our concern—some of us at that time—was really the statement that is in the bill I am going to quote from it which is where the Māori Affairs Committee say: “We considered the view put to us in the submission from Arapeta Hamilton that the current makeup of the Board is unfair as there is a disparity between the representation of Pākehā families which is one for each of three families and of Māori families where there is just one member representing four …”. Given that this is about Te Tiriti o Waitangi there is a clear call to action in that statement because Te Tiriti o Waitangi if it is to be honoured—and it is not a Māori treaty; it is a treaty that gives my culture status in this culture. If my culture honours it—otherwise we are here as settlers and colonists rather than as citizens. It is really really important that the national trust board and this law reflects that equitable issue of representation. If Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the documents that preceded in the building of out nationhood are about anything they are about recognising two sides of the story and that there is not going to be a dominant culture. There is going to be tino rangatiratanga—this is the dream; we are not there yet—but also there is going to be honourable kāwanatanga. This bill is a really positive step forward in that regard in that the select committee listened to the submitters and they were able to find a way before the broader review to recognise those issues of equity and participation which are essential. Although there were arguments and debates at the time—again I would acknowledge the Parliamentary Counsel Office because they also did play a positive role. They did come and say that this is within the scope of this bill. It is possible to do this at this time because we were trying to do what was logical as well as what was right.[Continuation line: I think that thanks to all parties]CATHERINE DELAHUNTYI think that thanks to all parties what has been logical as well as what is right has been achieved in this process. There is much more I could say about te Tiriti . I can never resist speaking on te Tiriti because I am so passionate that Pākehā recognise Waitangi  passionate that Pākehā recognise that this place—and not just Waitangi itself but the whole of the area where our history has taken place around that document and around He W’akaputanga —is recognised by all of us as a basis for our nation. And that it is not a matter of taking out the story it is a matter of learning the true history the painful history and the right history rather than the sanitised history that is sometimes told about what happens. Not only what happens at Waitangi on the day—which is often actually completely misinterpreted by the media—but also by what this place is really all about to us. And so the Greens support any step forward that is based on equity and on the articles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi . So we are proud to support the bill. Kia ora .[Continuation line: Marama Fox]Waitangi National Trust Board Amendment BillSpeech - MARAMA FOX (Co-Leader—Māori Party)MARAMA FOX (Co-Leader—Māori Party):Kia ora . I want to add my voice to the 19:425:38 tonight about Waitangi and its importance and its relevance to this country. When I travelled to Waitangi this year the first time as an MP  with the Government my mother actually scolded me and said: “Where are you going to be? I need you here in Carterton because we are going to celebrate Waitangi here in Carterton with our whanau as we have done in Masterton Wairarapa for years.” I said: “Well actually Mum I will be a few steps behind the Prime Minister at Waitangi trying not to get hit with any flying projectiles.” And so it was that I travelled there to the birthplace of this nation—and that is how it was described by all who were there all who were in attendance described Waitangi as the birthplace. And yet when I got off the plane having not been to Waitangi since I was a girl I looked for the sign that would show me the way—and there was none. There was a sign that said Paihia —or Paihea? Pai?Kelvin Davis: Pai.MARAMA FOX: Paihia. Right. Well I did not where that was. I had to get out my google map from my phone to find my way because there is no signage pointing out the most historic place of our nation the birthplace of our nation where partnership was formed. And so I think that needs to be addressed. But today we address the partnership that is the Māori trust board—the Waitangi not Māori trust board just on its own but as a partnership of Māori and Pākehā coming together. Yes for me the biggest thing in doing this was to address the representation and make sure that it was equitable. Everybody has talked about it. We had four families being represented by one on the Māori side and three families being represented each by three representatives. Yes there is going to be a review. I want to acknowledge the Hon Maggie Barry  who worked with us and briefed us on the important matters of the Waitangi Māori trust board so that we could ensure that there was equitable representation. She listened and she made the amendments and now we have an equitable process going forward. Yes the review may in time change that. But we felt that we could not let another day go on another week go on another year go on while the review took place where a glaring inequity would continue. I want to acknowledge the members of the Māori Affairs Committee  who worked together to ensure that not one more minute would go by with that inequity continuing. I also want to acknowledge our member of the Māori Affairs Committee Pita Paraone  who as everybody has stated has worked tirelessly in this area. And though there may be some issues about representation going forward about who of those families will come forward to row this waka together I am sure that we need to put our faith in the people that democracy will out that they will continue to uphold the mana of this place as the birthplace of our nation and do the wonderful job that has been done to this point to ensure that those grounds that area continue to thrive and represent our nation as a sparkling example as they do at this time. Kia ora e te Mana Whakawā . I commend this bill to the House.[Continuation line: Simon O’Connor]Waitangi National Trust Board Amendment BillSpeech - SIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki)SIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I am very pleased to take a call to speak to this bill this evening in its second reading that of the Waitangi National Trust Board Amendment Bill . I am very conscious as I stand here tonight that I have not sat on the Māori Affairs Committee  but I have been very fortunate to discuss this with an excellent caucus. Or rather the likes of Nuk Korako  the chair of the committee and Maggie Barry  the Minister sponsoring this have been very wholesome and fulsome in their discussions with us as a caucus around what is happening. And so again I am particularly pleased to stand along with others tonight to speak to this bill. Like others I would like to acknowledge the passing of Erima Henare a man who has stood very tall proud and loudly in the Māori and of course New Zealand community for many actions particularly around Te Reo and the maintenance and promotion of that. And of course his role acknowledged here tonight many times sitting as a member of the current Waitangi board. I acknowledge too his son Peeni Henare . He and I have known each other for a good amount of time outside of Parliament. I have mentioned that before we worked at the Ministry of Social Development together and while we might find ourselves on the opposite sides of the House good conversation can continue with memories passed and I think a common bond in the future to serve our country as best we can. In doing so I again acknowledge the Minister and the work that has gone into this. I acknowledge the members of the select committee. I am conscious that where this started is not necessarily where it ended or was intended to end up so a lot of discussion has gone on and debate fraught at times I am sure. But it has reached a place now if I am hearing the debate correctly tonight that members are happy with. Within that is the intention of a review by the Minister as well and we will touch on that a little bit later. So this is a step in the right direction. Waitangi is a place which sits very strongly in our national consciousness for a variety of reasons but of course first and foremost as part of our national identity a point in time that has defined and arguably began to define New Zealand’s identity. For me personally being someone born and raised in the north Waitangi is a place we would visit every year not necessarily on 6 February but a place that we would go to frequently. The place has much history and tradition not just around the Treaty itself but just as a place where many early settlers came. I know certainly from my own side of the Catholic community well-connected into the Hokianga. And we have Bishop Pompallier who is buried and of course what you have across in Russell of the Marist fathers which I was very connected with. It is a place where I find myself at home. It is a place where more recently the National Party found itself at home as it went up there for its conference. And I have to say not only the locals but the weather performed exceedingly well.[Continuation line: But I do want to note that the Treaty]SIMON O'CONNORI do want to note that the Treaty of Waitangi and the place of Waitangi itself is larger than just one place. I am reminded of this because a few months back I was very pleased to join Ngāti Paoa at Karaka Bay in Glendowie in my electorate where they acknowledged the 150th anniversary of their signing of the Treaty. Although seminal moment may have occurred up in Waitangi with the conversations and signings there the Treaty then began to go around the country to be signed. As far as I am able to say for Ngāti Paoa the signing at Karaka Bay within the electorate of Tāmaki—as it is now—is the really important moment for them. I have to say it was an incredible honour and privilege to be invited to join them and to be out on their waka on the Waitematā Harbour. It was an absolute thrill but also very educational I have to say to be able to sit through the hours of the talk and speeches. I just mention that because Waitangi may be a singular place but with the Treaty and its signing for all of us as New Zealanders it moves beyond just one place. Importantly we do look towards Waitangi itself to symbolise that and so this bill is about updating the structure of governance. Under the original Act and trust deed there are eight representative members. One comes from the family of Archdeacon Henry Williams. I in fact met his I think great great—oh I have forgotten exactly. I met a guy called Bill Ludbrook. Sorry Bill that I have forgotten the exact connection but Bill Ludbrook joined me at Karaka Bay representing the Williams family. It was again an incredibly powerful moment as obviously the descendants of Ngāti Paoa were there and here was this descendant of Archdeacon Henry Williams sharing the story as had been passed on to him. Again it was a remarkably powerful moment. The families of Hone Heke Maihi Kāwiti Tāmati Waka Nene and Pōmare are represented by Pita Paraone who is currently sitting for the New Zealand First Party. Pita I do not know how you balance one family let alone four but kudos to you sir. I think we will come back to that as well because one of the discussions that have come through the debate tonight is around the inequities. There is a representative for Māori living in the North Auckland peninsula Māori living in the rest of the North Island Pākehā living in the Bay of Islands the family of Edward Gibbon Wakefield and number eight is a prominent person in the life of our country and that is the Sir Don McKinnon at the moment. I think it is good to mention his name and acknowledge his work. When we talk of a prominent New Zealander it is the calibre of Sir Don that we are talking about. There are four members ex officio those being the Prime Minister the Minister of Conservation the Minister for Māori Development and of course His Excellency the Governor-General or who he or she chooses. With the review of the Act changes are being suggested. Importantly the likes of the Governor-General and Ministers will be removed from these ex officio positions. They will continue to be able to engage. I understand the Governor-General is able to be the patron—is that right?Hon Members: Yes.SIMON O'CONNOR: I think that is really important. The Governor-General is a very visible expression of our Sovereign Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth. That connection with Māori and with this country is incredibly important. So I am pleased to see that although he is no longer his representative ex officio maintains a place. The new board will also see the Ministers stepping away. In some ways that could remove any perceived conflicts of interest or confusion. Instead what we are going to see are two members of Parliament nominated. I am not going to make a pitch for that role—I am not sure you really want me talking much more beyond the 10 minutes of tonight—but one of those will be put forward by the Government and one by the Leader of the Opposition. I note here in some notes that I have put down that the bill by removing the Governor-General and the Ministers removes the risk of as I say conflicts between their constitutional roles and that of trustees. It also removes the risk of legal and reputational issues for the Crown. I think one of the really key elements here is for this new board as they talk in legal terms to be treated as a natural person. In other words the trust board moving forward once this bill goes through its third reading should be allowed to basically borrow money pay it off as it sees fit and make the decisions that we as individuals or as natural persons are able to do. I think that is very positive. The last issue—because I am conscious the bell has rung—is ultimately there are—Tim Macindoe: Let’s have more.Joanne Hayes: Keep going.SIMON O'CONNOR: Really? Do we want to move an extension of time?Tim Macindoe: More on the royal family.SIMON O'CONNOR: Well we could ask them to come down but I am not sure they necessarily always will. But actually they play a critical part. One of the major elements has been that of inequity. The Treaty is based on partnership and working together. At the moment we have four individuals of Pākehā descent—as important as it is—being represented and then we have four Māori families represented by one person. Regardless of who that is it is still one for four and four for four—not really the way to go. So what this bill is doing is bringing about an opportunity for more Māori representation. I think that is incredibly positive. I would say to that harkening back to what I discussed at Karaka Bay that obviously Waitangi is a place for all of New Zealand and the Treaty is something that was experienced in multiple places in New Zealand by multiple families—Pākehā and Māori. Personally I would like to see that diversity of representation go much broader than just the geography of Waitangi and the place of Waitangi itself. I understand the Minister is going to be conducting a review. I also understand she came before the Māori Affairs Committee which I think is fantastic and had a lengthy discussion with members outlining what she is interested in doing. I trust and hope that the select committee itself engaged with its expectations too which will inform that review going forward. I think this Government is very proud of its work around matters to do with the Treaty. It would be remiss of me—primarily because he is in the House—to not acknowledge the Hon Chris Finlayson for the work that he continues to do around Treaty settlements. Again I think—Waitangi National Trust Board Amendment BillSpeech - SIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is tragic to have to interrupt the member; however his time has expired.[Continuation line: Kelvin Davis]Waitangi National Trust Board Amendment BillSpeech - KELVIN DAVIS (Labour—Te Tai Tokerau)KELVIN DAVIS (Labour—Te Tai Tokerau):Initially I would just like to take umbrage with the comments from Marama Fox who said that she was going to be at Waitangi this year for the first time instead of being at Carterton and saying that she was concerned walking a couple of feet behind the Prime Minister that she might be pelted with something. On behalf of all Ngāpuhi I would just like to say that I am taking umbrage at that. Anybody who has worked with Ngāpuhi such as the Hon Chris Finlayson will know that we are a calm dignified rational iwi who will always resort to diplomacy to resolve any of our issues and to suggest that there will be trouble amongst Ngāpuhi is just ludicrous. I would like to go straight to the issue around the tūpuna Māori. I am not on the Māori Affairs Committee but it just so happened on this day I was subbing in for somebody and Arapeta Hamilton submitted saying that it was unfair that the four Māori families had one representative and other families had a representative each. Arapeta’s mother and my father are first cousins and like Peeni Pōmare who is mentioned in this bill is our great great great great grandfather. We are direct descendants. He was a contemporary of Kāwiti and I have to say I agree with what Pita Paraone said earlier when he wondered why Maihi Kāwiti is the representative ancestor of the Kāwiti family when Te Ruki was his father.[Continuation line: By having Maihi instead of Te Ruki you are sort of omitting the]KELVIN DAVISBy having Maihi instead of Te Ruki you are sort of omitting the father and I think it would be better to have Te Ruki and acknowledge Maihi Kāwiti as part of that whānau. Then we have the Hone Heke whānau. As we know Hone Heke was the first signatory of the Treaty. I will just come back to that. We also have the Tāmati Waka Nene whānau whose father Tapua was one of the first people to go out and greet Captain Cook when he arrived in Whangaroa not far from the Cavalli Islands where Dover Samuels does a lot of fishing. But just to go back to Hone Heke being the first signatory of the Treaty my tupuna Pōmare who is included in this bill signed the Treaty on 17 February not 6 February. He was a bit miffed that his name might be under a name that he considered inferior to his so he and few others signed on top. So if you actually look at the signatories of the Treaty of Waitangi the third name down is Pōmare of Ngāti Manu which is our hāpu. But there are two Pōmares. I just really want to correct history because you see in a lot of books they often get the names mixed up.[Continuation line: The first Pōmare was born Whiria and often they say his name was Whētoi]KELVIN DAVISThe first Pōmare was born Whiria and often they say his name was Whētoi  and Whētoi was actually his nephew. When Whiria died—he met his Waterloo down in Nanaia Mahuta’s neck of woods on the Waipā River . To commemorate his name his nephew Whētoi took his name and became Pōmare. Pōmare’s name is actually a Tahitian name and when some European captain came over he brought with him a couple of Tahitian translators interpreters because the languages in those days were pretty similar. The Tahitian said actually the king of Tahiti is our King Pōmare. And my ancestor Whiria the first person who became Pōmare here said: “Well if it’s good enough for the king of Tahiti to be named Pōmare I’ll take that name.” So that is how he became Pōmare. Anyway he died in about 1826 and Whētoi his nephew took the name Pōmare and he is the signatory of the Treaty of Waitangi. An interesting—well I find it interesting—fact is that his son Hare had married a woman called Hāriata from Te Ahuahu and around Ōhaeāwai  and they went over the England as part of a group—a concert party I think—and they had an audience with Queen Victoria. Hāriata at that time was pregnant. Queen Victoria said to her: “If that baby is a girl name her after me Victoria. If it’s a boy name him after my husband.”—who was Albert Victor the consort. So she had the baby and he was the first Māori to be born in England. He was a boy so he was named Albert Victor Pōmare. Queen Victoria said she wanted to be his godmother. So she became his godmother. She presented him with some clothes—a christening gown which we still have in possession somewhere; it might be in a museum but I have handled it; it is still there—a gold goblet a knife fork and spoon and other gifts. Queen Victoria paid for his tuition at St Stephen’s School . He in later life joined the Royal Navy and after that we believe he may have been shipwrecked in America and strangely enough mistaken for a runaway slave; we are just not quite sure where Albert Victor Pomare went. We lost track of him after that. But the name Albert Victor or Arapeta Wikita is a name that runs through our family—the Pomare family—to the extent that the submitter Albert Victor Hamilton or Arapeta Wikita Hamilton was the relation of mine who submitted saying that it was unfair that the Māori families had only one representative. I entirely endorse his sentiment. It is only right that the Māori whānau have the same level of representation as the non-Māori whānau. So Whētoi Pōmare signed the Treaty of Waitangi. He is a signatory to what I have often referred to in this House as the bridge between the Māori and the Pākehā New Zealand that we know today which is sort of ironic because my mother’s father—my Pākehā grandfather—actually physically built the bridge from Te Tii Marae over to the other side of the Waitangi River. That bridge I believe might have been opened at the same time in 1934 as the first Waitangi Day was held. I recall seeing as a child a number of black and white photos that my mother had in a photo album of the huge crowds at Waitangi on that day in 1934. It is just interesting that my Pākehā grandfather literally built a bridge and my Māori great-great-great-great-grandfather metaphorically built the bridge that is the Treaty of Waitangi. We have heard the history about the Treaty grounds and how it basically fell into neglect after the Treaty was signed. It was in the 1880s when I think it was Mrs Busby who sold it off. There were some Māori chiefs who wanted to have a ceremonial whare built there and the Government of the day declined it. Eventually we had a ceremonial wharenui built there and it was opened in 1940 to commemorate the centenary. As somebody who grew up in the Bay of Islands I spent a lot of time around the Treaty grounds—not necessarily so much because I was visiting but because the golf course is next door and there is a hole that runs up the hill and I have got a terrible hook shot and had to climb over the fence a number of times to go and retrieve balls. The Waitangi Treaty grounds—I grew up with it. I have visited it a number of times and it is a big part of New Zealand. I take what people say though. Waitangi is becoming greater than just the geographical area of Waitangi now. The whole meaning of Waitangi and the Treaty of Waitangi spreads out to the Cartertons of the world and to all around New Zealand. We do support this bill and we look forward to it becoming law. Kia ora.[Continuation line: Andrew Bayley]Waitangi National Trust Board Amendment BillSpeech - ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua)ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): It is a pleasure to be speaking on the Waitangi National Trust Board Amendment Bill . But before I do so I just want to acknowledge Mr Pita Paraone as the representative of iwi family on the board and also as chair and I also pass on my condolences to Mr Peeni Henare of course in his time of need and acknowledge the great contribution that his father made towards the trust. As New Zealanders we all recognise the importance of Waitangi given its historical significance and because it is embedded in our national heritage. It is a site where our bicultural nationhood actually began. Its heritage status is actually unquestioned. For me personally it also is a place of great meaning. The Baylys have farmed alongside Waitangi trust land for many many years. In fact my brother and sister-in-law currently lease some of the trust land where you often see my brother’s Angus heifers grazing. As such I have been a regular visitor to Waitangi over many many years. There is nothing like the hot summers of the north and the colours of the sea in the harbour. When you look across the harbour to think of the strange quaint place of Russell  and to think back in the early 1840s and how it was described as a den of inequity of the Pacific it is a hard thing to envisage. Named after the British aristocracy the charm of the settlement today is a far cry from that infamy. The local population was attracted to a mixture of deserters from ships escaped convicts from Botany Bay in Australia brothels grog sellers whalers and traders—all growing fat on all the incomers to that area. Nowadays there is little hint of that sordid past. What I like is how the Waitangi National Trust actually defines Waitangi. It is “a place for all New Zealanders a place of accord for all peoples. A place standing central to our history as a nation and at the centre of growth of our nation.” The trust’s vision for Waitangi for 2020 is to be a place of relevance to all New Zealanders to be New Zealand’s most important historical place to be an important tourism destination to operate in a sustainable long-term organisation and to be a model for bicultural development. After the signing of the Treaty in 1840 the Busby family continued to own the land and property and the house fell into disrepair. It was not until 1832 when the Governor-General and Lord Bledisloe and his wife visited the Bay of Islands and agreed to acquire the 1000 acres plus the house with a view of gifting it to the nation. This historic spot the Treaty house and that land was formally handed over to New Zealand on 6 February 1934 commencing a tradition of what is now known obviously as Waitangi Day .[Continuation line: The deed of the Waitangi National Trust]ANDREW BAYLYThe deed of the Waitangi National Trust drawn up in 1932 sets out the objectives for the Treaty grounds. The first board comprised the Bledisloes—as the donors—the Prime Minister Ministers representatives from certain Māori families and representatives from the Busby Williams and Wakefield families. The latter family—the Wakefields—I have got to say I am related to through my mother’s family. The board today continues to include descendants from all the families involved those 83 years ago but with the passage of time it is obviously now important to look at how the structure of that trust is established and to set it on a new course that is modernised and relevant to its current purpose. The trust is currently self-funded and carries out the work of maintaining the Treaty grounds without calling on the cost to the people of New Zealand. The original Act the Waitangi National Trust Board Act 1932 has been examined in detail by the Māori Affairs Committee which unanimously recommended that it should be passed with a list of amendments. This Government seeks to strengthen the financial viability and governance structure of the trust. So it is done really with the purpose that all New Zealanders and visitors alike continue to benefit from this historical site and there is nothing better than to be in Waitangi at dawn for the service or to watch the changing of the guard and the raising of the flag on those hallowed grounds. This amendment bill addresses the representation on the trust. At present the board has two sets of representatives: one being ex officio members being the Prime Minister the Ministers of Conservation and Māori Development as well as the Governor-General; and the second group being the representatives of the families of the Pākehā and Māori individuals who were prominent in New Zealand’s colonial past. In the case of the second group there is obviously a current disparity between the representatives of the Pākehā families where there is one for each and the representative for the Māori families being one member only. This committee’s deliberations recommend that each of the four Māori families have their own representatives. Although this will increase the number on the trust board it is a logical outcome. The other step change in this bill concerns the ex officio members—namely the removal of the Governor-General and Ministers from the position on the board. If the Governor-General so wishes he or she may become an honorary patron of the trust. Thirdly forming a group of Crown representatives to continue to maintain the communication and sharing of information with the board was recommended. This group is going to consist of the Prime Minister the Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage and the Minister of Māori Development. Two additional MPs are going to be appointed one from the Government and one from the Opposition. The removal of the Governor-General and the Ministers from the ex officio positions clarifies their roles and removes any ambiguity over their constitutional role versus their roles as trustees. A clear separation between the Government and the board will therefore exist while at the same time ensuring that positive work continues to exist on that board. Consideration is also being given to the maximum term of board members. They will be limited to 9 years being three terms of 3 years. At the moment there is no such constraint and there is a transitional measure that allows any person currently getting close to a 9-year term to roll that over for an initial 3-year term. That will help in a transitional sense to ensure ongoing representation during this period of change. I also just want to highlight the fact that this Government is absolutely focused on settling grievances. Under the Hon Chris Finlayson we have signed 46 deeds of settlement since 2008 and as at February this year 72 deeds of settlement have been signed and 43 of these have been passed into the legislation. These represent over two-thirds of the land area of New Zealand and nearly half of all of the settlements that we expect to settle. And of course we have set ourselves a target that by 2017 all willing and able iwi will have deeds of settlement in place. This Government places much importance on settling grievances and also what we are doing with this bill is putting in place a modern framework that will help to continue that process. I want to particularly acknowledge the work of the Māori Affairs Committee and also the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations in supporting this bill.[Continuation line: Organised Crime and Anti-corruption Legislation Bill 2R: Hon Amy Adams]Organised Crime and Anti-corruption Legislation BillSpeech - JACINDA ARDERN (Labour)JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): It is my pleasure to speak on the Organised Crime and Anti-corruption Legislation Bill. It is a bill that has been some time coming. It was first brought to this House by Judith Collins when she was Minister of Justice. We were told that it would be ready in 2013 but it came to us in 2014. But needless to say this is an area that of course is crucial to all parties in this House. I guess it is important to us as a nation that we continue to uphold our standing in the international community for doing our bit in this area. It does require cooperation and collaboration if it is going to function properly. Labour for instance recognised that when it set up the Organised and Financial Crime Agency of New Zealand within the police I believe in 2008. But it is not just about reputational issues abroad. Obviously making sure that we keep our own house in order is incredibly important. I just want to use these introductory comments as an opportunity to point out that the Serious Fraud Office is one of the best mechanisms that we have to make sure we maintain our own domestic high standards when it comes to fraud bribery and corruption. That is an organisation that has in the past few Budgets now sought additional funding to do its job. It warned the Government for instance of its concern that there might be additional issues around corruption as a result of the massive amount infrastructural rebuild occurring in Christchurch. That was a bid that was declined. Instead it was left just simply to do presentations around the importance of being vigilant around corruption in Canterbury. Equally the agency has warned that it is not able to prosecute as many cases as potentially it would like to. It is something that I thought prudent to raise. We do need to make sure that we keep our own house in order even though today we are primarily discussing our international obligations in implementing this legislation. Transparency International is one organisation that does a very good job of keeping in check where New Zealand sits relative to other countries. We have a branch that operates in New Zealand but it is part of a wider reporting regime that takes into account what kinds of mechanisms New Zealand is implementing to make sure we remain a transparent corruption-free country. We in the past have fared very well. We had a slight slip in the last measure. We are at No. 2. No one wants to celebrate coming second. Denmark pipped us at the post. In part I believe it has been flagged that the fact that we have not quite implemented some of these obligations has been part of the reason why. That is because this is an omnibus bill. It implements proposals including around the all-of-Government response to organised crime which it started back in 2011. But it also aims to improve New Zealand’s ability to cooperate with international partners it ratifies the UN Convention against Corruption it implements the agreement between the US and New Zealand on enhancing cooperation and preventing and combatting crime and also enhances New Zealand’s compliance with a number of other international conventions including the OECD Convention on Combatting Bribery which I think is something that Transparency International is particularly interested in. There were 20 submissions to this bill. One of the ones though and the area that I want to focus on the most because there are a number of really important points raised around a point that the Minister touched on and that was the facilitation payments exception that exists in this law.[Continuation line: Labour overall is supporting this bill.]JACINDA ARDERNLabour overall is supporting this bill. I should point that out. But we do have some reservations around the fact that we do still have a facilitation payments exception in this bill. I thought making reference to a bit of the background on this and also the submissions that were made against it would be useful for the House. New Zealand’s foreign bribery offence contains as the Minister said a very narrow exception for small payments to be made to foreign public officials for the sole or primary purpose of ensuring or expediting the performance of a “routine Government action”. These are not for instance the kinds of things that you might pay as part of tariffs or as part of customs duty or anything like that. These are direct payments to Government officials or public officials to help facilitate and expedite a particular activity. I think we should be very clear that in making this payment you are expediting yourself over and above someone else who has not made that payment. I think that is clear in the way it is described. The exception though states that for such a payment to be lawful in New Zealand law it must be small and I would be interested to hear from members of the committee whether or not there was a discussion over what the definition of “small” was. Was it relative to what the payment was being made for? Was it sized in any way? Will you make a bigger exception around what “small” is depending on the size of the country or the activity? It must be small for an action within the scope of the official’s ordinary duties—obviously if you are paying a port inspector it has to be around port issues—and not involve a decision about awarding new business or continuing existing business. So it is about facilitating business that would otherwise occur. Examples of facilitation payments include “small payments relating to the grant of a permit or licence the provision of utility services or loading or unloading cargo.” Again it would be really useful for the House if members—I believe that the Hon Phil Goff was on the select committee; perhaps he could share with us some of the examples that might have been raised at committee because I do think that it is a fine line. It is a fine line and who is making the judgment over what is routine what it small and where you decide there is a difference between—[Interruption] Either Jonathan Young has a contribution that he will hopefully make in the House or he is talking to himself. I am not sure but hopefully at some point he might make a contribution and talk me through some of way it was discussed by the committee. There were a number of submissions—I believe three—that were quite explicit about this point in the bill and had concerns about it including I believe the Human Rights Commission and Transparency International New Zealand. Apparently these submissions were fairly similar in the concerns that they raised. Their points I think were good points so I want to reiterate them and highlight them in this House. Their points were that such payments are bribes regardless of their size. If they are not something that is applied universally and equally to all applicants then how is it not considered a bribe? The conventions that we are party to do not distinguish between facilitation payments and bribes and therefore there was a concern that by having this exception we might actually fall foul of the conventions we are trying to make sure that we are ratifying in this law. Also thirdly the OECD and Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation also encourage businesses to eliminate the use of such payments. I noticed that the Minister in her speech said that these kinds of payments exist in comparable countries to us—Australia and the United States she referenced. They do not exist in the UK. It has explicitly ruled out being able to use exemptions like these and obviously for good reason. In the response from the ministry it has said that it does not believe the exception is likely to fall foul of the conventions. How do we know? Were we able to seek advice beyond our ministry officials on whether or not we would actually fall foul of those conventions by having this exception? The ministry also raised that in the UK they have made the point that for small payments they are unlikely to prosecute. It is a very big difference to say you are not going to prosecute small payments versus creating an exemption in law that explicitly says you can do it. One is much more permissive than the other so I do think that there are still considerable questions to be answered about this part of the bill which really does let down what otherwise I think is a very useful bill and one that we should all be supporting not only for our international reputation but also to make sure we spread best practice domestically as well. Thank you.[Continuation line: Bakshi]Organised Crime and Anti-corruption Legislation BillSpeech - KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National)KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker for the opportunity to speak during the second reading of the Organised Crime and Anti-corruption Legislation Bill. First of all I would like to commend the Minister of Justice the Hon Amy Adams for progressing this bill. Even though our country has robust domestic law arrangements and enforcement and has low levels of corruption we still need to keep working on becoming more immune from domestic and internationally generated organised crime. I would also like to thank the members of the Law and Order Committee and the officials who guided us through this process. The committee received 20 written submissions and heard 11 orally. There were changes recommended to the bill that appear to be accepted by all the members. The last speaker Jacinda Ardern raised the issue of facilitation payments an issue that came up during the discussion of this bill. It was debated at length and the members of the Opposition also agreed that if we do not have this provision then we are taking away opportunities from New Zealand businesses who are dealing in those areas. These are minor payments and it has been particularly worded so that the facilitation payment is not included as a bribe in this bill because these payments are very small in nature for an action within the scope of an official’s ordinary duty and that does not involve a decision about awarding new business or continuing existing business. One of the examples that was given during the select committee was that in some countries to move a file from one desk to another desk sometimes you have to give some facilitation payment to officials. That is not a huge amount. It is token money that is paid and it makes the work easy for businesses to deal with such situations. If they do not pay then these files keep sitting on the first desk and not move to the next level. So that was the reason for the payments and we had a very discussion and Opposition members also participated in this. The member who was speaking before me was not present at the select committee. She does not have any idea of what discussions we had at the select committee so I want to clarify that and let her know that this discussion took place and all the members agreed that we do not want to put New Zealand businesses at a disadvantage and we want to make sure that they are on a level playing field. Another issue that came up which was also discussed at length was the commencement date of the bill. Originally it was proposed that the bill should be implanted on 1 January 2016 but the banks and the union of the banks came and suggested that it will be very hard on them to implement the software upgrade so that the provisions in this bill can be implemented. I think it was a very reasonable call and the committee considered that and the commencement date was moved to 12 months after the date of signature of the Government-General. These are some of the issues that were raised during the select committee. Another issue that I would like to touch on and that was discussed at the select committee and raised by the banks was that individual names in prescribed transaction reports should be removed. It was proposed that the name of the employee from the bank who has conducted that transaction should be made public or known to the police. But banks were very hesitant about this clause and they did not agree to this.[Continuation line: This was amended and we made the change and removed the requirement]KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHIThis was amended. We made a change and removed the requirement that the individual employee be named in the prescribed transaction report. This information is not necessary for intelligence purposes and can be requested by the New Zealand Police if necessary. If there is a reason for it then the police can ask the bank for the name of the person who has completed that transaction. Another issue that I would like to discuss today is that some of the issues were raised by the Privacy Commissioner during their submission and they were considered in the Law and Order Committee. A special provision as the Minister mentioned was omitted during the process but it had already been discussed in Cabinet that the Commissioner of Police before entering any agreement with international agencies or renewing the existing agreement has to have a discussion with the Privacy Commissioner so that they are satisfied with the provisions of the agreement. This is all because we want to keep it transparent. This Government is working to have world-class and transparent laws available and transparent laws so that there is ease of doing business. Requests for certain types of transactions to be exempted from the prescribed transaction report and requirement and extending the maximum of time of the period of submission of such reports and date of commencement—there is uncertainty as to which reporting entities involved in international oil transfers will be required to make a prescribed transaction report. Also there are concerns that the penalty for failing to report prescribed transactions was too high. One of the major priorities of this National-led Government is to make communities safer for New Zealanders. We are working hard to prevent people from becoming involved in organised crime. This bill aims to strengthen the law to combat organised crime and corruption. We are committed to being part of tackling this global problem and protecting the country from threats posed by international and domestic criminal networks. Once again I would like to mention a few points about how this bill will achieve our purposes. It implements a proposal containing an all-of-Government response to organised crime which was reported in August 2011 when the Government released an all-of-Government response to organised crime. It was realised that even though New Zealand has got a strong legislative framework in practice to obstruct organised crime a number of amendments are required to address the gap in law and they are reflected in this omnibus bill. The bill will ensure that law enforcement agencies are able to quickly and effectively respond to new challenges. We all want to maintain New Zealand’s reputation as a fair and transparent country. People from more than 200 different ethnicities live in New Zealand and our country ensures that everyone is treated fairly. This bill will improve New Zealand’s ability to cooperate with international partners to disrupt organised crime and enhance New Zealand’s compliance with a number of international conventions including the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions and the United Nations anti-trafficking protocol. One of the significant challenges for us is to reduce the use of cannabis and methamphetamine which leads to physical as well as mental ill health. I would like to acknowledge the New Zealand Police for helping us in tackling this problem through their recent implementation of organised crime and methamphetamine control strategy in coordination with customs. Apart from reducing drug-related harm especially to the vulnerable population like youth we are also focusing on issues like robberies theft and fraud. This will help raise awareness especially in young ones of the potential harm that these drugs could cause. We want to be able to reduce people’s desire for illegal and illegally sourced goods and services that further increase the risk involved with offending. The penalty for bribery and corruption types of offences under the Secret Commissions Act 1910 will increase from a maximum of 2 years’ imprisonment to a maximum of 7 years’ imprisonment. I commend this bill to the House.[Continuation line: Hon Phil Goff]Organised Crime and Anti-corruption Legislation BillSpeech - Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill)Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill): The Labour Party will be supporting this piece of legislation but we are not entirely happy with every aspect of it and I want to differ with the chair of our Law and Order Committee in terms of the view of the Labour Party on facilitation payments. I raised a number of questions particularly when Transparency International was appearing before the committee because I believed that Transparency International New Zealand  the Human Rights Commission and the Victoria University of Wellington School of Government all made a very valid point when they said that it is impossible to distinguish where a facilitation payment ends and a bribe begins. A bribe does not have to be a big bribe to be a bribe. A small bribe is still a bribe. If I was to offer a Customs Service official in New Zealand money to speed up the transaction that I was trying to get into the country I would be committing a crime in this country. Why is it a crime in this country to do that but if I am working overseas somewhere in South-east Asia and I offer that payment somehow it is not a crime! If it is a crime in New Zealand then it is a crime internationally. I think that what Transparency International said made a lot of sense. It pointed out that there are countries that have banned facilitation payments outright. The United Kingdom you will remember is one such country that says that facilitation payments are illegal. The officials came back to us and said “Oh but they aren’t prosecuting small facilitation payments.” They might not be but they are still illegal. The Canadians have moved to make facilitation payments illegal. Transparency International said that the United States and Australia are also moving in that direction. My question to the National Party is: if we are really proud of our reputation of being the least corrupt country in the world why are we not leading on this aspect of facilitation payments? We ought to be. We ought to be leading on that to maintain our reputation for the highest possible standards of integrity and transparency. It is also true that other organisations that we are proudly part of have spoken out against facilitation payments. APEC—Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation—has opposed facilitation payments. The OECD which we are a member of has opposed facilitation payments. In New Zealand the Serious Fraud Office and Business New Zealand working in conjunction with Transparency International put together a programme where they recommend that facilitation payments are not paid. Some questions were asked of officials at the select committee about whether this would hugely disadvantage New Zealand if others are acting corruptly and we are not able to do the same. Well I do not think that is a good excuse because if we are encouraging other countries in which we are conducting our business to stamp out corruption why would we then say that it is OK to make a facilitation payment? We would not because that is a double standard. There was a survey done of New Zealand businesses in 2009 a business survey conducted by Trace International. It found that more than three quarters of the survey respondents believed that it was possible to do business successfully without making facilitation payments if they planned carefully and they did proper management support.[Continuation line: So I do not accept that facilitation payments are]Hon PHIL GOFFSo I do not accept that facilitation payments are OK. In fact in the United Nations Convention Against Corruption in article 16 there is nowhere where it says that a bribe has to be a big bribe in order to be a bribe. In fact it defines that form of corruption—bribery of foreign public officials—as when you promise or offer or give to a foreign official or person in an international organisation directly or indirectly any undue advantage for the official themselves. That is a payment. That is surely an undue advantage. You are not paying customs officially to make the transaction; you are paying the officials to grease their palms to get something that gives you an advantage. The other part of the definition is that it needs to be an act that does create undue advantage and if you are prepared to pay a facilitation payment or rather if a business is prepared to—I know you would not personally do any such thing Mr Assistant Speaker—to make a facilitation payment it is to get an advantage. They do not want to queue up. They do not want it to take time. They want it now and it gives them an advantage. So I cannot see how anyone can read article 16 of the United Nations Against Corruption as allowing facilitation payments because they are small and they are perhaps not that important. If you believe in the process of having a clear line then you do not make a payment that is not an official payment and a payment that goes into the pocket of an official to get an advantage. Yet in this piece of legislation here we are saying that that is OK. I do not believe that it is OK. The other criticism—in so far as I have a criticism of this bill—is the length of time that it has taken to get here. The matters that this bill deals with are important matters. They are matters of large-scale criminal activities. It is designed to make sure that our law against organised crime is as tough as it needs to be. It needs to be a lot tougher because we know that if we take one aspect of organised crime and that is the manufacture and sale of methamphetamine that is a business infiltrated by organised crime that makes more than a billion New Zealand dollars a year in this country. That is a billion dollars going into the pockets of organised crime to promote drugs and we have taken a long time to bring our legislation up to the standard that makes it easier for us to crack down on that sort of organised criminal activity. You can look at money-laundering as another offence that is strengthened in this bill. Money-laundering is when you convert the proceeds of crime into a legitimate payment by cleansing that money and making it a payment on property or some such thing that makes it look legitimate. Money-laundering in this country in the Government’s own regulatory impact statement is estimated to be at a value of over $1.5 billion a year. That is $1.5 billion a year in criminal activity being laundered. So why is it that we had to be criticised first by international organisations about the inadequacy of our money-laundering organisation before we acted? Those criticisms date back to 2009. It is now 2015 and I ask the Government why it took 6 years to bring back to the House this necessary piece of legislation dealing with criminal activity to the value of $1.5 billion a year. Of course what this legislation also does is to enable us to ratify the United Nations Convention Against Corruption. We were one of the first countries to sign it 11 years ago and we will be one of the last countries to actually ratify it. We will be one of the last countries that signed it to ratify it and bring it into force. I want to know why if we are so proud of our role of being a good international citizen it took all of that time—the whole 7 years of this Government—to actually act on something that needed to occur. It is not good enough that we turned a blind eye to these things. We lowered the priority we did all sorts of other legislation but we did not crack down on criminal activity. There are a range of things that this bill enables us to do. We can not only now ratify the convention against corruption but we can also improve our compliance with things like the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions the UN Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime and the United Nations anti-trafficking protocol. If I take that instance of trafficking again why has it taken so long to crack down on that when we know the appalling human costs and consequences of trafficking? What is finally before the House we support but it took too damn long for it to get here and we need some explanation of that from the Government and some explanation of why a small bribe is OK but we will criminalise a large bribe. Where is the line drawn? Why are facilitation payments exempted from being defined as bribery when clearly that is exactly what they are and what they are intended to do?[Continuation line: Todd Barclay]Organised Crime and Anti-corruption Legislation BillSpeech - TODD BARCLAY (National—Clutha-Southland)TODD BARCLAY (National—Clutha-Southland): It is a pleasure to speak on the Organised Crime and Anti-corruption Legislation Bill. I would just like to acknowledge the chair of the Law and Order Committee Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi and the Minister of Justice the Hon Amy Adams as well as the other members of the committee particularly those who have spoken already. This was one of two of the first pieces of legislation that I was privileged enough to work on in the Law and Order Committee and I have to say that it was certainly a piece of legislation about which I think all parties involved and all representatives across the House were certainly on the same page regarding the importance of this legislation. By and large we were all on the same page when we were talking to officials and submitters and representative agencies on the legislation and the importance of it. I just want to acknowledge a couple of the agencies and organisations that provided a lot of work and guidance on this particularly the Ministry of Justice the Police the Police Association the Privacy Commissioner and Transparency International for their guidance with regard to the international protocols and experiences around how other countries have adopted and implemented this legislation. I would also like to acknowledge the New Zealand Bankers’ Association and the three banks that submitted separately— ANZ Westpac and BNZ. Collectively for those organisations as well as for the agencies involved there was a high level of constructive productive and pragmatic engagement and I think everybody at the heart of it wanted the best piece of legislation that could come out. We have already heard from the Minister and a number of other members tonight about some of the changes that have taken place in response to the concerns that were raised by the various submitters in order to make the legislation the very best it can be. We have already heard from Mr Goff about the value of money-laundering as reported by the departmental report at $1.5 billion. That is a serious aspect of the economy that could provide obviously dangerous flow-on effects to some vulnerable New Zealanders. While we are talking about why this legislation may have taken a little bit longer to progress than it could have—while we are looking at vulnerable New Zealanders we have passed other pieces of legislation that have tried to protect them as well such as that resulting from the White Paper for Vulnerable Children and a number of education amendment bills. So I think that we have given this piece of legislation the priority it deserves. One of the advantages potentially of implementing the legislation behind some of the other countries that ratified the UN convention is that although we may have been one of the first to sign and one of the last to eventually progress the legislation it means that we have had the luxury of being able to look at how other countries have articulated the challenges that were raised as they were progressing the legislation in their respective countries. We have been able to take those perspectives and craft our own unique legislation which draws on the challenges and inconsistencies that may have been experienced by others. So I think there is an advantage in that and it means that New Zealand has truly got a piece of unique legislation picking the best from other countries that we compare ourselves with. There are just a couple of points that the Minister has raised that I think are important given that that probably draws into another reason why it is has taken a little bit longer to progress the legislation and that is that a number of aspects and indeed the changes that have been incorporated through the select committee stage are minor and highly technical in nature.[Continuation line: As we have heard from a number of the banks]TODD BARCLAYAs we have heard from a number of the banks such as the Banks Association ANZ and Westpac the nature of the systems and software that these organisations already have in place and already provide reporting mechanisms to police with is complex and unique and takes time to change. I think as a committee we did this legislation a lot of justice by taking the time to get a greater understanding of some of those complexities. Westpac articulated that it provides banking and insurance and investment services across a broad range of industries to a broad range of clients. It estimates that it has around 1.4 million customers. When this legislation does finally progress and the regulations have been implemented it estimates that it will be required to report around 2000 transactions per day. So we have got a duty to be able to make sure that if it is having to do this we have got the right frameworks in place from the outset so that when it spends millions of dollars on developing its software to meet the requirements of Parliament and the regulations that follow that money has not been wasted and it is not having to go back and repeat and redo the software based on changes we may have to make later on down the track. BNZ is in a similar situation. Internationally it expects that across the world it will have about 5 million to 7 million reportable transactions annually. They are not small numbers and given the threshold of payments that are reportable—as low as $1000 and most of these are electronic transactions and they happen numerous times on a daily basis—I think that if these organisations are going to be reporting these to police they need to be able to have some clear understanding of what is actually necessary from a police perspective and the collection agency of these transactions. They need to have a clear understanding of what is actually required from the outset because it will be a hugely costly exercise to ensure that both sides of the spectrum have the necessary software to be able to take on board the transactions that come about. The Minister and other members have also reported that obviously this is a borderless and global environment we are acting within. I do not think I can remember the last time I actually gave a cash sum of over probably about $100. If you look at most members of this House we do use our banks’ online mechanisms to make payments so it is very important. As we have heard from a number of members tonight the organised criminal networks—Jacinda Ardern: You use cash?TODD BARCLAY: Cash? I use cash every now and again. I use an Eftpos card a credit card from time to time. I do not use credit cards on undesirable things. I do not use my parliamentary credit card where I should not either. The all-of-Government response to organised crime has been an important aspect of this and we have heard that the Ministry of Justice has played a huge role. Another aspect that the Banks Association raised in its submission on the bill was that it felt that the bill did not adequately identify the form of information reported that should take the proposed method of delivery. It specifically raised an issue with section 48B of the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act where it requires that the nature of the transaction be reported. The association raised questions as to what kind of analysis is needed to be undertaken to make sure this determination was clearer. That is an example of an aspect within the bill where the Ministry of Justice went back and looked at it and took into consideration the views of the Banks Association. Another aspect was the time of implementation. The bill initially set down that after 12 months following the implementation of the Act the requirements will come into force. But as we know the regulations will take a long time following that to implement and the Ministry of Justice was quite clear that it—Hon Ruth Dyson: It’s OK to not take the full 10 minutes.TODD BARCLAY: I am enjoying this Ms Dyson. It is very fascinating. The ministry basically said that it will look at the legislation and will implement it as soon as the banks and everybody are in order. When Mr Goff was reflecting on money-laundering and why facilitation payments were not included I just wonder what hat he was wearing—whether he was wearing his hat as a member of the Law and Order Committee a former Minister of Justice or a former Minister of Trade—because if this was such a huge aspect of this bill that absolutely needed to be included I am not sure why he did not feel compelled to pass the legislation himself when he was the Minister of Justice and take a world-leading step as he said we should be here. Obviously as a former Minister of Trade he will know more than many of us that it is of the utmost importance that we ensure that our businesses are not disadvantaged on the global scale. We are already disadvantaged by the tyranny of distance; we do not need to be disadvantaged by other aspects that are just a general course of doing business overseas. Mr Bakshi has reflected that there were 20 submissions and 11 were heard orally. Particularly within two aspects of the bill the money-laundering side as one and organised crime as the other the themes that were coming through were incredibly consistent. We are comfortable that we have struck the right positioning of this bill to provide the best legislation for all parties involved to ensure that we are adhering to our obligations under the international treaties that we have ratified. Thank you very much. It is great to be passing this very important legislation and commending it.[continuation line: David Clendon]Organised Crime and Anti-corruption Legislation BillSpeech - DAVID CLENDON (Green)DAVID CLENDON (Green): I am also pleased to speak to this bill the Organised Crime and Anti-corruption Legislation Bill. It is an interesting bill. It has been around for some time. It has had time to mature clearly. The Greens are supporting it because it does some good things some necessary things. Time and technology move on. Technological developments create new opportunities for criminal elements to offend and to find ways to extract money in ways they ought not to do. We are however in common with our Labour colleagues disappointed by this bill to the extent that it fails to do something that it could do and that is clearly about this notion of bribes. I will avoid the language of “facilitation payments”. It is such a dainty expression. It simply overlooks or seeks to disguise the fact that actually you are talking about bribes—small bribes perfectly formed little bribes but bribes none the less. I will say more about that in a moment or two. This bill does some good things as I said. Among other things it will make it much more difficult for people to launder money through improper transactions and pass money through the banking system by various ways and means. It was quite an education I must say. Some of the early submitters to the Law and Order Committee were the banks and some of the major financial interests. It was genuinely interesting to hear about novel ways people find to work electronic systems that to most of us look to be quite impregnable and quite bulletproof. We did raise some concerns as did others about the very low level of reporting. A $1000 remittance overseas by a New Zealander will be tracked and will be recorded. I cannot recall now the number of transactions that that represents in the course of a year going through the banks—most of them the vast majority of them legitimate—but it was many millions of transactions. That is a difficult challenge technically for the banks. They got somewhat nervous I think about the commencement date initially making the very good point that they need to develop their software and their systems to accommodate that level of reporting. There was no opposition as such that I could see. They were simply concerned about their ability to meet the requirements of the bill. So those matters were dealt with. I continue to have some unease about the level of data that is being gathered here. As we know massive data banks information about people’s banking and their transactions can have value in all sorts of ways not least of all for commercial reasons. I discovered recently when visiting Spark in Auckland that there is a new and interesting profession called a data scientist people who can manage these massive databases extract information from them and discover patterns and trends within them. I am sure the police will do this for very good reasons for good and sound reasons. They will be looking for the patterns and trends that represent offending in some way. But equally that information is vulnerable to being mined and to being manipulated and applied for purely commercial or other reasons and for that reason I guess we will continue to have some level of scepticism about these massive databases and will want to be assured that over time they will be managed they will be eliminated whatever it takes to protect individuals’ privacy.[continuation line: The bill does some very useful things]DAVID CLENDONThe bill does some very useful things around people trafficking. It tidies up our law. It stiffens up some of our regulations. It criminalises actions in New Zealand even if the offending is carried out overseas and that is as it should be. New Zealanders should not be exempt from offences or from liability for offences simply because what they are doing is not currently criminalised in New Zealand. As I said though where we part company with this bill is that it is the perfect opportunity this legislation when it does deal with matters around money laundering about bribery and about anti-corruption measures to remove the section in the Crimes Act that allows for these so-called facilitation payments these small bribes. We have heard a number of justifications about why that is OK and they are common enough justifications. The pragmatic argument and Mr Bakshi made that in all honesty is that yes if you want your business matter to progress you might have to slip somebody a few dollars or whatever the currency is in order to progress that. But that is simply a bribe. It also embeds in that culture the notion that it is OK. Often the history of bribes and corrupt money exchanges is about the fact that people are not properly paid to do jobs not least of all in the public service in other countries where the income levels are so that actually the bribes supplement the income and allow those people simply to do well or at least to have decent lives and of course the potential to accumulate large fortunes. I think the pragmatic argument fails. I think we as a country with a very good reputation as a transparent country with very very low levels of corruption should exercise some leadership and not be afraid to simply say openly and publicly even in environments where bribes are commonplace: “No we do not do that. We do not go there.” I think we would be supporting those countries. Two of the countries with the most serious problems around corruption in the world are China and India two countries that are important trading partners for us. I think we could stand up and be the example in a sense. Yes it is true that some countries do allow for facilitation payments although it is interesting to note that typically the regulations the laws in those countries like Australia and like Canada are actually tougher than ours. I think the provision in this legislation to require the reporting of facilitation payments of small bribes catches us up with Australia where that is already obligatory. The penalties in those countries for overstepping the mark in terms of bribery internationally bribing foreign officials are more serious than ours. It is interesting to note that only 44 percent of the top 50 companies on the NZX have policies prohibiting bribery and 18 have policies that regulate facilitation payments. Compare that with the UK where of the top 100 companies there 72 explicitly prohibit giving and receiving bribes. The figure in Europe is around 57 percent. Only five companies in New Zealand on the NZX have codes of ethics that prohibit facilitation payments. As I say we have a very good reputation as being a country with very low levels of corruption. We also have a reputation as a clean green country. I think Transparency International is something of the Mike Joy in the same way that Mike Joy is blowing the whistle on our water quality and on the fact that our environment is not pristine. In the same way Transparency International is blowing the whistle on the fact that to the extent that we continue to accommodate accept and even legally allow for these small bribes we are undermining our reputation. It is interesting that Transparency International—the patron is one Sir Don McKinnon who we heard mentioned in an earlier debate today a former MP of this Government the National Government a Deputy Prime Minister if my memory serves me—is lobbying very hard for us to include in this bill the removal of that clause in the Crimes Act. It put out a media release just a day or two ago which I hope some members have seen and I would encourage those who have not to have a wee look at it. I think I was the only MP who attended a seminar a workshop over at Victoria University hosted by Michael Macaulay. I can never recall the name of school the department. It is the Institute of Governance and Policy Studies. He calls himself the “Professor of Corruption”. It was an excellent presentation from him from Transparency International that put up I think an undeniable argument that facilitation payments are bribes. We ought not in New Zealand to have provision in our legislation that enables New Zealand companies to be involved in bribing foreign Government officials. It is not the moment now to mention it but I will anyway. In the Committee stage I will lodge Supplementary Order Paper 76 which seeks to remove that provision from the Crimes Act. I would encourage Government members to have a look at that read what Michael Macaulay has had to say read what Transparency International is saying what the Human Rights Commission is saying and give some serious thought to whether now is the time to enhance our reputation as a country that does not tolerate corruption. Kia ora.[Continuation line: Mahesh Bindra]AdjournmentSpeech - KELVIN DAVIS (Labour—Te Tai Tokerau)KELVIN DAVIS (Labour—Te Tai Tokerau): Labour supports the Organised Crime and Anti-corruption Legislation Bill almost in its entirety as the previous speaker Ian McKelvie said. We do have a bit of a hiccup or a hang-up with facilitation payments which is a topic that has been traversed by almost every speaker here. I reflected on Jonathan Young’s contribution notwithstanding his story about having to tip a service worker in the States for a meal of grits. Might I say that service worker was probably being paid about 70 cents an hour back when Jonathan Young was 19 years of age on his trip to the States. You know who would begrudge offering a tip to somebody on that sort of income. I remember that in 2004 I was in the States and I was talking to the girlfriend of the person I was staying with who was a service worker at that time and she was paid $3 an hour. Working an 8-hour shift she was earning $24 but she made over $100 in tips. So we do not begrudge people earning tips. But he tried to make the point that that was a custom in the States and that facilitation payments are customs in other countries. I take issue with that. I think there is a fine line being drawn between what is called a facilitation payment and a bribe. If we look at what Transparency International says about facilitation payments it says: “There is no dressing this up. Facilitation payments are bribes and by failing to address them we are enshrining bribery in New Zealand law.” It almost sounded like Jonathan Young—and I know that he did not mean to make it sound like this—was defending bribery and corruption. The payment of money to an official to speed up a transaction—it does not matter how small or how large that sum of money is a bribe is a bribe. It is a bit like saying that you are only just pregnant. You are either pregnant or you are not. When I reflect on Ian McKelvie’s story about landing somewhere on an aeroplane and someone running up the steps and giving the pilot a payment which enabled all those passengers to get off without having to go through customs it makes you wonder what sort of crimes were hidden by that act. How many drugs went out of the airport without being picked up? How much laundered money had gone through the airport without having to go through customs? How many people were trafficked on that aeroplane? We do not know. So I do not think it is right that we can stand here and defend facilitation payments. The Hon Phil Goff was very eloquent and passionate in his summation of them. Basically bribery is bribery. It does not matter how big the sum of money is or how small the sum of money is facilitation payments are bribes. I think that we should absolutely follow the lead of Transparency International and not enshrine these in law. In fact Transparency International says it believes that ratification of the United Nations Convention Against Corruption will not be possible unless the proposed bill amends its stance on facilitation payments. We cannot stand here and say that we are going to ratify that convention and yet still have the capacity for officials to be bribed. I have to say that when this came in front of select committee I was quite concerned. I understood the arguments that yes it may facilitate speedy process for New Zealand businesses to do work overseas but in my heart of hearts I knew that there was something wrong with this and that it cannot be justified by our continuing to support it. The other comment that Jonathan Young made was around trafficking and I was quite astounded to hear that 70 percent of people-trafficking is for sexual exploitation. As most people know this is an issue that I am particularly concerned about.The House adjourned at 10 p.m.