THURSDAY, 12 MARCH 2020
The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.
Karakia.
BUSINESS STATEMENT
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Legislation to be considered by the House next week will include the remaining stages of the Abortion Legislation Bill and the New Zealand Māori Arts and Crafts Institute Vesting Bill, the third readings of the Taxation (KiwiSaver, Student Loans, and Remedial Matters) Bill and the Smoke-free Environments (Prohibiting Smoking in Motor Vehicles Carrying Children) Amendment Bill, and the first readings of the Regulatory Systems (Transport) Amendment Bill, the Organic Products Bill, the Child Support Amendment Bill, and the Gas (Information Disclosure and Penalties) Amendment Bill. The first general debate of the year will take place on Wednesday, 18 March.
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): I thank the Leader of the House for the update. Can I invite him, in the wake of the apparent propensity of the Government to have shortened select committee processes and perhaps more extended hours sittings between now and the House rising for the election, that he produce a longer time indication of when those extended hours could be in order that there could be good planning in the select committees?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I think that's a fair request. We've certainly been trying to give committees greater notice of when extended sittings will take place, and I'll certainly take that on board.





OBITUARIES
Sir Robert Fenwick
Hon JAMES SHAW (Minister for Climate Change): I seek leave to move a motion without notice or debate on the death of Sir Rob Fenwick. 
SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that? There appears to be none.
Hon JAMES SHAW: I move, That this House note its deep sadness on the recent death of Sir Rob Fenwick; recognise Sir Rob's outstanding contribution to the protection of nature and shaping a more sustainable New Zealand through his vision for a predator-free Aotearoa; his work to protect kiwi and other threatened species, to minimise waste, and to connect people, businesses, and communities in the service of people and nature; and that this House express its sincere condolences to Sir Rob's wife, Lady Jennie Fenwick, his family, friends, and colleagues.
Motion agreed to.





ORAL QUESTIONS
QUESTIONS TO MINISTERSQuestion No. 1—Prime Minister
1. Hon PAULA BENNETT (Deputy Leader—National) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all her Government's policies and actions?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: On behalf of the Prime Minister, yes.
Hon Paula Bennett: Does her Government intend to deliver on its commitment to providing light rail in Auckland?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Like so many things that this reformist Government is engaged in, it's a work in progress. We're still working through the fiscals, the policy itself—not just making a whole lot of promises, like the former Government, and not putting up one cent to back them up.
Hon Paula Bennett: Is the New Zealand Transport Agency website correct when it says, "The Auckland Transport Alignment Project … has committed to providing light rail between the City Centre and Māngere and to Auckland's north west within the next ten years"?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Actually, that sort of announcement sounds like the previous Government, frankly: "within the next ten years". We don't behave like that. This Government makes an announcement when we've done all the homework, and then when it's completed we provide the finances to get the job done and find the workers to do the job as soon as we possibly can.
Hon Paula Bennett: In what time line, then, will the promise of light rail actually come to fruition?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: When the work has been done thoroughly so that we know exactly what should be done in the future. I mean, that's how our sound Western Government does things responsibly. I don't know how they propose to proceed in the future, or is it all going to be by guesswork?
Hon Chris Hipkins: Is the Prime Minister confident that the current Government will be able to deliver light rail in Auckland faster than the 2037 timetable set out by the previous Minister of Transport, Simon Bridges?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: That's a superb question. What was happening before was positively glacial in terms of delivery; what we're doing now is at break-neck speed by comparison.
Hon Paula Bennett: Has anyone from New Zealand First written to her office at any time since she became Prime Minister about the Auckland light rail project? 
SPEAKER: One more attempt—because I'm sure that any letters to my office are not relevant.
Hon Paula Bennett: To her office?
SPEAKER: No, "to your office" I think the member said. I apologise if I got it wrong. 
Hon Paula Bennett: Has anyone from New Zealand First written to her office at any time since she became—
Hon Shane Jones: That's better—improvement.
Hon Paula Bennett: Sorry, what was that? 
Hon Shane Jones: Not right.
Hon Paula Bennett: Oh. Has anyone from New Zealand First written to her office at any time since she became Prime Minister about the Auckland light rail project?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, I understand that the numbers of New Zealand First supporters and members are legion, so to speak, and so I can't possibly answer that question. 
Hon Paula Bennett: Has the "agree to disagree" provision in the coalition agreement been triggered, meaning Labour and New Zealand First can now publicly express alternative views on Auckland light rail?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, this is an extraordinary question. I mean, if it was a fact then I, as Prime Minister, could confirm it, but it's not a fact at all. And this type of myth-making is sort of beloved of Jenna Lynch and TV3, but it's not worthy of an Opposition.
Chris Bishop: Just answer the question.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: And as you were told this morning, keep quiet, Mr Bishop—you were told that this morning by your senior member sitting in front of you, and I suggest you take that advice. 
Hon Paula Bennett: Has the "agree to disagree" provision in the coalition agreement been triggered when it comes to taxpayers' money being spent in Ihumātao? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, this is again more myth-making. We've got no idea on earth what the question is asking. I mean, no such thing has happened with respect—
Chris Bishop: Read the Cabinet Manual.
Hon Grant Robertson: You're just making it up.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, I'm unable to confirm the outrageous, mythical suspicions of the Opposition. 
SPEAKER: Grant Robertson will stand, withdraw, and apologise.
Hon Grant Robertson: I withdraw and apologise.
Hon Paula Bennett: Can the Prime Minister confirm that she has the support of all Cabinet members to spend taxpayers' money sorting out Ihumātao?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, again—[Interruption] Again, this is a work in progress where every member of this Government will be proud of the outcome and where we will have all kept our word.
Darroch Ball: Can the Prime Minister confirm the average amount spent on travel and accommodation by officials in the Provincial Development Unit in a three-month period?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: That's a superb question. I can say that the Provincial Development Unit, over a three-month period, spent, per person, $1,819 on accommodation, flying, travelling, driving—the full hundred yards—as opposed to a three-month period of $113,000 spent by one Simon Bridges.
Hon Paula Bennett: Has she considered using funds from the Provincial Growth Fund to actually support employers in a wage scheme?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, and speaking for the "First Citizens of the Provinces" could I just say that the Provincial Growth Fund is going into a whole range—hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of plans—
Hon Shane Jones: Job rich.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Job rich, long term, added value, all over our country—for example, like Ōpōtiki, where we'll have the biggest mussel farm in the whole wide world, and where the medical and economic benefits will be new and fresh from that province. So in that context, the answer is, on behalf of the Prime Minister: yes.
Hon Paula Bennett: Does the Prime Minister consider that the nearly $700 million that has not been allocated from the Provincial Growth Fund in these extraordinary times around the coronavirus, and given what is happening with businesses, could be better spent on actually keeping people in jobs and small businesses alive?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister: this is an extraordinary question, and by way of allegation as well, because this morning, in Mr Bridges' hands, it was $654 million, and now it's grown to $700 million in just the space of three hours. They are both dramatically wrong.
Hon Paula Bennett: Has the Prime Minister received correspondence from the Rt Hon Winston Peters in regards to light rail in Auckland?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, it's very fortunate that the person answering for me knows the answer to that question. The answer is no.




Question No. 2—Finance
2. Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) to the Minister of Finance: How is the Government supporting the economy to respond to the impacts of the global COVID-19 outbreak?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I want to emphasise that the best and first way to protect the economy is by containing the spread of the virus. The health of our people must remain our top priority. In response to the economic impact of the global COVID-19 outbreak, we have already provided support for the tourism and seafood industry, boosted funding for business advisory services, instructed Government departments to pay their bills within 10 days, and removed the stand-down period for workers who lose their jobs. Inland Revenue and the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) are supporting businesses and workers on issues like provisional tax readjustments, remission of late payment and filing fees, wage instalment plans, and income support, and MSD's rapid response teams are in place in regions like Tai Rāwhiti. Having already taken these initial actions, it is clear we will continue to see a longer lasting shock to the domestic economy, and that is why we are moving into the next phases of our economic response.
Dr Duncan Webb: What actions will the Government take in the next phase of its economic response? 
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: It's important to remember that this situation is not the result of a structural economic problem or a natural disaster. This is an evolving global health crisis, which for some is a supply problem, and for others a demand issue. That's why we need tailor-made responses, not wholesale changes or knee-jerk reactions. The next phase of the Government's economic response is our business continuity package, which includes a targeted wage subsidy scheme, training and redeployment options for affected employees, and potential future working capital support for companies that face temporary credit constraints. We're also, as part of that package, working on adjustments to the tax system to support businesses to manage cash flow and support them to maintain employment. We're also developing options to ensure that MSD can support individuals and businesses to provide temporary financial support and assistance, particularly to vulnerable individuals and families. Of course, the global situation is rapidly evolving, and we remain prepared to move into further phases of response when and if necessary.
Dr Duncan Webb: What further phases of economic response is the Government preparing for?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We're working on two further phases of response: macroeconomic measures to be deployed in the event of a sustained global downturn, and a recovery phase once the impacts have worn off. I've instructed officials to develop longer-term measures that may be required to support the income, the economy, businesses, and workers under this scenario. I've also directed officials to begin working on a package designed to support the entire economy when we come out the other side. The business community has asked for this. The final shape of this package will obviously depend on the ultimate economic shock we feel from COVID-19, but our response must be a "New Zealand Inc." one, where we work together to diversify our export and import markets. As the global public health and economic situations continue to evolve, these phases of response will ensure that we are ready for any eventualities that may occur. For both the public health and economic response, this is not just a Government response or a business response; it must be a New Zealand response. We are all in this together and we will get through it.




Question No. 3—Finance
3. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Finance: Is he confident the Government is taking the necessary steps to preserve jobs and strengthen the economy?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Yes, I am, and I've just outlined those.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: When will money reach affected businesses from any short-term wage subsidy he is planning as part of the business continuity package?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As soon as is practically possible.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Can he give any clearer guidance than that?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As we've announced several times this week, we'll have more to say about that next week.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Why is he taking longer to announce the details of a short-term package than larger economies such as the UK and Australia?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I've already said in my earlier answer, we've undertaken a number of actions already. The further shape of the wage subsidy scheme will be announced next week. I think we are responding in a timely manner to these matters. Many of the things that are part of the Australian package are actually things New Zealand's already done, such as the $12 billion infrastructure package.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: He does recognise there is a difference between announcing a $12 billion package and actually getting the money flowing into the economy?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I recognise the difference between making a whole lot of claims about what you're going to do, in a press release, and then not putting any money aside for this. Ours is a fully funded $12 billion infrastructure package.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Regarding his change in language today, from saying the economy had "strong momentum" before the coronavirus outbreak to now saying it had "solid momentum", what is his definition of "solid momentum" in terms of economic growth?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: My definition of "solid momentum" is that in the Government accounts for the six months ending December 2019, we were $500 million ahead in terms of our fiscal position than what had been forecast; we had higher corporate tax take; higher GST take; we had unemployment at 4 percent; and we had net core Crown debt, when we got to the seven months at the end of January, at 19.5 percent—significantly less than what we were left by the previous Government. That is solid momentum.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Isn't momentum usually attributed to growth, and is it not the case that 1.6 percent GDP growth for 2019 does not represent strong momentum?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I challenge the premise of the figures that the member has put out in front of us. We have an economy that has been growing at a faster rate than most of our trading partners and that has strong momentum in its labour market, with 4 percent unemployment, and that has strong momentum in its wages, with wages around a 3.6 percent increase. This is an economy that is doing well. I would really encourage the member to focus on the positive and let's all get together and actually make sure that New Zealand gets through this coronavirus crisis.
Kieran McAnulty: In light of his previous answer stating the number of things the Government is doing in response to COVID-19, would one of those things be to go out and panic buy, as advocated by David Bennett?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Absolutely not. This is the time for cool heads. This is the time for all New Zealanders to focus on what we can do together to ensure that our workers and our businesses get through this.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has he heard these comments: "During a serious outbreak of a new infectious disease, the last thing we need is for our elected representatives to be undermining the important messages coming from the Government, scientists, and public health professionals", and does he recall that it was microbiologist Siouxsie Wiles, Oxford trained, who said that about Mr Simon Bridges?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: It is imperative that as a country we come together and have a positive focus on what we can do. There are workers and businesses around New Zealand who are anxious. The last thing we need is scaremongering and politicking.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: I presume the Minister is not saying that the important role of the Opposition is to ask serious questions about how quickly his Government is moving to provide clarity and a clear response to this serious economic outbreak.
SPEAKER: Well, there wasn't a question there. Another attempt? Does the member want to try and change that into a question?
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Is the member saying that it is inappropriate in some way for the Opposition to ask serious questions about the speed and timeliness of the Government's response to this serious economic challenge for this country?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Far from it. The Opposition is entitled to ask serious questions. Where we have concerns is where people contribute to panic-buying type responses, where we hear from the Opposition a fixation on wanting to attach blame for an issue that, quite clearly, is driven by a global health crisis. What New Zealanders want is for all of us to be focused on how we assist people through this.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: And is it not important, as we deal with a serious economic challenge, that we acknowledge the real situation of the New Zealand economy prior to coronavirus taking place, and focus on how we come out of this stronger at the end?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I have been answering those questions, and I think I've given a number of examples of why we had solid momentum. I wonder if the member might like to reflect on the editorial in today's Dominion Post, where in response to his claim that the minimum wage should not be increased the Dominion Post said, "There is an opportunism in calling for measures that would hit the poorest [Kiwis] hardest at a time when … Government and … opposition should be bigger than party politics. Putting wage rises for the worst-off on hold is not being in it together." Perhaps the member would like to reflect on those words.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Will any wage subsidy to businesses desperately affected by the outbreak for full-time workers arrive before or after the Government insists those same businesses pay minimum wage workers an extra $48 a week?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I said, details of that will be announced next week. We will move as fast as is practicably possible.




Question No. 4—Health
4. ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour) to the Minister of Health: What does the recent World Health Organization pandemic declaration mean for New Zealand?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): New Zealand has been effectively dealing with COVID-19 as a pandemic for some time. We've been working from our comprehensive and longstanding pandemic plan since January and have taken early and decisive action to protect New Zealanders. As the Director-General of the World Health Organization said this morning, "Describing the situation as a pandemic … doesn't change what countries should do." What it does do, however, is send the strongest possible message to people the world over to take the threat from COVID-19 incredibly seriously and act accordingly. I ask all New Zealanders to play their part in this response.
Angie Warren-Clark: How are measures at New Zealand's border helping to protect the public, and will they be strengthened in response to the declaration of a pandemic?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: In response to COVID-19, New Zealand already has some of the strongest travel restrictions in the world. Just yesterday, Cabinet agreed to extend the requirement for people arriving in New Zealand to go into self-isolation to cover all of Italy. This is on top of the same requirement for arrivals from South Korea and the wider travel ban covering Iran and China. We have consistently taken early and decisive action at the border to keep COVID-19 at bay, and that has helped keep the number of confirmed cases low by international standards.
Angie Warren-Clark: How can the public help in our response to the COVID-19 pandemic?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: My message to the public is that we all have a part to play. Help keep everyone safe. Stay home if you feel unwell, wash your hands with soap and water regularly for at least 20 seconds, and don't forget to dry them. Don't share your germs: cough or sneeze into your elbow, or by covering your mouth and nose with tissues. These simple steps that we can all take, alongside good public health measures such as contact tracing, are the best way to fight COVID-19.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Has he seen reports that the United States of America has closed its borders to the whole of Europe for 30 days; and, if so, has he sought advice on what response New Zealand should take in order to maintain what he describes as the toughest border protections in the world?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I have seen that news come through in the last five minutes, and I would note that, daily, we are getting updates on the situation in Europe, in the United States, and across the world as this situation develops. The important thing here is that we are nimble. We have acted early and decisively. That has bought us the extra time to plan, to make sure that we are learning from the science internationally about what works in containing the disease, because we know we will continue to get sporadic cases arriving here, and we are daily reviewing that advice and getting new advice and taking action.




Question No. 5—Housing
5. Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura) to the Minister of Housing: Is she confident that she is fronting up in her housing portfolio?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): Yes. 
Hon Judith Collins: When she said in September last year with regard to the housing dashboard "I'm happy to front up every month and I will.", what did she mean by fronting up every month?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: What I meant is exactly what we've done: that we would put that dashboard up for everybody to see and happy to discuss it with anyone who asks questions, which I do every month.
Hon Judith Collins: Why has she only issued one press release on the housing dashboard since she promised last year that she would front up every month?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The dashboard is placed on the website every month, as we said it would be. I never proposed to issue a press statement about putting up a dashboard. We regard that as business as usual. I save press releases for when we make milestones such as building more State houses than any Government since the 1970s.
Hon Judith Collins: Does she think her department putting the dashboard on its website, without any press release or fanfare, is the same as a Minister fronting up? 
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Yes. 
Hon Judith Collins: Then why would she be the Minister instead of her chief executive?
SPEAKER: No, that's an ironic question. The member can ask—
Hon Judith Collins: How will we then know when she's fronting up, as opposed to her department fronting up?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The member, every month, can go and have a look on a website. She can see how we're performing across a range of indicators in housing. This is what we said we would do and we have done it every month since we said we would do it. There is complete transparency over housing numbers.
Hon Chris Hipkins: Must be desperate for questions today.
SPEAKER: Order! 




Question No. 6—Health
6. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by his answer in oral question 10 yesterday regarding those in the mosh pit at the Tool concert on 28 February that "Those people who were in that situation have been identified as casual contacts"?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Yes, because that is the advice of the public health experts—the doctors and scientists who understand the science of communicable disease transmission.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: What is the definition of a "close contact"?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: A close contact is someone who is within about a metre and a half, for more than 15 minutes.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Given that answer, does he really believe patrons in the mosh pit and close to the affected patron were considered "casual contacts", given the concert lasted several hours?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I'm not going to second-guess the clinical judgment of scientific experts.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Has he ever been in a mosh pit?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I'm not clear how that really is relevant, given that we're talking about clinical expert advice.
SPEAKER: Yeah, I was a bit slow to get on my feet. I can't imagine it being within the ministerial responsibility of the Minister of Health to be in a mosh pit. [Interruption] We've had a question and answer, go on to another one.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Has he seen reports that mosh pits are hot, sweaty, close contact situations that can last for hours and, in an upcoming event, will go all night? [Interruption]
SPEAKER: Order! Order! Settle—settle. No, the member will—
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Supplementary question?
SPEAKER: No, no, no. We don't want any further development—
Hon Member: Yes you do.
SPEAKER: I certainly do not. I think members need to ignore the double entendre, and we'll have the question answered.
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I think what's important here is actually not sensationalising the situation, but listening to the public health experts. I have seen language used by the Opposition in that regard. I would prefer that we focused on what the scientists and the doctors are saying.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Can he confirm reports that a Northland man who attended the concert is now sick and being tested for COVID-19; and, if so, has this caused him to revisit his assumption about whether concert attendees were casual contacts?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I have seen reports of a couple who have done exactly what public health experts would suggest they do. In that case, there was a notification put out about the Tool concert, precisely so that anybody who was there with concerns would take the appropriate action and self-monitor. This couple self-isolated, if I've read the information correctly. They then contacted Healthline, then they got tested, and I want to thank them for being good examples of what a good response to public health information looks like.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: What advice would he give to people considering attending events like the Pasifika Festival or the Christchurch memorial this weekend in light of the COVID-19 outbreak?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: No one in the world can give any absolute guarantees in the current environment, but I can remind the member that we've only had five confirmed cases of COVID-19 in New Zealand. There is no evidence of a community transmission outside of family members in New Zealand, but of course we are constantly reviewing the situation based on the advice of scientists, doctors, and experts, and I'll be expecting further advice on this today.




Question No. 7—ACC
7. JAN LOGIE (Green) to the Minister for ACC: Will he consider reviewing Schedule 2 of the Accident Compensation Act 2001 so that it can include exposure to dangerous substances such as PCP and dioxins?
Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister for ACC): I have already instructed officials to work on a system that allows for regular reviews of Schedule 2. Schedule 2 was last updated in 2008 and a review is long overdue. Schedule 2, however, is not the only pathway to cover for workplace illnesses. Workers can apply for cover using the gradual process tests set out in section 30 of the Act. I encourage workers who believe their illnesses have been caused by workplace exposures to discuss this with medical professionals and consider making a claim.
Jan Logie: Does he agree that the exposure of sawmill workers to dangerous substances in their workplace has resulted in ongoing health issues, illness, and early death?
Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: I agree that the chemicals in pentachlorophenol (PCP) are dangerous. That is why the industry stopped using them in 1988. A number of claims have been accepted by ACC for PCP exposure, suggesting that in those cases, health issues were related to its use.
Jan Logie: Will the Minister continue the good work initiated by the previous Labour Government in supporting sawmill workers exposed to PCP, dioxins, and furans by ensuring the Act meets the needs of this group of timber workers?
Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: As I said in my primary answer, I have already instructed officials to work on a system that allows for regular reviews of Schedule 2. I would note that the timber workers who have received support from ACC got that support under the existing scheme, and, of course, the health system continues to support all New Zealanders.
Jan Logie: Does the Minister consider it inconsistent that the Government recognises the damage PCP, dioxins, and furans cause to working people by specific targeted health services but not by including them transparently in the accident compensation system?
Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Well, respectfully, I disagree with the premise of the member's question. Workplace exposure to PCP, dioxins, and furans is covered by the ACC system. I am advised that since 1992, ACC has received 127 claims for PCP exposure. Of those claims, 64 were approved and 63 were declined.




Question No. 8—Transport
8. CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South) to the Minister of Transport: When will Cabinet consider any recommendations from the Ministry of Transport arising from the twin-track process for Auckland light rail, and what is his best-case estimate of when construction could start?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education) on behalf of the Minister of Transport: On behalf of the Minister of Transport, I intend to take proposals to Cabinet within the next two to three months. As I've stated on Tuesday, I've not yet received advice on a specific date for construction to start.
Chris Bishop: Why has Cabinet not considered the recommendations from the Ministry of Transport on Auckland light rail when he has said previously they would do so in February 2020?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: On behalf of the Minister, because I haven't taken those proposals to Cabinet yet.
Chris Bishop: Why has he not taken those proposals to Cabinet yet?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Because I've not been in a position to do so yet.
Chris Bishop: Can he guarantee that Cabinet will consider the recommendations from the Ministry of Transport before the election?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I'm reasonably confident, yes.
Chris Bishop: Has the Associate Minister of Transport, the Hon Shane Jones, expressed to him his reservations about the Auckland light rail project; and, if so, what did he say?
SPEAKER: Order! The member can rephrase that.
Hon Judith Collins: Any reservations.
SPEAKER: Very good advice from the Hon Judith Collins. She understands these matters.
Chris Bishop: I thought I actually said "any"—oh, sorry, Mr Speaker. Has the Associate Minister of Transport, the Hon Shane Jones, expressed to him any reservations about the Auckland light rail project; and, if so, what did he say?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Discussions amongst the Government's coalition and confidence and supply partners is part of the process of preparing advice to Cabinet. I have not yet finalised the advice to Cabinet. Those discussions will be reflected in the advice that I do eventually give to Cabinet.
Chris Bishop: Is he aware of any recent correspondence from members of Parliament representing New Zealand First relating to their views on the Auckland light rail project, and does he know what that correspondence says?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I'm not in a position to be able to give answers on that level of specificity, on behalf of the member, other than to say that of course the Minister is engaged with discussions with the coalition and confidence and supply partners in the Government. Those discussions are ongoing.
Chris Bishop: Will light rail be complete, to Mount Roskill, by 2021?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: On behalf of the Minister, I've already made it clear that that won't be the case.




Question No. 9—Fisheries
9. KIERAN McANULTY (Labour) to the Minister of Fisheries: What reports has he seen about market disruption to the seafood industry as a consequence of COVID-19?
Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Fisheries): In early February, off the back of reports that the rock lobster industry, which exports 99 percent of the live lobster export to China, would be hardest hit, the Government moved quickly. I agreed that fishery officials could allow a limited release of rock lobster back into the wild. The decision affected those fishers who had live crayfish in holding pots at sea and some held in tanks on land, subject to biosecurity measures. I also recently agreed to allow some of this year's uncaught rock lobster harvest to be carried forward to the next fishing year, which runs from 1 April 2020 to 31 March 2021. These are two examples of tangible action that we are leading by example in our response to this global issue.
Kieran McAnulty: What reports has he had from the regions, such as Wairarapa, in reaction to the Government's action to mitigate the disruption on the fishing industry as a consequence of COVID-19?
Hon STUART NASH: Primary producers and exporters with diverse markets seem to be in strong shape to deal with the disruptions caused by COVID-19. I was in Nelson this week with other Ministers, and firsthand reports from fisheries and winemaking sectors give good insights about what they are seeing on the ground. For example, Sealord says that as a deep-sea fishing company specialising in frozen products, it's had minimal disruptions to date. New Zealand King Salmon says that product originally destined for China has gone to markets in North America and Europe instead, and this is the benefit of a diverse marketing strategy. They also are noticing a pick-up in orders from China, which they say appears to be "back open for business". Winemakers, no doubt in Wairarapa as well as Nelson, are looking at a bumper crop and their biggest headache is the perennial issue of seasonal workers for the harvest.
Kieran McAnulty: What other reports has he seen about the impact of COVID-19 disruption on the wider fishing industry?
Hon STUART NASH: The impact of COVID-19 disruptions on the rock lobster industry will be clear in the Situation and Outlook for Primary Industries (SOPI) forecast, due out shortly, which estimates a 2.2 percent fall in seafood export revenue. Despite the collapse of the rock lobster market in China, there is room for the wider seafood industry to be optimistic. Aquaculture earnings continue to grow and are expected to increase by more than 10 percent in the current financial year. The SOPI will also note that prices remain strong for hoki, there is high demand for squid, and salmon and mussel exports are growing. Anecdotal reports from our largest fishing port in Nelson also show that seafood exporters with diverse markets have had minimal disruptions from COVID-19. 




Question No. 10—Police
10. BRETT HUDSON (National) to the Minister of Police: Is he confident the Government's policies are keeping people safe?
Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Police): Yes, especially our decision to almost double the number of fog cannons installed in small businesses like dairies, superettes, and police stations. After I changed the criteria, we have installed more than 500 of these crime prevention devices, and we're on track for around 1,000. Aggravated robberies of commercial premises are at their lowest level in five years thanks to this fog cannon initiative. Extra police resources have also enabled record seizures of methamphetamine—1.8 tonnes in 2019—and meth use in the population is now down by 17 percent. To all those watching at home, and I know a few of them, these are just a couple of examples of the initiative from the true Government of law and order. [Interruption]
Brett Hudson: Why have victimisations—
SPEAKER: Order! Order! No, I'm going to get the member to start again. I'm going to ask Judith Collins to stop her comments.
Brett Hudson: Why have victimisations risen by over 26,000 in the 12 months to the end of January 2020?
Hon STUART NASH: More police gives people greater confidence that when they report to police the police will actually do something to address their concerns, but can I give you a couple of examples, please. The introduction of the new family harm legislation in December 2018 led to an increase in the number of serious assaults reported to police in 2019. Family violence is notoriously under-reported, and police are working hard to make a difference for victims and prevent reoffending by perpetrators. There is also increasing demand for police to respond to callouts that aren't crimes, like mental health and road policing. In last year's Budget, Minister Clark allocated $1.9 billion to mental health and addiction services. Under this Government, we rebuilt road policing that had been cut by 111 police under the previous Government. Just two examples of why they may have increased.
Brett Hudson: Why, then, have victimisations for property crime risen by over 21,000 in the 12 months to the end of January 2020?
Hon STUART NASH: That member is very good with some stats, so let me give him a few of my own: 2,000 new police, 1,000 fog cannons, 17 percent drop in meth use, $100 million in seized assets and cash—80 percent from drugs, gangs, and organised crime. This is the true Government of law and order that is working incredibly hard to keep people safe and prevent crime in our community.
Brett Hudson: Why, given the number of new police the Minister claims, have victimisations for property crime risen by over 21,000 in the 12 months to the end of January 2020?
Hon STUART NASH: Those aren't claims; those are the facts. But let me give you one example. A construction boom—
Hon Member: Answer the question.
Hon STUART NASH: Would you like me to? OK, thank you. A construction boom and increased housing developments have also seen an increase in dwelling burglaries from residential building sites. Burglars often steal property for sale to feed a drug habit, but thanks to Dr Clark, we have put $1.9 billion to deal with mental health and addiction services. Two thousand new police into our communities are doing a hell of a lot to prevent crime and keep our communities safe.
Brett Hudson: Does it concern him, then, that burglary victimisations have increased by 7.2 percent in the 12 months to the end of January 2020; and, if so, what does he say to the victims of burglaries under this Government?
Hon STUART NASH: I'll let that member know what concerns me. There is a bill before this House which will significantly increase penalties for gun crime, and it will keep guns out of the hands of gangs, and that party is not supporting it. That is what concerns me.
Brett Hudson: Does he believe that the fact that new gang members outnumber the incremental increase of front-line police officers under this Government is helping to make New Zealanders safer?
Hon Andrew Little: That member did nothing about it.
Hon STUART NASH: In 2011, the Australian gangs became—
Hon Andrew Little: They did nothing about it. Lowest under that Government—did nothing about it.
SPEAKER: Order! Order! Yes, occasionally, Mr Little, you answer on behalf of the Minister of Police. That occurs when he's not here. I think in this particular supplementary question you've done more of the addressing of the question than he has—not that that's always a high test.
Hon STUART NASH: And I would like to thank Mr Little for his support in this, because I know he's passionate about what we're doing in the criminal justice sector. What I would say—what I would say—is these gangs became entrenched in 2011; the next year police numbers dropped by 150. In the last three years of the previous Government, as gangs grew, meth became entrenched, and crime got out of control, police numbers dropped. Under this Government, thanks to New Zealand First support, we have trained 2,000 new police into our communities, and I'm incredibly proud of the work they do to keep our communities safe and prevent harm.
Hon James Shaw: Does the Minister believe that loosening the Government's proposed gun laws to make it easier for gangs to get guns will keep New Zealanders safe?
Hon STUART NASH: It's a very good point. There is a bill before Parliament which will significantly increase penalties for gun crime, and it will keep guns out of the hands of the gangs. However, that party—the Opposition—is not supporting it, and I can't for the life of me figure out why.




Question No. 11—Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti
11. Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei) to the Minister for Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti: Does he stand by all his statements and actions around the Tuia 250 data breach?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development) on behalf of the Minister for Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti: Yes, in the context they were made and taken.
Dr Shane Reti: Why were data-breached gun licences left off Tuia 250 media briefings and never made public until it was brought into the public domain yesterday? 
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: There are a number of forms of ID that required replacement after the breach had occurred. The majority of IDs were drivers' licences and passports. As the member has stated, there were three firearms licences. There were also one medical certificate and six New Zealand resident visas. But the reference was made to the certificate or the documentation that was most prominent, and that was drivers' licences and, as I said, passports.
Dr Shane Reti: Were data-breached gun licences withheld from the public because of concerns for gun register legislation following a few weeks later?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: No.
Dr Shane Reti: On the Tuesday after the data breach, did ministry officials write to a private secretary in Jacinda Ardern's office seeking urgent attention around why gun licences were not revealed to the media?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I am not aware of any correspondence of that nature.
Dr Shane Reti: I seek leave to table an email from ministry officials to a private secretary in Jacinda Ardern's office that came to me under an Official Information Act request in my name.
SPEAKER: Has that been publicly made available as well as to the member?
Dr Shane Reti: Not to my knowledge. It came directly to me.
SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that being tabled? There appears to be none. It may be tabled.
Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
Dr Shane Reti: Did officials, including a private secretary in Jacinda Ardern's office, ever convey to her that gun licences had been data-breached and withheld from media briefings?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Not that I am aware of. 
Dr Shane Reti: What other Tuia 250 data breach information has never been made public? 
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I think that the information regarding certificates or information that was caught up in the breach has been made public via written questions, I believe, and, as I said earlier, the vast majority were passport information and drivers' licences, but there were also six school IDs, five New Zealand resident visas, three firearms licences, and one medical certificate. 
Dr Shane Reti: I seek leave to table documentation through to me on an Official Information Act request showing medical information was also data-breached, and a Parliamentary Library report showing that's never come into public domain. 
SPEAKER: And—sorry? And?
Dr Shane Reti: A Parliamentary Library report confirming that information has never come into public domain. 
SPEAKER: Well—[Interruption] Sorry? [Interruption] I'm going to put it to the House, although I'm not sure of the library's ability to ever provide such a certificate accurately. I mean, you can't prove a negative, Dr Reti. Is there any objection to those documents being tabled? There appears to be none. 
Documents, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.




Question No. 12—Housing (Public Housing)
12. ANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI (Labour) to the Associate Minister of Housing (Public Housing): How is the Government making sure that New Zealanders who rent live in warm, dry, and secure housing?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Associate Minister of Housing (Public Housing)): This Government believes that the over 600,000 households who live in rented homes should be living in places that are warm, dry, and secure. This is why we have introduced changes in the healthy homes guarantee, and also our reforms to the Residential Tenancies Act. I have recently seen some unfortunate commentary that the new standards are burdensome and unnecessary, but the Government disagrees. We do disagree because the Ministry of Health has said that 6,000 children are admitted every year for housing-sensitive hospitalisations, and these children have been found to be nearly four times more likely to be re-hospitalised and 10 times more likely to die in the following 10 years. 
Anahila Kanongata'a-Suisuiki: Why is the Government limiting rent rises to once every 12 months? 
Hon KRIS FAAFOI: The Government is limiting rent increases to once every 12 months and is also banning the solicitation of rental bids by landlords. We're doing this because we think renters should be able to have some certainty over costs in a 12-month period. This is a balanced approach, because we also recognise that landlords have to be able to manage their assets appropriately. Again, we've seen some unfortunate commentary that this policy should go on some kind of regulatory bonfire. This is unfortunate, because more and more New Zealanders are renting in retirement, and we should give them a sense of security and predictability with their costs. These people are often on fixed incomes, and the unpredictability of rent rises that others seem to be advocating for will only lead to their financial insecurity. 
Anahila Kanongata'a-Suisuiki: Why is the Government allowing tenants to make minor fittings to their rental homes? 
Hon KRIS FAAFOI: We are making rental properties safer and more livable by letting tenants add minor fittings such as brackets to secure furniture against earthquake risks, and to baby-proof properties, and installing visual fire alarms for those who are hearing-impaired. I find any commentary that suggests the hearing-impaired would need to jump through hoops to install visual fire alarms quite troubling and the product of a dark, nasty, and insensitive place. 
Anahila Kanongata'a-Suisuiki: Why did the Government introduce the healthy homes standards? 
Hon KRIS FAAFOI: We introduced these standards because we know that in New Zealand nearly 600,000 households are renting and 43 percent of children live in rented accommodation, and we know that our rental stock is of poorer quality than owner-occupied homes. We did this for tenants because we know they should be living in healthy homes. The standards go a long way toward making rental homes healthier for tenants, and they do this by requiring all rental homes to have a heater that can heat the main living area to 18 degrees Celsius and making sure that all rental homes have proper insulation. Again, we are disappointed to see recent commentary that suggested obligations to provide rental homes that keep people out of hospital were somehow onerous. 
 





AHURIRI HAPŪ CLAIMS SETTLEMENT BILL
First Reading
Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): I move, That the Ahuriri Hapū Claims Settlement Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Māori Affairs Committee to consider the Ahuriri Hapū Claims Settlement Bill.
I'd like to extend a very special welcome to the people of Ahuriri hapū who are with us at Parliament today to hear the first reading of their settlement bill. Ahuriri hapū, iwi, rau rangatira mā. Ko aku mihi atu ki a koutou, nau mai, haere mai.
[Hapū, iwi, and leaders of Ahuriri. I would like to acknowledge you all; welcome, welcome.]
I particularly want to welcome the kaumātua and kuia who honour us today with their presence. For decades they have worked tirelessly to ensure Ahuriri hapū's voice has been heard by the Crown. I regret that many kaumātua—and in particular, Rururarau Heitia Hiha—have passed on before they could bear witness to this bill's first reading. Piki mai, haere mai, ki a koutou. 
Since the Wai 55 claim was lodged in 1998, Ahuriri hapū have been resolute in achieving this milestone. Thirty-two years later, the Ahuriri Hapū Claims Settlement Bill has begun its passage through this House. Mana Ahuriri Incorporated received its mandate to negotiate the settlement of these claims in 2010. Since then, the Ahuriri hapū negotiation team never lost sight of the future it envisions for its people—a future where each member of the iwi knows and appreciates their history, where their language flourishes, and where iwi members thrive economically and socially. Through long days and many nights, the Ahuriri hapū negotiation team of Piriniha Prentice, Joinella Maihi-Carroll, and Barry Wilson have progressed the negotiations for the Ahuriri hapū settlement. To the negotiation team, I acknowledge your mahi and the mahi of those who have supported you, and I congratulate you on your achievement today. 
I'd also like to acknowledge the work of the Crown team, led by chief Crown negotiator the Hon Paul Swain, with support from Te Arawhiti, the Department of Conservation, Land Information New Zealand, the Ministry of Education, Te Puni Kōkiri, and the Ministry for the Environment. 
Before I move on to detail the features of this bill, I'd like to acknowledge the long history between Ahuriri hapū and the Crown which makes this settlement necessary. When the Treaty was signed in 1840, Ahuriri hapū envisioned a partnership with the Crown. However, as has so often been the case in our history, this aspiration was not realised, as the Crown repeatedly breached its obligations under the Treaty. Ahuriri hapū did not receive the full ongoing benefits from European settlement that the Crown led them to expect when in 1851 they agreed to sell the Ahuriri block for the price that the Crown offered. After Ahuriri hapū did agree to sell the Ahuriri block, the Crown failed to ensure adequate reserves were protected in their ownership. 
The Crown also negotiated to purchase contested lands in Hawke's Bay, despite being aware that its approach to land purchase negotiations was provoking tensions that might lead to conflict among Māori who asserted interests in the blocks. In 1857, these tensions led to armed conflict among Hawke's Bay Māori, including some of the Ahuriri hapū. 
Despite the Crown's actions, there was no fighting between the Crown and Māori in Ahuriri before 1866. However, in 1866, the Crown initiated hostilities when its forces attacked Māori at Ōmarunui and Herepoho and, as a result, 30 Māori died defending themselves against Crown attacks, which were launched before the Crown made a reasonable attempt to negotiate a continuation of peace in the district. The Crown captured Ngāti Matepū and Ngāti Māhu individuals during this conflict and imprisoned them on the Chatham Islands without trial, in harsh conditions, for two years. After the wars, the combined effect of Crown land-purchasing and the native land laws contributed to Ahuriri hapū being virtually landless by 1930. This had a devastating impact on their cultural, social, and economic wellbeing. 
This bill gives effect to the deed of settlement signed in 2016. There have been delays to the introduction of this bill, and it's regrettable that it has taken this long. The processes have been worked through, and as a result of the Waitangi Tribunal decision at the end of last year, we've been able to reach agreement on the basis of which we could bring this bill to the House, and it is now here. Mana Ahuriri Trust has given an undertaking that it will hold elections before this bill is finally enacted, and that has enabled us to bring the bill to the House and to send it to the select committee and put it through its stages. 
The Ahuriri Hapū Claims Settlement Bill includes redress designed to aid Ahuriri hapū on their journey to achieve their aspirations. In particular, I'd like to draw attention to Te Muriwai o Te Whanga, the Napier estuary. Following the devastating 1931 Napier earthquake, Te Whanga was reclaimed, dredged, and heavily polluted. The Crown recognises the role of Ahuriri hapū as kaitiaki of Te Whanga. For Ahuriri hapū, Te Muriwai o Te Whanga is a taonga of great significance and they are committed to healing the damage that has been done to it and restoring it to its previous condition. 
The Ahuriri hapū settlement seeks to do this, with this bill establishing a permanent statutory committee called Te Komiti Muriwai o Te Whanga, which will be led by Ahuriri hapū. The purpose of Te Komiti is to provide guidance and coordination in the management of Te Whanga to local authorities and Crown agencies that exercise functions in relation to the Te Whanga. This is an important opportunity to have the estuary restored as a place where the people of Napier can go to enjoy its beauty and receive physical and spiritual sustenance.
There's also a number of sites of cultural significance being returned to Ahuriri hapū, including Heipipi Pa and Pakake. The settlement provides financial and commercial redress for Ahuriri hapū, including $19.5 million in financial and commercial redress. Although no settlement can ever fully compensate for losses—in this case, for Ahuriri hapū for the prejudice they have suffered as a result of the Crown's actions and inactions and omissions—the introduction of this bill heralds the entry into a renewed relationship. 
This has been a long and testing road to get to this point in the settlement process, but now we can step forward and, as the Waitangi Tribunal recommended, proceed with urgency. I therefore propose the bill proceed without delay to the Māori Affairs Committee. I commend this bill to the House. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa. 





JOANNE HAYES (National): Kia ora. E koro mā, e kui mā, e rau rangatira mā, e ngā hapū o Ahuriri, tēnā koutou. Nau mai, haere mai ki te rā whakahirahira.
[Hello there. To the elders, leaders, the hapū of Ahuriri, greetings. Welcome; welcome to this important occasion.]
It is my pleasure to stand on the first reading of the Ahuriri Hapū Claims Settlement Bill today. As the Minister has eloquently laid out the historical events that have led to today, I just wanted to add a few more details around the historical events that led us to today. As the Minister said, in 1851 the Crown did actually dupe Ahuriri hapū into parting with their lands. The Crown paid £500 for those lands. They promised many things to look after the reserves and they didn't. And really, at the end of the day, that's where it all started to unravel. By 1866, as the Minister said, the Crown attacked armed Māori at Ōmarunui and Herepoho, and 86 of those Māori that were captured were sent to the Chatham Islands for two years—very similar to what happened in Parihaka. By 1870, the Crown and private parties—so we're thinking non-Māori, mainly—had acquired 51,000 acres. Approximately 54,000 acres were awarded to Ahuriri hapū individuals under the 10-owner rule. 
From 1867 through to 1873, more legislation was introduced on Māori land titles that was to better reflect the owner, but between 1870 and 1900, Ahuriri Māori protested land issues through the repudiation and the kotahitanga movements. By 1874, the Crown set aside Te Whanganui-ā-Orotu as an endowment for the Napier Harbour Board. Unfortunately, Ahuriri hapū were not put on that board. As the Minister laid out, the changes in 1931—the Napier earthquakes—saw those lands drop from 9,500 acres down to 680 acres. So many things had happened in the whenua of Ahuriri hapū. 
There are seven hapū that comprise the Ahuriri claims: Ngāti Hinepare; Ngāti Māhu; Ngāti Matepū; Ngāti Paarau, which includes Ngāi Tahu Ahi; Ngāi Tāwhao; Ngāti Tū; and Ngāi Te Ruruku. Located in the Napier - Hawke's Bay region, Ahuriri faced monumental issues, like many iwi and hapū, just to protect their lands and protect what they had from being taken over, from being stolen, and from being duped. Today, in this House, we stand to right some of those wrongs. As the Minister said, the compensation may not be really what is the real cost of what Ahuriri gave up, but it is a start. As part of some of those reparations, there is a cultural redress whereby $500,000 will be put into a kaitiaki fund; $15,000 for pouwhenua, of which the Ahuriri hapū have a right to state where they want those pouwhenua to be placed; and, as the Minister said, $19.5 million for financial and commercial redress. 
This bill also provides statutory acknowledgments, deeds of recognition, a Crown apology, and name changes to various sites. I just want to talk about a few of those name changes. So we're looking at the name changes of Bluff Hill, Hospital Hill, Napier Hill, and Scinde Island to Mataruahou; the mouth of Ngaruroro River, which is local use, to Te Ipu-o-Taraia; Perfume Point to Te Karaka; Sturms Gully to Karetoki Whare; the twin lakes in Kaweka Forest Park - Eastern Lake to Rotoroa; and the twin lakes in Kaweka Forest Park - Western Lake to Rototuna.
As I said in the start of my contribution here today on the first reading of this very important bill, and as a member of the Opposition on the Māori Affairs Committee, today is a momentous day for ngā hapū o Ahuriri. It is a momentous day for this House. As a member of the Māori Affairs Committee, I welcome it and all of the issues and the submissions that will come from our visit to your rohe, and I welcome it with open arms and open ears. Without any further ado, I commend the bill to the House. Tēnā koutou katoa.





RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Tēnā koutou, ōku rangatira. Mana Ahuriri, ngā hapū maha, Ngāti Kahungunu nui tonu, tēnā koutou. Nau mai whakatau mai. Nau mai whakatau mai ki Te Whare Pāremata, me kī e kite anō te raiona. Tēnā koutou, āe. Harikoa te ngākau kua tae mai koutou. 
Ko Ngāti Pāhauwera tēnei e tū atu nei, e mihi atu nei ki a koutou. Ka hoki ngā mahara ki a rātou mā, nā rātou i arahi, i kōkirihia tēnei kaupapa. Āe, haere koutou, haere koutou, hoki wairua mai ki a tātou te kanohi ora e pae nei. 
E ōku rangatira, rau rangatira mā, huri rauna i tō tātou Whare, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.
[Greetings, Madam Speaker. Greetings distinguished guests. The representatives of Ahuriri, the many hapū, wider Ngāti Kahungunu, greetings. Welcome. Welcome to Parliament, come back to see the lion. Greetings to you all. I'm happy you have arrived.
This is Ngāti Pāhauwera that stands before you, who acknowledges you. My thoughts go back to those who once lead this issue, who drove it forward. Farewell to you but also come back in spirit to us, the living.
To the leaders, to the distinguished assembly throughout our House, greetings, greetings to one and all.]
It's an absolute delight for me to stand and tautoko this bill at its first reading, and I want to add my welcome to the whānau of Mana Ahuriri and all the splendid hapū—the seven hapū that make up Ahuriri who have travelled here today. They've had a long wait—they've had a long wait to get to this stage. As Minister Little said, this has been a long journey. There have been many steps along the way which Mana Ahuriri have diligently followed—working and making sure that everyone is taken every step of the way. And I'm just delighted that we are able here today, in 2020—it's been about four or five years since the deed was signed—to start this last phase of this process.
So I add my welcome and I want to acknowledge the contributions of all those that have been involved, in particular, the Hon Andrew Little, but also his predecessor, the Hon Christopher Finlayson, who I know was very much involved with Mana Ahuriri with this settlement. Likewise, from all sides, these are very important occasions, very historic occasions, and we get to do the good part by ushering through this legislation, which brings into effect those special documents that have been signed with the deed of settlement.
So I want to acknowledge the history that underpins this legislation—the history of the hapū and the whānau from Ahuriri. As has been traversed—and I want to acknowledge the contribution from Joanne Hayes—it is a story of Aotearoa, of the settlement of our country. All too typical—all too typical, but that is the history. It all stems from, I guess, an insatiable desire for land, for the settlement of new lands of Aotearoa, and those interactions which took place between the tangata whenua and the settlement powers: the Crown of the day. And just as we've done with the settlements across the Hawke's Bay—whether it's Maungaharuru-Tangitū, Ngāti Pāhauwera, and others—Ahuriri were no different. They were impacted by Crown policies. They were basically hoodwinked into losing their whenua—hoodwinked by the promise of opportunities, of the benefits of welcoming settlement in their areas. Unfortunately, that wasn't to be. The settlements—yes they did take place, but the laws that were implemented, which were systematically designed to ensure that Māori lands were alienated, are a real regret and a stain, I guess, on us as a country. But the good thing is that we are here to acknowledge those wrongs of the past and to make some degree of redress to Ahuriri.
If you look at the Hawke's Bay, Napier: what a beautiful, beautiful part of the country, I'm sure—well represented too—well represented by my wonderful colleagues here. It's a very thriving, beautiful part of Aotearoa—whether it's from the coast up in Ahuriri's place to the Esk—is it the Esk River?
Hon Meka Whaitiri: Yes.
RINO TIRIKATENE: —down to Ngaruroro and over to the Kāweka Ranges. So that's a beautiful part of Aotearoa. Unfortunately, yes there were historic purchases that took place, but, mainly through the works of one Donald McLean—we can reflect on what that particular member of this esteemed House achieved during his time in the 1860s in particular—Ahuriri were, effectively, forced off their lands through the 10-person rule of putting communal land tenure into these foreign structures, which were designed to ensure that lands were lost and divested and handed over to the settlers and the Crown.
So that is the crux of this—the mamae, because of the impact that that had on the Ahuriri hapū and their whānau, and also on their mahinga kai, their treasured taonga of Whanganui-ā-Orotu and those traditional areas where they lived and flourished. So this is a means of redressing that.
The Crown has acknowledged its wrongs and its breaches of the Treaty and its principles in that series of actions which took place over 150 years ago. But we mustn't forget them, because it's had a very detrimental impact. I'm so pleased that through this process, which we do quite regularly, and I have the privilege of being a part of, as the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee, we can see the positive impact that these Treaty settlements are having across the motu. 
Ms Hayes outlined all the various elements to the settlement, and it was a tough negotiation, I'm sure. What I'm actually thrilled about is that Ahuriri are not waiting around; they're very anxious and they're on the move. I was thrilled to see that they have an aspiration of being a—and they are—major commercial property stakeholder and owner right in the heart of Napier, Ahuriri. That is the future which we are ushering in today through the passage of this legislation.
So it's those sorts of inspiring things. It's seeing the mokopuna who came in with all their aunties, uncles, parents, kaumātua today; they are the future for Mana Ahuriri, and I'm sure they won't forget this special occasion.
I do want to acknowledge Matua Piri Prentice—what a rangatira; just his presence, his gravitas, his leadership that he showed when we welcomed Mana Ahuriri into the House this afternoon. So I'm sure that with outstanding rangatira and leadership of all of the trustees of Mana Ahuriri the future is well in hand.
So with that, I am looking forward, along with other members of the Māori Affairs Committee, to—I'm sure—hopefully coming up to Napier to conduct our hearings, to hear from the whānau, and completing the task that we have to undertake, because this is a really significant piece of legislation. I'm pleased to have spoken at this first reading. I add my tautoko once again. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātou katoa.





DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā. Te Whare e tū nei, tēnā koe. Te papa e takoto nei, tēnā koe. Ngā mate, haere, haere, haere. Ngā reo, ngā mana, tēnā koutou katoa.
[Greetings, Madam Speaker. To the House that is before me, greetings. To the land on which we stand, greetings. Those who have passed, farewell, farewell, farewell. To the many spokespeople, representatives of the people, greetings to you one and all.]
It's a pleasure to rise and speak at the first reading of the Ahuriri Hapū Claims Settlement Bill. I would certainly like to extend a very warm welcome to everybody from the Ahuriri hapū who has come here today to hear this historic occasion in the House of Parliament.
I'd also like to just reflect on where we're at in this process, because this has been a long time coming; the redress that we're seeking here today, through this bill, stems from the 1800s. It was only in about 2013 that this deed was actually agreed to, and it is the work of the previous National Government. I would like to acknowledge the Hon Chris Finlayson, who, if he's not here, is probably sitting at home watching this debate, because—
Hon Meka Whaitiri: He's watching you, Dan.
DAN BIDOIS: —he's watching; he's watching us now—this is a matter of personal significance to him and his ministry, and I do just want to acknowledge the work that he's done, because, through the previous nine years, we signed 56 agreements.
Hon Nathan Guy: How many?
DAN BIDOIS: 56—56 deeds of settlement were signed in the previous nine years. So it's really great to see the current Government continue this good work, but I do want to acknowledge that this has been a bipartisan effort from both sides of the House to settle these grievances and to, hopefully, pave the way for future economic and cultural prosperity for hapū and iwi throughout the country.
Look, about the bill—we've heard today about the wrongs that this bill, essentially, apologises for. But I just want to run through some of those specifically. So this bill seeks to acknowledge the acts and omissions that have led to the people of the Ahuriri hapū feeling like they're landless, throughout the many years since their land was taken, the many instances of just taking away that land, and also the cultural significance of taking that away in terms of what it meant for loss of economic opportunities from that land. We all know now the great things that are happening up in the Hawke's Bay and Napier with respect to agriculture and viticulture. Unfortunately, the people of Ahuriri hapū have been locked out of that economic opportunity. So this deed, in fact, apologises for that loss and acknowledges that.
It also looks at the various cases where Crown actions have led to an undermining of their sovereignty, whether it be through the land purchase—which was a pitiful amount, really, that was given—but also the lack of protection over historical and cultural sites. This bill seeks to acknowledge that, as well.
Then, in the late 1800s, the armed conflict that led to 14 Māori being killed. That's why I acknowledged the deceased in my opening remarks, because it's important that we are here today not for just our people here but also to acknowledge those that have passed as well, but also the attack on Ōmarunui and Herepoho and the subsequent issues that resulted from that.
So, look, there is, I think, as the Minister outlined at the start, no amount of money that could seek to properly make full redress for what's happened, but we hope that the $19.5 million that has been committed through the deed of settlement is a significant and, I think, important amount, but also the right to buy some of those cultural lands that we've talked about as well.
As a member of the Māori Affairs Committee, I'm looking forward to coming up to the Hawke's Bay and Napier region and to just investigating and meeting some of the locals up there, and also to discussing this bill and how we can bring effect to the deed—the best case possible. So it's a really important bill and a very important occasion here today. I do want to acknowledge the current Minister but also the previous Minister, Chris Finlayson, for his contribution. I look forward to working with my colleagues from the Māori Affairs Committee, and I commend this bill to the House.





Hon SHANE JONES (Minister of Forestry): Reo Māori. Takitimu waka. Kahungunu iwi. Ngā hapū i ahu mai i Ahuriri, tau mai ki Te Ūpoko o Te Ika i tēnei rā. Uru mai ai ki Te Whare o te raiona, mātakitaki i ngā mema, ahakoa nō hea, ahakoa pēhea te tae o te kiri, he hui tahi nei i roto i te whakaaro kotahi. Nā reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.
Ahau e tū nei, ka mahara au ki o koutou mātua. Ko te tangata tuatahi i pupuru i te tūru mō Te Tai Rāwhiti, tōnā ingoa ko Te Moananui. Ko Tareha. He kaumātua i whānau mai i te ao kōhatu. 
Ka mate a Te Moananui ka tū mai a Takamoana, a Karaitiana. He aha te pakanga o āna mahi? Nāna te īnoi atu ki Te Karauna mō ngā whenua pēnei me Ahuriri kia arotakengia, kia āta haukerekerengia e tētahi kōmihana. Ka tū tēnā kōmihana engari he hua kore. Kāhore he hua i puta i tēnā kōmihana.
Ka tuku a Takamoana ki raro, ka tū mai tana teina ko Henare Tomoana. He aha oti ngā mahi oti i tō koutou matua, i a Henare Tomoana? Nāna anō i mau haere te kiri hipi ki waenga tonu i ngā iwi o te motu. He aha oti te patanga o tērā mahi? He akiaki nōnā ki te iwi Māori, me whakaparahako i ngā mahi o Te Karauna kia rata mai ai te iwi Māori, te hokohoko tonu i ōna whenua.
Muri mai i a Henare Tomoana ko te rangatira o te taihoa, arā, ko Timi Kara. Muri mai i a Timi Kara ko Wī Pere. I muri mai i a Wī Pere, tū mai ko Tā Apirana. Hinga ana a Tā Apirana, ka tū mai tō koutou matua i roto i a Te Mahia Tiaki Omana. 
Take ōku e mihi pēnei atu ki a koutou? Maha tonu. Tokomaha tonu ana ngā kanohi rangatira o Kahungunu kua whakakanohi mai i ngā pānga me ngā nawe, ngā moemoeā anō hoki mai i a Kahungunu ki roto i tēnei Whare. I tēnei rā kei te whai mai koutou i ō rātou tapuwae kia whakatutukitia tēnei wāhanga o te kaupapa, nā reira, me tino mihi atu ki a koutou, e ngā hapū o Ahuriri, Ngāti Kahungunu, koutou ka tau mai ki roto i Te Whare i tēnei rā. 
Tēnei me tā tō mātou hoa nō Te Pāti Nahinara e kī ahakoa te iti o te pūtea, e kore te katoa o ngā nawe e ea, otirā, koia tēnei te kaupapa e taea te whakatutuki i tēnei wā. Ko wai ka mōhio rānei pēhea rānei te huri o te tai ā ngā rā e haere ake nei? Engari ko tēnei rā, ko mātou o Te Pāti Aotearoa Tuatahi e tū tahi ana me ō mātou hoa o Te Rōpū Reipa, tū tahi ana me ō mātou hoa katoa o Te Whare ki te tautoko i te werawera, ki te tautoko i te ngoi i pau i a koutou kēkē ki tēnei taumata. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.
[Māori Language. Takitimu is the great ancestral waka. Kahungunu is the iwi. The hapū that travelled from Ahuriri to the head of the fish on this day. Welcome to the lions' den to watch the members, irrespective of party or the colour of their skin, unite for a single purpose. Greetings, greetings, greetings one and all.
As I stand here before you, I remember your ancestors. The first person who sat in the seat of Tai Rāwhiti, his name was Te Moananui, Tareha. He was an elder who was born in the old world. 
Te Moananui passed and Takamoana, Karaitiana, took his place. What was the purpose of his efforts? He pleaded with the Crown that lands such as Ahuriri be reviewed and investigated by a commissioner. The commissioner was appointed but nothing came of it. Nothing came of that commissioner.
When Takamoana was laid to rest, his younger brother Henare Tomoana took his place. What did this elder of yours do? He wore leathers when reaching out to the iwi of this country. The purpose? To encourage Māori iwi to resist the efforts of the Crown to ingratiate Māori so that they could buy our land.
Following Henare Tomoana was the king of patience, James Carroll. Following James Carroll was Wī Pere. Following Wī Pere was Sir Apirana. When Sir Apirana passed, he was succeeded by your elder from Te Mahia, Jack Ormond. 
Why do I acknowledge you in this way? There are many, many leaders of Kahungunu who have brought your concerns, your issues and your dreams from Kahungunu into this House.
Today, you follow in their footsteps by completing this part of the journey; therefore, I congratulate you, the hapū of Ahuriri, Ngāti Kahungunu, you who have made it to the House today.
I note what our colleague from the National Party said—that because of the small size of the redress, you will not solve all of your problems today. Who knows what will happen in the future? But today, we of the New Zealand First Party, alongside our friends from the Labour Party and alongside our friends from throughout Parliament, support and acknowledge the immense efforts you have all put in. I greet you one and all.]
As is often the way when we're dealing with historical Māori grievances, we like to recite the names of the people that in an earlier time sought to address the types of issues that we are addressing today. There are two names in particular that I have brought forward from those colonial times, one being Hēnare Tomoana, who amongst other things was responsible for the Māori land repudiation movement. He followed his brother in this House, Takamoana, who sought the creation of a commission of inquiry to investigate the wrongdoing associated with land purchases, one of which we are talking about here today. 
The commission of inquiry was described by him as a tree that was barren, that did not yield fruit—he rākau whakapakoko.
When he was followed by Hēnare Tomoana, he came after having also driven the creation of the Māori Parliament. So the people that are here today are no strangers to the many travails or attempts that have been made from this part of Aotearoa to redress these historical wrongs.
Our party does acknowledge the efforts of Mr Finlayson in settling the various claims of the broader Ngāti Kahungunu community—some are still outstanding. We also acknowledge the work of the Māori Affairs Committee, which is a great training ground for MPs to understand the meaning of the term "the patience of Job", because the hapūs of Aotearoa have definitely had to have the patience of Job to arrive at a day such as today. It's also where a number of us, as MPs, have learnt the importance of being patient. It may have occurred to you that I never actually ever sat on that committee—well, that's another matter.
To Mr Prentice, to the Crown negotiators, Mr Swain and your colleague: although there are big challenges in this part of Aotearoa and the effects of land loss, of resource loss, and of dispossession continue to linger in the socio-economic statistics amongst certain pockets of our Māori community, not only in this part of Aotearoa but in other parts, today should be regarded as a day of celebration, of jubilation, and as we remember, going forward, the names of the tūpuna who sought to do the best they could in their time under far more trying circumstances. So with these few words, we salute the efforts of those who have been the architects of the settlement, and we wish the waka going forward a great safe and prosperous journey. Kia ora tātou.





Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Thank you, Madam Speaker. E rau rangatira mā, e ngā iwi, kia ora mai tātou.
[To the gathered leaders, to the iwi, thank you all.]
Others have traversed the history that brings this bill here today, with great elegance, and I echo their words. There have been many stages on the way to the House today, as is consistent with a Treaty settlement bill. On 19 December, maybe, this story started in 2013—the formalities of this story—when the Crown and Ahuriri hapū signed the agreement in principle. Three years later, the deed of settlement was signed. At that time, the redress was financial and commercial redress, which continues through to today, I would add. Financial and commercial redress, including $19.5 million and the right to buy shares in the Kāweka and Gwavas Crown Forests Licensed lands. Pakake, Heipipi Pa Historic Reserve and Conservation House in Napier are to be vested in Ahuriri hapū as part of the cultural redress. The settlement is also to include a permanent statutory committee called Te Komiti Muriwai o Te Whanga to protect and enhance the environmental, economic, social, spiritual, historical, and cultural values of Te Muriwai o Te Whanga, the Ahuriri estuary.
At that time, in 2016, this was the 81st deed of settlement to be signed by the Crown—significant progress, and I too want to acknowledge my colleague Chris Finlayson and the important work in settling many historical grievances, not just in the Hawke's Bay but across New Zealand. The current bill has the standard structure of a Treaty settlement bill: the Crown acknowledgment and apology, cultural redress, the financial and commercial redress.
So this bill is now on its last journey, if you like, starting with us here today, and then when we conclude, we pass the care of this bill to my colleague Rino and my friends in the Māori Affairs Committee, and we give them this important piece of work to shepherd, to take out to the hapū—out to the community—and hear and crystallise all the important views of community stakeholders and anyone who has an interest in this bill. We then charge them to bring it back to the House as a well-formed view of all the stakeholders who have interest and recommendations. Madam Speaker, 2013 to 2016—it's taken many years to get here, in a way. Let's not get in the road of the good work of the Māori Affairs Committee. I commend this bill to them and to the House.





JAN LOGIE (Green): I rise on behalf of the Green Party to also offer our support for the Ahuriri hapū claims settlement, and to welcome and acknowledge the people of Ngāti Hinepare, Ngāti Māhu, Ngāti Matepū, Ngāti Paarau—including Ngāi Tahu Ahi—and Ngāi Tāwhao, and Ngāti Tū, and Ngāi Te Ruruku. All of the hapū have come together—or been, possibly, through the typical Treaty settlement process, forced together—through this process.
I want to acknowledge that, as always, this has been a long day coming to start to see the legislation reach this stage. And I want to acknowledge the resilience and leadership of the many rangatira who, over many generations—as was noted within the Ahuriri hapū ratification information document, and I'll quote that—"devoted and committed themselves to defending the rights of our people and to righting the wrongs of the past". That is important work for hapū and for us as a country to acknowledge the dreadful wrongs that happened and that we are all still living with or benefiting from. 
It has been 10 years, just since the Crown recognised the mandate of this claim, and that was to start a conversation about the wrongs that started in the 1850s. As with others in the House, I'd like to briefly touch on—and it always feels uncomfortable to me on some level of trying to summarise just the extent of the wrongs, but it feels important to put it on record, and because we still have such an issue in this country of not knowing our history. So I will just touch on the history where, in the 1850s, the hapū in this area—which is the hapū around Napier—decided that they were interested in selling some of the land and looking at developing a relationship with the Crown. The intent was for that to be mutually beneficial, as you would expect in terms of a Crown that holds rule of law quite close as a concept, and they might have expected that to have been able to be a relationship around integrity, consistent with Te Tiriti o Waitangi. But actually what they were met with was dishonesty, manipulation, theft, and violence—including unprovoked attacks on Māori and the taking of 86 members of their hapū who were imprisoned without trial on the Chathams for two years. This was done by a Crown who we still hear speaking the rhetoric of the importance of the rule of law. 
And just within 20 years of having entered those engagements with the Crown for 54,000 acres in the land of Ahuriri hapū, 51,000 of 54,000 acres had been dispossessed from those people—and that included just incredibly precious places, including the estuary and a place that fed literally, but also spiritually, the people. And to speak particularly around the damage that was done—because I think there's the taking of the land, but then there's being made to see the desecration of that land and observe that and feel that. To me, the example of how the Te Whanganui-ā-Orotu, which was originally—so that is land and the waters around the harbour—9,500 acres, where that land, through the harbour trust and actions of the Crown, was drained and land was reclaimed from it. So that precious, precious waterway from 9,500 acres has been reduced to the point now, at high tide, where it is only 680 acres. That, to me, is a physical demonstration of the damage and the violence that has been committed against Ahuriri hapū.
And I want to also just acknowledge that in those years, again after that, between 1900 and 1930, the Crown and private parties "acquired" almost all of the rest of the precious life-giving and sustaining lands that were Ahuriri hapū. And many of those lands were sold so that the people could meet their basic living costs. To me, again, that demonstrates the compounding harm of theft and dispossession that we see now in the suffering of all too many people within Māoridom. That makes colonisation a current reality, not an act of the past.
It is traditional for the Green Party in our speeches and first readings to acknowledge that we believe that Te Tiriti is a positive force for social cohesion and peace, but the full capacity of Te Tiriti to bring our communities together cannot be reached until genuine restitution is made, and that Te Tiriti, as it was written and agreed, supports hapūtanga and that hapūtanga is undermined by the settlement process. Again, we have seen that in evidence through this process.
I do want to acknowledge the Waitangi Tribunal hearing that found that even in the process of this settlement the Crown breached its obligations for monitoring and maintenance of mandates. I will acknowledge the current Minister, Andrew Little, for, on the day of that finding, acknowledging that finding and moving forward to be able to get us back into the House today. But it really does speak to, I believe, how much more work we have to do to restore the true intent of Te Tiriti and the hope of that to all of us. 
I just briefly touch on and acknowledge how hard fought for this settlement has been. Again, so much of this is about trying to restore connection to the land and acknowledging Ahuriri hapū as kaitiaki of their land. I want to acknowledge what a gift that is for us as a country and the generosity of Ahuriri hapū in maintaining that as a focus. It is really pleasing to see the establishment of Te Komiti Muriwai o Te Whanga, and that will promote the protection and enhancement of the environment, economic, social, spiritual, historical, and cultural values of Te Muriwai o Te Whanga for present and future generations. That is, for me, just such a blessing, an act of generosity for all of us. And while this should be an acknowledgment of the harm that the Crown has caused and our commitment to do better in the future, it is important to acknowledge the generosity of hapū even in this time and we look forward to the resolution of this.





LAWRENCE YULE (National—Tukituki): Nau mai, haere mai. Welcome to the people from Ahuriri, kia ora. It's lovely to have you here and while this is a very respectful occasion, I do want to lift the level of energy a little bit, because this House has been sitting late this week and people are a little bit tired at the end of the week. But I want you to be very optimistic, our guests from our rohe, and for Meka and Stuart—this is an important day for the people of Hawke's Bay, for you to be with us.
Can I, first of all, acknowledge the negotiating team—kaumātua Piri, can I acknowledge you. It's nice to have you here. Barry and Joinella, can I acknowledge all the work that you've done in getting to this point. I have known all of you for some time and I hold you with deep respect and I admire what you've done in getting to this point. Evelyn, can I acknowledge you as well, even though your husband stood against me twice for the mayoralty in Hastings. I acknowledge your passion and the things you've done to help and, on the odd occasion, giving me some guidance on this particular settlement. Bruce, can I acknowledge you, up the back? Bruce is the best taxi driver in Hawke's Bay and it's nice to have you here with us. And especially Tīpene, can I acknowledge you. Tīpene sits in the audience as a young leader. He started off as my first rangatahi leader in that course, and he's here today, and I acknowledge you moving up the system of leadership. Thank you for being here. Can I acknowledge all of you that represent the seven hapū of the Ahuriri settlement.
These negotiations haven't been easy, and later on in my speech I will talk about some of the challenges that I think still exist. But these negotiations have been going on since 2010. Previously the Hon Shane Jones said you have to have the patience of Job. It's my experience that in these settlements you do; not only in the Government processes, but sometimes even in getting everybody involved in the same settlement around the table. 
You were badly let down in 1840 in the negotiations that really meant that your land was sold for £1,500 in a partnership, and, from that day until now, largely what you expected at the time hasn't been delivered and in many ways your role and your mana and your whenua have been eroded from that day to this point. It was typified in 1857 when there was an armed conflict. We know that a number of people, a number of members from your whānau, ended up being incarcerated on the Chatham Islands for two years. That was a low point in Hawke's Bay's history. It was a low point in the relationship.
Just to put it contextually for members of the public who may be listening at home, Mana Ahuriri encompasses the land between the Ngaruroro River, the Esk River, and the Kāweka Ranges largely. Some of that is in my own electorate, and it's separated from the rest by the Tutaekuri River, which is in the Hon Stuart Nash's electorate. Meka Whaitiri covers all of our electorates. 
The net result of that, though, is that I have been acutely aware over my time of the grief that has been caused by not only that alienation of land but also the harm that was done out of that conflict where basically the Crown turned on its partner of 1840 and there was armed conflict. It's previously been said that Te Whanganui-ā-Orotu went from 9,000 acres to 600 acres at high tide. That is the erosion of the scale of the land; and basically, in 1930, people that had signed up into a partnership in 1840 effectively were almost landless. To add insult to injury, in 1931, when the land came out of the sea, where Hawke's Bay airport currently is, what happened? Basically, the Government regionalised it and gave it to the harbour board—they gave it to the harbour board. The Government held some of it, which is the Landcorp farms, used some of it for the airport, but fundamentally, the rest of it was given to the harbour board and over time has either been sold off or leased. So even in relatively recent history, you have watched your land just disappear before you by various Acts and various Governments along the way. 
So I want to acknowledge and thank you for standing up for some of the protection works that are required in the estuary and for the concept you've brought about of jointly trying to solve some of those solutions. Barry and Piri, I remember in my previous role having conversations with you about the airport, and the strategic nature of that, and I hope, into the future, you form part of the governance and management and even some of the ownership of the airport as a strategic part of Hawke's Bay. I know you have great plans for Landcorp farm, should you get hold of that as part of the settlement. I think, based on what you've advised me of, that will be a very encouraging development for the people of Napier and the people of Hawke's Bay.
I now want to come on to the deed of settlement and what has happened since, and I can probably say this slightly easier than members of the Government. In my view, the hold-up through the Waitangi claim process and other things—and I heard today, there could even be a hold-up through the Māori Land Court further—is depriving you of your own destiny and your value. What was signed in 2016, and what you now have, has already meant that you have lost millions of value in those developments. 
As part of the select committee process—I'm not sure whether it's possible or not—I would like the select committee to look at how that can be redressed, because, fundamentally, these people in this room today, they want to get on with the business and they've signed. There's a small group of people that are using every potential avenue to slow it down. The Waitangi Tribunal found there may have been a technical sort of breach in terms of the election of trustees. The Hon Andrew Little has done the right thing by bringing it to the House, as long as that's fixed. We just cannot allow these types of things to continue on. I remember having conversations with the Hon Christopher Finlayson, along the way, as a sort of bystander to this, and he said he felt he could get there, but there was a small group of people that were holding up the process. So I am hopeful that the select committee can have a look at that along the way, if that's within scope.
I do want to, in closing, make some comments about people that are not here today that have been part of this journey. I particularly want to talk about Heitia Hiha and the work he did, the fine man he was. He passed in 2018, at a time, really, when, in normal circumstances, we should be having this debate—we should have had it then. 
I have been talked to, led, encouraged, and worked with many groups of this settlement group and groupings, many fine people from Hawke's Bay. It is a small settlement—$19.5 million and some other redress—but it is hugely significant to the people of Napier, the people that are in this room today. We're on our way. This is where the laws get changed. This is universally going to be supported through this House. There will be a select committee. We hope any things can be ironed out or changed in that process, and in a relatively short time, based on how long this has been going on, this can be sorted. This settlement can be sorted. You can get on with some very exciting developments for Hawke's Bay and Napier. 
It's my great pleasure to support this bill.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Before I call the next speaker, I just want to make the following comments, because I will be leaving the chair during the next round of speakers, but it would be inappropriate for me as a former Deputy Mayor of Napier and a person who has lived and raised a family in the rohe that is before the House not to greet the members of the Ahuriri hapū. I too wish to pay my tribute to a long-term friend, Heitia Hiha.
This is a split call. I call Paul Eagle.





PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai): Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā. Takitimu, Ngāti Kahungunu, Ahuriri hapū, iwi, rau rangatira mā, ko aku mihi atu ki a koutou ngā whānau, nau mai, haere mai. 
[Thank you, Madam Speaker. Takitimu, Ngāti Kahungunu, the people of Napier, the many leaders, my greetings to you the families, welcome, welcome.]
Thank you, Madam Speaker, for this opportunity to take a call on this the first reading of the Ahuriri Hapū Claims Settlement Bill, the first time I've spoken on a bill. Can I say, recently, as part of my rohe, it includes—and we've heard about the Chatham Islands in different kōrero today. We had the Crown apology and settlement for the Moriori on Rēkohu, and what an experience it was. Can I just say that it was a moving experience, and being part of that really made me feel, as a member of Parliament for the first time, the real sense of importance it is to get these settlements through and get some progress. So on that, can I acknowledge the members of Parliament who have put the mahi in and done the work. Obviously, that's the Hon Andrew Little; the Hon Christopher Finlayson, who was the list member for Rongotai, including the Chathams, and the Treaty Minister who put work in here; and Meka Whaitiri, Stuart Nash, and Lawrence Yule as local members of Parliament, because it takes everyone in here to get these across the line. 
I want to acknowledge the negotiating teams because it takes both sides. I always find this interesting, these tense negotiations, but I learnt why. When I was on the Chatham's listening to the experiences for the Crown apology, I sat there and I thought "Hmm! There's been some nasty stuff done here." And suddenly I thought "Jeez, the Crown was nasty. What a mean pack of so-and-so's at the time." But then I suddenly realised that I am the Crown and that I am the representative, and I thought "Jeepers! I better wipe the tears away and take some responsibility." And that's what we've heard today. We've heard the pain and sorrow. I was in disbelief, actually. So I take a lot more notice of these settlements because they are deadly serious in every way possible. It's important we get this right and that we correct history where it's gone wrong and make sure that when we move forward it's accurate in every way so people understand. I know that our tamariki, as they grow up, they too want to ensure that when they go through school, it's a history lesson that is accurate but also teaches right from wrong and puts the story straight. So that's certainly important for me.
We've talked about the Chathams. Lots of people have talked about it, and they talk about it in such a dreadful way. Well, can I say to you now, ladies and gentlemen, that it's no longer dreadful. There is crayfish, pāua, oysters, and all sorts of beautiful kai moana that certainly put the wrongs right. I encourage the hapū of Ahuriri to match that, in terms of their memory of their ancestors, their tūpuna, who were treated in the way that they were. So I want to acknowledge that. I don't say that in a joking disrespect, but it would have been a dreadful experience, and I know that when Ngāti Mutunga somehow found their way to Wharekauri Rēkohu, that too would have been a frightening experience on arrival, but the good Moriori made them welcome, and I won't talk about the rest of their history this afternoon. 
But the redress is important, and we've heard today, this afternoon, about both the financial and non-financial, and the members have talked about what that includes. I want to encourage you to embrace the settlement, to use it in every way, from an economic and social perspective, and really advance the cause for you as the people, the seven hapū, of Ahuriri, and make wealth in every way possible. I remember those words being said to me on Rēkohu for the Moriori settlement. This is your time. It's only the first reading, but it will go through to the third reading, and I would encourage you to do for your people all those things that you've wanted to do.
Kia kaha, kia manawanui, nō reira, tēnā koutou, kia ora.





HARETE HIPANGO (National—Whanganui): Takitimu te waka. Ki ngā uri o ngā hapū o Mana Ahuriri. Nau mai haere mai ki tēnei Whare Pāremata, Te Whare Miere. Ko Harete Hipango taku ingoa. Nō Whanganui te iwi. Ko Ngāti Tūpoho te hapū. Ko Pūtiki Wharenui a Tamatea Pōkaiwhenua te marae. Tēnā tātou katoa.
[Takitimu is the ancestral waka. To the descendants of the hapū of the Ahuriri territories, welcome to Parliament, welcome to the Beehive. My name is Harete Hipango. Whanganui is my iwi. Ngāti Tūpoho is my hapū. Pūtiki Wharenui a Tamatea Pōkaiwhenua is my marae. Greetings one and all.]
Whenever I stand and have the privilege to address the House and those who have travelled from afar to gather here on this significant occasion of the reading and the passage of the bill—which is depictive and reflective of a lifetime journey for many: those of us from our past, those of us who are here, and those of us who are yet to come—I always stand and attempt to make a connection.
So what I have done is—being the member of Parliament for Whanganui but also uri of Whanganui—made that affiliation and connection to a tupuna of Ngāti Kahungunu and our people from Ahuriri who have come here. Your tupuna, Tamatea-Pokai-Whenua, travelled over to my area, my whenua, a long time ago. When we stand on our marae and whenever I am home, I always hearken to that relationship. Nau mai, haere mai.
At this first reading of the bill, my colleagues have addressed much of the history. Some may have noticed that as part of my journey as uri of Whanganui, I had the privilege of sitting up in the gallery some years ago with the passage of Te Awa Tupua (Whanganui River Claims Settlement) Bill, our bill. I have also as part of my lifetime journey, carrying on the journey of my tūpuna, as our people from Ahuriri, Ngāti Kahungunu, today do that—we carry with us the burden, but we also carry with us the hope.
Part of my journey 25 years ago was, as a young woman, going on to reclaim part of our whenua at Pākaitore, Moutoa Gardens. Twenty-five years ago, on 28 February, I was there with whanaunga and many who had travelled from afar to hearken to the memory of the efforts and the hard work associated with that journey. Here I stand today, in this position of privilege, to acknowledge Ngāti Kahungunu Ahuriri, with this first reading in the passage of your bill. I say "yours" because I always hearken, refer to our people who come and travel and gather from afar, and also many of us who are down here in Wellington continuing that mahi.
I have limited time with this call, but I just share that our people who have gathered here from Ngāti Kahungunu, this is your bill. You know the contents of it, because it is your people who have carried that burden for decades, for generations. We are here today to celebrate the present, with the first reading and the passage of this, going through to the final reading, hopefully that not being delayed any further.
I acknowledge my parliamentary colleagues—Minister Nash, Meka Whaitiri, and my colleague Lawrence Yule—because we carry on part of the journey on behalf of those. That is our role here as members of Parliament.
This bill, it's divided into significant portions, and I will just very briefly highlight those. Clause 8 is a depiction in detail of a historical account of the mamae, of the grievance, of the injustice. Clause 9 traverses the acknowledgments of the Crown's errors, of the Crown's avarice, and of the Crown's attempts to remedy and rectify. Clause 10 is the formal apology in this bill. Then, of course, it goes without saying, but for those who do not know and for the purposes of the law, to be very clear, clause 13 defines and details who you of Ahuriri hapū are. That is for the benefit of the Crown, and is the clarity of a commitment to you, to those who have gone, but to those of you who are to come into the future and carry on in representation of what the Crown has traversed, with all its wrongdoings, to make this right.
There is so much—I am limited with my time. I do hope to take a call at the second and the third readings, when there will be many tears of memory, of remembrance, but also of hope and joy, travelling into the future. In conclusion, I commend this bill on the first reading through to select committee, where I invite my parliamentary colleagues—I hope I have the opportunity to sit in on that select committee to ensure that there is clarity, there is transparency, that things are corrected and put right so that this carries through into the future. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou katoa. Kia ora.





Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister of Employment): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. Tuatahi, e tika ana ki te maumahara te kaiarahi tuatahi o Te Rōpū Kākāriki, Jeanette Fitzsimons. Nō reira, Jeanette, maumahara tō kaha ki te kōkiri i te kaupapa i ngā wā katoa. He wahine toa. He wahine ū ki te kaupapa, he wahine i kōkiri i te kaupapa taiao me te kaupapa kākāriki, nō reira, e te whaea, moe mai, moe mai, moe mai rā. 
Ka huri atu ināianei aku whakaaro ki te rangatira Tā Robert Fenwick. Ahakoa he Pākehā ia, he tangata i tautoko i ngā kaupapa Māori i roto i Tāmaki Makaurau. Ko ia te tiamana tuatahi mō te irirangi Mai FM, nō reira, Rob, te rangatira, moe mai, moe mai e koe ki ngā ringa huia o ngā matua tūpuna kua riro i te pō. Ā, ka nui tēnā. 
Ki a koutou, ngā rangatira i tae mai nei i tēnei wā, i whakarangatira i a mātou i tēnei wā, tēnei te tino mihi ki a koutou. He honore nui ki te tū i mua i a koutou i tēnei wā. Tēnei te mihi ki a koutou mō ō koutou kaha ki te kōkiri i tēnei kaupapa. 
Ki a koe e te matua, Piri, ngā mihi ki a koe e te pāpā. I tahuri koe tō korowai rangatiratanga i runga i a mātou i tēnei wā. Tēnei te tino mihi ki a koe e te pāpā. 
Koutou katoa, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā anō tātou katoa.
[Hello, Madam Speaker. Firstly, it is only right that we remember the first leader of the Green Party, Jeanette Fitzsimons. Therefore, Jeanette, I remember your strength to fight for the cause at all times. A woman of courage. A woman who was dedicated to the cause, who drove the environmental cause and the green cause, therefore, may you rest in peace.
I now turn my thoughts to that great man Sir Robert Fenwick. Although he was Pākehā, he was a person who supported the Māori cause in Auckland. He was the first chairperson of the radio station Mai FM; therefore, Rob, you who were a great man, may you rest in peace and return to your ancestors who await you. I leave it there.
To you all, the leaders who have arrived at this time, who have honoured us at this time, we are immensely grateful for your attendance. It is an honour to stand before you at this time. I would like to thank you for your dedication in driving this forward.
To you, Piri, my elder, thank you. You have cloaked our occasion with honour. My unending thanks to you my elder.
To you all, thank you, and greetings to one and all.]
It's an honour just to have a little bit of a kōrero to celebrate this day, because you would think it would never have come. Thirty-two years. How long do we wait for justice? Thirty-two years. So many of our people have to wait and wait and wait for this, and we lose so many along the way—in particular, Ruruarau Heitia Hiha. You know, one must never forget the commitment that some of our rangatira have given.
But of course I always mihi to our groups who come in here, because I always have aspirations of partnership. We know how the partnership was breached all those years ago. When I look back at 1840 and the breaches that Ahuriri have gone through—not receiving the full, ongoing benefits from the European settlement that they were led to expect when they agreed to sell the Ahuriri block for the price the Crown offered. We're talking about 1851; here we are in 2020, hoping and praying that that partnership that the former Mayor of Hastings Lawrence Yule talked about will be honoured. I mihi to him for some of his kōrero today, because we want a partnership that reflects justice—that reflects justice.
As Minister Andrew Little said, this settlement does not—if you looked at it financially—reflect the justice and the millions that you should be getting; $19.5 million, as the Minister said, doesn't reflect justice. It is an acknowledgment of the pain and the mamae that you've gone through—just an acknowledgment.
I think the beauty of these types of days is that we are united in the House in terms of the compensation that should be given to our people. I've said this before and I say it again: if you want to look at real compensation in terms of Ngāi Tahu, in terms of Tainui—Minister Nanaia Mahuta knows better than anyone. Her father was the main negotiator for Tainui, negotiating at $170 million, yet the Tainui claim could have been $15 billion plus—$15 billion plus. The Ngāi Tahu claim, the same again—$18 billion, that claim was rated at. These are the sacrifices that our people make—these are the sacrifices that our people make.
Bob Mahuta, Tipene O'Regan, they set it up, they made the sacrifice, and look what they're doing today. Look what Tainui's doing today. Look what Ngāi Tahu's doing today. I look forward to what you're going to be doing in the next few years.
So tēnei te mihi ki a koutou. Rawe ki te kite i a koutou i tēnei rā.
[So thank you all. It is wonderful to see you all today.]
It's the start of this process. Thirty-two years ago it began. Justice now will happen over the next few months, or the next year or so, or hopefully before the year is up. We'll get this across the line so that all of our people and all of your rangatahi can benefit. Tēnei te mihi ki a koutou. Tēnā nō tātou katoa.





Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Police): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Nau mai, haere mai, tēnā koutou, Mana Ahuriri, especially to Piri and Barry. Welcome. It's been a long time coming. It's been a long, long journey from Ahuriri to this House; too long—far too long.
I can't help agreeing with the words of my colleague Lawrence Yule—and you won't hear that often. I'm well aware of the work you, Piri and Barry and Joinella, have done in getting this bill here. We've had a number of conversations over the issues, the challenges, and the time, and I've always welcomed these engagements and interactions, but I acknowledge the time it has taken to get here has been too long.
Our Pākehā forebears had little imagination when it came to naming places in Napier. Hospital Hill—well, there used to be a hospital on the hill. Bluff Hill—the hill ended in a bluff. It's now fitting and proper that this part of Napier where I live will now be called Mataruahou; Perfume Point—it's where the sewage outfall used to end up—now renamed Te Karaka; and others—important.
But it's not the true nature of this settlement, rather an apology and a Crown acknowledgment that the Crown was wrong and breached the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles—cultural redress that will recognise the traditional, historical, and spiritual associations of Ahuriri hāpu with places and sites owned by the Crown within the Ahuriri rohe. 
Financial and commercial redress of $19.5 million in recognition of historical claims and interest that has accumulated since the agreement in principle was signed in December 2013 will also be paid, as well as the right to purchase a number of assets and properties, including the purchase of the Crown shares in the Hawke's Bay Airport Ltd.
All these are important—and I acknowledge this—very important, in terms of moving forward. Minister Jones has outlined a distinguished list of Ngāti Kahungungu leaders who have fought this battle in earlier times, and a number of members who have spoken have also outlined the history that has led us to this House today. But what I know are the practical implications of this settlement—that is, the people of Mana Ahuriri can now move on in a way that I know will add significant value not only to the people of Mana Ahuriri or Ngāti Kahungungu or even Napier but to all the people of Hawke's Bay. I have seen some of the plans, and they are truly aspirational.
Like other speakers, I acknowledge Chris Finlayson. I also will acknowledge the Minister Andrew Little, but there are other players in this: Paul Swain; the Hon Sir Michael Cullen has also played a part in getting us here, and we wish him all the best in the greatest battle he has had to take on.
But one thing I would say, to conclude, is this is a good outcome. I hope like hell that the progression of this bill isn't held up unnecessarily. Today is a good day, and tomorrow will be the start of the process for rebuilding Mana Ahuriri's wealth, health, and wellbeing. That, as a long-term resident of Napier, I absolutely welcome. Kia kaha.





IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I too want to welcome the people of Ahuriri to Parliament. It's a special place to come to. Some of us wonder why we came here, but I think it is a special place. 
I guess you're wondering what some old Scottish descendant from the Manawatū is doing speaking on a bill like this, and I have a half of one foot in the territory of Rangitāne and one in the territory of Ngāti Apa. But I think it's pretty special, these things, and I often have the privilege of speaking on Treaty claims bills, and I can only think that that's because I've been around for longer of the Treaty claim process than most. 
I also wanted to pay a special tribute to a couple of people who often speak on these bills. I think Rino Tirikatene puts the bill in perspective for me, and I think he does a special job in our Treaty claims process with the way he speaks on the bills. He always gives me a bit of education. I also today want to acknowledge Lawrence Yule because I thought he did a great job. 
As I said, you may well wonder what I'm doing here, but my mother lived looking at Perfume Point for quite a while, and, Stuart, I think the reason Perfume Point is called Perfume Point is now a very different reason than it was in the old days, and the activity there is much different than it used to be as well.
She lives in a retirement village in Napier, and I was in there the other day. Quite extraordinary, she had a book on her table and it was called A Changing Land by Sir Donald—it wasn't by Sir Donald McLean, clearly; it was about Sir Donald McLean's life. He, of course, was the Government land acquisition officer, or commissioner, in the very early part of Hawke's Bay's recent history, I suppose—150-odd years ago.
But the thing that really intrigued me about it was, as you glance through a book like that and you glance through the notes that we're given to speak on these bills and the deed of settlement and the bits of history, there's a lot of great similarity between what we have explained to us here and what's actually written about the history. You can see how some of those very unfortunate, actually, and interesting deals were done. I think it's great for us to have the history of these things, but, actually, the important thing is that we get to the end of this process. 
Despite what Willie Jackson was saying earlier about what they should be worth, actually, what they're worth is what you make of them. I think it's very special that we get to the point where these settlements enable everyone to move forward. We'll never replace or repair what's gone on in the last 150 to 160 years, and I don't think we should expect to. Ironically, Sir Donald McLean is buried on Scinde Island, which is a part of this Treaty claims process, and it's named in the settlement. So the history, whatever we make of it, is always going to be with us.
I think it's really interesting that we get to a point where, through a great deal of time and a lot of discussion, we end up with some sort of a settlement which enables us to move on. I think that's the important thing for this Parliament. It's the very important thing for New Zealand. I think, where we've got to a point of settling these—I was going to say adequately, but that's probably not a very good word—processes and we come out the other end of them, I think we're getting some very good results. I think that's such a great thing for future generations of New Zealanders because it does get us to a point that's, I suppose, satisfactory for us all.
Interestingly, my daughter and my two grandsons also live in Ahuriri, even though I'm a Manawatū person. I don't know why they ever went to Hawke's Bay, but they went there, and I've got to live with it. But it is special, and so I congratulate everyone who's been part of this process. I know that you'll get a lot of, I guess, pleasure out of what happens in this place in the next few months, and I hope it moves through relatively quickly. Almost all of the people who will be dealing with that in select committee have spoken on this bill this afternoon. 
I just want to say I think it's great progress. I wish you all the best in the future. I know that this thing will work well for you, and I hope, as Lawrence said, that maybe the select committee can deal with some of the issues that have changed in the interim, because, well it's a long, long time since you first signed the deed of settlement, but it's certainly a long time since you got to the point of getting this bill moving. So thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on this, and I do wish you all the best in the future going forward. Congratulations.





Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): E Te Māngai o Te Whare, tēnā koe. Ngā mema o Te Whare nei, tēnā tātou katoa. Āe, e tū ki te pōwhiritia ngā iwi, ngā hapū o Ahuriri kua tae mai i runga i te kaupapa whakahirahira, nō reira, otirā, ōku rau rangatira mā, e kui mā, e koro mā, tēnā koutou, nau mai, tēnā koutou, nau mai, tēnā koutou, nau mai.
[Madam Speaker, greetings. Members of this House, greetings. Yes, I stand to welcome the iwi, the hapū, of Ahuriri who have arrived on this important occasion; therefore, indeed, the distinguished guests, the elders, greetings and welcome, greetings and welcome, greetings and welcome.]
I'm pleased to conclude this debate as the local member for Ikaroa-Rāwhiti and to extend my warm welcome to the whānau and ngā hapū o Ahuriri who have arrived here for this significant date. A long overdue wait for a bill that others have spoken about and addressed, but he tika tō kōrero e Piri. He whakaeroa te wā, āe he tika. Whakaaeroatia.
[What you said was right, Piri. It has taken too long—yes, that's right. Too long.]
We were in the Legislative Council Chamber, where we welcomed these people, and the rangatira Piri talked about the long wait. So I want to acknowledge that long wait, not just in the terms of acknowledging the harms and the omissions at the actions of the Crown but their long wait since getting mandate for the Wai 55 claim that was filed in 1988, to have the mandate to negotiate confirmed in 2010, to actually have the deed of settlement signed in 2016, and here we go, four years later. So if there was ever an iwi that was patient, these are the people. These are the people in terms of their losses and also in terms of the process which all iwi have to go through in terms of settling past grievances in the Treaty process. 
I was fortunate to have kai with some of the aunties from Tāngoio, and they made some really important points around not just the process of Treaty settlements but our kaupapa. The kōrero was about whakapapa and about whakapapa not having boundaries, and how whakapapa unites ia whānau, ia hapū, ia iwi. So I want to share that, because that was a point of discussion at our lunch table around the significance of whakapapa, and when there are the challenges which these particular people have been subjected to, it is our tikanga practices that will pull us through and our whakapapa that will pull us through. So I just want to acknowledge the aunties that I had kai with from Tāngoio and from Maungaharuru Tangitū that have joined us here today. 
Others have talked about the various parts of the bill, and I look forward to joining my chair—Rino Tirikatene—and the other members of the Māori Affairs Committee to journey up to Ahuriri, hopefully, to give proper scrutiny to this bill. But I wanted to draw the House's attention to Minister Little's comment in his contribution on this bill where he talked about entering into a renewed relationship—a renewed relationship. I want to acknowledge not only the economic strength and might of ngā hapū o Ahuriri but the cultural and social and the environmental strength that these people will bring to the greater Napier area. 
I am excited to share, to observe, and to be part of the aspirations that they've already started around putting their economic prowess to bear on the lives and in the developments that are happening in Napier as we speak. Of course, we have our port and we have our airport, and we have our newly reopened railway line, thanks to our coalition partner, New Zealand First—the opening of the Napier to Wairoa line. These are a people that have lived in this rohe for generations, and as we talk about the lifting and resilient economy of the Napier area, then these people are going to play a significant part in that resilience, now and going forward. 
I want to also acknowledge the mokopuna that were in the rōpū that arrived here today, and I want to acknowledge them because it's their history and their journey that we are here for. For many of us that have gathered here and for the whawhai around getting our claims—and I know they're probably ngenge and probably want to haere tonu and hoki ki te kainga—it's important that I acknowledge them and that they and their presence here reminds us of why we come to this place and why we do our job for the future and their benefit. I just want to acknowledge those two mokopuna that have joined us in the House today. 
Like I said, there will be parts of this bill that will be tested through the select committee process. I too just want to add my congratulations and thankyous to the negotiators, Piri Prentice, Joinella Maihi-Carroll, and, of course, Barry Wilson. It's never an easy task—never ever an easy task—being a Treaty negotiator, never. The Hon Nanaia Mahuta, my colleague Adrian Rurawhe, and myself are all former Treaty negotiators, so it comes from a position of experience to say that it is never ever an easy task, because you'll get those on the side of you that want you to go faster, and there are those on the other side that want you to taihoa. 
So I want to acknowledge particularly Piri and Barry and Joinella for hanging in, for being there from day one, and for seeing this through. I do hope that we pass this bill in its conclusion as quickly as possible, but I want to acknowledge your efforts, particularly Barry, Joinella, Piri, and those kaumātua that are no longer here with us. I too want to add my acknowledgment of Uncle Heitia Hiha and his guidance that he applied on this particular settlement and negotiation. 
It is a time to celebrate, but it's also time to acknowledge the hard work that has gone on behind the scenes in getting us here, and also to acknowledge the Crown negotiators and Te Arawhiti staff that have worked and beavered behind the scenes. There's been acknowledgment of the former Treaty Minister Chris Finlayson. I want to acknowledge his work in terms of getting the deed of settlement in 2016, but particularly I want to acknowledge my colleague the current Treaty negotiations Minister, the Hon Andrew Little, for putting this bill in as soon as the report from the Waitangi Tribunal came out. 
There were comments from across the side about hold-ups. Look, we all understand that everyone has a right to justice and reviews, and we have just allowed that to happen. But the tribunal has said haere tonu, haere tonu, and there has been a commitment to ensure that the trustees' elections proceed before we have that final third reading. 
So it is really, indeed, an honour to stand in celebration of this first reading the Ahuriri Hapū Claims Settlement Bill. I am looking forward, like I said, to travelling home to ensure that we give due process and due scrutiny to this bill. I want to join with all members of this House in acknowledging again those that have travelled down to witness this first reading. It is, indeed, my honour and privilege, with all members of this House, to commend this bill, and we look forward to it coming to select committee with great haste and to reporting it back to this House. I commend this bill to the House. 
Waiata
Bill read a first time. 
Bill referred to the Māori Affairs Committee.





SMOKEFREE ENVIRONMENTS AND REGULATED PRODUCTS (VAPING) AMENDMENT BILL
Instruction to Health Committee
Debate resumed from 11 March.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): When we were last debating this motion, the Hon Tim Macindoe was speaking, and should he wish, he can take the remainder of his time, which is nine minutes and 14 seconds.
Hon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Kia ora, Madam Speaker, and indeed I do. As the saying goes, "And now for something completely different." I was just getting started as the lunch adjournment was taken on this motion, so if I may just, for the benefit of those who are listening who may not have been listening beforehand—this debate began approximately a quarter of an hour before the lunch adjournment. It is not a debate about the contents of the bill, and I want to assure the Speaker that I understand that. The first reading of the bill has already been passed, and my party has supported it. This is a response to a motion that has been put forward by the Associate Minister of Health, Jenny Salesa, proposing for there to be a truncated select committee process whereby the Health Committee would be required to complete their consideration of submissions in a much shorter space of time and to report back to the House, essentially, by a date before the House rises for the general election. I put that on record because, as I say, there may be people listening who won't understand that we are debating that motion. We are not debating the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Vaping) Amendment Bill and its contents; that has already been undertaken. 
When I commenced my debate, I was conscious of the fact that an interjection had been made just a couple of moments before, which I think is drawing attention to one of the most important reasons why the House must not agree today to the proposal from the Associate Minister of Health for there to be a truncated select committee process.
Hon Shane Jones: Trifling.
Hon TIM MACINDOE: That is a particularly silly interjection from the Hon Shane Jones in view of the seriousness of the issue that I'm about to cover. I'd point out he wasn't in the House at the time that this was even raised, and therefore for him to make such an interjection is most inappropriate. 
As we know, the international COVID-19 coronavirus outbreak is developing at a rapid rate, and just in the last couple of hours, the President of the United States has announced a ban on all international travel from Europe to America. That is absolutely relevant to this particular motion because it suggests that the Health Committee may well be dealing with some extraordinarily important issues relating to the continued development of the COVID-19 outbreak over the next few months. Conceivably, they will have a huge extra body of work to consider as a result of this international outbreak as it continues to claim victims internationally and here at home. 
Who knows what is to come? That's why I say to the Hon Shane Jones that his interjection was particularly inappropriate. Who knows what measures the Health Committee may be required to consider as a result of what is going to be proposed, perhaps by the Government, perhaps by the World Health Organization—who knows? As I say, it's an unfolding situation. Their workload may become overwhelming, and that is directly relevant in this instance because the Government is asking the select committee to truncate a select committee process that would normally be approximately six months from the start to the completion of the bill's consideration, just at a time when their burdens may become more acute than we can ever remember. They may have to make that work, in responding to the COVID-19 coronavirus outbreak, their absolute priority for the next few months, and I do hope that the Government is listening. I do hope that the next Government speaker on this motion will respond. They may have to make that work an absolute priority. 
It is utterly unreasonable, therefore, to ask them to deal with this particular bill, the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Vaping) Amendment Bill, in a truncated fashion. It has a lot of agreement—it doesn't have complete agreement—and while it's an important measure, it is nowhere near as important as dealing with the coronavirus outbreak and whatever work that throws on to the committee. So I ask the next speaker from the Government to respond specifically to that point, and it can't be avoided or trivialised, Mr Jones. I hope you would acknowledge that point. 
There are some other points that I would wish to make in the time that is available to me. The first is—and this is the more conventional one, but it needs to be dealt with all the same—truncated select committees should be avoided because it's poor process. We as a Parliament have a responsibility to give proper consideration to bills. That's why there's a very established framework that we operate under, and a truncated process often leads to rushed and imperfect lawmaking. We shouldn't be prepared to do that, and it's, frankly, arisen simply because this Government has been a chaotic shambles. They spent two years failing to deal with legislation in a timely fashion, and suddenly, now that they have a deadline of a looming general election and the date that the House will rise for that election, they've suddenly realised, "Good lord, we didn't do anything for two years, and now we can't get anything done because time doesn't permit." Well, their ineptitude doesn't justify a truncated select committee process. 
The next argument is that this is absolutely an affront to democracy. It's closely aligned to the point that I've just made, but it's an affront to democracy because members of the public have a right to be heard and to make their submissions in a considered fashion. I mentioned that there is broad support for this bill—that is true—but there is not unanimous support for this bill in this House. We know from the fact that the ACT Party is opposed that there may well be members or supporters of the ACT Party who would wish to be heard on the bill—perhaps, more importantly, some of those constitutional experts who frequently appear before select committees to express their concerns on constitutional abuses or the constitutional implications of measures. They too have a right to be heard and should be given the opportunity to do so in a timely fashion. It is not reasonable to say to busy professional people, "Drop everything; do this in a hurry", just because the Government is out of control and it's lost all semblance of order and the ability to do things in a timely fashion. They shouldn't impose that on members of the public who have a legitimate interest. 
The third thing that I want to draw attention to—or rather the fourth, if you include the opening point that I made about the burdens on the Health Committee—
Hon Shane Jones: Making it up.
Hon TIM MACINDOE: Making it up? "Making it up," says Mr Jones. It is really unbelievable that such imbecilic interjections are coming from a senior Cabinet Minister who ought to be taking this matter seriously. I hope that he's going to respond, but if he does, I hope that his response will be considerably more considered than this nonsense that we're having to listen to. 
The point I was going to make is in my capacity as the shadow Attorney-General, and to draw attention to the fact that one of the things the select committee would have to take into account is the fact that there has been an Attorney-General's report—and the Attorney-General is in the House at the moment—a section 7 report concluding that the bill is inconsistent with section 14 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and therefore cannot be justified under section 5. Now, I acknowledge that there is precedent for the Attorney-General's reports, under Governments of both complexions, to be ignored. The Attorney-General has a job to do and he has done that, and I acknowledge that with respect. The point I am making, though, is that the select committee also needs to take that into account. That would be factored into the report that they would send back to the House. It may well be that they would say, "We respect the Attorney-General's conclusion, but nevertheless we believe that matters of public interest override it and therefore we will continue." They've got to have the opportunity to do that work.
Here we have a Government that is seeking to deny the select committee the opportunity to do their work properly. It would be remiss of me, as the shadow Attorney-General, not to draw attention to the fact that that's part of the mix here of what has to be considered. So, I implore the Government to think again. This is not sufficiently serious a matter for it to be trivialised and pushed to one side by a Health Committee that may have a much more serious matter to grapple with if measures relating to the COVID-19 coronavirus outbreak are put before them and dominate their work. Because you can be sure that if they are given that work to do, they'll have to make that their priority. So I hope that the members of the Government say, "Yes, that's a reasonable point." even if they reject the other points that I've made, to say, "Yes, that is a reasonable point. We must not do that to this committee at such a serious time of an international outbreak."





Hon SHANE JONES (Minister of Forestry): Obviously, the referral motion enjoys the support of the party I belong to, but this debate has become tainted by alarmism. This debate has wandered right off the track. It is a very narrow, well-understood device used by both sides of the House from time to time. But to suggest that we should acquiesce with this merchant of doom from the other side of the House at a time when all parliamentarians should be standing shoulder to shoulder and giving reassurance to New Zealanders rather than plucking inaccurate information out of Google, as he's just done in terms of America and Europe, without understanding the technicalities of that decision—not only has the member moved us away from a very common parliamentary practice, which we will be voting for, but he is now trying to scare, trying to panic, and trying to taint what is an important piece of legislation which has long since been talked about in this House: a public policy issue to which we are no strangers. So this notion that we're on the edge of a precipice—worsened and exaggerated by the other members of the House at the very time they should be giving a tone that is calm and reassuring, not dividing New Zealanders in levels of panic and scaremongering, moving along like Cassandras. So for those reasons, under no circumstances whatsoever will we agree with the sentiments of the last speaker, Mr Tim Macindoe, and I encourage us to move very quickly to the end of this rather elongated and fruitless debate.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Could I just remind members before I choose—with a very difficult choice—that this is a very narrow debate. Thank you for your understanding. On the basis of your miming, Chris Penk gets the call.





CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you very much, Madam Assistant Speaker. I didn't realise that hand gestures were helpful to sort of communicate a message in the House. I'll bear that in mind in other contexts.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Not always.
CHRIS PENK: Not always—OK, thank you. The member who has just resumed his seat, the Hon Shane Jones, said before that the matter was trifling, but I think he would acknowledge that it's never fruitless to try to avoid a law turning to custard. So, for that reason, the select committee needs as much time as possible, or at least not less time than usual, to be able to consider the matter that will be before it—namely, the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Vaping) Amendment Bill. I make that submission for approximately four reasons. By happy coincidence, they all start with the letter "c": cross-referencing other obligations, certainty, complexity, and the crowded public square. 
The first of those is cross-referencing other obligations. Mr Macindoe has already referred to the need to weigh New Zealand Bill of Rights Act report requirements so I won't go into that in any detail, but I think it's also worth noting that the other obligations that would need to be weighed against the substance and, indeed, the detail of the law itself include international obligations. For example, the World Health Organization—oh, I beg your pardon; I thought someone called out "Who?"—Framework Convention on Tobacco Control contains New Zealand's obligations with which this law will need to be consistent. So, it's important that the select committee turns its mind to that and isn't unduly rushed in doing so, lest it miss an opportunity to continue New Zealand's alignment with that international instrument. 
The second point was around certainty, more particularly the need to get the law right the first time. This is an area of public life that will be important to those who perhaps don't necessarily interact much with parliamentary processes and debates, and I would rather not see a situation where the Parliament, as has happened regrettably sometimes in recent years in relation to drug legislation of other types—to sort of go backwards and forth and create some confusion in the community. So, for the sake of certainty, it's important that the select committee takes all the time that it needs to get this legislative process right the first time. As the saying goes, "Act in haste, repent at leisure." Well, this would be an Act that will be passed, and it seems that it's set to be passed in due course, and to do that hastily and only to be required to repeal or replace at leisure later would be a shame and certainly one that's open to the House to avoid today. 
My next point was around complexity, and that really touches on the fact that it is a very technical piece of legislation. If we look, for example, as early as the second line of the explanatory note, the select committee will need to turn its mind to the differences and relative merits of "tobacco smoking products, herbal smoking products, smokeless tobacco products, and vaping products". To allow them the time that they need to gain expert advice on the differences between those from a health perspective, and I suppose from a justice perspective as well, is very important. I don't think that we should tie the hands of the select committee any more than would be the case normally in terms of a reporting period in relation to their very important duty to consider those details. 
My final point relates to the crowdedness of the public square. Mr Macindoe is ahead of me in referencing the particular demands that he expects—and I think, quite reasonably—will be placed upon the Health Committee in the coming months regarding the coronavirus pandemic as we can now call it despite accusations of scaremongering which are themselves scaremongering and spurious. 
But more generally speaking, there will be a crowded public square, such that people who have an interest in this legislation will no doubt also be keenly interested in paying attention to other matters of policy making within this legislative process, but also ahead of the general election. So I think we'd be naive not to think that that will be important in part of the context of lawmaking and submissions that can be expected in relation to this bill. 
Again, I think for the members of the Health Committee, to pressure them unduly to have a shorter than usual process in considering this very important legislation would not do justice to them, nor indeed the subject matter of the bill. So for that reason, I, along with colleagues on this side of the House, it seems, reject the notion that there should be a shorter period for the Health Committee to consider the bill before reporting back.





KIRITAPU ALLAN (Assistant Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Before I call Matt Doocey, could I just say that despite the previous speaker, Mr Chris Penk, indicating that he understood the debate was narrow, there was very little of his contribution that actually referred to the instruction that we are now debating: it doesn't cover the content of the legislation, it doesn't cover the prospect of a pandemic in New Zealand and the subsequent Health Committee workload, and it doesn't cover the American travel ban; it just covers the instruction.





MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Madam Assistant Speaker, thank very much. I want to start by saying that I rise on behalf of not only the National Party but as a member of the Health Committee to oppose this instruction to truncate the report-back time to 2½ months. You know, we're not here for three months or four; it's two and a half. I just want to start by saying, in response to that last Government member, the Hon Shane Jones, who took his call, if I said half the rubbish that he does in this House, I'd expect my mum to call me up and tell me to come home. I mean, we are debating a serious matter here. This is the first time this Parliament has had the ability to debate regulation on vaping—the first time. In the words of his own colleague Darroch Ball, who interjected when the Hon Michael Woodhouse was debating, he said, "You've got to do it once and do it right." 
Well, in fact, that's what we're actually arguing for today in this debate: doing it once and doing it right. New Zealand's Parliament has not debated regulation on vaping before. And in the words of the Minister herself, when she took the first call of the first reading of this debate around the smoke-free and the regulation of vaping, she said, "The bill is complex." So you have the Minister responsible for the bill who says it's complex, which is coded for "I don't think we've got this right.", yet, on the other hand, the introduction of a 2½ month instruction to go through a submission process.
Add into that mix that the Minister herself admitted that, in fact, there hadn't been a lot of consultation in the lead-up to this bill. The Government talks about a new style of politics, yet they decline the Opposition's request to be involved in the formation of this bill. There's no other consideration of stakeholders in this policy development, so how can we go from the Minister accepting this is a complex bill and the Minister stating that, in fact, there hasn't been a lot of consultation—which I would probably state means there hasn't been enough consultation—and now the report-back time has been truncated to 2½ months. The risk is we don't have that consultation and we don't have the ability for submitters to have their say. 
I know we are to talk about the 2½ months in this debate and not the content of the bill, but I just want to make one quick point because I am going to be brief here. This bill is around the regulation of a harmful substance. We are not making things safe here; we're introducing vaping to reduce the harm. Yes it reduces harm by 95 percent, but it is a harmful substance. So how can we be in a position in Parliament when we are looking at the regulation of a harmful substance, and we're saying the bill is complex—so we haven't got all the answers yet. We're actually stating we haven't done much consultation, yet all of a sudden we're saying, "You've only got 2½ months to seek submissions and to hear them."
The problem is we are going to be forced into a position to return a bill back to the House, after 2½ months, that would not have all the tyres kicked. It will not be fit for purpose. We will be forced to go into the committee of the whole House, and there'll be a number of Supplementary Order Papers from the Government side, and there will be from the Opposition side, to correct the problems that this bill will come back to in the second reading. And that is why I think we should be opposing the 2½ month—not three, four, or six—report-back date. Thank you, Madam Speaker.





A party vote was called for on the question, That the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Vaping) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 2 June, 2020; and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House; and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a siting of the House; and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 191, 193 and 194(1)(b) and (c).
Ayes 63
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.
Noes 55
New Zealand National 55.
Motion agreed to.





LOCAL GOVERNMENT (RATING OF WHENUA MĀORI) AMENDMENT BILL
First Reading
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): I move, That the Local Government (Rating of Whenua Māori) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Māori Affairs Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the Local Government (Rating of Whenua Māori) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 29 June and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 191, 193, 194(1)(b) and 194(1)(c).
Whatungarongaro te tangata toitū te whenua.
People may perish but the land shall always remain.
That is a prescient reminder of the role and responsibility that Māori electorate MPs have in this House to continue to advocate for positive change in relation to whenua Māori. A key objective of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 is to facilitate the occupation, development, and utilisation of Māori land for the benefit of its owners. Rating law and practice has long been recognised as an impediment to achieving that objective. This bill implements measures to remove rates as an impediment to the use and development of Māori land by its owners.
In developing proposals for this bill, it became apparent that in previous reviews of rating legislation, issues around rating Māori land had been put in the too-hard basket. The result is that much of our present law about rating Māori land dates back to 1924 and what was then known as the Native Lands Rating Act. This bill makes some changes to bring rating law into line with the current expectations for Māori-Crown relationships and, importantly, the unique land tenure system applying to whenua Māori.
This Government does not believe that issues relating to use and development of Māori land can be solved by a single measure. This bill is a part of a package of measures designed to assist Māori to develop and use their whenua. Let me briefly summarise other measures this Government has taken, which include the introduction of Te Ture Whenua Maori (Succession, Dispute Resolution, and Related Matters) Amendment Bill that will simplify some of the legal process requirements that Māori land owners face; the allocation of $56.1 million in Budget 2019, enabling the establishment of regional on-the-ground advisory services in Tai Tokerau, Waiariki, and Te Tai Rāwhiti; the creation of a whenua knowledge hub, and the Tupu New Zealand website that I launched in February this year; new and enhanced services for the Māori Land Court and the modernisation of the Māori Land Court information systems; the provision of feasibility and investment funds for Māori land owners through the Whenua Māori Fund; and $100 million set aside from the Provincial Growth Fund for the development of whenua Māori.
Returning to this bill, that works in conjunction with these other initiatives to stimulate whānau development through whenua. I'd like to now comment on the key proposals contained in this bill. By far the biggest problem for owners of Māori land engaging with local authorities about development is the problem of rates arrears. Under current law, the accumulation of rates arrears creates a negative cycle. The ability of owners to pay rates and the inability of whānau to develop their land has prevented them from being able to pay those rates. Existing rates arrears inhibit owners from engaging with local authorities to promote the development of the land. We need to break this cycle. We actually need to change up the conversation, because if whenua Māori is developed, there are local and regional benefits from growth opportunities.
This bill does this in two ways. First, land blocks that are entirely unused will be made non-rateable and existing rates arrears on those blocks will be written off. At the same time, land which has been set aside under Ngā Whenua Rāhui kawenata will also be made non-rateable. Second, local authority chief executives will be given discretion to write off rates arrears on any land where they consider the rates cannot be recovered. In addition, they will be able to write off rates where a person has inherited a beneficial interest in a block of Māori land and finds that they have also inherited rates arrears. The bill's third initiative is to create a statutory remissions process for rates on Māori land under development.
Some councils already grant rates remissions for developments they see as economically beneficial for their district. Currently, each council develops its own remissions policy, so there is no national consistency in approach to development remissions, but there needs to be. This bill will provide a consistent set of criteria and considerations that each council must take into account when dealing with an application for rates remissions for the development of Māori land. Owners of Māori land have particular difficulties accessing capital for development, as the nature of their land titles creates difficulties in securing mortgages. Granting rates remissions or postponements during the development stage recognises this issue and is an investment for a council in obtaining future rating streams from productive utilisation of whenua Māori.
The bill's fourth initiative addresses the problem of fragmentation of Māori land titles. Many Māori land blocks are quite small, and individually they may not be economic to develop. If owners can agree to manage the blocks as one, development is possible. However, the combined rates charges for these blocks can be very high because of the application of uniform charges under the local authority rating schemes. The bill provides that where multiple units of Māori land are used as a single economic unit, if they were part of the same original block of Māori land they can be rated as if they were one rating unit. The Far North District Council, for example, did this for the Ōkahu blocks in its district, reducing annual rates from $18,000 to $8,000 per annum. This bill will make this universally available for many Māori land owners.
The bill's fifth initiative addresses the rating treatment of homes on Māori land. Where there are multiple homes on a block of Māori land or a home is incidental to other uses of the land, the title arrangement means the homeowner is unable to access the rates rebate scheme. In 2018, this Parliament passed legislation granting access to rates rebates to occupants of retirement villages. It is clear that where there are multiple homes on Māori land, there is an equally compelling case that low-income homeowners in those homes should also be able to access the rates rebates. This bill will enable that to occur.
The bill proposes a number of other changes to the rating legislation. One is particularly important and I know it will have a positive impact in many regions. In 1967, the Government of the day amended the Maori Affairs Act to direct that certain Māori land be changed to general land. This was done without consultation or notification to the owners. The effect of that change was to expose that land to alienation through abandoned land and rating sales under the rating Act. I am aware of cases where such land has recently been offered for sale under those provisions. This bill will stop future sales of that classification of land.
Rating matters have been a concern for Māori land owners ever since the practice was introduced in the 19th century. Ironically, it was one of the key issues my tupuna Mahuta opposed as an unfair measure when he was an early member of the legislative House. This bill will deal with some of the longstanding issues that have continued to arise in that area. I commend the bill to the House.





LAWRENCE YULE (National—Tukituki): It's my pleasure to rise and speak to this bill. National will be opposing this bill—I say that from the beginning, and I'm going to outline some reasons why. In the specific instance of the rating of Māori land, some of this bill has some merit, but the risk it causes is that you set a policy that will then not be consistent with a whole lot of other Government policies that are being rolled out right now.
Minister, I understand the rating of Māori land; I've been a mayor where I've remitted those rates, so I know it can be done. I've been a mayor when we have put the uniform charges together on several properties, so the rates per property have been reduced. It can be done. It can be done with elected officials who understand the need and the value and the good. Now, I accept that not every electorate official thinks the same, but that is the core of New Zealand's democracy. Here we have a process where the Government rides in and says, "It's available to everybody." It's important I say that because—I'll come back to this later—I'm struggling to understand what is so broken that needs to be fixed, without the precedent understanding of Ministers on your side of the House. 
What the Minister Nanaia Mahuta is really asking in this bill is that there is a provision to write off rates on Māori land, and the penalties that go with that, for whatever reason, because it's unproductive land or can't be used.
The Government currently has a significant number of policy initiatives under way, many of which we have concerns about. One of them relates to the freshwater package that is being looked at at the moment, which asks people—or tells people, really; compels people—to fence waterways. Fence them off; they can't be used. They then become unproductive—unproductive land all around New Zealand. Five metres, I think, Mr Parker, is the minimum. Five metres, I think you're talking about, either side of the water—or is it going to be 10?
Hon David Parker: It's being consulted.
LAWRENCE YULE: Yes, it might be consulted on, but that's what's being considered. A massive sway of farmland is becoming unproductive because we're trying to support the waterways.
Then we have the new policy that's just been announced about indigenous species, how we manage biodiversity—a case where a lot of New Zealand land, farmland included, may not be used for a productive purpose. Are they all going to get rates relief? Are they all going to get remissions? That hasn't even been thought about.
So the fundamental premise from this side is that unless you do this holistically, you are setting up one part of New Zealand to have a remissions policy and a way it operates, without thinking about the precedent that goes on in other parts. I come back to my own experience in this place. I have seen the inability of, in many cases, multiply owned, unproductive Māori land, that is in some cases landlocked, having rates build up over years and having to be remitted.
I remind members of this House that rates—some countries call them "taxes"—are really the way in which we fund the local authority to operate and all the things that it operates for. Everybody that owns a property has a requirement to pay their share of those costs, and that is set on basically land or capital value, generally. If the land is unproductive for whatever reason, you can mount an argument to say that there is no loss to the community for that land because it's not being used. You can also mount the case on Department of Conservation (DOC) land. DOC land is not being used apart from the keeping of the New Zealand estate. It may be used for tourism purposes, but in many parts of New Zealand it's not rated for. The net result of all of that is that the people who have the productive land or the use, they fund—whether it's houses, businesses, commercial operations, or industrial operations—the cost for that community.
Now, we have, in this case, a bill that says, basically, a chief executive can write off historic rates and arrears for Māori land—whether its multiply owned or not—that has been unproductive, to set the record straight. I can think of at least three times in my mayoral career where we had reports to us that looked at the value of the rates and the arrears. I agree with the Minister that in many cases, it's the value of the arrears that are the issue. I think in all those three years, we wrote those off. But the net result of that is probably that we should never have charged them in the first place, because we end up putting them in a mix of the budget and then writing them off at the end. The net result of that is you push the price up for everybody else that is paying if you're going to deliver the same level of service. So our view is that we think the Government should first settle the Māori land tenure issues through Te Ture Whenua Maori Act before addressing this issue.
We also think that the Government has not thought through the ramifications of some other policies that, out of fairness and equity, should apply for the same remission—that is that if you set land aside for an environmental value on waterways and it's unproductive, why cannot any New Zealander get a rates remission of that? If you set land aside for biodiversity, why can any New Zealander not get a rates remission for that? The net result of doing all of those things, including the Māori land rates remission, is that you narrow the pool of people who are paying the costs of providing the services for that community.
Many farmers in New Zealand—as an example—plant large areas of land for conservation purposes. They can get a remission if it's a QEII, but if it's not then there is no remission available. So on one hand, we accept that there's an issue with Māori land and historic debts and the penalties, but the way in which this goes about addressing it disadvantages all other ratepayers. If the Government wanted to fix this, and if the Government is consistent in its approach, then the Government should fund the rates of this land. The Government should fund the rates on the land that is going to be required to be fenced off and unproductive for water quality. The Government should fund the rates for the biodiversity value that New Zealand is going to get if that biodiversity strategy happens. Ultimately, what you're doing is removing the productive base from New Zealand and you're putting extra costs on that very same productive base.
If you'd asked me to talk on this or if the party had asked me to talk on this probably two years ago, without those new provisions I'm talking about, I would have had a little bit of sympathy. But I really worry about the precedent that is being set, and I really worry that in this wish to, sort of, put a line in the sand and allow development, you're setting a whole precedent of issues that haven't been thought through.
Minister, you said that in the Far North, they've done all sorts of things to deal with how they reorganise land. Those things are already available in the current law. I have done them myself under the current Act. So I'm struggling to understand what is so revolutionary about this bill, what it's expecting to fix, and, on the other side of that, the dangerous precedent it's setting for all the other land that is about to become unproductive by various other Government policies and who's going to pay the rates on that. Ultimately, a local authority has a budget and it does things: it builds roads, sewerage, water. All those things it does, it needs to fund those, and there is a certain community that has to fund them. If you remove the rating base and you take areas out of the rating base, what you largely do is put more and more costs on what's left, particularly urban ratepayers.
So in our view, while the issue is there, the approach to resolve it is not the answer. It creates a can of worms and will set a precedent for many other types of Government policies that haven't been thought about. So we strongly oppose this bill.





Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): I'm glad to follow that member who has just resumed his seat, Lawrence Yule, from Tukituki, because what I was listening for was: what would they do? What would they do to unlock the economic potential in underutilised Māori land?
Anahila Kanongata'a-Suisuiki: They've done nothing.
Hon MEKA WHAITIRI: Nothing—that's exactly right. They've done nothing. But here we have this Minister, in this bill, talking about unlocking and allowing Māori land that has accumulated years of rates to participate in the economic gain, to bring benefits to the region—to themselves and to the regions, to this nation.
As a member of a large area of Māori freehold land, it is important that we on this side of the House explore the options for all Māori land owners, but these ones that the Minister has outlined are those that can't even get to the first step. We are, as the Minister outlined, making amendments to the ratings Act to ensure Māori land owners who, for whatever reason, over many years have accumulated rates and do want to participate can unlock the potential in it. But I listened to that side, because essentially what that side is saying is we don't care about rate remission or coming up with solutions to enable Māori land to develop wherever they are. That's what they're saying to our people throughout the country: they don't care.
This bill, as the Minister outlined, is actually addressing the very issue that Māori land owners, both when we were reviewing when they had the ture whenua and now that we've had te ture whenua, about their right to participate—and rates have been, for a long year, an inhibitor to them participating. So this is what this bill is essentially doing. It's allowing certain tools under the ratings legislation of the local government bill to ensure that those that have Māori land blocks that are non-rateable—or removing rates on underused Māori land by providing powers to the chief executive.
Now, that member talked about a very progressive council, the Hastings District Council, that he used to lead once upon a time, but what I couldn't get was if Hastings can apply—and they do apply, and some other progressive councils do apply—then what's the problem with legislating it so there is an even application of rates remission on Māori land? What's wrong with that? That's not inequitable; that's actually smart, right? That's actually smart. So that is the proposition under this bill that the Minister is presenting to the House. It is a way in which we can, like I said, unlock the potential in Māori whenua. It is a very complex set of arrangements in terms of unlocking Māori land, but we see this bill as part of the Minister's wider Māori land reforms—i.e., the changes in Te Ture Whenua Maori Act, the whenua Māori pūtea that the Hon Shane Jones has made available under the Provincial Growth Fund.
Thirty percent of Māori freehold land is in my electorate of Te Tai Rāwhiti, so the rating issue is a very real burden for many of them. I heard the former speaker talk about "Well, if we give it to them, why can't we give it to others?" The reality is that for a lot of Māori land, we're the last cab in the rank when it came to unlocking land, particularly around access to water—and he did mention that. He did mention water. All that we're trying to do with this bill—that the Minister is trying to do—is show a commitment from this side around the utilisation and the potential of Māori land, that that side has never addressed, through this bill. This is what this bill is doing, and I'm excited that we are bringing this up, as I said, as part of what the Minister has said in her wider Māori land reforms.
I know that in terms of the point she made around abandoned land, one of my councils—and I've got 10 councils throughout my electorate, but one of my councils—has historically put abandoned Māori land up for sale—abandoned Māori land for sale. So this bill is addressing that particular issue by ruling that out. I've got to say, for what little land is in Māori possession, which is the 1.4 million hectares—
Marama Davidson: Yeah, the last bits left.
Hon MEKA WHAITIRI: That's right. This side of the House are making a stance: that we need to protect what little Māori freehold land we have—not only protect it but, in this bill, enable its development economically. So I'm really pleased that the Minister has presented this bill. I'm looking forward to it coming to the Māori Affairs Committee. But more importantly, if that side had voted for it, it would've been interesting to hear them expand on the bill, which I have yet to see, and hopefully some of those members will get up on their feet and say what they would do around unlocking Māori economic land. I commend this bill to the House.





Dr JIAN YANG (National): I speak on this Local Government (Rating of Whenua Māori) Amendment Bill. The bill has three objectives. The first one is to support the development of Māori land; and, secondly, to support the development of housing on Māori land; and, thirdly, to modernise the rating legislation affecting Māori land—so it's all about Māori land.
Rates arrears are considered to be a very significant disincentive to Māori land owners engaging with and developing their land, but is the issue so significant? Or, shall we say, there are many other issues that you need to consider.
The regulatory impact assessment states—I read—that "Māori land tends to be more isolated, in smaller holdings and, less 'useable' than general land: for example, 80 per cent of Māori land is classified as being of lower quality and only 17 per cent of Māori land is considered suitable for arable use. Up to 20 per cent of land is considered landlocked, and about 16,000 (60 per cent) Māori land titles are smaller than five hectares, with approximately 11,000 (40 per cent) being smaller than one hectare." If Māori land is more isolated and classified as being of lower economic value, how does this amendment encourage the development of the land and make the land more accessible for productivity? We are not sure whether this bill will indeed achieve the objectives—that is, to support development of Māori land and support the development of housing on Māori land.
So to develop Māori land, we need to consider a wide range of issues or factors such as the constraint due to their resource management consent or resource management system under the Resource Management Act 1991. And you may need to consider the operation of the collective decision-making rules for Māori land under Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993—or called the TTWM Act—and also we need to consider the constraints on the availability of development finance, which are also a consequence of the TTWM Act. 
The bill itself incentivises Māori to develop land, with particular emphasis on housing due to the housing shortage. But why would this provision not extend to general land? There has been no mention of the impacts this bill will have on general land owners, and farmers and general land owners have not been consulted as a part of the regulatory impact assessment. Also plenty of farmers who presently plant large parts of their properties with trees, for the purpose of improving the environment, do not enjoy risk reduction for non-productive land. Well, if rates write-offs on Māori-owned land occur, this will be subsidised by general land owners, who will cover the cost of the write-offs of the council. We can see the difference between Māori land and general land.
Clause 39, the powers of the chief executive to write off rates that cannot be recovered—this is clause 39, about the powers of the chief executive to write off rates that cannot be recovered. But does this apply to non-Māori land as well? The bill needs to specify if the authority to write off rates applies to non-Māori land.
As I said, the consultation has only been between Māori land owners and land councils. The Far North District Council expressed views against the bill from general ratepayers. This is a poor policy that fails to quantify any economic benefit or value to the local districts, and places an additional cost on general ratepayers. Now, collecting rates in Māori-owned land has been an issue for a long time. The council—indeed, many councils—are facing this particular issue. But the bill itself should address more important or deeper reasons for the issues related to Māori land. 
Now, the Government needs to first settle Māori land tenure issues through the TTWM Act 1993 before addressing appropriately these rate issues. Also we see that Labour, the Greens, and New Zealand First opposed Te Ture Whenua Maori Bill in 2017. I quote this: Mr Kelvin Davis said, "There has not been a case for change as to why the 1993 Act does not work because … there are any number of Māori trusts and incorporations that are doing perfectly fine. They are doing very well. We have got a $40 billion Māori economy under this Act,"—this is what Kelvin Davis said during the first reading of the bill. So Labour opposed the bill because they felt it did not help small Māori land owners. The new bill does not distinguish between smaller or larger Māori land owners. So it gives a general rating exemption to all Māori land.
Now, Labour opposed this bill because it did not support small business. But then, in the end, they did not specify this bill itself is for small Māori land owners. The Cabinet paper on the bill fails to quantify the value of writing off the rates that the local economies would get. So the bill falls short of creating effective initiatives for the development of Māori land. So this issue has been there for a long time. If the purpose is to develop Māori land, then you should give strong incentives. But this one, we do not see that it'll achieve what it intends to achieve. As I said, if the land itself is so isolated and remote, then why would this itself be enough to incentivise people to develop on Māori land? Some councils believe that this bill will create tension in their districts and will be racially divisive. And the bill fails to safeguard Māori land staying in Māori ownership. 
So these are the concerns and, therefore, we believe you should really have more discussion and, at this stage, we oppose the bill.





Hon SHANE JONES (Minister of Forestry): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Naturally, this is a first reading for this bill, and a number of the concerns have been already identified. I've no doubt in my mind that the Māori Affairs Committee will receive submissions and diligently work through those submissions. On this side of the House, we are not that pompous to think that this bill doesn't deserve further scrutiny, and there can be refinements. That's the virtue of having a select committee process. But the underlying kaupapa of the bill is to enable those Māori land owners who either want to dedicate their land to a long-term permanent heritage purpose not to be rated out of existence, or those who may actually want to evolve the use of their land to do it in such a way that they're not insolvent before they start. Now, these are actually matters that will advance the interests of the broader rate-paying community.
Now, we did have a few contributions from the former mayor there in the Hawke's Bay. Of course, his recitation of history is deliberately selective. We have just settled the Ahuriri claim, which gives a very sad history, originating with the affairs of Donald McLean, who, in 1867, was also the originator of the Māori seats. And if you read the history of the Ahuriri claim, you can come to no other conclusion than that local government in his area—of which he's obviously an administrative descendant of that generation of land squatters who actually took the land off those hapūs. So there's just no coherence. However, he's entitled to his view. 
I think that there shouldn't be much scope for the discussion of these things of over-bloated language and apocryphal scaremongering. The Māori land is a key part of growing the provinces. The regions and the territorial authorities have proven incapable without a clear instruction from central government. And where the legislation may need some further refinement, just trust in the democratic select committee process. That's why the Minister has nominated the Māori Affairs Committee to consider the bill. I suggest to the members on the other side of the House: use that process and stop the scaremongering, stop the divisiveness over this issue; it's very unbecoming. Thank you very much.





DENISE LEE (National—Maungakiekie): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to speak to this particular bill. Other colleagues before me have expressed our party position, and that's to not support this in its first reading. What we know is that Māori land accounts for approximately 5 percent of New Zealand's land area and is predominantly concentrated in the mid to upper North Island. These are some of the facts and figures that the regulatory impact assessment (RIA) has brought out. And there's about 2.7 million interests—not hectares, interests—in 27,000 or so Māori land blocks. So that is a lot of interests that we're talking about. 
Most of that land tends to be—and others have referred to this as well—more isolated, smaller holdings. But notwithstanding, there are significant pockets in some of the larger areas—for instance, Tauranga, Rotorua, Taupō. There's also, and I smile at this—the RIA brings this out—secondary urban communities. I don't know if I've even heard of that: secondary urban communities such as Kāwhia and Paihia.
So there is a need—and we all agree with this and we're hearing this in the speeches this afternoon—for us to settle Māori land tenure issues in full. I think everyone agrees that that's something that needs to happen, and this bill is talking about that. It wants to aim to support development of provision of housing on Māori land and to modernise the legislation. So that's a good aim, right? That's a good, worthwhile aim for the bill. And when you've got $1.1 billion or so of what those Māori land rating units currently account for, this is something of sizable importance and significance. 
We know that access and development difficulties exist, and—one more time—we all agree on that and there needs to be some assistance to get some of this land productively used. But are rates the only impediment to the productive use of this land? Is that the only issue that we need to address to get this land productively used?
Hon David Parker: No.
DENISE LEE: The answer is squarely no, but that's what this bill is doing, and thanks for the assistance on the other side of the House, whoever is assisting me right now. Our issue with this bill is that it's the wrong way around. What we've got here is a sidestepping of the real issues. What we feel on this side of the House is that the Government's going for a high-profile low-effort option here. It's not addressing the fundamentals of what the issue is. It's just one part of it. So if you're going to spend the time and effort of this House and the time and effort of the Government—by the way, very shortly before an election—is this the only issue that you go after? Our answer on this side of the House is no. 
So what we know is that this bill—and for those listening—allows for multiple dwellings on Māori land to be treated as one dwelling and enjoying lower rates. Put simply, that's what this bill does. So we know that if a rate write-off occurs, and that's what this bill allows for, it's going to be subsidised by general land owners. Make no mistake about that. Someone needs to cover the cost of the write-offs to the councils. And I'll just say that one more time: someone needs to cover the cost of the write-offs to councils. 
So if we refer back to what I said earlier around the number of interests, the amount of hectares, and the number of land blocks, this is a significant issue. Someone will have to end up paying. So we've got questions around where we've got to for this first reading, how the Government got here, but first, before I do that, the process of consultation. It's a good question to ask for any bill or any legislation that we receive here in the House. 
So, according to the Department of Internal Affairs, there's been limited consultation with local governments, and I'll stress the word "limited". Really interesting for me, and it was before my time, but the Hon Nanaia Mahuta opposed Te Ture Whenua Maori Bill because she didn't believe there was enough consultation, and here we are with not enough consultation on this bill. So we've got an ironic switcheroos going on here this afternoon—
Hon Members: Switcheroos!
DENISE LEE: —switcheroo, switcheroo—injecting the good adjectives on a Thursday afternoon. And we've got Cabinet papers for this bill confirming that there has been small consultation. So that's out there for everyone to see and for everyone to read. The consultation's only been between Māori land owners and local councils. Now, I note that my colleague Jian Yang raised that the Far North District Council, bless their socks, did express views against the bill on behalf of general ratepayers. So at least someone talked to general ratepayers, but it wasn't this Government and it wasn't any of their officials in the lead-up to this. So we know that if we're going to talk about general ratepayers and councils, there are several councils around New Zealand that feel that a move such as this in this bill will create significant tension. That's something that we should take seriously and it's something that we will take seriously with the passage of this bill. 
So in my remaining time, back to what our questions would be on this side of the House and then I'll finish up there. Is it OK—and here's a fundamental question for the Government—to fail to quantify any economic value to local districts and to place an additional cost on general ratepayers? What we're arguing is that they have failed to quantify any economic value to local districts with this bill. Perhaps it's there; we'd like to see it. We'd like to hear from it. We've got a process that they can do that with. 
Here's something else, a question we have around new section 62A, in clause 33, which allows for persons using abandoned general land to be liable for rates if the land has ceased to be Māori land. Really what that means, and this is interesting, is: does the bill actually safeguard Māori land staying in Māori ownership? Has the bill actually addressed that, or is there a loophole here? That's something that should be addressed during the select committee process, but we've picked that up.
Clause 39, inserting 90A, gives powers of the chief executive to write off rates that cannot be recovered. Does this apply to non-Māori land as well? In other words, if the regulatory impact analysis is confirming that this power could apply to non-Māori land—the writing off of rates—does the bill need to specify that that can in fact take place? That is another potential loophole, or something that's not been addressed.
Another question: the bill states it incentivises Māori to develop land, and it's emphasising the housing shortage. It's referring to the housing shortage. So it's encouraging the use of this land because of the housing shortage. Why would provisions in this bill not then extend to general land? Can you use the same mechanisms to encourage housing provisions in development everywhere, and perhaps specifically the powers of the chief executive that I referred to earlier? 
My last question would be: if the bill has such a low legal threshold for Māori land owners to prove how their land can benefit the district—because in this bill, they have to prove that they are going to benefit the district—how is it fair, or is it right? Is that low legal threshold the right one to go after?
The real final question that would summarise all my prior questions would be this, and it's quite simple and I think it's a really legitimate and fulsome question that the Government should answer: does this bill create effective initiatives for the development of Māori land? That's a very simple question to ask. Is this bill creating effective initiatives, or, in fact, is it a wrong way around, side-stepping, high-profile, low-effort pre-election push? Thank you.





MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): The Greens strongly support the Local Government (Rating of Whenua Māori) Amendment Bill. One thing is for sure: an agreement in this House on this bill is that we all love land. That's why so much of it was taken off tangata whenua and was benefited off for over 100 years when it was taken off us.
This bill is to correct a long injustice, a long injustice that should never have been in place in the first place. This is to make sure that unused lands are unrateable, to be able to wipe out land rates arrears that have built up over time for pieces of landlocked land, for pieces of unusable land, that whānau have not been able to engage with. This bill is going to ensure that, like other general conservation lands, Māori Rahui kawenata lands can also be considered non-rateable like other general conservation lands have been considered to this point.
This bill is about putting right something that has been long wrong, and the speeches from the Opposition that like to pit a group against other New Zealand communities and groups when we are about correcting justice is an immature approach to making law, and it is an immature approach to politics, and it's not even real. Some Māori are farmers. Many Māori are ratepayers. The Opposition likes to section out communities as if there is no relationship and no benefit from uplifting a particular group—in this case, Māori land owners. Trying to minimise the value of uplifting Māori land owners, being able to engage with their land, as if it has no other value for the rest of our country, for their local communities, is simply an immature attempt at pitting groups of people against each other. I'm disappointed that that's the approach that is being taken by the Opposition tonight. 
So I am not going to take that approach. I am going to uphold the values of what this bill is trying to achieve, and not on its own. The Minister was very clear in her opening speech tonight that this bill of making rates fairer and equitable for Māori land owners sits in conjunction with a whole raft of changes, which at the core are about affirming and retaining Māori land for Māori whānau and hapū. It includes the provincial funding projects that are going around the provinces, for people to be able to initiate projects on their land. It includes a whole raft of visions and aspirations, and this bill is one important part of it. If people were listening in the House tonight, they would have heard that loud and clear. The questions that the Opposition are getting up to ask have already been answered. Realising that we will all benefit when we remove barriers for Māori to be able to use their land is good for all of us. 
Another principle that I am actually open to hearing about: how do we make sure that local authorities and local councils are able to run and do their core business as local governments? That again is another scaremongering tactic by the Opposition, as if making things right for Māori land owners is going to deny local councils the ability to run their core business. How dare we think of that approach in this House when upholding justice. How dare we scaremonger the threat—an untrue threat, a dishonest threat—to the rest of us when we are trying to put something right that has been wrong for a long time. 
Another question arose from the Opposition: how is this going to actually benefit Māori land owners? For far too long, Māori have not even felt that they have been able to approach local authorities with proposals and engage in ideas and initiatives for developing land and using land because of the rates arrears that have built up over many, many years. Removing that stigma and the real fiscal arrears absolutely is going to make it easier for Māori land owners to engage with their land. That is the prime, obvious point of this very bill. Sometimes I wonder if they are just running out of things to talk about in their speeches, because all of these questions have been canvassed steadily through the course of the speeches here in this House, in this introduction of the first reading.
I agree that I want to see this bill get its passage into the select committee so that we can start having these valid debates, so I am going to keep my speech not as long as I would initially have wanted. But I just want to end on making sure that we correct this injustice. For over 100 years, this law and the unequal process of rating Māori land has been neglected—for over 100 years. Tonight is the beginning of correcting that and amending that.
Making sure that Māori can thrive and contribute and engage and participate in our own lands is absolutely good for all of us. So I'm very proud to support this, the first reading of the Local Government (Rating of Whenua Māori) Amendment Bill, and we look forward to seeing it through to its passage.





MAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I too rise in opposition, speaking to the Local Government (Rating of Whenua Māori) Amendment Bill today. I wonder why it actually even has that title. I suggest it could be called the "Local Government (Un-rating of Whenua Māori) Amendment Bill" because that, in effect, is what this bill is setting out to do: to un-rate Māori land.
Now, the Minister stated in her opening address to the House on this bill that rates are an impediment to developing Māori land. That's probably quite true, but the reality for every other property owner in this country is that rates are an impediment to having property. Some people would argue, and certainly do, that rates are an impediment, but, actually, rates are what fund the local authorities.
It's been my experience over quite a few years that the engagement that happens between local constituents and their local councils has more to do with the outcomes of those discussions and the progress that is made on various parcels of land, especially our Māori land, than legislating and having a top-down approach.
The Minister used the example of the Far North District Council, where they reached a negotiation and were able to bring the rates down from $18,000 a year to $8,000 a year. That's really commendable. I think that's a classic example of the partnership and the collaboration that councils individually can come to with their various landowners. But as my colleague Denise Lee pointed out earlier, that shortfall is picked up by somebody else.
So just to explain, the rating system is just one big pie, and it's established by working out what the work programme is and the costs are for a local council over the course of the next financial year. So that figure is agreed to by the councillors: the work programme, all the projects, all of the maintenance, all of the capital investment that it's going to have, all the debt servicing that a council has, and the rates are struck for the following year. So it doesn't matter where that money comes from. The portion that each person pays is attributed to the parcel of land that they own. The rates are derived from your uniform annual general charges, your levies or things like your funding assistance rate, subsidies that are provided, and the rates that are struck by the council on residential properties.
So when one group has a rate discount of $10,000, that money and that cost shifts to all of the other ratepayers. So, in effect, you have one group that will be subsidising another. Now, we already know that this is going on in the country, and we've had a couple of great examples today, but one of the things that did concern me when I was reading this paperwork was the lack of consultation. It was even brought up in the documentation when this bill was being prepared, and it says, "The RIA acknowledges time constraints around effective consultation," and "limited recent consultation with local authorities on proposals has led to some assumptions", and I would argue that it's led to some huge assumptions.
One of the things that I have most concern about in this bill is that what we're going to do is segregate our communities, because it is going to cause disruption and it is going to cause resentment if ratepayers in a certain district are being asked to subsidise other ratepayers simply because they don't pay their rates.
But I'd also like to just explain too how the rate arrears work. We've heard a lot about the rate arrears and why that is a barrier to some people coming forward and negotiating with their councils, but I would strongly argue that if a party was to come to their local council and make some arrangement for how those rate arrears could be forgiven, or waived, and then how they could move forward, I doubt there would be a council in this country that would not agree to some arrangement. But the reality is with rate arrears that they only accrue for seven years anyway, and then they are written off at the other end. Councils do this every year, as we've heard today from my colleagues. The rate arrears are forgiven after seven years, so the accumulation of rates is only for a window of seven years, and I say that most of those councils would definitely welcome an opportunity to come to some arrangement.
The Hon Shane Jones mentioned the select committee process and having great faith in that process, and I know that very few landowners would come to a select committee and argue against this bill when it so dramatically supports them. But I would also suggest that local government and individual ratepayers would certainly want to defend and oppose this bill, and they are the ones that I speak for.
The previous speaker, Marama Davidson, mentioned that this bill ensures that unused land is unrateable, and I'd just like to tell the story of Colin—a ratepayer and a constituent on the coast. Colin has a large parcel of land that he bought many years ago. It's unused and, in his eyes, it's now unusable because that land has now had a significant natural area designation put on it. Unfortunately for Colin, he still has to pay the rates. So if we are going to allow some concessions for unusable land and have them unrateable, then I think we've just lifted the lid off a very wriggly can of worms, and I think there's a really valid argument for those people who feel they are going to be disadvantaged by having one portion of our community that is offered some benefit in terms of rates relief for unusable land. I think that's a very dangerous place for this Parliament to be going. If I recall some of the arguments that have come from that quarter, from the New Zealand First members, they have been strongly opposed to different sets of rules for Māori in this country.
When you've got an area of land, as we do on the West Coast—I'll talk to Westland: it is 87 percent unrateable anyway because it is mostly Department of Conservation estate or stewardship land or Government land. So when you say 87 percent is already unrateable and you're going to now introduce a bill that could make even more of it unrateable, you simply put the squeeze on a small community and make life even harder for them to upkeep the infrastructure that they need.
The whole of the West Coast, taken as a whole, is 85 percent unrateable because of its land status, and if we think about the use of that 15 percent that West Coasters scratch a living off, they still have to pay for the roads that people drive on, they have to pay for the footpaths, and they pay for their water supplies, their water disposal, their stormwater, and their waste collection, and the cost of compliance and regulation. So all of those costs are going to fall on a smaller and smaller group of people, and when you're already 87 percent unrateable, that's a very big ask. 
I suggest that this bill does nothing to support those people that are already doing it tough, and I think we are going to buy a fight with everyday ratepayers who bite the bullet and understand that they have to pay for the things that they enjoy in their community. They need to know that they can afford to pay to turn the lights on, to have the water run and the toilet flush, and to have all those practical things, but there comes a point when the cost on a small group becomes just too unbearable, and we have to give a great deal of consideration to things like this bill that are going to make it almost impossible. Thank you very much. 
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): This is a split call. I call Jo Luxton—five minutes. 





JO LUXTON (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. This piece of legislation is about unlocking economic potential on Māori land, and what we have here is arrears that have grown and grown over many, many, many years. A lot of it has already been classified as unrecoverable. So is it not better to wipe the slate clean so that these people that own this land can turn around and build on it, make it productive, and then pay rates from there onwards, as opposed to, potentially, never ever paying the rates on this land? It would remain unproductive and unusable. So, in my mind, this is a fantastic piece of legislation, and I commend it to the House. 





Hon DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): Mr Speaker, thank you. I just wanted to take a short call on this bill because I do actually have a bit of sympathy for what the Government members have been saying around the issue of Māori land. We need to be realistic around a lot of Māori land. It is in places where it is very hard to deal with, and it is very small blocks of land that aren't economical in their own right, that are leased to other neighbours or farmers, and that have very multiple ownerships as well. That puts that land in a very difficult predicament to make it have an economic value, in some cases, to provide a return, and I think that is something we need to be mindful of in this House. 
I know the ill that the Government is trying to deal with, and there is a problem there that we need to be aware of. We need to have a concerted effort that deals with that issue so that we can actually provide some substance, I think, to those landowners that have, generally, felt an injustice in the past and are now looking at making the best utilisation of the assets that they hold. 
The National Party sees a dilemma, though, in the current bill in that it is, potentially, going to cross-subsidise between other ratepayers, and that is a valid issue that should have been worked through by the Government before this bill came to the House. So, in essence, there is an issue there that we need to consider, but it also is something that really needed a much better solution that avoided that cross-subsidisation result. I would recommend that the Government relook at the legislation to find a solution which enables that to happen. Thank you, Mr Speaker. 





A party vote was called for on the question, That the Local Government (Rating of Whenua Māori) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.
Ayes 63
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.
Noes 56
New Zealand National 54; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.
Bill read a first time.
Bill referred to the Māori Affairs Committee.
The House adjourned at 6 p.m.