TUESDAY, 23 FEBRUARY 2021
The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.
Prayers.
CHRISTCHURCH EARTHQUAKE OF 22 FEBRUARY 2011
10th Anniversary
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): I seek leave to move a motion on the 10th anniversary of the Christchurch earthquake.
SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is none.
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I move, That this House mark the 10th anniversary of the devastating earthquake of 22 February 2011 that saw the tragic loss of 185 lives and thousands more injured, and acknowledge the people of Christchurch and the wider region who'll face the long-term impact of the earthquake.
Along with many others in this House, I spent yesterday in Christchurch. It was humbling to be amongst people who have been through so much. The earthquake and aftershocks affected people in complex and diverse ways, and those impacts are still felt acutely 10 years on. To hear the names of the 185 people who lost their lives read aloud was a stark reminder that 22 February remains one of New Zealand's deadliest disasters. For some of those who lost loved ones, the last decade represents a period of grief, but also of healing. But for others, those 10 years simply signify 10 birthdays, 10 Christmases, 10 years of special moments without the one they loved. The message yesterday to everyone affected was clear: New Zealand will stand with you for as long as you need us to. 
The earthquake shook Christchurch and the region and changed that city for ever, but it also impacted New Zealand. I remember so clearly how the country threw its support behind Canterbury in the months and years following the quake: raising funds, holding tributes, downing tools for moments of silence. Everyone felt so keenly the enormity of what had happened. The enormity has not lessened with the passage of time. 
I'd like to acknowledge in this House, as I did yesterday, all those who were part of relief efforts on or after 22 February: emergency service staff, the Christchurch mayor—who remains in our thoughts—and city councillors, Ministers, international diplomats, and family and friends of all involved. I know we would all wish to acknowledge past and present members of the Quake Families Trust, and, as I did yesterday, I also want to acknowledge the children who lived through the earthquake. This was a cohort left particularly vulnerable, who would always grow up in the shadow of that day. We have all worked hard to support them—we had a duty to. In particular, over the last three years, alongside professionals in Canterbury, we created a programme to support the school children in the region who were affected by the earthquakes. We did the same in Kaikōura. That programme so far has helped 4,196 tamariki and will now roll out across New Zealand. Out of such a traumatic time for our kids has grown something positive for a whole generation. They have left a legacy. But I hope that no matter where they are or what age they are now, they continue to find and have the support they need.
Finally, I'd like to acknowledge all New Zealand politicians—local council chambers, or here in this House—who have worked so hard to support Christchurch over the past 10 years. It has been uncharted territory, and everyone—on both sides of this House—did their very best for the city that they loved. 
It's been a difficult decade for Christchurch. It's taken hits on so many fronts, but as we look forward to the coming decade, I see hope and I see optimism. We see a city emerging, one founded on innovation, ideas, and creativity. There's a focus on things that matter: people and communities. There are some amazing people in Christchurch doing amazing things. So please, keep going. We are with you.
SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.





Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Leader of the Opposition): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I found the 10th anniversary of the massive Canterbury and, particularly, Christchurch earthquakes very emotional, so I'm just going to speak from the heart. Yesterday, I was honoured to be able to attend the 10th anniversary of the 2011 quakes on 22 February. Along with me were Gerry Brownlee, who seemed to spend much of his Cabinet time dealing with and trying to resurrect Christchurch from not only the ashes but, actually, the liquefaction—an enormous contribution; Nicola Grigg and Matt Doocey were there; former Ministers Nicky Wagner and Kate Wilkinson were there. All were people who I well remember around the Cabinet table doing their very best for Christchurch.
I first visited the quake sites on 24 February 2011, two days after the quakes. For me, it was something that I returned to almost every week for months after that. It was horrific. I got to go home that night but the people who were living it did not—or were not to escape it, anyway. 
I well remember the young police officer who was assigned, because I was Minister of Police then, to take me around and to get me past cordons and through things. I asked him how he was and what happened with his house, and his house had been destroyed and he and his wife had had to go and shift in with family. Yet there he was at work, showing this Minister around. He took me to places like the CTV building and the PGC building, and there I met people who were removing bodies and who just occasionally were able to bring out someone who was still alive. It was horrendous, and, as I say, I got to go home that night and they didn't.
Even now, when we go back to Christchurch, there are drivers and other people who have been there for many years, and I often say, "And how are you today?", and sometimes it's not good. Sometimes people are still dealing with not only the physical scars but the mental scars, because, as we know—and we'll just remind everybody—it wasn't just a day of earthquakes; it has been years of earthquakes, and it only now seems to have settled down somewhat. Thousands of earthquakes, and people had to keep living in it.
When I think about my colleagues who themselves had their houses destroyed and their families uprooted and they still had to go to work and do their best for others, I'm really proud to have been around that Cabinet table with them.
I also think of the next visit, which was to the morgue which had been set up at Burnham Military Camp. It was something that will live with me for ever. I went there with the Governor-General, Anand Satyanand, and my chief of staff, and we saw all these people working to reunite the deceased with their families, to work out who people were, to absolutely 100 percent identify people where—when people say, "Oh, they could've shown us the bodies", they couldn't have shown the bodies; it was horrendous. Everyone was treated with respect. We saw just about every denomination it is possible to have from a religious point of view represented, and we saw everyone treated with respect. The people who came to help there were not only New Zealanders but people from all around the world, and they came to help us in our hour of need and they came quickly and they came with the best intentions and the best skills. I couldn't be more proud to have been a Kiwi receiving that.
The Australian Government—or their states, I should say—sent 400 police officers to help us. They sent 400 police officers to help New Zealand Police, and those police were sworn in as temporary constables by the commissioner at the airport. I'll always remember them well for that.
It is really hard to think of all those people who died, but let us not forget that there are many people who survived. Yesterday, I was able to meet with the Quake Families Trust and to meet some of those people who had horrific injuries—their legs lost, back broken, just awful things, and they still live with this every day. What they want us to do is to remember them, as well, and that we can do things for them. So I hope that we will always try to remember that. They are still there, they have still survived, and they have been injured.
And, of course, the mental health issues that people suffered, whether it's the little children who grew up with this massive uncertainty, or whether it's people who everything that they thought they had had been destroyed—what they went through.
So I was very humbled and grateful to be able to attend yesterday, to be able to pay my respects to people, and to remember all of those—all those emergency services; everybody who did their very best. Thank you, Mr Speaker.





Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Tēnā tātou e hui mai nei mō tēnei kaupapa whakahirahira. Ngā mihi aroha ki te whānau, whānui, e hoa mā, o ngā aituā maha, i ngā wā mua. Tēnā koutou katoa.
[Greetings to us all whom have gathered for this important occasion. My profuse thanks to the wider family, my friends, the many who have passed on in the past. Greetings.]
There were 15 flags flying yesterday at Oi Manawa, the national memorial for the Canterbury earthquakes on the banks of the Ōtākaro/Avon River, representing the 15 home countries of 185 individuals who lost their lives. On behalf of the Green Party, I acknowledge the family, friends, and colleagues of all of those who passed, and especially the families of students who were studying English in Christchurch, who are so far away—in Japan, Korea, and elsewhere. Know that we hold your loved ones close, and we remember them.
Thanks to the news media, more stories of courage and heroism have been recounted in recent days—ordinary people doing extraordinary things to save lives, help, and comfort others. I too acknowledge the endurance of those who were seriously injured and somehow survived. Like so many families living with grief, your courage in overcoming physical injury and mental anguish is immense and an inspiration.
In smashing buildings to the ground, Rūaumoko also levelled people. Post-quake Greater Christchurch, with its cracked and rumpty roads, Portaloos on street corners, was munted—no place for high-heels or fancy airs. There was no playbook for how to respond to a disaster on this scale. What emerged was a strong sense of community, a down-to-earth openness about the shared experience of coming to terms with something unimagined, of life being very different, and grappling with a slew of practical changes every day—from how to get across town to how to cope with a broken sewerage system.
New Zealanders were hugely generous in their response to the earthquakes. Rangiora folks sent fragrant baking across the city. We had the energy of the student army and the Farmy Army, who mobilised hundreds of volunteers to help shift silt with shovels and wheelbarrows, while billions of dollars flowed from Treasury. I acknowledge the support that we received in Ōtautahi, Christchurch from all over Aotearoa and the world. People reached out to us and each other, and that was powerful.
Canterbury is known for its big skies. There is space for new ideas and new ways of being. New buildings and public spaces are creating a diverse and interesting city with a much more visible Ngāi Tahu presence, like the beautiful steel-feathered korowai on the justice precinct. There are many more cycleways and pedestrian spaces, and traffic is now slower in the city. I acknowledge groups like Gap Filler, the mural artists, and all of those for their creativity—ideas like the Dance-O-Mat—for showing us how to do things differently and rebuild.
Much has happened over the last 10 years, and the rebuilding of homes, lives, and communities continues. There is still much to do, especially to those who struggle with inadequate housing in the city's eastern suburbs, with post-quake stress and trauma, and those who have been further disadvantaged by COVID. Kia kaha. Nō reira, kore rawa mātou e wareware kua hinga rātou, haere haere haere ki te pō.
[Be strong. Finally, we will never forget those who have passed. Rest in peace.]





TONI SEVERIN (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the ACT Party in support of the Prime Minister's motion. The 22 February 2011 is a Cantabrian's darkest day, a day for ever linked with great suffering, tragedy, and trauma, but we should look back on the heroism displayed on that day 10 years ago with pride. Much of that city was lost: its landmarks, the cathedral, Lancaster Park, and many more, all in rubble. But on that day, and in the hard weeks, months, years following, the people of Christchurch came together, united, to go on with it. The loss of lives will never be healed, and are a loss we will never forget; we will remember them. As a Cantabrian, my husband's vehicle was crushed by a concrete beam 30 seconds after he got out of it. Myself, I still suffer when buildings shake and there are loud bangs, because you just do not know if it's another big earthquake.
The years following the quake were hard. Many are still battering insurance companies and the Earthquake Commission, and many are still hurting from their loss. However, thanks to the determination and the relentless spirit of the Cantabrians, which are more frequently displayed on a rugby field on a Saturday night, the city is starting to revive. From the merest loss the city has recovered, thanks to the work done by government led by Sir John Key, Sir Bob Parker, the Hon Gerry Brownlee, and Sir Bill English. However, the reason Christchurch stands as New Zealand's most modern, most vibrant, and most livable city is thanks not to the politicians but to the people and, particularly, the entrepreneurs. As Government, councils, and bureaucrats pushed paper, a small number of Cantabrians got to work. They got out there—had a go. They battled the councils, the insurance companies, and regulations that got in the way, and slowly created something worthwhile. A special thanks to the likes of Antony Gough, Richard Peebles, and Tim Glasson, who did a lot of heavy lifting, but for, more frequently, the small guys—it's not easy to run a business, but thanks to their tireless work we have a city that we can be proud of once again. 
I walk down Oxford Terrace on a Sunday afternoon and the evidence is there to be seen: Rollickin Gelato, the Bacon Brothers, Bohemian Bakery—dozens of businesses in the Riverside Market and hundreds of other operators in the city getting out there, having a go. It is to you we owe the city we have today, and what a city it is. Thank you.





RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori): 
E ko Rūaumoko e ngunguru nei, i au au aue hā
E ko Rūaumoko e ngunguru nei, i au au aue hā
E ko te rākau a Tūngāwerewere, iahahā
He rākau tapu nā Tūtaua ki a Uenuku i pātukia ki Ōtautahi pakaru te ūpoko. Ki Ōtautahi patua ki waenganui o te tau o Aoraki te toka whakairo e tū ake nei. He atua, he tangata, he atua he tangata, ho!
Kāti ake ka tautoko ake i ngā mihi ki ngā tangi ki a rātou i mate i roto i tēnei o ngā parekura nui i utaina ki runga i ngā tāngata o Ōtautahi puta noa i te ao. Hoatu rā koutou i runga i te ara kōrero kua parangia e te tini e te mano. Koutou kua whoatu rā i runga i te ara kua whakawhārikihia e ō tātou mātua tīpuna, ā, i te hunga o te ope tārewa i mua noa atu i a koutou. Nō reira e ngā māte haere, haere whakangaro atu rā. Ka hoki mai rā ki a tātou ngā mahuetanga iho, ā, ki te hunga e ora tonu ana i roto i ngā rā, i roto i te tekau tau kua hipa ake. E kiri haehae tonu ana te kiri, e kiri haehae tonu te manawa, kei te kiri haehae tonu te whenua.
[Hark to the rumble of the Earthquake God
Hark to the rumble of the Earthquake God
It is the rod of Tūngāwerewere
The sacred stick given by Tūtaua to Uenuku, it struck Christchurch and smashed its head. Cleaving amidst the ridge of Aoraki, where the carved rock emerges. 'Tis the awe of the gods, 'tis the fear of man!
Allow me to support the acknowledgments and laments to those who passed away during this great calamity that weighed upon the people of Christchurch and indeed the world. Go forth upon the storied pathway forged by the myriads. You who have passed along that pathway spread out for us by our ancestors and by the spirit troupe before you. Therefore, to the deceased, travel, travel, out of sight. Returning our thoughts back to us who remain, those still living in the days, and in the decade which has passed. The skin is tearing, the heart is yearning, the land is scarred.]
Te Paati Māori rises to support this motion to mark the 10th anniversary of the 2011 Christchurch earthquakes, and to acknowledge the people of Ōtautahi, along with the hundreds of volunteers, the emergency services, and the selfless public. We acknowledge the mana whenua, Ngāi Tahu, Ngāi Tūāhuriri, Ngāti Irakehu, Ngāti Kuri, Ngāi Te Rua Hikihiki for leading the way in supporting the entire community in the aftermath of the earthquake, including Rehua Marae. This is yet another example of how mana whenua in the aftermath of natural disasters and emergencies set up and provide much-needed support for all its community and to fill gaps that Government and official responses have not yet provided for. It demonstrates what tangata whenua leadership can do for us all.
I acknowledge the strength and the resilience of the communities of Ōtautahi for continuing to deal with the long-lasting impacts, such as slow rebuild, ongoing issues with insurance, and the mental stress and trauma, as alluded to by speakers before me.
Nō reira e te iwi, hei whakakapinga mōku:
E ko komako, ko komako! 
Ko te hautapu e rite ki te kai nā Mata Ariki. 
Tapa reireia, koia tapa! 
Tapa konunua, koia nā! 
Tukua! Hī! Aue! Hī!
[Finally, to conclude my part:
'Tis the bellbird, 'tis the bellbird! 
The sacred food akin to the sustenance of Mata Ariki. 
The rituals have been chanted, yes! 
The final rituals been chanted, yes! 
Let it be settled!]
Kia ora tātou. 





Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National): I rise to support the motion moved in the House today by the Prime Minister. This 10th anniversary is a time for remembrance and a time for tribute. Those who lost their lives or sustained serious injury will have in their families a great deal of grief for a long period of time, or they will be living with those injuries. I knew nine people who perished in the earthquakes on that and subsequent days, and I have to say that no matter what anniversary it is, when those names are read out, the emotion of that significance is no less pertinent. 
So a tribute to the first responders, the many who turned up in uniform from the fire service, from the police, from the military, and the many who were civilian members of the urban search and rescue teams, that came not only from New Zealand but all other parts of the world. And then, of course, the hospital staff, from the doctors through to those who dealt with the laundry at the end. Not an easy task. 
It was a time where the shock and grief of the situation was only matched by the anxious desire to get some clarity and speed about how it would all come to an end. There were hundreds of people who stepped up—thousands of people who stepped up—people who stepped up at their home, people who stepped up in their workplaces, in their community groups and schools and local and central government and the bureaucracies that go with them, and the many other organisations that our friend Eugenie Sage also mentioned who have been vital to community spirit in the years since.
There was a huge will to do what needed to be done to fix things, and there was an enormous amount to fix: over 700,000 total Earthquake Commission (EQC) claims across all categories; 167,000 severely damaged residential properties; 1,800 CBD buildings completely destroyed, needing demolition; and out in the suburban industrial areas even more. There were many, many schools that could not continue to have occupation. The university was badly damaged, along with Ara and other tertiary institutions. The experience from the 4 September earthquake through to that 22 February day, along with a great deal of reading that I did about disaster response, made me very clear in my thought that there needed to be a very sound structure that allowed decisions to be made as quickly as possible. 
The one thing that was lacking in everything that I looked at was clear decision-making. To get that understood by more people was a bit of a challenge. Naturally, there was a desire to cling to local leadership, if you like. So we took the opportunity of having New Zealand Defence Force helicopters in Hagley Park to get many who either are or have been in this House up in the sky to see the extent of the damage, along with many State bureaucrats, local body politicians, local community leaders, so that they could see that the damage was from the outer parts of Banks Peninsula north up into the Kaikōura district, west as far as the Alps, and south as far as Timaru. That brought a degree of reality about just exactly what was being dealt with. It also, I think, made people clear about just how big the job was and the sort of thing that we needed to do to get things moving. 
So legislation was put together and it was passed through this House unanimously, and that legislation was considered to be an all-powerful document. I can remember being compared myself to Henry VIII with his extraordinary powers. I've got to say, until I saw the photograph or mock-up of me in his gear, I never believed in reincarnation. The truth is that was not the case. All decisions were Cabinet decisions, and we had a cross-party forum, we had a community forum, and we had a group that were looking at the legalities of the various Orders in Council that were passed under that Act. All that meant was that there was a faster track to being able to do things, and therein, I think, lies the opportunity that perhaps exists for other disasters that might befall this country. 
There was a lot for us to consider, and I'm not sure which of the very many big decisions that had to be made would be listed as most important ahead of others. But there are two that I want to speak about because they stand out for me. One was the decision that 8,500 families would be ill-advised to continue living in their homes and probably couldn't rebuild them because the ground conditions were not suitable for sustaining that type of occupation. That was a very hard thing to do, even though there were people in those areas who were calling for "Just tell us what's going to happen. Tell us where we're going to go." The harsh reality of hearing that cannot have been easy. And while there were some who would say they did all right out of it, some who say they won out of it, there were many who did not.
Getting those decisions based on the science was important, and I want to particularly thank GNS for the work that they did. They are an internationally recognised body that's perhaps not well enough appreciated here at home. They worked with Tonkin + Taylor, the engineers, they worked at pace, and they got a very good picture of what the city looked like below its surface. But that was a hard decision to make, not only for those who were advising Cabinet; for Cabinet itself.
It was one of those things that you just have to do, and it was important too that people receiving that news had some degree of choice about what happened from there. They knew they had to go, but they could stay or they could sell their section to the Government—much of that would be covered by EQC—or they could decide to completely sell their property to the Government, house and land as well. Not particularly palatable options, but at least some degree of choice. So from a personal point of view, understanding what it's like to own your own home, to feel that connection, to live through that devastation, to know that your workplace has been a little bit stressed, I think, and then come home to that kind of reality, and what you've got to do through all that—I think that took an enormous amount of effort for those 8,500 families and the many other families who would have supported them through that. 
The second decision was the decision to remove from the Environment Court a thing called the urban development strategy, which had been developed by the three councils, "Waimak", Selwyn, and Christchurch, over a long period of years, to a point where it had been in the Environment Court for about two years, getting to a position where the future development of the greater Christchurch area could be well understood. It was clear the process from that point, from 22 February on, was going to be long and tortuous. So we used the legislation to remove it and to effectively consent land that could be further consented for over 40,000 residential sections. Yes, there were some court cases about whether that was the right thing to do, but in the end all of those ended with those cases being defeated and the decision being upheld. That is also, I think, important because it shows that when you do have a tight situation, you do have to do things that are pretty big and pretty bold. 
If I was to mention one other thing, it would be the wage subsidy, which I think totally defeated the idea that Christchurch would depopulate and that we would have economic carnage in the city—a prediction that there'd be 40 percent of the remaining city living on benefits with broken properties and the downscaling that comes from that. I think the recognition that the dignity that comes from work should always be supported by Government was very important, and we're seeing that at the present time.
This is not a day to single out individuals who did great work. There were so many of them at some point. I would like to personally offer my gratitude to them for all that they did. But it is important to note that when the balloon goes up, you have an organisation like Civil Defence that does step up. Yes, it has its faults. It will make decisions that aren't the best; it happens. But by and large, we're lucky to have it and we're lucky to have the legislation that goes around it. And a small example of that: the electricity was out for the eastern part of Christchurch for a number of days, and the then chief executive of Orion, Roger Sutton, came up with a plan to get it back on. 
He turned up at the art gallery, which was the centre for activities for the civil defence emergency response. He had his plans rolled up under his arm and he came up and he said, "Who do I talk to about getting a consent to put this overland power line in, across about 8 kilometres, to connect it to another substation and get the power on?" I said, "Well, I'm not sure, Roger." And then I thought, "Well, I'll get hold of John Hamilton"—the great John Hamilton, retired Air Marshal, I think he was, a great guy running Civil Defence at the time. I said, "John, Roger wants to put the power on over in the east. He needs the consent. How do we do that?" He said, "Well, I don't really know". And I said, "Well, I tell you what. Why don't you and Roger both sign that plan and I'll witness it and we'll take that as a consent." The great thing about the accusations that were around, that I had "Henry VIII" powers, was that no one really questioned that. And sure enough, the lights went on. Sometimes you've got to do things as quickly as you can.
It is, as someone has already said, the people of Christchurch who have defeated the worst aspects of what was a very big disaster for us. It's the people of Christchurch, and some of them have been named by others, who made those commitments to the city and have seen our population far from depopulate, but grow. So today it remains a dynamic great place to live, with a growing future.





Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): For many Cantabrians, 22 February is always a day filled with very mixed emotions. That fateful day simultaneously seems a lifetime ago but also like it was yesterday. In many ways, it's hard to remember—less imagine—life before the quakes. I, like the speakers that have spoken before me, would like to acknowledge those who lost their lives on that day, the families of those that lost their lives, and those that are still living with the physical scars and injuries of those events.
Ten years ago, I wasn't an MP—that happened later in the year of 2011. But in the days, weeks, and months that followed, I was privileged to work alongside my predecessor, the late Hon Jim Anderton, as he worked to ensure that the people of Wigram were OK. And I'd like to acknowledge not only Jim but all the Canterbury members of Parliament at that time, who worked with their local communities. Only one of those members of Parliament who were there on that day remains in this House today. That is, of course, the Hon Gerry Brownlee. So, along with Jim and Gerry, I would like to acknowledge Ruth Dyson, Lianne Dalziel, Kate Wilkinson, Amy Adams, Clayton Cosgrove, Brendon Burns, David Carter, Nicky Wagner, Kennedy Graham, and Rahui Katene, who were all members representing that region at the time in 2011. Thank you for the work that you did for our city.
To my current Cantabrian colleagues, we've still got work to do—the job is not finished. To those that have gone before and those that are here now, I think it's fair to say that we've not always agreed with each other on the how, and sometimes even the what, but I know that we have always shared a desire to see our city recover and to see our city flourish. We have learnt so many lessons along the way of this last decade. We've dealt with our fair share of frustrations, and we've also shared and made bonds that, in some cases, are impossible to explain, and, importantly, made lasting friendships along the way. It's been tough, but countless and probably never-documented actions have got us through these last 10 years. These were tough times and, no, we were not always resilient.
We also remember how much we have been changed by these events, for all the lives that were literally turned upside down, but the reality is that you are hard-pressed to find anyone in Canterbury whose life has not changed in some way by what we collectively lived through. The impacts of feeling the ground continuously shake under your feet, living in a damaged house, and watching the city you love being torn down should never, ever be underestimated. We remembered all the places that we have lost; those were the places where we had made our memories. We remember the children and the young people, as the Prime Minister spoke about, whose—in many ways—entire lives have been lived in the shadow not only of the quakes but of the aftermath and emotional aftermath of those quakes. It's been hard on them, but we saw remarkable actions and leadership in so many in our communities, as well as small actions that aren't going to be the stuff of the history books, and I would like to acknowledge those—neighbour helping neighbour, community helping community.
I also want to acknowledge those that for the past decade have had a struggle: they've struggled with assessments, they've struggled with repairs, insurance claims, and often re-repairs. I acknowledge how hard this has been, and what a burden this has been for everybody to bear. But despite all this, this is a time for optimism for me, as it is for so many in our city. Today, as I look around my city, I'm filled with a sense of pride at what is emerging. A city that is determined, a city that is founded on legacies of innovation and discovery, and I am excited for its future.
Motion agreed to.





PETITIONS, PAPERS, SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS, AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLS
SPEAKER: No bills have been introduced. Petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.
CLERK:Petition of Patrick Dingemans requesting that the House urge the Government to make mandatory that QR codes be displayed at all exits of workplaces and points of salepetition of Mona Sharma requesting that the House urge the Government to permit her family to come and live in NZ on humanitarian groundspetition of Dr Elizabeth Kerekere requesting that the House urgently prioritises banning conversion therapy and note that 157,013 people have signed an online petition in support of this.
SPEAKER: Those petitions stand referred to the Petitions Committee.
Ministers have delivered papers.
CLERK: Annual reports for 2020 of the Canterbury District Health Board, Hawke's Bay District Health Board, Health and Disability Commissioner, New Zealand Conservation Authority, Provincial Growth Fund Ltd, and the Southern District Health Boardstatements of performance expectations for 2020-21 for Canterbury District Health Board, Health and Disability Commissioner, and Southern District Health BoardHealth and Disability Commissioner statement of intent 2020-24Hawke's Bay District Health Board annual plan 2020-21, incorporating the statement of performance expectations 2020-21Te Puni Kōkiri strategic intentions 2020-24.
SPEAKER: Those papers are published under the authority of the House.
Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.
CLERK: Reports of the Health Committee on the petitions of Chlöe Swarbrick, Gary Chiles, and Assil Russellreport of the Privileges Committee on the question of privilege arising from the use of official television coverage of the Housereport of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee on the petition of Pru Bowman for West Melton District Residents Association Inc.
SPEAKER: The report of the Privileges Committee is set down for consideration.





ORAL QUESTIONS
QUESTIONS TO MINISTERSQuestion No. 1—Finance
1. BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the international view of the New Zealand economy? 
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Yesterday, international credit ratings agency Standard & Poor's upgraded New Zealand's local currency credit rating to AAA and our foreign currency rating to AA+, both with a stable outlook. Standard & Poor's praised the Government's handling of the pandemic, saying New Zealand is recovering quicker than most advanced economies because we have been able to contain the spread of COVID-19 better than many others. The ratings upgrade by Standard & Poor's is recognition that the Government strategy that the best economic response to the pandemic was a strong public health response was the right one. 
Barbara Edmonds: How significant is this upgrade? 
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: This is the first upgrade that Standard & Poor's has done anywhere in the world since the pandemic. It is also the first upgrade to New Zealand's ratings since September 2011 and puts us back in the position we were last in in 2009. While there are still challenges ahead for the economy, this upgrade shows that we're on the right track and backs our decisions to support our people and businesses through 2020. 
Barbara Edmonds: Why are credit ratings important? 
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: These ratings are important for ensuring that the cost of our borrowing remains low. An upgrade also gives people more confidence that New Zealand is a good place to invest. Overall, the upgrade is a sign of confidence in the recovery and rebuild, and that the hard work of New Zealanders and Government decisions have put us in a strong position to recover and rebuild well. 




Question No. 2—Social Development and Employment
2. Hon JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does she agree with the seven out of 10 New Zealanders who believe the Government should increase income support for those on low wages or not in paid work; if so, what actions will she take this year to increase income support?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Yes, I do agree, which is why this Government has taken action. We have invested $5.5 billion through the Families Package, which introduced the winter energy payment and the Best Start payment. We removed excessive benefit sanctions and made getting support from Work and Income more accessible, lifted benefits $25 per week and indexed them to the average wage, removed the hours test for the in-work tax credits, and invested in job training and apprenticeship programmes. From 1 April this year, those on low incomes will also see the largest increase in abatement levels in two decades and a new minimum wage rate of $20 per hour. We were seeing progress made prior to COVID-19, and while this progress is encouraging, we know that we have more work to do.
Hon James Shaw: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Just in reference to the second part of the question, it was forward-looking for actions—
SPEAKER: Well, the member should have listened. I think there were at least two things which were dated 1 April—those are in the future.
Hon James Shaw: What income support measures for families is she considering to address statistics released today showing an increase across five of the nine child poverty measures in the year to June 2020?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Statistics New Zealand was really clear that we need to look at the two years in its entirety to see evidence that is statistically significant. So if we look at that two-year period, we see, actually, we have made progress in nine areas. That's not to take away from the fact that we need to do more. We recognise that we need to do more and we are committed to doing more. On 1 April this year, as I said, we will see the abatement threshold shift—for the first time, to this extent, in two decades. Benefits will increase more than what they previously would have because of the fact that we've indexed them to wages. The minimum wage going up is positive. I will say one other thing. The Statistics New Zealand information that the member talked about doesn't take into consideration changes made after March last year, which would include benefit increases and, of course, the first time that benefits were indexed to wages.
Hon James Shaw: Is she considering reforming the disability support system following the Statistics NZ finding that children in a household with at least one disabled person were over twice as likely to experience material hardship than a child living in a household with no disabled people?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: It's a relief that we have some data on disabled children in the recent statistics that have been released. The disability community have been asking for this for quite some time. So it's the first time that we've been presented with this type of information. I don't think it comes as a surprise to many of us. Anecdotally, in our own communities, we see that disabled children are often disproportionately impacted by poverty. I think we also need to take into consideration that ethnicity and disability information in this instance aren't necessarily mutually exclusive as well, given that Māori and Pasifika have a younger profile, and therefore a younger disability profile as well. So there is more to do here, and the starting point is actually having the evidence and the data that we've been missing for so long.
Hon James Shaw: When she says there is more to do here, what actions will she take to increase income support for families with disabled parents or children?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: All of the changes that we've made in the welfare system have been set up to benefit those in the welfare system, and I want to remind the House of that statistic. Fifty-one percent of those who are on benefit have a health condition or a disability of some sort or are caring for someone with a health condition or disability. So the changes that we've made to date—whether it be the Families Package, whether it be the increase in benefits, the indexation to wages, or even lifting abatement thresholds that will come in on 1 April so people can earn more without losing all of their benefit—will benefit the people that the member has referred to: disabled people. There is more to do and we are committed to making sure that our welfare system treats people with dignity, and addressing the income adequacy issues that come about through our welfare system. But I'm not going to pre-empt, rule in, or rule out any changes that might occur over the course of the year that haven't already been announced.
Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern: Can the member confirm that this is the first time since Working for Families was introduced over 15 years ago that we have seen Government policy making a sustained difference to child poverty levels and reduction in child poverty indicators against all nine measures that we use as a Government?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I can confirm that that is the case, and also acknowledging that on this side of the House, there has been significant progress made, but we are committed to making more.
Hon James Shaw: Does the Minister expect the nine child poverty measures for the year ending June 2021 to show an increase, a decrease, or a mixed picture of child poverty?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I think it would be premature for me to anticipate what those numbers will say. Clearly, the whole country, the whole world, was affected by COVID last year. But, as I said also, the statistics that we have been given today don't take into account the benefit increases or the indexation of benefits to wages last year. So it is impossible for me to predict what they may look like.
David Seymour: Does the Minister believe that the nine measures of child poverty will show an increase, a decrease, or a mixed picture if the Climate Change Commission's report was to be followed by the Government, pushing up the cost of energy, transport, and housing for the poorest households?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The Climate Change Commission says the opposite.
Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern: Can the member confirm that the Government has purposely adopted nine measures to capture the fact that some child poverty measures are relative, so, unfortunately, as median incomes increase, as they have under this Government, that means a larger group of children are captured in poverty data?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I can confirm that.




Question No. 3—Finance
3. Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour—Banks Peninsula) to the Associate Minister of Finance: What support does the Government continue to have in place to help people resolve outstanding earthquake-related insurance issues in Canterbury?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Associate Minister of Finance): In response to outstanding issues years on from the Canterbury earthquake sequence, the Greater Christchurch Claims Resolution Service was established in 2018 to provide a one-stop shop for homeowners to resolve their claims. For many, the trauma of re-repairs and stress from multiple insurance claims was compounded by a system that was complex to navigate and left homeowners stranded with no options left. The service operates as a free-to-access, impartial pathway, with a single point of contact to manage cases, allowing coordination across agencies and organisations. It also provides engineering and legal expertise, as well as a wraparound support for homeowners. While there is still more to do, I'm proud to be part of a Government that is continuing to support people in Christchurch so that they can move on with their lives.
Dr Tracey McLellan: What feedback has she received from homeowners about the Greater Christchurch Claims Resolution Service? 
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: It's heartening to know that 88 percent of homeowners who have used the service say that they would recommend the service to others. The service has supported 1,819 claims close to date, including 135 in December, which is the highest number to date. One claimant spoke of how "it was such a relief to have someone who understood my concerns, was able to keep it all in perspective, and had the knowledge and ability to explain each step we had to take and give me a full picture so I could understand the procedure and the repair methodology." Another stated, "I am eternally grateful to my case manager as I was a mess when she was appointed to me, and now I'm pleased to say, although not fully recovered, I'm on the right road." I'd like to take this opportunity to thank our people at the service for the incredible work they are doing in supporting homeowners through this process. 
Dr Tracey McLellan: How does the Greater Christchurch Claims Resolution Service relate to other Government initiatives to support Canterbury homeowners and future responses to natural disasters? 
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: It has been a priority for our Government to ensure that insurance claims can be settled, people's homes can be fixed, and, importantly, people can get on with their lives. We've made changes to the Earthquake Commission (EQC) Act, including increasing the EQC building cap, removing cover for contents, clarifying EQC's ability to share information, and extending the time frames EQC can accept claims. We're also funding ex gratia payments for people with over-cap, on-sold properties in Canterbury. We established the Canterbury Earthquake Insurance Tribunal, giving access to court decisions for those with unsolved claims. We're also introducing a suite of changes to address the findings of Dame Silvia Cartwright's public inquiry into the Earthquake Commission, including modernising the EQC Act, putting in place a more people-centred claims system, and clarifying EQC's role in any future natural disaster.




Question No. 4—Prime Minister
4. Dr SHANE RETI (Deputy Leader—National) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all of her Government's policies and actions?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes. In particular I stand by one of the most significant policy-driven falls in child poverty that we've seen in recent times—since, at least, the introduction of Working for Families by the last Labour Government. Our Families Package increased the incomes for hundreds of thousands of families with children. Over 100,000 babies' parents received an extra $60 per week through our Best Start payment, and over a million New Zealanders get extra income every winter, thanks to the winter energy payment. Today we've seen the impacts of this. Under this Government, all nine poverty measures have gone down since the 2017-18 baseline year. We have lifted children out of material hardship and made a difference, but the work continues.
Dr Shane Reti: Are there more or less children in poverty today, overall, compared to a year ago, as described in today's child poverty statistics?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: If I'm to refer to the Statistics New Zealand report, they have signalled a decrease in child poverty against all nine measures that we use in New Zealand. Just to give an indication of what those measures capture, they capture the percentage of children who are living on 50 percent or less of the median income before housing costs, the same for after-housing costs, and they include material deprivation, which is predominantly what the Opposition tend to use as their primary measure. For material deprivation, we've seen 22,400 children lifted out of material deprivation. [Interruption]
Dr Shane Reti: Supplementary—
SPEAKER: Just before the member goes on, I'm just going to say to the Hon Willie Jackson that he is not being at all helpful when he interjects in that way, and given his line with the Prime Minister, when I give him a dirty look I think she thinks I'm giving her one. So I would prefer him just not to stimulate the Opposition in that way.
Dr Shane Reti: How many of the indicators have got worse in the past year, as a measure of absolute numbers?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I'm going to, before I answer this question, read out a statement from Statistics New Zealand that was issued in April 2019, when the child poverty stats were referenced: "we emphasise the need to look at the general trend over time and caution against reaching definitive conclusions from reported year-on-year changes." That is why in the legislation, which both sides of the House voted for, we adopted a baseline year—that's 2017/18. We then measure our changes against that, and against that we've seen a reduction against all nine measures.
Dr Shane Reti: How many indicators have got worse in just the last year?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, I refer the member to the legislation we all voted for, which compares against the baseline measure. Against all nine measures, we've seen reductions. Against an individual year, Statistics New Zealand and Bryan Perry, who we all in this House respect, caution against making judgments based on those because (a) they are volatile and (b) they don't tell us where child poverty is actually heading.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Point of order. Statistics New Zealand's advice does not take away the responsibility of the Prime Minister to answer the question. The question was very specific about a passage in time, which was the last year.
Hon Chris Hipkins: Speaking to the point of order. A member cannot require a particular answer. The Prime Minister has to address the question that was asked, and in some cases, members will reject the premise of a question with an explanation.
SPEAKER: I mean, some of the rules are very clear. The member can't insist on, as the member said, a particular answer—certainly not a yes or no. And if someone says it is not appropriate to give an answer in that form and then addresses the general question, as the Prime Minister did, I think that that's acceptable.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Speaking to that point.
SPEAKER: A further and different point of order, the Hon Michael Woodhouse. 
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Well, that may be correct, Mr Speaker, but that's not what the Prime Minister did.
SPEAKER: Well, we both sat here and heard it twice. Certainly the Leader of the House and I heard one thing; if the member heard another, I will have a look at the tapes and see if we got it wrong. But I'm pretty convinced that the Prime Minister explained that it was not appropriate to look at one year and that it should be looked at in the totality of two. That to me is not that complicated.
Dr Shane Reti: Thank you. Is the Government still committed to achieving the legislated target of less than 10 percent of children living in low-income households by 2021 when such a target would require a 32 percent reduction over the next year?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: We have not changed our targets, nor our ambition, despite COVID-19 creating, of course, a challenging environment. The member will also know that we have three-year targets. On the data released today, you can see for the after-housing cost measure we've already reached that target with a year to spare. However, one of the more difficult targets is moving on that relative measure of before-housing costs—that is the measure that we as a Government are going to have to continue to target. Material deprivation—good progress there. We've seen a reduction there of over 2 percent. That is the one that we constantly get critique from the Opposition—I think they'll be pleased to see that progress—and we are within a sampling error of hitting that target as well.
Dr Shane Reti: What contribution has a $6,250 increase in the yearly cost of renting a house since she became Prime Minister contributed to today's child poverty indicators?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Of course we have to take any increase in housing costs against increases in incomes, be it minimum wage increases; be it increases through tax credits like the family tax credit; the introduction of Best Start, which is a form of universal payment—the first time we've restored that since the 1990s, and it was removed from a previous Government. That's why we have these measures that are able to take into account what's happened to incomes relative to housing. Interestingly there, we see the progress that's been made on the after - housing costs measure, which demonstrates a reduction of 45,000 children in poverty on that measure.
Dr Shane Reti: What is her response to the following comment made by Shaun Robinson, chief executive of the Mental Health Foundation, that following his press release of 12 February criticising the Government's lack of action on the mental health inquiry recommendations, he states, "I was told that we were going down a very dangerous road, and the only implication of that can be that there was some threat to our funding."?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I utterly reject that. Obviously, those are not my words, nor would they ever be. I consider it part of Mr Robinson's job to raise issues of concern, because as a Government we support the role of these organisations and advocacy. I note that under the previous Government, they removed the ability to be an advocate with Government contracts.
Dr Shane Reti: What explanation has she or Ministers received from health officials over allegations that they tried to gag the Mental Health Foundation for criticising the Government?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Well, certainly I reject that that has come at all from any Ministers here. But as for a Minister's direct response with his officials, then that would be a question for Minister Little. But you'll find on this side of the House that we absolutely respect the role that organisations play advocating for improved mental health—we share the same goal.




Question No. 5—Public Service
5. TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North) to the Minister for the Public Service: What reports has he seen on trust and confidence in the Public Service?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for the Public Service): The Public Service Commission's latest Kiwis Count Survey shows a sharp increase in trust and confidence in the New Zealand Public Service. The survey has found that New Zealanders' trust in the Public Service is up to 69 percent, a significant increase from the 51 percent recorded the previous year, and it is the highest result since the Kiwis Count Survey started, in 2007.
Tangi Utikere: How does this compare to other recent measures of trust and confidence in the Public Service?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: More good news. The latest result underlines a number of other recent measures that underline New Zealand's international reputation for trust and confidence in its Public Service. The Transparency International 2020 Corruption Perceptions Index ranked New Zealand first place with Denmark as countries considered to be the least corrupt in the world. The 2020 World Economic Forum Global Competitiveness Report puts New Zealand third in their measure of citizen trust, public institution governance, and long-term vision. The International Civil Service Effectiveness Index of 2019 ranked New Zealand the second-highest overall, and the highest in the world for integrity, capabilities, and procurement. Finally, the Bloomberg Covid Resilience Ranking puts New Zealand first in terms of handling the pandemic, with the least social and economic disruption.
Tangi Utikere: What explanation does he have for the sharp rise in trust in the Public Service?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: It's most likely that the Public Service's role in responding to COVID-19 has contributed to the spike in trust and confidence in the Public Service as a whole. The public don't always get to see the work that public servants do behind the scenes every day, and COVID-19 has given New Zealanders a glimpse of the importance of some of that work that they do. We expect future results will be more in line with the gradual upward trend in trust and confidence we have been seeing since 2007.




Question No. 6—Finance
6. ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato) to the Minister of Finance: Did he set out a clear expectation to the Reserve Bank Governor that the Funding for Lending Programme should be designed to target the productive sectors of the economy rather than further boosting lending for housing; if not, why not? 
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Since 1989, the Reserve Bank has had the function of formulating monetary policy independently, and this has been understood by Ministers of Finance, including Ruth Richardson, Michael Cullen, and Bill English. Having said that, my view—which I communicated to the governor as part of the consultation process—was that the Reserve Bank should consider targeting the Funding for Lending Programme for the real or productive sectors of the economy. 
Andrew Bayly: Why did he ignore Treasury advice to set out his expectations in writing to the Reserve Bank of New Zealand? 
SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member's going to just rephrase it: "did he". There's no authentication for that. 
Andrew Bayly: Did he ignore Treasury advice to set out his expectation to the Reserve Bank Governor as to the design of the Funding for Lending Programme? 
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I didn't. 
Andrew Bayly: You didn't? OK. When the Reserve Bank sought his endorsement to implement the Funding for Lending Programme, what conditions did he place on ensuring that the funding to banks was directed at the more productive elements of the economy? 
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I said in my primary answer, the Reserve Bank has a longstanding operational independence when it comes to the setting of monetary policy. I gave my views about the importance of targeting during the consultation process. What the member is now suggesting is that we overturn the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act 1989 and go back to good old Rob Muldoon's view that the National Party should run monetary policy—
Nicola Willis: You're responsible. 
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: —and fiscal policy. That got us in a power of trouble, and we don't want to see that again. 
SPEAKER: Order! Order! No. Can I just ask that interjections not be in the second person. I am not responsible for that. 
Chlöe Swarbrick: What fiscal policy actions is he considering to address the vast inequality fuelling the housing crisis, as exacerbated by monetary policy intervention like the Funding for Lending Programme? 
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As has been covered by my colleague Carmel Sepuloni in an earlier question, we have already put a significant amount of resource in into lifting the incomes of the lowest-income New Zealanders. We know that there is more to do, and we will continue to work on issues across all of the things that we can do to reduce inequality, including in housing and in income support areas. 
Andrew Bayly: Under what circumstances would he set out his expectation to the Reserve Bank Governor, given house prices have increased by $120,000 over the past year? 
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The member will be aware that the way that the Government sets out its expectations for the Reserve Bank in the case of monetary policy is through the monetary policy remit. He'll be aware that I wrote to the Reserve Bank Governor about that late last year. The Reserve Bank Governor has written back, and, in due course, we will come to a conclusion on those matters. But the remit is the way we set out our expectations. 
Andrew Bayly: Does he accept that as Minister of Finance, it is his responsibility to ensure our economic policy settings contribute to the wellbeing of New Zealanders, and that an increase in house prices of $120,000 over the past year does not achieve that? 
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We've said many times on this side of the House that the rates of house price increases that we're seeing at the moment are unacceptable. We are moving on both the demand and the supply side. On this side of the House, we acknowledge New Zealand is facing a housing crisis. It's a pity that for nine years, the National Party denied that, ignored it, and did nothing. 




Question No. 7—Arts, Culture and Heritage
7. GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth) to the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage: What recent announcements has she made about supporting creatives whose jobs have been impacted by COVID-19?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage): I recently announced the launch of the Creative Careers Service, a new pilot that is expected to support up to 1,000 creatives in its first two years. This service builds on the most successful aspects of the former Pathways to Arts and Cultural Employment programme, otherwise known as PACE. The Ministry for Arts, Culture and Heritage and the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) have partnered to develop the pilot for the service. The announcement of Creative Careers is part of a landmark $374 million investment in the sector, which underlines the Government's commitment to providing both short-term relief and longer-term support so that creatives across the sector can survive, adapt, and thrive.
Glen Bennett: Who will benefit from the Creative Careers Service?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Creative Careers is for MSD job seekers, recent creative graduates who are outside the benefit system, as well as creative sector workers who have had their work opportunities reduced due to COVID-19. Through selective providers in the creative sector, participants will benefit from extending their knowledge and developing skills to turn their talents into viable careers. The pilots are in Auckland, Waikato, and Nelson, and I'm hopeful that we can roll out the service nationwide if it is successful. This will help to nurture people's creative talents across Aotearoa and support the sector to grow and thrive.
Glen Bennett: What feedback has she seen regarding her announcement?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: We've received positive feedback from across the sector, including from Antony Deaker, a Dunedin-based contributor to creative arts, who said in an interview, "I think it's great that the Government, [the Ministry for Culture and Heritage, and the Ministry of Social Development] have again worked through a process to enable meaningful support like this at a critical time in the artist's career, and made more widely available this time. Fantastic."




Question No. 8—Social Development and Employment
8. Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does she agree with the 2021 Salvation Army State of the Nation Report that shows unemployment and hardship assistance have both increased compared to September 2017?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): The State of the Nation Report takes into account our response to COVID-19, and clearly shows unemployment and hardship assistance has increased during the global pandemic. However, due to a robust economic response, we are doing better than we first anticipated, and in December 2020 the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update (HYEFU) forecasts for those on main benefits were revised down. Through investments, employment programmes, and more front-line staff, we have seen increases in proactive employment engagements, with 28,139 proactive engagements last month, and in the December 2020 quarter we saw 27,000 exits off benefit into work. That was a 43.4 percent increase on the December 2019 quarter. We accept that we've got more work to do, but even during these challenging times we are seeing positive signs of progress.
Hon Louise Upston: Does she consider it a failure of her Government's policies that New Zealanders have required significantly more hardship assistance in every year since December 2017, and, if not, when does she expect hardship grants will return to their pre-2017 levels?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I don't consider it a failure to provide New Zealanders with the support through the welfare system that they are entitled to. When I came into this position, we were committed to culture change of our welfare system and ensuring that New Zealanders got access to what they legally were entitled to. That includes hardship grants for New Zealanders who need them.
Hon Louise Upston: Does she consider it a failure of her Government's policies that more New Zealanders required emergency housing grants in every year since 2017, and, if not, when does she expect these grants will begin to reduce?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Just reflecting on the emergency housing grant, that was a measure that was introduced under the former Government when the housing crisis emerged. Our commitment is to making sure that New Zealanders who are homeless who need emergency accommodation have access to the emergency housing grant. Alongside that we are committing to an extensive build of public housing, committing to an additional 18,000 more public houses, rather than selling them off.
Hon Louise Upston: Is it correct that there were 123,041 New Zealanders on Jobseeker Support in December 2017, and why did this increase by over 30,000 people prior to COVID?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The member talks about the raw figures of those on benefit. We've previously traversed this in the House. Prior to COVID, the proportion of working-age New Zealanders on benefit remained relatively stagnant, because you do need to take into consideration the population of working-age New Zealanders. We have seen a significant increase over the course of the last year due to COVID, but it is a relief that we haven't reached the heights that had been anticipated when the Budget Economic and Fiscal Update was released, when the Pre-Election Economic and Fiscal Update was released, and when HYEFU was released.
Hon Louise Upston: How many of the now 211,026 New Zealanders on Jobseeker Support will be supported into full-time jobs through the Government's Flexi-wage extension in the next five months, compared to what National proposed with JobStart?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: What we announced around Flexi-wage was an expansion. If we reflect back on last year, there were actually over 4,000 people that accessed Flexi-wage in 2020. We have announced a significant expansion to cover 40,000 Flexi-wage placements, but that is not the only employment initiative that we have in place. Just earlier, I talked about the introduction of our Creative Careers Service, we are still rolling out successfully Mana in Mahi, we have extended He Poutama Rangatahi, there are Jobs for Nature that have been rolled out by the Minister of Conservation, and there is a lot going on on this side of the House, alongside the investments in upskilling and training, including—I think—18,000 people that have signed up already to Apprenticeship Boost.




Question No. 9—Prime Minister
9. DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all her Government's policies and actions?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes. I stand particularly by this Government's economic response to the pandemic, including $14 billion that we've paid to support New Zealanders to make sure that they stay in employment, in particular 1.8 million workers through the wage subsidy scheme. I also stand by our unemployment rate, which fell to 4.9 percent in the December quarter, well below the OECD average; the record high number of jobs in construction; our small business loan scheme, which has benefited 103,000 businesses so far; and I want to make special mention of the Minister of Finance, as Standard & Poor's recognised yesterday the work that's been done by this Government in the wake of the most significant health and economic crisis of our lifetime.
David Seymour: Does the Prime Minister stand by making Matariki a public holiday?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes.
David Seymour: Did the Government understand it could cost employers $448 million every year to make Matariki a public holiday, or did the Government know and just not care?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I certainly reject the premise of the last part of the member's question. Of course, we constantly weigh up the impact of policies on business owners, on small-business owners. We also take into account—[Interruption]—if I may—the full advice that we receive from officials, which the member will understand because he received it in written form. We were provided with a range in terms of potential economic impact, and in the written answer to the member's question from the Minister, he also received a note that this is "only a rough estimate." It comes with a range of caveats. The estimate does not take into account any potential economic benefits of a new public holiday, which could include productivity gains arising from the extra rest afforded by the public holiday, increased retail and hospitality demand, and increased tourism demand.
David Seymour: Does she stand by her Government's policy of restricting any more Recognised Seasonal Employer (RSE) scheme workers coming from COVID-free countries where people are desperate for income while New Zealand fruit rots on the ground due to a lack of workers?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I have to say, the member's suggestion that somehow we have specifically targeted RSE workers—we have border closures. And, in fact, relative to other areas of need, we have made specific provision to bring in a quota of RSE workers to support the horticultural sector. We've done that at a time when working in close collaboration with the sector to assess the peak times in which they'll need that workforce and to support that workforce to come into New Zealand.
David Seymour: Does she stand by her Government's actions to tackle gangs through Operation Tauwhiro?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I support the operational decisions made by the police in the work they do on our gangs, and I also am very proud of the fact that, as a Government, we increased front-line policing to the point that police can make a meaningful contribution to tackling organised crime with a dedicated police workforce.
David Seymour: Did the Prime Minister not know that Tauwhiro is te reo Māori for "to tend or care for", or does she actually believe that violent criminals who sell P need to be tended and cared for?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: What I listen to is the evidence about what is going to make a difference. If we want to make a difference to the young people who join gangs in New Zealand, we have to demonstrate that there are alternatives for them, that they can find a place to grow their potential without joining criminal organisations, and I support programmes that are evidence-based in order to prevent that from happening.
David Seymour: Does she stand by the Government's policy of rushing changes to the Local Government Act in relation to Māori wards through Parliament?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I stand by supporting local councils who are elected by their communities to make decisions, including on whether or not they support establishing Māori wards. What I do not support is a provision specifically for Māori wards and not general seats that allows just a small percentage of electors to overturn a democratic decision.
David Seymour: How will that rushed action in relation to Māori wards help with terrible statistics in Māori homeownership rates, educational attainment, or poverty?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I think the member is conflating the idea of having democracy that represents all of its communities with somehow being the singular thing that will make a difference across every pervasive issue that we as a House must address. But while we're at it, I actually do think that all of these things collectively make a difference. We do have to make sure that our local government and our central government are representative of all New Zealanders, and at local government we are recognising, as councillors are, that a poor job has been done to date.




Question No. 10—Health
10. Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour) to the Minister of Health: What recent announcements has he made on wellbeing supports for young people?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): Last week, I announced $10.2 million to provide a range of youth-specific primary mental health and addiction services. This package includes five new contracts for primary mental health and addiction support available for young people, people aged 12 to 24 years, around the country. Services will be available for free and have a focus on supporting those with mild to moderate mental health and addiction needs. Young New Zealanders are a priority group for the Government to transform the approach for mental health and addiction.
Dr Liz Craig: What kinds of providers will be delivering these services?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: These services are free and they'll be offered through a range of delivery agencies, including youth one-stop shops, non-government organisations, resilient hubs, and community centres.
Dr Liz Craig: So how many people will these new services help, and how long will they be available?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The areas for which the funding was announced last week, which include Canterbury, Western Bay of Plenty, Eastern Bay of Plenty, mid-central North Island, and parts of Wellington—there's about 240,000 young people in that age group I mentioned, and those who are afflicted with mild to moderate mental health conditions will now have access to mental health wellbeing supports, if that is what they need to have. Those services are available to any young person who is experiencing any type of concern about their mental health and wellbeing. Young people can access them for as long as is needed. This represents a fundamental shift from the types of services which have previously been available, which often had a very tight entry criteria and a limited number of times that the person could be seen. These contracts are for up to $10.2 million over four years. The funding is ongoing, and there's an expectation that they will continue beyond the four-year period.




Question No. 11—Corrections
11. DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori) to the Minister of Corrections: Does he have confidence in the Department of Corrections?
Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister of Corrections): Yes. There are areas where I have concerns: the treatment of two women in Auckland prison and the incident at Waikeria. Both are currently being investigated by the Office of the Inspectorate, and I'll receive their reports on these matters in due course.
Rawiri Waititi: Why does he have confidence in the department when inmates at Waikeria were placed in a 1911 building that had been previously decommissioned—a building the Ombudsman concluded was unfit for human habitation?
Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Because let's go back to when the Māori Party and the National Party were in Government. The Māori Party had an Associate Minister of Corrections and they oversaw the mass incarceration of Māori. They also failed to have a Māori strategy. This Government is a Government that said that that was enough, and we need to look at alternative ways and other solutions. Those solutions have seen the implementation of a Māori strategy known as Hōkai Rangi, and have also seen the reduction of the numbers of Māori, that have been reduced by over 800 since we became Government. Therefore, what Corrections is doing is working. There are things that we do need to continue to work on, but changing the operations of a whole department will not happen overnight. 
Rawiri Waititi: How can he continue to have confidence in the department when he was informed in late 2019 that the old jail block at Waikeria, with its double-bunking, brown tap water, and open toilets that inmates were forced to eat food around was unacceptable and not fit for human habitation, and yet inmates continued to be treated this way under his watch?
Hon KELVIN DAVIS: As I say, when the Māori Party had the Associate Minister of Corrections, those same conditions actually existed. The Māori Party actually needs to own its history and own its mistakes. Also, Corrections have come out and explained that the water in the Waikeria Prison was bore water, and bore water happens to be brown. It was tested six days a week—the same water that Corrections officers drunk. Also, the other allegations from former prisoners have come out, and they actually said that those allegations about the lack of ability to wash clothes and bedding were absolutely false.
Ginny Andersen: Is the Minister aware of any publications inciting riots being distributed to prisoners?
Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Yes. A publication encouraging prisoners to riot, quoting a member of the Māori Party, has been distributed. I said from the beginning that politicians involving themselves in some corrections matters would only serve to embolden and encourage more events that endanger the lives of prisoners and staff. It was then—
Chris Bishop: This is tawdry. This is cheap.
Hon KELVIN DAVIS: —and it is now, irresponsible behaviour. This publication is being referred to the police. And I hear the member over there saying that this is cheap. The member over there is, basically, encouraging the incitement of disorder in prisons by saying that this publication is acceptable. He is endangering the lives of corrections officers and it is unacceptable.
Rawiri Waititi: Will he commission a ministerial inquiry into the treatment of inmates in the Department of Corrections facilities in response to Waikeria and yesterday's ruling by Judge David McNaughton that inmates at Auckland women's prison were treated in an inhumane and degrading manner?
Hon KELVIN DAVIS: The Office of the Inspectorate is already investigating the allegations made about the treatment of women at Auckland women's prison, as well as the incident in Waikeria. I have been briefed on the situation and have asked Corrections for more information on the allegations made about them.
Rawiri Waititi: Point of order. The question was: "Will he commission a ministerial inquiry into the treatment of inmates?"
SPEAKER: There was probably some unnecessary stuff at the end. The Minister clearly said the inspector-general was already inquiring.




Question No. 12—Agriculture
12. Hon DAVID BENNETT (National) to the Minister of Agriculture: Does he stand by his statement this morning regarding labour shortages in the horticultural sector, "maybe just say free accommodation and see what turns up"; if so, what advice, if any, has he received to address a reported 13,500 person reduction in the horticultural workforce?
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture): In answer to the first part of the question, yes, in the context in which it was given. Offering free accommodation is just one of many levers available to growers to attract staff. These are unprecedented times, and, as I said this morning, it's kind of "all hands to the deck", every initiative that growers can think of, as needed, to get people out to pick the fruit. In answer to the second part of the question, while I acknowledge there is a shortfall, I don't agree with the member's assessment of the shortage. I have received a number of different figures in an attempt to quantify the shortfall.
Hon David Bennett: How can he say, "maybe just say free accommodation and see what turns up", when the Government's incentive scheme of $200 per week in accommodation supplement only attracted 54 people?
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: This Government has committed to work with the industry in unprecedented times of COVID, and the list of initiatives that we have—I'd like to just run through a few of them—to assist the horticulture and viticulture sectors and others to get people: we firstly provided a six-month extension for employer-assisted work visa holders and postponed a stand-down period for low-paid essential skills visa holders. We've changed the working holiday visa scheme to allow holders to extend their time in New Zealand. We've created a New Zealand seasonal work scheme, which provides up to $3,000 for people to relocate to take up seasonal work. We've made primary sector vocational education and training programmes free for all learners, and we've launched Opportunity Grows Here, a marketing campaign to get New Zealanders into the horticulture sectors, on top of approving 2,000 Recognised Seasonal Employer (RSE) workers into the country—the largest border exception and managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) allocation made to any industry or sector in this country. 
Hon David Bennett: Did he get his Cabinet colleagues to agree to his initiative today, "maybe just say free accommodation and see what turns up", to try to meet the needs of a $6 billion horticultural industry?
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I have to say, I did have to work very hard with the Minister in charge of MIQ and the Minister of Immigration to provide 2,000 places for RSE workers to come into the country at a time when we have thousands of New Zealanders wanting to come back home. Part of the arrangement in that deal was that the sectors and the industry would work on all options available to try and encourage New Zealanders, those returning home, those who may have been displaced—in the tourism industry, for example—to take up the seasonal opportunities in horticulture. We expect them to try everything possible to get those people in work and to get the fruit picked.
Hon David Bennett: Can the Minister confirm that the provision of free accommodation in other primary industries, such as dairy, has solved their issue of labour shortages?
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: The dairy industry has indeed tried hard to provide quality accommodation and incorporated that into the salary package, which is quite substantive, in an attempt to address the shortage in that sector. What I've said to the horticultural sectors is that the hundreds of millions of dollars which they rightfully claim has been invested in accommodation is available; is currently empty; and I would have thought, through one season which is unprecedented, it may be a good idea, to attract Kiwis, to say, "It's free accommodation for two months this year; you can put that money in the bank.", and next season go back to what we all hope will be a normal season.
Hon David Bennett: How does the Minister reconcile the prospective losses in crops due to the shortage of staff with Labour's campaign pledge for the primary industries, which says, "Backing the horticulture sector to seize new opportunities for growth and [to] stay ahead of … competitors"?
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I have faith in the innovation of the horticulture and viticulture sectors, and, in fact, all the sectors across the primary area. The shortages projected pretty much every season by horticulture and viticulture have never fully been realised. Yes, it's challenging for some. Some employers never have trouble getting staff; others always seem to have challenges. Yes, there is a shortage now, but, as has been said by people in the paper today out of Martinborough, we're just going to have to work together to get through this challenge to make sure that we don't waste the opportunities.





MORIORI CLAIMS SETTLEMENT BILL
First Reading
Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I present a legislative statement on the Moriori Claims Settlement Bill.
SPEAKER: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I move, That the Moriori Claims Settlement Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Māori Affairs Committee to consider the Moriori Claims Settlement Bill. 
E ngā mana, e ngā re, rau ieriki-ieriki mā. Tēnā kotou, tēnā kotou, tēnā kotou katoa. 
[Exalted figures and voices of authority, and multitudes of leaders. Acknowledgments to each and every one of you.]
We are joined in the House today by members of Moriori. E te imi e Rēkohu, tēnā kotou. 
[To the people of Rēkohu, you are acknowledged.]
In February last year, I had the honour of standing at Kōpinga Marae and signing the Moriori deed of settlement, and I remember it well. I remember standing in that very fine whare, in front of the two pou that had the names of many of those who perished in the 19th century on those islands. It was a privilege at that time to be embraced by your manawarekatanga, and it is with pleasure that I and this House reciprocates your hospitality today.
I extend a warm welcome to you all and thank you for making the journey to this House to witness the first reading of your bill. Today's celebration has been long anticipated, and it is a bright light after the challenges of 2020. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, a first reading of your bill was delayed by close to a year. That we continue onwards, having weathered numerous uncertainties, reinforces the importance of this settlement. I applaud your pragmatism over this period, and I thank you for your patience on our journey to this day.
This bill is the culmination of years of dedication and hard work from all the parties involved. I'm delighted to be here for its first reading today and to celebrate this significant milestone with you all. We remember and pay tribute to Moriori karāpuna, or tūpuna, who have suffered grievances, and acknowledge their legacy of peace. They are in our thoughts today, and will be always. I also pay tribute to those who initiated this process who cannot be here today to celebrate the result of their years of effort, courage, and commitment. 
Moe mai, moe mai, moe mai rā e ngā ieriki-ieriki. 
[Sleep, sleep, sleep peacefully great leaders who have passed on.]
I acknowledge and thank the Moriori chief negotiator, Maui Solomon, for his tireless efforts in seeing this settlement through to completion. It has been Maui's life work to seek justice for Moriori and to honour his karāpuna by telling their story and returning to Moriori their place in the world. It's a testament to his unwavering resolve that we are here today.
I also acknowledge the wider Moriori negotiating team: Tom Lanauze, Paul Solomon, and Grace LeGros, and claims manager Susan Thorpe for their efforts in bringing about this settlement. On the Crown side, I want to acknowledge the Crown's chief negotiator, the Hon Dame Fran Wilde, for her very able leadership that has got us to this point. I thank my ministerial colleagues for their work and support, particularly the former Minister of Conservation, the Hon Eugenie Sage. I thank also the officials from Te Arawhiti, from the Department of Conservation, and others who have worked tirelessly to pull the redress together. I acknowledge the Chatham Islands Council for their support, as well as the Chatham and Pitt Island communities. Finally, there are a number of ministries and Crown agencies represented here today, and I thank them all again for the work that they have done.
The first reading of this bill presents a valuable opportunity to reflect on the relationship between Moriori and the Crown. I'd like to take a few moments to acknowledge this history and to remember key events which led to this settlement. Moriori karāpuna arrived in Rēkohu, Rangihaute, and other nearby islands sometime between 1000 and 1400 Common Era. There they developed an egalitarian society governed by Nunuku's law of peace, which banned war and killing on the islands. In 1835, Moriori were invaded by two iwi whose traditional rohe was Taranaki. Faced with this great threat, Moriori held steadfast, making a conscious decision not to retaliate with violence. As a result, approximately one-sixth of Moriori were killed and the remainder were enslaved, and so began decades of trauma.
In 1842, Rēkohu and the surrounding islands were annexed to New Zealand. At this time, the Crown was aware that Moriori had been subjugated and that many had died at the hands of their captors. Moriori karāpuna pleaded for the protection owed to them under Te Tiriti o Waitangi, but for many years the Crown failed to act to end Moriori subjugation. Many karāpuna continued to suffer greatly and died in oppressive conditions, including some who died of an illness known to Moriori as kongenge, a deep despair of the spirit.
In the decades to come, the Crown's acts and omissions caused Moriori to lose their autonomy and connection with their culture and to suffer severe social and economic deprivation. In the late 1860s, the Crown did not consult Moriori karāpuna when promoting the native land laws. As a result, Moriori were left virtually landless. The tribal structures were undermined, and Moriori were severed from their land, their wāhi t'chap—or wāhi tapu—and their responsibilities as guardians and hosts.
Over a period of many years, the Crown, through the Colonial Museum, collected, removed, and traded kōimi t'chakat, or Moriori human remains, from Rēkohu. This was but one example of the cultural degradation faced by Moriori.
By the beginning of the 20th century, ta rē Moriori had been lost as a living language due to the Crown's failure to actively protect it. The Crown also contributed to the wrongful stigmatisation of Moriori as a racially inferior people who became extinct—a myth which caused great suffering and hardship, particularly to generations of children of Moriori descent.
In this House, we know that no settlement package can ever fully compensate any iwi—or, in this case, Moriori imi—for the magnitude of loss and prejudice that they have suffered. Today, I think back to the Moriori deed of settlement signing ceremony, where I had the privilege of delivering the Crown's apology to Moriori. Sharing in their remembrance of all that had passed and being welcomed to the heart of their community despite that past was painful, profound, and brought home the true magnanimity of Moriori. Through this settlement, the Crown hopes to go some way to atone for its past injustices and to alleviate Moriori's acute sense of grievance. I am humbled by the generosity of Moriori in accepting this settlement.
The Moriori Claims Settlement Bill seeks to give effect to the Moriori settlement package as outlined in the legislative statement. The Moriori Claims Settlement Bill heralds a new relationship between Moriori and the Crown, one based on cooperation, mutual trust, and respect for Te Tiriti o Waitangi and its principles. It's my hope that this legislation will create a strong foundation for the continued restoration of the social, cultural, and economic wellbeing of Moriori. I look forward to continuing to take this legislation through the House to achieve the final settlement of your historical Treaty of Waitangi claims. 
I consider the bill should proceed without delay to the Māori Affairs Committee. I commend this bill to the House. 
Nō reira, tēnā kotou, tēnā kotou, me rongo kotou. 
[Therefore, acknowledgments to each and every one of you, and may peace be upon you.]
DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.





JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): It's an honour to rise to speak in support of this bill, on behalf of the National Party, which supports this bill. I wish to take this opportunity to recognise and thank everyone who is in the House today.
I know it's been a very long journey from 1835, when many Moriori were slaughtered and many more went into enslavement. It's been the wrongs continued from the 1860s, when their rights to land and resources in the Chatham Islands weren't recognised by the Government of the day, or the Government body of the day, and it's been a long time coming, even to today. The proceedings were filed in 1988, I believe, and it was not until 2003 that the Government at that time, with the Treaty Minister, the Rt Hon Margaret Wilson, first announced that the trust had been recognised to negotiate the Moriori settlement. Then matters took quite some time from there. I want to recognise also that the Hon Chris Finlayson signed an agreement in 2017, and it's a real pleasure to be here today for this bill. I'm certainly looking forward to seeing it proceed through to the Māori Affairs Committee, which I have the privilege of being on.
The Chatham Islands is 739 kilometres east of Napier, 838 kilometres east of the Banks Peninsula. It's a place that I haven't yet had the privilege to go to, but I've spoken to Paul Eagle—who is not here at the moment, but he's the member for Rongotai—and he's told me that the hunting and fishing is incredible. So I hope to get there one day. The islands are known by three names, and taking them in the order in which the islands were occupied, the names are Rēkohu to Moriori, the Chatham Islands to Europeans, and Wharekauri to Ngāti Mutunga. The history of its people is both fascinating and tragic, and also one of hope and revival, which we are seeing here today. I note that Moriori first appealed to Governor George Grey in 1862, when they sought release from enslavement and the return of their lands. So it's been a very long time coming to today, in 2021, but it's good that we're here.
The Moriori claims which this bill addresses is as much about the recognition of the Moriori today as it is about the conversation of the historical losses and the denial of land rights. Moriori have faced numerous challenges to their status and identity, which was exacerbated by the School Journals in the early part of the last century, which set up a false narrative that Moriori were a separate race, which, arguably, led to some of the wrongs that were made against them. They also represent a unique and distinct culture that greatly enhances New Zealand's cultural heritage and our current cultural mosaic. They developed the rule of peace, known as Nunuku's Law, which was developed to an unprecedented level in early New Zealand.
The history deserves a little bit of background, which I take from the discussion from the Waitangi Tribunal. Ngāti Tama and Ngāti Mutunga invaded Rēkohu, the Chatham Islands, in 1835, five years before the Treaty of Waitangi was signed in 1840. They voyaged more than 1,000 kilometres from Port Nicholson, where they had been under threat from Ngāti Toa. Their true ancestral home was in North Taranaki, from whence they had been driven by Waikato tribes moving south in search of arms. This is all part of the 1820 wars, after the musket came to this country. Such rapid tribal shifts were not known to have occurred before. The Moriori welcomed Ngāti Mutunga and Ngāti Tama to the Chatham Islands, and it seems they were willing to have them among them. But later, they were attacked. Moriori offered no resistance, and this was due to the rule of peace known as Nunuku's Law.
There was an interesting issue addressed at some length in the Waitangi Tribunal regarding Ngāti Mutunga's contention that Moriori had lost their rights to the land and resources under the law of conquest, which was, they argued, active at the time in 1835, prior to the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi. The counterargument for Moriori was that there had been no conquest as there had never been a war. War was against their law, and still is, and they were prepared to share the land. The contention was that there'd only ever been a kōhuru, or murder. I've mentioned that Moriori wrote to Governor George Grey in 1862, seeking redress, release from enslavement, and the return of their rights. Unfortunately, the vast majority of the lands was not returned to Moriori at that time and it rendered them, effectively, landless.
There was another interesting discussion in the Waitangi Tribunal about the loss of mana versus subjugation. Ngāti Mutunga had initially filed legal opinion with the Waitangi Tribunal that said, "As a matter both of customary law and practical reality Moriori lost the status of tangata whenua of the Chatham Islands in 1835 by conquest and total subjugation." It was heartening to note that the tribunal wrote in its report, "as matters progressed, there was a growing acceptance of the duality of tangata whenua status. Eventually, this was acknowledged in submissions by Moriori, Ngati Mutunga, and the Crown." And the Waitangi Tribunal also noted, regarding mana, that although the contention had been that Moriori had lost mana through conquest and enslavement, the tribunal said that may be so, but mana is personal to persons or to peoples, and it comes and goes; it is not an institutional power given by history and then entrenched for all time. Were it the case that mana is irretrievably lost by conquest and enslavement, then many tribes, including Ngāti Mutunga, would have no mana today. If it were true that mana went for all time when people were displaced from the land, then most Māori would be without mana today, in light of the land losses and the outcome of the wars that followed European colonisation. I know that this was the point of the late Sir Mōnita, who said, when describing the Māori way, that the mana is in ourselves; we are a people. Mana depends on how we act today and what we make of ourselves.
I'm very pleased and proud to stand here on behalf of the National Party to see the mana of Moriori recognised, and will know they'll grow and develop over the coming years. I commend this bill to the House.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: I understand this is a split call. I call Tāmati Coffey—five minutes.





TĀMATI COFFEY (Labour): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker.
Tiro, Tiro, ki taku tau. 
Kei hea ra? 
Kei hea? 
Kei runga, ke. Kei raro, ke? 
Kei roto i taku moemoea.
[Searching for my beloved. 
Where is that? 
Where? 
Is it above, or is it below? 
It is in my dreams.]
I stand today having given that song as a song of lament, a song of loss, a song of heartbreak, and a song of a depth of feeling, which I know is what our Moriori whānau come with today, as you come into this House. So I want to acknowledge you, and the loss that you have suffered, and the journey that you have been on. Nau mai, haramai ki tō Whare. Ki te Whare Pāremata ki konei.
[Welcome, welcome to your House. To Parliament.]
I want to acknowledge the significant journey that you as people have been on over the years, from the bloodshed, from the slavery, the raupatu requests, the discussion, the debate, the frustration over myths according to who you are and where you've come from and what your history has been like. I want to acknowledge those people that have passed and who are unable to be here today to be able to help tautoko this journey that you are on—you, the descendants of those that have passed. It is a poignant day. It is an emotional day, but it is a day that's time has come. And I appreciate and acknowledge everything that has got you here to this point right now. Welcome to our Parliament. Although you might think that you're at the end of your journey; actually, in our parliamentary process, in this part, you're only at the start of this part, and I want to welcome you here with open arms.
Your Treaty settlement is coming through our Māori Affairs Committee. I'm the chair of that committee and I look forward to hearing your stories come through: the good, the bad, and the really bloody ugly, because actually, I can give you my 100 percent guarantee that your stories will be treated with the respect that they deserve as they come before our committee. The process that you're going through currently with Te Arawhiti—to be able to really drill down into the detail of what your redress looks like. Yes, we've got a bill here, a piece of legislation, but part of this process is that you have to come before the committee, and we have to have the first reading in here. As a committee, we hear the different submissions. We report it back to the House—that's a second reading—and then we debate it all as a whole House. And then we have a third reading on top of that as well. Sometimes that process can take far too long, but hopefully, for your sake—and for the story that you will share with us—it doesn't take too long, because too many people have already been lost along the way, and we need to make sure that this moves through our House with the kind of urgency that it deserves.
I want to let you know that your presence here is welcomed, because we know that while some of you live here on the mainland, actually some of you do live back home on the Chathams. I was fortunate enough to join the MP for the Chathams, Paul Eagle, a couple of years ago when we ended up there. He invited us over, so we came over. And this is something that's familiar to you, but the day that we were supposed to leave, after having been there for three days, a plane didn't get out of the airport because of the weather, which was really terrible. But then, when we showed up the next day to try and get off the island, there was a man inside the wing, at the end of a ladder, who was shouting out, "Not going to go. Not going back to the mainland today. You'll have to try again tomorrow." It was actually because of this firsthand experience that I started to realise what it must be like to have that kind of uncertainty of transport. So my good colleague Paul Eagle is forever lobbying to make sure that we get good connections to and from the Chathams so that you may travel freely as you wish and as it should have been a long time ago.
I look forward to hearing your stories and knowing you all on a more personal basis, but again, nau mai, haere mai ki tēnei Whare. We look forward to shepherding your bill through the House and again, as I said before, giving it the incredible respect that it deserves. Nō reira tēnā koutou, kia tātou katoa, kia ora.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon Meka Whaitiri—five minutes.





Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): E te Māngai o te Whare tēnā koe otirā ngā mema katoa o te Whare nei tēnā tātou katoa. E ngā uri o Rongomaiwhenua nau mai haramai hoki mai ki tō Whare. Ka nui te mihi kia kitekite i a koutou i runga i te kaupapa whakahirahira. Nō reira tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou. 
[Greetings to the Speaker, and to all members of the House. To the descendants of Rongomaiwhenua, welcome, welcome back to your House. I really acknowledge seeing you all here upon this important occasion. Thank you once, twice, thanking us all here.]
I was honoured to join with colleagues in welcoming our visitors to the legislative chambers today, so I felt it was important that I acknowledge their presence in this House in supporting the first reading of their settlement bill. It is, indeed, an honour to stand as the member for Ikaroa-Rāwhiti, and I bring the wishes of the many tribes from the East Coast to acknowledge your presence here, but, more importantly, to acknowledge your story. And that was shared in the pōwhiri. I want to acknowledge the many tīpuna that they read out, those that were around in the 1862 part of the pitihana that was written to Sir George Grey—to those tīpuna who are no longer here. It is some 159 years later since that first original petition in 1862 was written to this place—to Sir George Grey—seeking protection as guaranteed under the Treaty of Waitangi.
So it is unique. It is important that I stand and honour these people, the iwi of Rēkohu, and their story here today. The uniqueness in every settlement has this one—but this particular settlement acknowledged that the invasion wasn't the Crown. The invasion in this story is Māori on Moriori, and I think it's important that we acknowledge the significance of this legislation in acknowledging that. And there's a lot of history, I know, that will come out as we passage the bill, but I just want to acknowledge the Moriori iwi for their patience, for their perseverance, but, more importantly, when most people have their homes invaded, there is very few that may not lift up arms to protect, and, essentially, this is what these people did: in all humility, they maintained their tikanga no matter who came to their shores. So it is timely that this House recognises that absolute commitment to their tikanga as a people and as they return some semblance to how they operated on these beautiful islands of Rēkohu as we initiate this bill through the House.
Like many, I've had the fortune to visit Rēkohu many years ago when the delegation of Government Ministers went and helped open the extension of the wharf. And my colleague the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee talked about the runway. I know that's an area that we need to also look at improving in terms of access to the island. But it's a beautiful island, and in my visit there—and my connection to that area is also as an uri of those people that were incarcerated: Te Kooti, but also my great, great, great, great grandfather Te Warahi Poutini, who was also incarcerated on the Chathams.
So I want acknowledge the Moriori people for your manaaki of our people that got sent to your islands in acknowledging the importance of this first reading. Nō reira e te iwi i tae mai nei, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.
[To those of you that have arrived here, greetings.]





NICOLA WILLIS (National): E ngā mana, e ngā reo, e ngā iwi, e rau rangatira mā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. 
[To those of authority, to the voices, to the tribes, to the hundreds of leaders, acknowledgments to each and every one of you.]
Can I begin by acknowledging those we acknowledge and apologise to today: the Moriori people who will share this moment with us. Can I acknowledge that today in this Parliament we are reclaiming your rightful place in the history of New Zealand and the history of Rēkohu, the Chatham Islands. Today we acknowledge the Moriori as the tangata whenua of the Chatham Islands and we apologise, on behalf of the Crown, for the failure to address the deeply felt and longstanding grievances of your people. We acknowledge that those failures were both actions and inactions. Acts of omission are sometimes as powerful as acts in themselves.
In this bill, we do several things. One of them is that we provide cultural redress; another is providing commercial redress, including an $18 million settlement. But what I want to focus on in this contribution today is the apology and the historical account which this bill puts into our statute book for ever more so that every New Zealander may know the true history of the Moriori people and acknowledge the Crown's role over our past years. In doing so, I want to first acknowledge the Hon Chris Finlayson, who restarted the negotiation with the Moriori people as the Minister for Waitangi settlements. I want to acknowledge former Prime Minister John Key, who signed an agreement in principle in 2017. And I want to acknowledge Minister Andrew Little, who took that agreement in principle to the bill that we have today.
When we talk about the historical account of what happened with the Moriori people, I think it is important that we acknowledge the role of false histories, of the stories we tell about each other. As other speakers have mentioned, both the 1916 and 1946 School Journal incorrectly stated that Moriori were the original inhabitants of New Zealand before being driven to the Chatham Islands. The inference in these School Journals was that the Moriori were somehow a racially inferior people. That history was both false and hurtful, and undermined the Moriori people. Its significance is such that I remember, myself, as a school student, believing that history of the Moriori people, because it had been handed down from generation to generation as the true history. It wasn't, actually, until I read Michael King's history of New Zealand that I realised quite how false and wrong that was. 
Well, today, in this bill, we set out in writing that not only was that wrong but we put in writing the correct history of the Moriori people, which is that the Moriori karāpuna were the waina-pona—the original inhabitants—of the Chatham Islands; of Rēkohu, Rangihaute, Hokorereoro, and other islands. You arrived between 1000 and 1400 CE. You were descendants of Rongomaiwhenua. You had an egalitarian society and you outlawed violence.
It's here that I want to talk about a history of honour that we also acknowledge today and we put in our statute book, because what is particular and special to the Moriori people is a history of non-violence: Nunuku's Law. In 1835, when 900 Māori were sailed on British ships to the Chatham Islands, the Moriori people welcomed them and fed them in accordance with custom. Now, when people began to be killed and when violence began, there were many Moriori people who wanted to resist, but the elders Torea and Tapata urged the people to obey Nunuku's law of peace. There is a history of honour here, because that is what happened here: that law of peace was honoured, though many hundreds were killed and enslavement followed. I think we should acknowledge this history of honour, because living in this peaceful way is something that we all across this Parliament aspire to today and that, I think, many New Zealanders believe in.
But then we have a history of a Crown that failed the Moriori people. It's here that I want to focus particularly on what I would call "acts of omission"—the failure to act. In 1842, New Zealand annexed the Chatham Islands, and yet the Crown took no action to alleviate the conditions of Moriori enslavement that it was very well aware of. Letters were written to the Crown, appealing for it to exercise its Treaty of Waitangi obligation to offer protection to its subjects, and those letters fell on deaf ears. But the Moriori people continued and, in 1862, put a petition forward asking for those protections, and it was in 1863 that a resident magistrate was, in fact, put on the Chatham Islands.
But I want to read to you from the apology that the Crown offers today, because it puts it very clearly what the omission here was: "The Crown profoundly regrets that it failed for many years to take action to end Moriori enslavement, and that your karāpuna continued to suffer greatly in oppressive conditions which caused many more to die, including some who died of an illness known to Moriori as 'kongenge', a deep despair of the spirit." I want to acknowledge that deep despair of the spirit, because what we know happened with the Moriori people was, through this history of oppression and the inaction that occurred, there was a loss of language and there was a loss of mana and there was a loss of authority, and that was passed on through the generations. In 1870, when the Native Land Court heard the claim to the Chatham Islands, it ruled that 97 percent of that land was the rightful ownership of Māori iwi precedent and not of Moriori, and that was a deep, deep blow to your people.
So, as I acknowledge that, I want to positively acknowledge the perseverance shown by the Moriori people, in spite of this. At the turn of the century, the population of the Chatham Islands, of Moriori people, was only 31 people, and yet here we are today, signing into law an apology, an acknowledgment, and a package of redress that has been made possible by those ancestors and those that followed them, making sure determinedly to do right by their ancestors and by their people and for future generations. That is despite extraordinary odds, despite the loss of language, despite oppression, despite land being dispossessed. Yet the Moriori people have persevered and today we find ourselves here.
I want to acknowledge, also, the compounding pain that took place over 100 years, which was the collection of the skeletal remains of your ancestors, in complete violation of tapu and of tikanga, as we would express in te reo. But that that was not only done to you by others but that it was done to you by the Crown in the form of the Colonial Museum. We know that that both undermined your authority but was also deeply hurtful.
So, since the 1970s, we have seen a determination by the Moriori people to rebuild your identity and culture. Today, with this bill, you are reclaiming your rightful place in the history of New Zealand. We acknowledge the Moriori. We acknowledge the Crown's failure to address the deeply felt and longstanding grievances. We acknowledge the Crown's acts of failure and its acts of omission. We offer cultural redress. We offer commercial redress. We apologise. But, most importantly, we put the history right and we put it in the statute book for all to read so that all New Zealand children growing up in this country won't read the School Journal version but will read the real version and will know of the perseverance and determination of the Moriori people. Kia ora.





SHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote): Te Māngai o te Whare, tēnā koe. Me mihi kauanuanu ki a koutou te whānau o Moriori. E mihi ka tika ki a koutou. Nau mai, haere mai ki tēnei Whare. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou.
[To the Speaker, greetings. I must respectfully acknowledge you, Moriori families. Welcome, enter into this House. Therefore, acknowledgments to each and every one of you.]
It's my honour today to speak for the first time in the debate in this Whare, and as the MP for Northcote, and a new member at that, I'm honoured and blessed in the opportunities in the short time that I've been a member of Parliament. Over the past few weeks, I've heard submissions from Māori on the Māori wards, and today we will hear that debate in the second and third readings. It's also an honour to stand here today with our Moriori whānau and acknowledge their special day and this bill going through the House in its first reading.
I took the time this afternoon to head out and welcome our whānau to this Whare, to welcome this kaupapa, and, most of all, to hear their story, and their first speaker, Maui Solomon—mihi atu ki a koe, te pāpā—shared the story of the whānau and what today means to them. To the whānau that have come here today and share the next part of their journey, a journey that started long, long ago, I say that one of my responsibilities in this place is as the deputy chair of the Petitions Committee, and my colleague Meka Whaitiri talked about a petition that was sent through to Governor Grey 159 years ago. Maui spoke today of the 1,663 names that were signed on that petition.
He also acknowledged the tamariki—the children—that didn't sign the petition but that were there at that particular time, and it's those generations that are all the more important in this debate, in this bill, and in the future of Aotearoa New Zealand and the future of Moriori. It's important that we share their stories in our New Zealand history, in the books that we read and the stories that we tell, so that they know the whakapapa—that they know the history—of those particular islands, and one particular analogy that stood out from Matua Maui for me today was the analogy of Rangi and Papa as an analogy of this particular journey. It's a story that we share between Māori and our Moriori whānau, and he talked about the 10 pillars. In Māoridom, we talk about the demigods that stand between Rangi and Papa and that help them to separate. Maui talked about the pillars, and as this journey continues—and today is another step—that light shines upon this particular whānau.
Today, the whānau also read out the names of those who signed the petition—the names of those people that have supported this journey to happen—and when you sit in a pōwhiri like that and you hear stories from our whānau, it's very difficult not to shed a tear, because in amongst that, you feel their hurt and their pain that that history has put upon them. Today is an opportunity to start the redress of that, to make steps towards coming together on that bridge. We talk about te arawhiti—a way of Aotearoa New Zealand coming together—and this is another part. It's inviting everyone to stand on that bridge together—together—to improve our relationships and to set a pathway forward as individuals, as iwi, as whānau, and as Aotearoa.
I want to acknowledge the research of Dr Keri Mills, a professor at Auckland University of Technology in Auckland. She's written a large amount of academic research that shares the story of our Moriori whānau that are here with us today, that attempts to put right and correct history. When I grew up, I was one of those people that didn't know that our whānau existed. Today, I want to acknowledge my shortcomings in this, in that my learnings weren't accurate, but the research that Dr Keri Mills starts to talk about is the shortcomings in our education system up until the late 1960s.
It also acknowledges the power play that, through colonisation, set up Māori against Moriori, and that was the cover of colonisation within our country. Yes, there was an attack on our people, on our Moriori people—yes, we acknowledge that. But what this bill does is it acknowledges the failure of the Crown and it acknowledges the loss of mana of the Moriori people.
As a Māori, I'm sympathetic to the loss of mana. You can touch and feel that when one of our whānau is impacted in that way, and what this bill sets up to do is correct that loss of mana and to re-establish it by way of supporting this particular whānau to thrive. It enables the whānau to make decisions with the right resources to support the future of their own tamariki. It gives them rights of whenua—the things that uniquely establish them as an iwi, as the whānau of Moriori.
With Labour, in our manifesto, we're committed to completing all historical Treaty settlements in our manifesto, and this bill is a step towards completing that commitment. As a whānau member, I also follow my own journey in the Mōkai Pātea claim, and I acknowledge to the Moriori whānau that you're well through this particular process. But what this bill does is it intends to give effect to certain matters contained in the deed of settlement signed on 14 February 2020 by the Crown and Moriori. The explanatory note of the bill states that the deed provides for the final settlement of all the historical Treaty of Waitangi claims of Moriori against the Crown, and this bill aims to address the aspects of the settlement that require legislation.
Today, I want to acknowledge our whānau that have travelled from far and wide. I acknowledge this day for you and I acknowledge the journey that you've been on but also that that light that shines between Rangi and Papa, those pillars that you have put in place. May the light shine upon all of you, and your future is a very prosperous one. Nō reira, e mihi atu ki a koutou. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.





JAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you. It is my great privilege to stand on behalf of the Green Party and acknowledge today imi Moriori in this House and all of your hapū. Even though you are behind me, we see you in the gallery, and in the deed of settlement we hear your collective cries across the generations: the cries that existed before the harm, that offered the world a new way, a way without conflict and war, and the cries of pain on the assaults on your mana and the duplicity and treachery of the Crown in failing to protect you and using your experience to continue pain against others.
This day has been a long time coming. I can't even really understand it as a 50something-year-old woman standing here. It is many generations beyond my life experience that has taken us to get to this point in the House today. It's been spoken of already in the House, of the petition from 1862 as kind of the beginning, in some ways, of this process of engagement with the Crown to get the acknowledgment of the harm. While the Crown back then did not take the opportunity to step in, even though they knew what was happening and the terrible slaughter of people and taking people into slavery from the iwi that had come across, they chose not to act. It's hard, I think, for many of us to understand the struggle and the impact of a struggle that goes on for that long. 
As a Green Party member, I also have to acknowledge that the challenge of negotiating these settlements is imperfect—is a polite way of saying that—and could also be described as another act of violence. I want to remind this House, as we stand here and acknowledge the pain of the past, that that is still present in the systems that we continue to use today, and that as this settlement offers cultural redress that can be agreed between the Crown and imi Moriori and hapū, it is not what is deserved, and it is, as was spoken by the Minister, not a restoration in any sense at all. It is the best that you have managed to negotiate in appalling circumstances. I really want to acknowledge the resilience and tenacity to hang in, in that process, and keep your heads up to the future for those who are to come and for yourselves. I really look forward to the day where the spirit that you have brought with you through these times is able to flourish to the extent that the world needs, not just that you need.
I do have to just say that when we see the settlement and the financial aspect of it, which is $18 million—I want to bring that into this House and acknowledge that all of the Treaty settlements combined in this country amount to two months of superannuation. I really wish that people who are on online chats spreading hate would actually just come to grips with that reality and recognise the deep generosity and absolute resilience of imi and iwi to be able to accept these realities, to have a hope of moving on.
We have heard from quite a few of the speakers some of the retelling of the history. I, too, will just touch on some of that. I always feel slightly conflicted in the House doing this, because it feels in some ways at times that it's like—when people have lived through the harm, hearing it acknowledged has a power, but it's also having to hear it again and being taken back to that pain, and I'm always reluctant to do that in the face of such resilience. But I also feel a duty for us to be talking to the broader population to get through this message of how great the harm has been, and in this instance in particular, because it has been mentioned about the role of the School Journal in creating the myth of the Moriori as an inferior people who were—in a completely made-up history that was used to justify the Crown's further colonisation in this country, and the deep harm to Moriori of that, but to us as a country, has been absolutely appalling. Many of us in this country have held those stories, believing them to be true, and we still see those lies come up in arguments when it comes to race relations and colonisation.
So it cannot be said enough that they were lies perpetuated by the Crown to continue the process of colonisation and that the Moriori were not pushed out from New Zealand, that they were the first people in Rēkohu, and that they were not conquered by anybody, that they held their mana and their practices of Nunuku's Law to be able to have a hope of their future according to their own values, and that meant not engaging in war; and the contrast to the Crown's action of imposing war and failing to offer the protections of the Crown that were supposedly one of the few benefits of colonisation really brings the harshness of this into focus. 
I also just want to acknowledge that within this settlement, and for people and some of the hope of the future, a critical part is that retelling and that acknowledgment of the history, because of the deep harm caused by the lies. But it is also around cultural redress and ensuring the correct names for places on the islands. That matters because, really, how we know the world is by how we name it, and when we impose colonial or incorrect names on places, we create a lie of what is there. That renaming, I hope, brings some peace and a strengthened sense of connection for the Moriori hapū.
Also, there are arrangements around co-management and also ensuring that Moriori will be consulted on some critical—I've lost the word; I'm going to use "infrastructure", but it's not the right word, but in terms of key assets—and that this is not the end of the process. This is part of the process and there are more discussions to come, and some land will be returned. But again, too, that conversation is not finished, because of the overlapping interests.
But I do want to finish this speech again just acknowledging the incredible generosity of Moriori people in coming to this settlement and the phenomenal resilience, and I can't imagine but that your karāpuna would be so proud of you today, and the children in this country and around the world really should take inspiration from this story of survival. I, for one, look forward to a time where your cultural traditions are able to thrive and, hopefully, influence more of us towards a world where peace is the norm.





NICOLE McKEE (ACT): I stand here today on behalf of the ACT Party to speak on the Moriori Claims Settlement Bill, a bill that allows provisions from the deed of settlement to be made in law so that that deed can actually progress and you can be awarded what you should be awarded for the travesties that you have experienced. The deed and this bill records historical events—ones that I have only just recently read about and educated myself on. I'm pleased to see that there is an apology that is in there that is awarded to you, because you greatly deserve that.
Rēkohu / the Chatham Islands, occupied by Moriori karāpuna, the ancestors of Rongomaiwhenua—and I welcome you here today, and I see you and acknowledge you as the ancestors of Rongomaiwhenua, standing here, or sitting here, as the case may be, to watch this bill progress. I welcome you all to this Whare, where we will progress that deed of settlement and this bill on your behalf. I acknowledge the work of the Labour Party, our Government, in getting this through, and I also acknowledge Paul Eagle, who looks after the constituency of the Chatham Islands. I did try to get it from him, but I wasn't successful. But I do acknowledge the work that you've done there, Mr Eagle.
Moriori remained undisturbed on the Chatham Islands until 1791. You lived such a peaceful, non-violent life. Your way of life was turned upside down, and, by the 1830s, we heard of how many had been killed and how many had been enslaved. For me to read about how in the 1840s you wrote letters, you submitted petitions, asking for the Government to stop the enslavement, to award you back your land, and it was all ignored—when hundreds of your people have been killed and enslaved and you are being ignored, I commend you for spending this amount of time to push so hard for the recognition that you do deserve. Even after the Chatham Islands / Rēkohu became a part of New Zealand Aotearoa in 1842, you were still enslaved, you were still ignored, and in the 1870s, when you did get some redress, it really just wasn't good enough. The outcomes of that redress were not good enough. Most of your land had been lost, the numbers of Moriori had deteriorated, and many had left the Chatham Islands. By the early 1900s, it shows that it was just an untenable place to be and an untenable situation to be in. You were losing your historical references, you were losing the language, and you were losing your people.
I am one of those that were brought up in the education system at school where I was told that Moriori no longer existed—where I was told that the effects of the people were nothing that we needed to be worried about or concerned, but I will tell you that by the time I got to college, that had been corrected. And at college, I was told Moriori did exist and that they were treated badly, both by Māori and by Pākehā. So I want you to know that while I grew up with a School Journal, I was taught by my Māori teacher at Sacred Heart College that that was not indeed the way or the truth.
By the 1970s, you looked to rebuild your culture, your heritage, your language, and your identity. When I read of the deaths from deep despair, I recognise that that is the harsh realities of ill-treatment, and I am not surprised, when you hear of a people who founded their entire being on peace, on love, on unity and non-violence—to be treated in such a way and not recognised. To hear of the deaths by despair is saddening, because it never should have occurred. But you are here, you have fought hard, you've fought with determination, with effort, with bravery, and with courage to make sure that none of those deaths have gone unnoticed, because they will be recorded for ever here in our legislation. 
I had the great opportunity of visiting the Chatham Islands—I think it was about 2014 or 2015. I came for the annual pig-hunting competition and, I must say, it didn't go ahead because there was an unexpected death the night before we arrived. So the island went into lockdown, and I have never experienced such a beautiful, heartfelt community, where everybody gathered around to support the other whānau and the visitors that were on the island at that time. I must say to Tāmati over there, yeah, I went to catch the plane out too and couldn't. Ha, ha! When we got told, "No, it's too windy. You can't get on the plane. Come back tomorrow.", we all thought "Choice!", because the island that you have is beautiful—just it's so magic to be there. So from my heart, I do feel the pain that you must have been feeling as the ancestors of Rongomaiwhenua for the actions that have occurred to you since the 1800s.
The ACT Party support the first reading of this bill. This bill acknowledges the loss of respect, the loss of dignity, the loss of property and land rights in the displaced sector of New Zealand's history. ACT supports the righting of the wrongs by returning the rights to the Moriori. Kia ora.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): I call the local MP, Paul Eagle.





PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. Nau mai, haere mai e te iwi o Rēkohu, ngā whānau Moriori. Tēnā koutou.
[I would like to welcome the tribe of the Chatham Islands, the Moriori families. Greetings.]
I stand here as the very proud member of Parliament for the people of the Chatham Islands, and together with Rino Tirikatene it's a wonderful experience to be here and celebrating this historic occasion. It's my pleasure to welcome you here to our House—or your House—because today we make the gains that others in this House have talked about. I particularly want to acknowledge the whānau from across Aotearoa New Zealand and other parts of the globe who are watching. 
Thank you for your warm welcome of me. I've been your member for three years, and I've been to Rēkohu, the Chatham Islands, many times. I also want to say thank you for the warm welcome of my whānau, particularly my son Tamarangi, who is a Huff and a Daymond, so you have always afforded your hospitality and your warmth to him, and to I and my wife, Miriam. I have been to many parts of your island, whether it's Waitangi West, Kāingaroa, Ōwenga, or the south coast, and thanks to you. You've taken the time to show me around, you've taken the extra effort to make sure that I understand the things that really matter most, and this is one of them—the redress of your people, the Moriori. Every time I'm there, I learn something new. I see things and I think, "Wow!" Behind the Catholic church I see a gravestone with Tamarangi Huff and I think, "Wow, there's a story there to be told." It's next to—I think—a Catholic nun, when the nuns used to run your health services there, but every time there's another story.
I also heard Maui and I want to acknowledge Maui Solomon, Susan Thorpe, and the negotiating team for the patient effort in getting to where you are today. But I want to acknowledge the karāpuna who were talked about at our mihi whakatau this afternoon, because in there I hear names like Rongomaipango. It was actually Pita Thomas, who many of you will know, who showed me around parts of the Islands once. I used to see this wee sign, as you drive from the airport into Waitangi, and I remember looking at that sign and he said, "Don't take a photo of that and put it on social media", but I did, and I always thought, "I wonder what the meaning of that is". Today I know that it's one of your ancestors and it has deep meaning. That's the spirit of Rēkohu, the Chatham Islands, that I've come to know as their member. There is a story in those four corners of that island, and not to forget Rangiaotea, Pitt Island, and the whānau from there too. 
I go there and hear the issues of infrastructure, be it the roading network on Pitt Island, which needs some work, to say the least, or whether it's the airport extension, the lack of renewable energy and other resources—I know the windmills are still down—or whether it's something like a cell phone network. During COVID-19 the many young people who returned home from boarding school emailed me and said, "Look, Mr MP, if there's one thing you could do for us, could you redress our cell phone network and our Wi-Fi?" That's coming, can I tell you? So I'll be back for a celebration, or ringing you on your mobile phones, when we get down to the island come December.
But, more importantly, can I acknowledge all of those who have pulled this together with dignity and decency, and that's the Minister, Andrew Little; his predecessor, the Hon Christopher Finlayson; and I do want to point out Eugenie Sage as well, who, as Minister of Conservation, went there, went out to those outer islands, got around Mangere, South East, etc., and had a really good look around and understood the issues. So when this redress was put together, it was put together with authenticity and the know-how to make sure that this was done in the correct manner. My predecessor, Dame Annette King, sort of left the hands-on stuff to Christopher Finlayson, but her 24 years there too was also done in such a way where she said to me, "Look, I'd like you to really invest some time in Rēkohu, look at those Treaty settlements there, and make sure that they're resolved in your term."
Other people I want to acknowledge, too, are the negotiating team led by Dame Fran Wilde, and she certainly has had a tough time, I feel. But no negotiation and no redress is done without some hard work—and, often, a lot harder than one thinks. I know in talking to Dame Fran many times about all the settlements, she's proud and wanted me to say how proud she was in terms of what we have achieved so far. I couldn't go amiss without acknowledging the mayor of the Chathams, the former mayor Alfred Preece, but also Monique Croon, who both are working hard behind the scenes and talking me weekly, saying, "Look, these are the things that are the most important to our people on Rēkohu." 
I'm not going to say too much more, because I think it's been covered, but what I do want to say, ladies and gentlemen, is that I get lots of material to read, and one of the most honoured occasions I had was accompanying the Minister Andrew Little on the Hercules—so we took a different form of air transport to you lot, and actually got there and back. But what we did do is do the signing of the deed of settlement, and that in itself was my history lesson; that in itself told me the full story, and the tears flowed internally, because I thought, "Wow, this is the story that hasn't been told." I have to say, I didn't know half of it. But after that, I went away thinking, "Wow, this has not been fair; this is unjust.", and I probably didn't really understand the significance of what that day was about. So to all of the Moriori people, the Crown apology is just words, but I'm hoping the redress and the actions going forward from here really make amends in some small way. 
When Kōpinga Marae opened in 2005, a waiata was composed, and I want to read out some of those words:
Tōrea iho rā te tohinga o Rongo,
Ki runga o Rēkohu, Mū, Wheke, ka eke Rongomaiwhenua
Toitū te whenua, toitū te moana, toitū te tangata
Mano tau rongomau, rau tau Wharekauri
Ka tū Te Kopinga hei tūnga mō te motu hei tauwhiro i te iwi, Moriori tūāuri
Hutia ko te mate, hutia ko te ora
I te pō uriuri, i te pō tangotango i te ao tāngata
Hutia ko te mate, hutia ko te ora
Rēkohu haumako e.
The ancient covenant of peace rises again, and casts itself over the island of Rēkohu 
the covenant originating from ancestors such as Muwheke and Rongomaiwhenua 
Ensuring the land, the ocean and the people remain in a state of constant peace and tranquillity
For 1000 years the covenant was maintained, until recently when the name Wharekauri came into being.
And now Te Kopinga is born, 
a sacred foundation for the island, 
A source of protection and shelter, for the ancient Moriori people.
Who always stated, 
let life or death be in the hand of the gods
not in the hands of man.
Let life or death be in the hand of the gods 
And so Rēkohu flourishes.
Me rongo.





TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you, Madam Speaker. One of the best things about being in this House is the ability to make positive change for people, meaningful change that really impacts on their lives, and I think this bill today is a nice milestone in achieving that for the Moriori.
One can only imagine what it would've been like way back then to be invaded, to have everything you hold dear taken from you, to then be enslaved for those who survived, and to have that persevere for such an extended period of time. It must have been harrowing, and I really commend the Moriori for being able to stand by their beliefs, to persevere through those difficult times, and to, indeed, petition the Government as it was only newly formed and to eventually—eventually—get support.
I think this acknowledgment that we are beginning through the final stages here today is a just one in that it acknowledges a few factors: obviously, the time it took to correct the issue. Once it was brought to this House's attention, it shouldn't have taken so long. So correcting that change is an important acknowledgment and part of the apology.
The other aspect that I was amazed to learn—and I think we need to keep in context that for most New Zealanders, they don't have much understanding of the Chatham Islands and the Moriori, and the false history that was taught for many years through the 20th century indeed impacted on that. One of the things, I think, out of that is that—you know, a message we can take is different doesn't mean inferior. Different is special, and having unique cultures and experiences to offer are very rewarding and should be celebrated.
So I think now where we've got to with the apology but also with acknowledging the Moriori as tangata whenua of the Chatham Islands, and, of course, the financial redress—$18 million—and the fisheries Minister bringing in customary fishing rights, as well—those are all good steps, I think, that will help to ensure that the next stage of the journey for Moriori can proceed from here. So I want to acknowledge their perseverance, but also the perseverance of those who have helped get to this point—the negotiations team; the current and former Ministers, Andrew Little and Chris Finlayson for all of their work; and I know Paul Eagle as well, as the local MP, does some fantastic work and loves getting out there often, as I believe anyone well should. I haven't yet had the privilege of visiting the Chatham Islands, but rest assured, it is on the list. And for me, I think this settlement today, as I said, acknowledges the perseverance that it has taken to get to this point, and I would just ask for a little bit more perseverance as we progress through these last couple of steps in this House before we are able to get everything squared away and proceed from there.
For me, I think it will be a magnificent opportunity to help showcase another part of New Zealand, another part of our history that a lot of New Zealanders don't have a strong understanding of. I would encourage all Kiwis, actually, to take a moment to learn a bit more about the Moriori and about the Chatham Islands. It is a very remote and very unique part of New Zealand, but I think the opportunity from here also will be for the Moriori to showcase their beautiful environment and their beautiful culture and share that with more New Zealanders so that we can be more informed and be richer for that experience, as well. So I look forward to seeing this progressing through the last remaining stages and look forward to meeting some of you at some point on the Chathams. Thank you.





RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori): Ka tangohia taku pōtae e hika mā. Tēnei te mihi ki a koutou te iwi Moriori. Koutou te imi waina pono o Rēkohu, o Rangihaute, o Hororereoro, me ngā moutere pātata ki Rēkohu. Ngā mihi anō hoki ki tō karāpuna a Rongomaiwhenua, ki ō karāpuna kua riro ki te pō. Ko rātou te imi kaha nei ki te pupuri i te mana o te Waina Pono me te whakapapa o te Moriori. Nō reira tēnei te tangi, tēnei te mihi. 
[Let me remove my hat, oh friends. This is my welcome to the Moriori people. Those of the waina pono people of the Chatham Islands, of Rangihaute, of Hororereoro and the islands close to the Chatham Islands. I acknowledge your ancestor Rongomaiwhenua, and your ancestors that have passed to the night. They were resilient people who held fast to the prestige of the waina pono people and the genealogy of the Moriori. Therefore, this is my lament, this is my acknowledgment.]
I acknowledge the presence of our Moriori relatives, the waina pono of Rēkohu, of Rangihaute, of Hokorereoro, and of the islands that make up the Chatham Islands. I acknowledge your karāpuna, Rongomaiwhenua, and the many ancestors that have kept your story of resilience, your song of truth, belonging, alive, and well. I acknowledge the tenacity of your karāpuna, Tommy Solomon, and his legacy to ensure his people, the Moriori, the waina pono, were not exterminated by the colonial history books or by the lens of early ethnographers, colonial historians, and educators that deliberately classed Moriori as extinct, and racially distinct from and inferior to Māori, in their School Journals—the impact still haunting imi waina pono today, and also Māori, for that matter. This history needs correcting to ensure that the colonials' misconception of false history and kōrero of the Moriori can be told and honoured. 
I would like to acknowledge the negotiators—E Maui, tēnā koe; ko koe e hautū nei i tēnei kaupapa i roto i ngā tau maha [Maui, I would like to acknowledge you; you have lead this important work for several years]—and your team for your tireless commitment to ensure the kaupapa of the Moriori was brought to light. I know the immense commitment and work negotiators have to go through, therefore, kia kaha, kia māia, kia manawanui. 
This House and what it has sponsored in the past have a lot to answer for. It should be ashamed of its history. This is why the Māori Party policy for history to be taught in schools correctly is so important, as this ensures the Moriori can correct the shameful history portrayed by Pākehā academics and share their own stories according to waina pono tikane. I acknowledge the summary of historical account, and it provides a good opportunity to acknowledge the Crown's atrocities and breaches of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. No Treaty settlement should be considered full and final, and the process for reconciling our past must never stop. As Moana Jackson often says, treaties are not settled; they are honoured. Every generation has the right and obligation to continue the struggle for justice. 
Te Paati Māori looks forward to continuing to support this bill through the House, and as a member of the Māori Affairs Committee, I look forward to hearing more from the Moriori people about the importance of this bill for them and how the Crown can be doing more to honour their rights. As an active member of the Ringatū faith and as a tohunga, I acknowledge te herenga Te Matua Tangata me te iwi Moriori ki runga i Te Kōpinga Marae and the Whakarau [the ties to Te Matua Tangata and the Moriori tribe from Te Kōpinga Marae and Whakarau].
In ending, as Rangitokona illuminates the path ahead, waina pono affirms you to the land, and the principles of me rongo live on. Ko Rangitokona ki runga, ko waina pono ki raro. E ū te manawa, me rongo. E ū te manawa, me rongo.
[Rangitokona in the sky above, the original people on the land below. The heart holds strong, 'tis peace. The heart holds strong, 'tis peace. Acknowledgments to you.]
Tēnā koutou. 





ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): E ngā mana, e ngā re, e rau ieriki-ieriki mā. Tēnā kotou, tēnā kotou, tēnā kotou. 
[Exalted figures and voices of authority, and multitudes of leaders. Acknowledgments to each of you.]
I wish to first acknowledge te imi o Rēkohu gathered here today. Ki a koutou katoa. Haramai, nau mai rā. He mihi aroha ki a koutou. I acknowledge you as the living manifestation of the hopes and dreams of the Moriori karāpuna, to be worthy guardians of the henu Rēkohu, and to carry yourselves with the peacefulness, the poise, and the grace for which they were known. This bill is the result of many years of hard work and advocacy by our guests in the gallery and those who began this journey who couldn't be here today. I thank everyone who has shown commitment and patience and peacefulness to see this mahi through. Tēnā koutou.
I'd like to highlight for this House, and those watching, the special place of Moriori wahi t'chap to Moriori and the importance of conservation in allowing Moriori to act as tiaki of their lands for the benefit of all New Zealanders. This bill goes some way to resourcing and formalising the role of Moriori in the protection of our natural environment. 
For example, the bill would enable Moriori to make use of a primary industries protocol that would allow aspects of environmental management and the participation of Moriori in things like national fishing plans and managing non-commercial fisheries in a customary way, including the use of rāhui. The importance of that management for the people of Rēkohu shouldn't be underestimated. But it also provides for a framework where the Ministry for Primary Industries interacts with Moriori in relation to biosecurity, and noting the following views of Moriori—which I quote from the schedule to the deed of settlement—that "the indigenous biodiversity of Rēkohu/Chatham Islands is a core part of Moriori natural and cultural heritage, and is important to the social and economic well-being of the residents of Rēkohu/Chatham Islands; pests and diseases not currently present on Rēkohu/Chatham Islands could pose a serious threat to Moriori cultural values and limit future opportunities to provide for the social and economic wellbeing of residents of Rēkohu/Chatham Islands; despite the significant physical distance between Rēkohu/Chatham Islands and mainland New Zealand, threats to biodiversity from pests and diseases are still possible and measures to enhance protection for Rēkohu/Chatham Islands may need to be considered; the benefits of guarding against biosecurity threats to Rēkohu/Chatham Islands have the potential to include the islands becoming a source of disease-free flora and fauna that could be of benefit to mainland New Zealand." 
It's that generosity of spirit—to see the henu o Rēkohu as a taonga for all New Zealanders—that I want to touch on now. Nunuku's law of peace, which resounds so many generations on, is reflected in this desire to protect biodiversity and our natural environment for everyone, not just inhabitants and visitors, but all of us who are yet to visit your shores. 
The role of our guests from Rēkohu is tiaki, is kaitiaki, of the biodiversity and natural ecosystem of their land will be properly recognised in law, just as it is now properly recognised in tikane Moriori and tikanga Māori, with the passage of this bill, and that is why I support it.
I want to speak to those descendants of ngā Moriori who may be watching and thinking about the future. Over the next part of this parliamentary process, my colleagues and I on the Māori Affairs Committee, who have been entrusted to hear those stories, will welcome them. I can't emphasise enough the honour and privilege of being part of that select committee, which gets to hear these stories, and to do our part to set the record straight. You've heard from my colleagues in the House this afternoon about how important hearing those real histories are, and acknowledging the mistakes of the past that have gone down as accepted history where they were not true. So this process in Parliament where we get to air those stories and hear as select committee members are so important, and I would encourage not just those in the gallery here today but all descendants and everyone who wishes to tell their story to be a part of that process.
Finally, I wish to mihi to ngā karāpuna Moriori, whose manaaki, whose manawa ririki of my tīpuna of Rongowhakaata, Te Whānau a Kai and Te Aitanga-a-Māhaki in 1866, when they were sent to Rēkohu after being captured during the siege of Waerenga-a-Hika, and especially their koiwi, ki a Rēkohu. 
My great-great-grandfather Tamihana Teketeke was among the exiled, and he was there when Te Kooti founded the hāhi o Ringatū on your shores of Rēkohu. I thank ngā Moriori for their continued tiakitanga of a place which has so much tapu for so many people in New Zealand, and acknowledge not only the kaitiakitanga, the tiakitanga, that you exhibit over your natural resources but the wairua of that place and of what it has become as a cultural pou for not only the Hāhi Ringatū but the whole fabric of hāhi Māori within New Zealand.
Ngā mihi aroha ki a koutou. Ngā moemoeā o ngā karāpuna Moriori. 
[The dreams of Moriori ancestors.]
It's been an honour to speak on this bill, and I want to mihi as well to all of those young people who have come along to see the next step in this process, which has taken so much time. I can't emphasise enough how much it is a process, and we are only at the beginning stages of the parliamentary journey for it and welcome all submissions on that. That's why I commend this bill to the House.





Hon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. Tēnā koe e te Whare. Madam Speaker, and those in the gallery, it's always good when we're in the House to deal with a Treaty settlement bill of historical grievance, because we know then that we're really getting somewhere and we've almost reached a point when the redress and the resolution of the grievance is done. I note that, effectively, for all of these Treaty settlements that have gone through the House over now—what is it?—30 or so years, some of the settlement doesn't require legislation; some of it does. Here, as we often see, there'll be all manner of legal things: protocols, statutory acknowledgments, deeds of recognition, vesting of cultural redress of properties, and commercial redress—and all of that is here. And in a sense, like I say, it's always good to speak on such bills. I wouldn't say they're perfunctory—they're not. They're always special to the iwi that is before the House, through the bill, for their redress, and there's always injustice and there's always these things that we talk about and we recognise as important to iwi. 
But it's a privilege to speak on this bill—a special privilege—on this Moriori Claims Settlement Bill, because, like the ACT member Nicole McKee, I confess I didn't know accurately what had happened here. It is—and you can use quite a number of superlatives, really—a remarkable, poignant, painful story and part in our history that New Zealanders, Māori and non-Māori, should know, in terms of what happened to the Moriori people on the Chathams—not exclusively there, of course—as we call them today. I won't recount in detail, but as is listed in the law—I think that's quite a special feature—if you like, it gives the formal imprimatur stamp of approval of this Parliament in terms of the egregious injustices that happened. But we have a people who were egalitarian, peaceable, offering hospitality to outsiders, who were then attacked, with some 300 dying. Those who survived were enslaved to manual labour. Then there was no Crown action, despite the years that rolled on, even through the 1850s.
The Moriori people sought protection from the Crown, from the State. The issues and the injustice—and, I mean, it's just not a word we would think we would be using in this Parliament about our own country post-1840, but—the slavery continued. We saw it go before the Native Land Court, which perpetuated further injustice. Sadly, at around this time, that wasn't uncommon for the Native Land Court, where some 97 percent of land went to Māori, but only three percent to Moriori. 
In 1901, the population from pre-contact being at least 2,000 people—as I say, egalitarian, peaceable people living together in harmony. In 1901, there were only 31, it is recorded in this law. I agree with Rawiri Waititi that in a way, whilst it's not for me to judge, it's for those here today in the gallery to do so. 
The worst of all is actually that for these people, there was the added indignity of being portrayed as extinct and racially distinct from and inferior to other people and, in particular, Māori. Schools in New Zealand—it seems remarkable to say this today in 2021; maybe not so remarkable—actually taught this inferiority. That's what we saw. And the myth continued. I confess, it was sort of roughly the story at a level that I understood as a child, and what a shameful blot that is on a people, on Moriori. 
Today, we acknowledge it as a Parliament, and this law that we are putting through acknowledges it. It's right that in this bill there is the acknowledgment. It is there for all to see today, tomorrow, and into the future. There is an apology of—well, the bill actually says "deep remorse", and, of course, other redress that has been touched on. 
So I, for one, confess that I learnt a lot in thinking about this bill. Whilst there are many Treaty settlement bills that have come through this House, it's a privilege to speak and be part of this particular one. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. 





RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. If I may, Madam Speaker, I want to give my attempt at the reo of Moriori and to welcome my whanaunga here, te imi o Rēkohu, te imi o Moriori, tēnā koutou. 
Tēnā koutou nau mai whakatau mai. Ko koutou ngā uri o Rongomaiwhenua me Rongomaitere, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou. Nau mai haere mai ki te Whare Pāremata e takatū nei me kī te ana o te raiona. Ka hoki ngā mahara ki a rātou mā, ngā kaiwawao o koutou e hāpai nei i tēnei kaupapa, e kōkirihia nei te kaupapa ki tēnei pire. E tū tautoko ana ahau tēnei pire i tēnei pānuitanga tuatahi. Nō reira e aku rangatira, rau rangatirā mā, te iwi Moriori, me Rongo, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.
[Greetings and welcome. You are the descendants of Rongomaiwhenua and Rongomaitere, welcome once, welcome twice. Welcome to the House of Parliament gathered here, also known as the lion's den. I think back to those who have passed, the defenders of those of you who championed this matter, this bill. I stand in support of this bill in its first reading. Therefore, my regal ones, my noble ones, the Moriori people of Rongo, thank you once, twice, and thrice.]
I'm delighted to be able to speak in support of this historic bill this afternoon, to add my welcome to the Moriori people who have travelled from far and wide, I'm sure, many from Rēkohu and around the country, to be here today, and those that will be tuning in as well. This is a historic occasion. I don't need to really traverse the historical context, because I know that it has been well covered by the contributions today, much less to say that this was a terrible stain on the history of Aotearoa. Such was, though, the nature of the marauding type of people that Māori were and the interactions that we have had, it's a fact of our historical context as a nation; likewise, the role that the Crown had to play in its omissions and its acts of what is another bloodstained history in our country.
But I'm just here to tautoko this bill because I want to acknowledge the iwi of Moriori, the proud people, distinct people, of Rēkohu, who have long fought for recognition and have finally, through the passage of this bill, gone another step, another step in their cultural revitalisation as a people. I want to pay tribute to all those that have been involved in Moriori, in their re-emergence as an iwi on the landscape of Aotearoa and here in Parliament. I want to acknowledge Maui Solomon and the role that he has played, dedicating his life to his people, for his tribal identity to be recognised and celebrated, and that's what we're doing here today in this House. 
I think back. On occasions like this, we have our own personal connections to places and to people, and I think back to when I was a young lad. I was fortunate enough to travel and to support—and to be in the Rātana band, actually, that marched on—when the Rt Hon David Lange, in 1986, unveiled the statue of Tommy Solomon. That, for me, I guess, marked a major imprint of Moriori into the modern community of the Chatham Islands. That was a wonderful occasion, to go with the Prime Minister and to be able to support that big occasion where the whole of the Chathams came together, staying at Te One School and being able to take part in so many wonderful community occasions and celebrations and ceremonial occasions as well. So I think back to those occasions and I think how far Moriori have come in those 35 years. When I think of the fisheries settlement that has been recognised with Moriori, a major stakeholder in the iwi fisheries of the Chatham Islands, along with Ngāti Mutunga, but also in the wider fishing industry, all of that was hard work, hard fought by the whānau of Moriori.
I think back to the family also, of Maui's cousins. Gary, Dennis, and Tommy are the ones that I recall—very similar to their grandfather in stature, and just absolutely wonderful to spend time with them. Yeah, I marvelled at their appetites then. I think their koroua, he's renowned for—how many swan eggs did he eat? About a dozen or so. But it's just wonderful to reminisce with Maui and his whānau. Even more recently, Tom Lanauze and the contribution that he's made. A wonderful weka hunter extraordinaire is Tom, and he took me on a few expeditions. I won't go into the details of the very secret terms of the weka-hunting, but it's wonderful to see one of many, many individuals here who have played a part and are continuing to play a part in the passage of this legislation. 
So we have a lot of connections. I want to acknowledge the connections that we have as iwi, because, of course, Ngāi Tahu and Kāti Huirapa Arowhenua, we claim the Solomon family as our own and rightly so—rightly so. We claim all their whānau, and I do acknowledge those connections that we share. I even played a part as a fledgling—we were ahead of our time, but I did play a role in the first iwi Ngāi Tahu - Moriori joint venture in fisheries—Tangaroa Seafoods was its name—along with Nick Preece and Grant Huwyler, back in those days. They were wonderful, wonderful times that we had, and it's great to see that these relationships and connections are still playing a strong role today as we all work together as iwi in this post-settlement environment.
So I once again just acknowledge the people that have travelled here today. This is a very significant bill. As we do with all Treaty settlements, we acknowledge those that have gone before, but we also look ahead to the future. 
One thing that struck me today was the kōrero from Maui and from Kiwa that we had earlier today. It was not only the pronouncements of the tūpuna that presented the petition in 1862 and to hear their names ring out in the House but I hope we get the opportunity to put those names formally on Hansard in some future readings. But to hear the reo—to hear the Moriori reo spoken—to hear the names of their tūpuna that were spoken, and to bring that all right up to the present day with the passage of this legislation, I think, is hugely significant. I'm very proud to be here, along with my colleague Paul Eagle, who's quite the local member for the Chathams. I know he probably knows every kina, pāua, and crayfish. Myself, I'm more of a fan of the sea tulip—kāeos. I am quite partial to them. I regret that I won't be able to travel that way with the Māori Affairs Committee to hear the hearings because I'm sure they'll be very rewarding, and very important to hear the kōrero as well.
But with that, I tautoko this bill and I want to make sure that I finish with kia tau te rangimarie—in peace—which is what the Moriori people stand for. Hokomenet ai, me rongo, me rongo, me rongo. 
[United as one, peace, peace, peace be upon us.]
Kia ora tātou. I commend this bill to the House.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a first time. 
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is, That the Moriori Claims Settlement Bill be considered by the Māori Affairs Committee. 
Motion agreed to.
Bill referred to the Māori Affairs Committee.
Waiata





URGENCY
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move, That urgency be accorded the passing through the remaining stages of the Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill.
The urgency is done on two grounds. One is to ensure that local authorities that would otherwise have to hold referenda that will no longer be required under this bill will not have to do so. The second is to ensure—as the explanatory note in the bill explains—that local authorities have the opportunity to make decisions on Māori wards and Māori constituencies in light of these changes before the 2022 local elections.





A party vote was called for on the question, That urgency be accorded.
Ayes 77
New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.
Noes 43
New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.
Motion agreed to.





LOCAL ELECTORAL (MĀORI WARDS AND MĀORI CONSTITUENCIES) AMENDMENT BILL
Second Reading
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): I move, That the Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.
This bill is a significant step forward for Māori representation in local government and for recognising the Crown/Māori relationship at a local level. The bill removes the poll option from the process for councils to establish Māori wards and constituencies, and provides councils with a fresh opportunity to decide if they will have these wards at their 2022 local elections. This is an idea whose time has come. I say that because the establishment of Māori wards has not been an easy path over the last 20 years, even though many communities and councils have tried. Evidently, the poll option has proved a significant barrier, and that is what we are going to fix through this bill.
I'd like to start by thanking Te Komiti Whiriwhiri Take Māori and its chair, Tāmati Coffey. The committee had a truncated time frame to hear submissions and report back. They met through the weekend to give as many submitters as possible the opportunity to have their say. There were 12,508 submissions on this bill—that's about one submission every 10 seconds that submissions were open. It's great to see that, despite the time pressures to get this in place for the 2022 local elections, New Zealanders took the opportunity to have their say.
I'd like to thank everyone who took time over the last week to prepare a written submission or to meet and present their views to the committee. A large number of these submissions were template-style submissions, which, of course, we still take into account. But I want to focus on the 2,805 individuals and organisations who wrote in with personalised messages of what this bill means to them in their communities. Two-thirds of those unique submitters strongly supported the bill, this includes local government sector organisations including Local Government New Zealand and Taituarā; Local Government Professionals Aotearoa, formerly the New Zealand Society of Local Government Managers (SOLGM); Maruata, representing elected Māori members; at least 21 local authorities; countless current and former local government elected members; iwi and Māori organisations from all around Aotearoa, and not to mention thousands of individual Māori and Pākehā New Zealanders.
I'm pleased but not surprised to hear that so many New Zealanders supported this change. They know that it's an idea whose time has come and a marker for what Aotearoa could and should be in the future. Importantly, those views speak to the unique aspect of our democracy that recognises our founding document, Te Tiriti o Waitangi—the Treaty of Waitangi. But I acknowledge that this support is not unanimous. Some submitters stated that urgency and the short select committee process is not warranted since the next local elections are 18 months away. Respectfully, I disagree. After a council decides that it will have Māori wards, it needs to go through a process to review its overall representation, where it considers where the boundaries of both general and Māori wards will be and the total number of councillors. This process starts on 1 March, and initial decisions must be made by 8 September. The legislation must be progressed quickly in order to give councils time to consider Māori wards through the transition period and then start their representation reviews.
Some members opposite will say that there is no need for urgency and that this change could wait until the 2025 local elections. The truth is that this change is well overdue after 20 years of trying. We can now realise the ambition of increased Māori representation around council tables, and we should do it with speed.
I do want to highlight a point made by a number of submitters: that Māori wards are one of the measures to provide space for Māori in local decision-making processes. There were views that the bill is anti-democratic. I disagree. The bill recognises that the Treaty of Waitangi helps to shape and design a democracy that is of us—it belongs to us, it is founded here in our country, and it can only be found here in Aotearoa New Zealand.
In 2010, the Waitangi Tribunal found that the Crown must ensure that its Tiriti obligations are upheld, even when it delegates functions to local government, and that includes the equal rights of Māori with other citizens when participating in democratic electoral processes. That same year, the Human Rights Commission said that unless positive steps are taken to improve Māori electoral representation at local government, the Māori voice will "continue to languish."
In 2017, prior to the election, Marama Davidson's member's bill was introduced to repeal the poll provision. Although that bill was lost—even though Labour and the Greens supported it—it lives on in the actions we are taking today. In 2018, Andrew Judd, the former Mayor of New Plymouth, petitioned Parliament to remove the poll provisions. This was followed by two more petitions in 2020, which carried the weight of more than 11,000 names of people, who today should feel very proud of their part in the long fight to see this change made, and the select committee made mention of those petitions in their report back to the House. There is no need to wait any longer.
I want to acknowledge again those who submitted over the weekend, and highlight for the House some of the points raised. The committee was told that it is wrong for councils to have one way to establish general wards and another way for Māori wards. Gisborne District Council called this an anomaly, and Ngāi Tahu Māori Law Centre said, "there is a double standard by which only Māori participation and representation in local government is subject to a general community review." Local Government New Zealand submitted that "The polls have reduced complex issues of voice and representation to a simple binary choice, which, by encouraging people to take sides, damages race relations." I also reflect on the comments by Toni Boynton, who told the committee that when Māori stand for general seats, they sometimes feel like they have to limit their Māoriness to get elected, but that this would not happen if there were Māori wards.
I wish to conclude by talking about how this bill will impact on local communities. Over the past 20 years, we've seen that when councils and iwi agree that the best path forward for their relationship is a Māori ward, a small but vocal part of the community demand that this democratically made decision is undone. These petitions and polls harm the iwi-council relationship and stir up fear, division, and even violence in our local communities. Over the last few months, I've seen reports that petitioners have not been clear about the implications of their petitions and that many people have signed up in error. I've seen reports of violence as people then try to get their names removed. I've heard from councils and iwi that the track record of these polls has made them so nervous about Māori wards that they don't put it on the council table, even if they know it's right for their community. This is not the best version of Aotearoa New Zealand that we can be; we can be better.
This bill lays the foundation for what we could be. It gets rid of a discriminatory provision and gives councils a new start at deciding whether to have Māori wards at their next elections, without the prospect of a poll looming ahead of them. But just because the community can no longer veto the council's decision does not mean it should be excluded from the decision-making process. I issue mayors and councillors with this challenge: speak to your communities, your iwi, your hapū, and decide whether this is the right path for you. When I consider the way in which Māori have put their hands up to respond to civil defence emergencies and all manner of challenges locally, and participated in the regional growth conversation, I know that this is an idea whose time has come.
I acknowledge that some councils will not be able to establish a Māori ward because the proportion of their population on the Māori electoral roll is too low. Other councils may decide that Māori wards are not the most effective way to include the Māori perspective in their decision making—that's OK. Māori wards are only one tool available to you to improve Māori representation and participation. But Māori wards are an important step forward for many other councils that are seeking to improve the way they partner with and represent Māori in their communities.
This bill is a humble but next step to improving local democracy, to ensuring that our democracy is founded on the Treaty of Waitangi. Its focus is on supporting councils at their next elections, in 2022. Enduring changes for the 2025 elections, and beyond, are on the way, and I will bring another bill to this House later this parliamentary term when those changes are ready. For now, I commend the bill to the House, and I thank the select committee for their diligence.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the motion be agreed to.





CHRISTOPHER LUXON (National—Botany): As we've previously said in this House, we continue to oppose this Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill for a number of reasons. We continue to oppose it because the process for the introduction of this bill has, frankly, been totally unacceptable, and even more so when you consider that this is a significant piece of electoral law reform.
The decision about Māori wards and constituencies is for local people and local communities to make about their local government, not central government. It's not for central government to get in the way of local government and iwi/hapū. We oppose this law because electoral law is important; it's not something to be dealt with cavalierly. On this side of the House, we believe that the electoral system belongs to the electors, not the elected. We oppose this bill because, while the bill purports to do so, it is not actually aligning the treatment of Māori wards and constituencies to general wards and constituencies. And we oppose it also because there are several technical implications and consequences of this legislation and how it actually interacts with other pieces of legislation that haven't been fully explored due to the urgent process and the determination of this Government to implement the bill as it currently stands. Frankly, we oppose it because this is not the most important or pressing local government issue at this time. We should be talking about things that actually matter and will make a difference to people's daily lives like funding models, like infrastructure delivery, like housing, and like transport.
So in the spirit of the second reading debate, let me focus on the deliberations of the Māori Affairs Committee, and, in particular, the process for the introduction of this bill, which, as I said, has been totally unacceptable, and especially so for a significant piece of electoral law reform. This is the central issue that our submitters raised with us: the process was rushed. I want to put on record what actually happened here for now and for history, because, frankly, the process is quite shameful. I came to this place expecting that we would discuss issues like this deeply, we would debate major legislation properly, and this has not occurred in this instance.
So let's go back. It was Tuesday morning two weeks ago. A bill showed up in this House, and that evening that bill passed its first reading. The public then had from Wednesday morning to Thursday, 5 o'clock—less than a day to make any submissions. Zoom meetings were made for in-person submissions for those who actually got the opportunity, which occurred on the Friday and the Saturday. The select committee then met on the Monday to discuss the report-back, and, but for the COVID restrictions, it would've been back in this House, moving from bill to law unamended, under urgency last Tuesday, but that's, essentially, what we're doing a week later now tonight.
So I just want all members to stop and think and reflect on all of that, because I have to ask: are we actually proud of this process? Do you think New Zealand has been well-served by the process? Do you think New Zealanders have been well-served? And the answer is a resounding no in this case. I want to put it into a little bit of context, because the Parliamentary Library tell us that the only bills for which submissions have been called and then the next day have been closed have been in respect to things like the Christchurch earthquake, the COVID-19 emergencies, or in cases where, actually, court processes would have enabled claimants to game legal loopholes. Those are not the circumstances that we're facing here with Māori wards. 
The whole rushed process makes no sense at all, and it made no sense to many of the submitters. On the one hand, why try to create optically the illusion of some sort of public consultation, given the net result is a one-week delay and the same outcome as if you'd just driven the whole thing from bill to law under urgency in one session. Likewise, the dates in February and May that the Government uses to justify the truncated process could easily have been changed by the bill so that process consultation could occur.
This process is neither fish nor fowl; it's a Clayton's process. It's the kind of process you have when you're not having a process. And the subject matter, frankly, deserved better than this. I have to say that National members during the first reading proposed a longer run time and more time to discuss it in the select committee. We also formally proposed a practical and good-faith amendment to seek an extension of a week to allow more time for submissions—that could have been used over the COVID delay, and that was wholeheartedly rejected and voted down by the committee. That's a shame because that would have allowed more submitters to have their prospective and to have been heard on it.
The select committee received 12,508 submissions, which were made in a time of about 32 hours from go to whoa; that's the time people had to make their submission. And just imagine how many more others could have actually made a submission. In fact, there were so many that, actually, we couldn't even read the submissions, even if you'd stayed up the whole time of the actual time frame that was allocated to it.
Now, of those who actually did submit, 76 percent of them opposed it: 9,533. And there were 191 submitters that sought to be heard, but the short notice and time frame meant that 38 percent of them were unable to orally submit. So no doubt it's a very suboptimal kind of process. You have to take the public experience of this and actually couple it up with the damning departmental expert advice that we saw in the regulatory impact statement. Now, I want to quote that, that says, "The short timeframe for developing the policy options and undertaking the impact analysis means there has been minimal consultation on the specific stage 1 proposals." and "that consultation on the proposed stage 1 legislative changes with the general public, local authorities, and iwi/hapū, was not possible."—it was not possible. The departmental disclosure statement also added that the policy details had not been, "tested or assessed in any way to ensure the bill's provisions are workable and complete".
So, certainly, the lack of public consultation, coupled with that expert advice admitting to a very poor and rushed process, does not live up to the Government's own 2020 Labour election manifesto, where it committed—and let's just read these words and let's understand these words—"Labour will ensure that major decisions about local democracy involve full participation of the local population from the outset." That is certainly not the open and transparent Government that we were promised.
I have to put it to you that the Government knew what it was doing. In the Minister's own paper she took to Cabinet, it said, "There are risks with changing electoral processes under urgency. The constitutional nature of electoral law means that generally it should not be changed without consultation and a full select committee process.", and that's right. And that's because, in this country, we have always taken great care and tremendous caution when we're making electoral law reform, but we haven't done it here, let's be honest. In that same paper, it talks of the retrospective, rather than the prospective, nature of this legislation, and many of our submitters raised that question too.
This bill is retrospective, because regardless of any previous decisions about conducting polls or past council commitments to a binding poll; that's all been disregarded through this legislation. And that same Cabinet paper said, "There are risks with repealing the poll provisions while provisions seeking to overturn Māori ward resolutions are circulating. This will attract criticism from some members of the public that the Government is shifting the goalpost before the clock runs out." So how do you think the nine areas across New Zealand who had already committed to or were in the process of generating signed petitions actually feel? Because seven of those nine areas already have more than the 5 percent of residents having signed a petition requesting a Māori wards referendum. So it's a shabby moving of the goalposts for sure.
The problem with the poor process is that the Government is not even trying to take the New Zealand people with them and secure their buy-in to such a significant change. Fundamentally, the vast majority of the public do not understand the rationale for this legislation. They get what you're doing and how you're doing it, but the New Zealand people are none the wiser as to why this is happening. We all know people don't buy what you do, they buy why you do it. The why actually matters in this instance. And there's been no opportunity to genuinely hear the different voices and prospectus about this matter, and I think it's important with big changes like this that a Government, particularly with a big majority like this one has, backs itself and has the courage to back themselves, use their political capital, and go and win the argument with the New Zealand public. That has not happened with a shameful day-and-a-half of submissions and open-close case.
I have to say I was very struck by the very thoughtful submission of Andrew Wilks, who said that these types of constitutional changes should be done in a careful, considered, and measured way so that they stick. And he went on to reference Dame Whina Cooper's hīkoi, and he made an insightful observation that if you run, you lose the old people; if you walk, you can gather them all with you. That is what has happened here. The process has moved at such great speed, people have been left behind with no understanding as to why the change is actually happening, and that in itself will cause more, not less division.
So we appreciate the people who were able to make submissions to the select committee, and their perspectives both for and against the bill, but, fundamentally, this was a flawed and unacceptably poor process that has meant no meaningful engagement with the public, no listening to expert departmental advice, no living up to this Government's own commitment to consult broadly, yet this Government knew what it was doing. It was cynical politics, and the consequence is that the broad New Zealand public are none the wiser as to why the change is necessary. And that's a shame, because that will cause more division. So on these grounds, we continue to oppose the bill.





TĀMATI COFFEY (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I've got to say, as the new chair of the Māori Affairs Committee, it was definitely the deep end, this particular bill. But because it is something that is so urgently wanted out there amongst our communities, actually, it was my pleasure to chair what was an incredibly respectful process. I understood that there were people, like the other side of the House, who disagree with this bill. I understand that there were people who supported it. But everybody got their time to be heard, and I'm proud that our committee sat through to be able to listen to the detractors and listen to the people that were in support as well. 
In terms of the detractors, there was quite a lot of conversation around using urgency for this. But, as the Leader of the House indicated, there are definite time lines for local government to be able to take this on board and get things set up so that they can have their own local body elections next year. So when it came to urgency, no apology. In fact, one of the submitters that was in support said "Hurry up"—"Ka tere" was what she said—and, actually, I support that as well. So that was the reason for urgency. 
Talking about division, though, which was another thing that came up—saying that this was going to divide everybody—well, actually, wake up and smell the roses, everybody. This has been dividing people for quite some time. Since 2001, 24 councils have tried to establish Māori wards in their areas and 22 have been knocked back. Only two have made it over the line, and that's not good enough. 
When we're talking about a commitment to Te Tiriti and when we're talking about our Crown/Māori relationship, we need to do better at every single turn, and I'm absolutely surprised at some of the comments that came from the other side, talking about and kind of almost ignoring the fact that we have a Treaty relationship and we need to be better Treaty partners. That's why we all come into this House—to be better Treaty partners—and it seemed to be quite a convenient fact that was ignored, I believe, from the other side. 
I know that we're going to talk a lot about this over the coming hours, so I commend this bill fully—unreservedly—to this House. 





Hon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Look, it was good—really good, actually—to speak on the Moriori Claims Settlement Bill—
Tāmati Coffey: Better Treaty partners.
Hon SIMON BRIDGES: —in the House just before. But I tell you what, Tāmati Coffey, it ain't good to speak on this one. That's because, actually, pretty much everything about it is wrong—everything about it is wrong.
The bill—we'll start with the process—and Tāmati Coffey says, "Look, it's all fine. They got a chance to be heard." And that went something like this: "Mr Jones, you've come along for your submission; thank you your time's up. Oh, Mr Smith." That is how it went in that committee, because literally the thousands of people that wanted to have a submission did not have the time.
But, you know, that's really not the serious point; the serious point is this: it was done in urgency. There was absolutely—despite what Nanaia Mahuta, Tāmati Coffey, and others say—no need whatsoever to do it in urgency. I've said before, and I'll say it again: this is a local democracy bill being passed anti-democratically. I see the sad irony in that. Members on this side of the House see the sad irony in that. I think, actually, reasonable, fair-minded New Zealanders will see the sad, tragic irony in that—a democracy bill passed in rapidity, anti-democratically. I note, once again—it was in the first reading but I think it's such a salient point—the way Chris Hipkins, the gentleman who came to this House and moved the urgency motion used to rail, with his arms up in the air, he used to shake and yell, when we used urgency—and we did it much more sparingly, dare I say it, than this Government did, on bills that were much more—
Hon Members: Ha, ha!
Hon SIMON BRIDGES: They laugh. I don't know why they're laughing. Go check the record. Go through the Hansard. Go do the Parliamentary Library check on all that. Well, I look forward to hearing the member over there whose name I don't even know—that's the contribution she's made in this House over the last few years—do that. But, actually, we used it sparingly and already we're seeing that isn't the case. By the way, what did we do on Tuesday night last week, while I'm talking about urgency? We finished at 4 o'clock. What did we do on Wednesday night? We finished at 4 o'clock. What did we do on Thursday night? We finished at like 3.30 in the afternoon. And now they come, because they've got a bill, and they arrogantly, they sadly, ram it through this House.
That leads me to the other point: the arrogance—the arrogance; actually, I would say worse than that, the deep cynicism—of going to the election with a Labour Party manifesto, and when I spoke in the first reading, I said it never mentioned this in one place. Actually, Chris Luxon makes a stronger point, and that's that it did mention it; it just said the exact opposite of what they've done in Government. Well, there's plenty of words I can't use in this Parliament to describe that, but, sadly, they all fit, actually. When you go to the election in the electorate—because you know the electorate doesn't want it, because you know it will lead to votes going to other political parties in this Parliament that may actually not be in this Parliament any more, you go do that, you say one thing to them, and then before the paint's even dry on your warrants as Ministers, you do precisely the opposite. I say, actually, there's a deception involved in that. This bill is based on a deception. It's sad. It's arrogant. It's cynical. And that's what it is.
Tāmati Coffey made, I think, another point that was made in a different sort of way by Nanaia Mahuta, as well. It was, effectively, this, if I sum it all up: well, you know what, local government, they are so in favour of this; they think it's wonderful. Well, here's how that ran—and I thought it was a remarkable revelation from Nick Smith in this Parliament at question time to Nanaia Mahuta—it's kind of like this: those who the Government thought would need to toady up to them, would want to curry favour, would come along and do what the Government wanted, they got an advanced heads-up.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Six days.
Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Six days heads-up to write their submission and to get on it. That's how cynical this is. I'll use another word; I reckon that's "dirty"—I reckon that's dirty to—
Hon Member: Ha, ha!
Hon SIMON BRIDGES: —the member over here laughs—to go to one side, the side on your side, and say, "You know what, here's the confidential heads-up to make your submission". But anyone on the other side—New Zealanders, right? Not people from other parts; New Zealanders—who want to come along or have a strong view on this, "We're not telling you, if you're going to be agin it, because we're going to ram this through in urgency." Well, I say that's deceptive, it's cynical, and it's dirty to give a heads up to one side and not the other.
I'll just say, actually, in a week when we've seen the Mental Health Foundation, I think it was, talking about a Government that wants to shut them up, and makes it quite clear that they don't get funding if they do that, is it actually any wonder that those local government mayors come along here, cap in hand, and say, "Nanaia Mahuta is wonderful. I agree with everything she said on this."? Well, you know what? In a broken local government system, in the way it works, that has every lever facing towards the Government because they need Nanaia Mahuta and Jacinda Ardern so much, actually, I think that's pretty self-evident what's gone on.
This bill's retrospective, and that's wrong. We can play live and all that, but, you know, whether it's criminal or civil, whether it's a bill on posters, whether it's a bill on rubber stamps, whatever it is, they should not be retrospective.
So I say, for all of those process reasons, this bill's wrong. I also say, actually—and I agree with the many good points that Christopher Luxon said—this bill's wrong in substance, special representation. We're increasingly going to look back, I think, at this in the long-run, and say that it's the wrong thing to do. It's not a situation where in Parliament there are fewer Māori than Māori in New Zealand, actually we're strongly represented. In council that hasn't always been the case, but what the stats show quite clear is it, basically, is today. I have a complete confidence in New Zealanders, both in Māori and non-Māori New Zealanders, to elect the right people who know what they're doing. I say to the other side: actually, have a little faith in us, have a little faith in Māori.
Hon Members: Ha, ha!
Hon SIMON BRIDGES: And they laugh again because their arguments are so weak. Frankly, Tāmati Coffey came to this House with a fourth-former's speech and that's why he's laughing right now, because his arguments are so weak. Have a little faith in Māori, have a little faith in the people that you used to represent, and have a little faith in New Zealanders.
I think this is a real shame that we're going to spend now, because it is in urgency, because it's a flawed process, because, I think, fundamentally, for all the reasons Christopher Luxon said, and more, it's a flawed bill, arguing tooth and nail over it. We know what the end result is going to be—let's be honest about that—because of the super majority over there where they just do whatever they want as arrogantly as they can. But that doesn't make it right. It doesn't make it a good process. We will be fighting tooth and nail, because it's the right thing to do.





ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Rather than something divisive and discriminatory, this bill supports fairness and inclusion. I want to acknowledge the comments of the member opposite, the Hon Simon Bridges, in the face of some of the advocates who have worked on this tirelessly for so long who have joined us in the gallery. When we talk about the need for urgency of this legislation in this House, I want to think about those people in the gallery who have joined us today who have worked on this for more than 20 years. Advocates in our communities who have seen the repugnant racism that comes out of the poll requirement where councils want to advance Māori representation in their councils, under their representation, but cannot do that because of this poll requirement.
In 2010, the Human Rights Commission published Māori Representation in Local Government: The Continuing Challenge. When noted that a key problem with current provisions is that the implementation of councils' decisions to establish Māori wards depends on the very shortcomings of the majoritarian process—which the Māori constituencies are designed to address—and citing Professor Janine Hayward, the report noted that to a point "irrespective of the wishes of Māori voters, the provision has been rejected. Those who have power have been unwilling to share it." That is why I support this bill.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The House is suspended for the dinner break. We will resume at 7 o'clock this evening.
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m.





ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The House is resuming. Before the dinner break, we were at the second reading of the Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill.
Dr ELIZABETH KEREKERE (Green): Kia ora. Tēnā koe e te Māngai. The Green Party welcomes the second reading of the Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill, which ensures Māori have a say on local issues across Aotearoa.
We've long supported this kaupapa that brings Māori to the decision-making table. And we see this as a positive step towards affirming the kaitiakitanga of tangata whenua over their whenua, their awa, and their moana. We mihi to the kaimahi who joined us to watch us at our work. Particularly mihi to Toni Boynton, we sat together when the Gisborne District Council made its unanimous decision to create Māori wards. I believe that Toni may break our New Zealand record for the shortest time between submitting a petition and having the law passed.
Last week, it was a privilege to attend the submissions for this bill in the Māori Affairs Committee. This is how I learnt that, in Parliament, urgently and urgency are two very different things. So, although the Greens support this bill, I do want to acknowledge the extreme haste with which it has been undertaken. Some of our colleagues may have raised this once or twice in the course of the hearing. It did create a huge burden on those who presented, and, of course, proved a significant barrier for those who could not. However, as one submitter noted, usually such a rush disadvantages Māori but in this case it benefits us.
So I would like to take this opportunity to continue amplifying some of the words of people who submitted in support of the bill: that the establishment of Māori wards is long overdue but still only an incremental step toward honouring Te Tiriti o Waitangi; that this helps to address our compliance with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People; that the more Māori wards there are, the more Māori will participate in local democracy as they see themselves reflected in that decision making; that Māori wards would help progress issues for Māori in urban areas, and in one particular case, building a marae, which they've been advocated for many—many—years; that this recognises that iwi are becoming far more powerful economic players in their own communities; and that this provides more opportunities to grow together.
Submitters suggested that without embedding such representation with local government, Māori can never overcome the statistics of being a minority in our own land; that democracy is, by its nature, stacked against Māori because the majority rules; that representation based on demographic percentages does not address the obligations of Te Tiriti o Waitangi to Māori; that Māori cannot rely on the good faith of predominantly Pākehā councils.
Submitters suggested that it removes the anomaly of non-Māori having a say on Māori representation when such a mechanism does not exist in other parts of local democracy, or as another said more bluntly, that it is racist to give Pākehā the power to remove voting rights from Māori, an assertion that many submitters who spoke against this bill quite vehemently denied; that this bill also removes the anomaly of this being the only time 5 percent of a population can overrule the majority or unanimous decisions of its duly elected representatives; that referendums actually are a costly mechanism that should not replace proper building of relationships with local iwi and Māori organisations; and finally, as one submitter said, "It's not 36 hours; it's 200 years."
I will leave it to others to raise reasons for why the Government should not pass this bill, but it was a good lesson to see where middle New Zealand is at. The numbers of non-Māori who still think that they should retain the system of controlling Māori reinforces for me why this bill is so important. 
So the Greens reiterate that this bill will help strengthen the Māori/Crown relationships at a local level by removing barriers to Māori participation in local elections. It is likely that more councils will establish Māori wards once this bill has passed, giving Māori greater representation and voice around the council table following the 2022 local elections and into the future. And, in turn, this will help our whānau, our hapū, and our iwi. We commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.





DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT in opposition to the Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill, and I think it's worth just asking the question, before I go any further, what sort of conditions do we know from the lens of human history going across many countries, across decades and centuries, help people to prosper, to live good lives where they can provide for themselves and their families, and feel safe and secure? I think that's basically the question we should be asking on all legislation in this House, and we should seek to legislate when there's an opportunity to make our country a better place for people to prosper. Often we find the need to legislate because our laws are preventing people from doing that. People might ask, in the case of this particular legislation, is there a problem where the laws are stopping us from being a place where people can live safe and prosperous lives.
Well, the people behind this bill say, "The problem is that Māori are somehow excluded from representation in New Zealand's democracy." If that was the case, then there might well be a reason for this House to legislate. But hang on, the problem can't be here in Parliament, where Māori are over-represented—and I don't see that as a bad thing. The problem can't be in the ACT Party caucus, we've got more Māori than National does these days, 30 percent—twice the population average of Māori. So what is the problem at local government? Maybe there's a problem where, actually, Māori somehow are unable to be elected to positions on councils up and down this country. Helpfully, Local Government New Zealand have put out a report about what sort of people are sitting on our councils. The most extraordinary thing—Māori are about 14, 15 percent of the New Zealand population. Well, guess what proportion of councillors elected in New Zealand are Māori! Fourteen percent, 15 percent. You know, if you accept that, then prima facie, there is no problem for this legislation to solve, because we're already getting the outcome of proportionate representation along the lines of ethnicity, if that's the problem that a person has.
But then we go back to our question of how we create a prosperous society where people feel safe. Well, one thing that's helpful—other than proportional democratic representation—is a belief among the people of New Zealand that the processes to which they're subject are democratic. We've heard from people in favour of this bill that the current situation is not democratic, because only 5 percent of people can overturn a decision of the elected majority. But they, I hope, know that that's not true—that doesn't describe the current situation at all. The current situation is that 5 percent of electors in a particular council have to sign a petition to have a referendum, and then everybody can vote. And then only a majority of everybody can overturn it, so it's not 5 percent; it's a majority of people who vote that can overturn the decision of elected representatives, and, actually, it's a majority of those who vote who elect the councils, depending on the exact electoral system that council has. So the idea that there's something undemocratic here is completely untrue. So it can't be that problem. 
The next problem that people might say is: that the legislation as it stands is discriminatory, that it allows Māori wards to be challenged by petition and referendum but not other types of wards. On that basis, the Government putting up this bill has a point. But here's the thing: if we want to create a more democratic society where people can be safe and prosperous and feel included, then the right thing to do—if their objection was to people petitioning and using referenda to remove only Māori wards, there's a very simple change they could have made—is they could have given people the right to recall all types of wards. That would have been simple if they truly believed in democracy and equality, but they haven't done that, and why? Well, I suspect it's because every time there's been a vote, those pesky people—you know, the electors of New Zealand, the ratepayers that fund the councils—they've been getting it wrong. You see, they're supposed to say yes to Māori wards, and almost every time they're asked they say no. There's two possibilities for how the Government could deal with that situation: they could accept the will of the people or they could just stop asking, and that is why they've decided to stop asking. That is the wrong approach to solving the problem.
If it was just solving the problem the wrong way, then maybe we could say, "OK, we understand that the Government's gone a bit wrong here, but at least there'll be an opportunity for it to be properly discussed and debated throughout our country, and people will feel included in the democratic process." But they haven't done that. Having only a week for select committees to take submissions is the same as not taking submissions for all practical purposes, unless—and here's the real travesty—you happen to be a person who was tipped off and knew about the shortened process and had your submissions prepared well ahead of time. And, again, if our overall goal is a prosperous, safe, and inclusive society, then I can't think of anything that does more damage to public confidence in this House and in the democratic process than a rushed and rigged process that actually excludes people's views. 
So here's where it ends up. You have a whole lot of people in New Zealand who are fair-minded, conciliatory, and decent, and want to see a safe and prosperous country, but they also want to be treated alike in dignity with everybody else and have their views heard. That opportunity was not only denied of many people in New Zealand, but, actually, they believe—quite rightly—that the process was rigged. The effect of that is that this Government is actually eroding the social capital, it's eroding the trust, and it's eroding the goodwill in our democratic institutions—and how ironic! For a Government that set out to start putting wellbeing as one of the main measures of how it's Government was doing, they've actually damaged New Zealand's social capital, even though that's one of the things that they say we should be paying more attention to. Where it ultimately leads is that you get a divided and angry country filled with people who couldn't be heard because the Government made a law that had no good reason other than they were voting the wrong way, and it made that law through a process that didn't give them the normal consultation that they expect from New Zealand's Parliament. It was done by a majoritarian Government simply because they thought they could, because numerically it was possible in Parliament.
Well, I've been reflecting—especially through the first weeks of January—about what makes our country special, and one of them is that we manage to restrain the exercise and wielding of power just because we can, out of respect for each other and respect for our processes. The people on the Labour Party benches should think very carefully. If we really believe that getting rid of veto powers or polls on Māori wards is the right thing to do, was it really worth the erosion of trust, the erosion of our democratic principles, the erosion of social capital in this country, to get it done one election earlier? Was that really worth it? Because if that's what people on the Labour Party benches think, then we are set to become a more divided country, with a meaner politics, with less inclusion, where, actually, the problems that we're seeking to solve—particularly for Māori—of being more prosperous and more safe is actually going to be made harder by what this Government has done. So I say to the members opposite, if you want to build an inclusive, safe, and prosperous New Zealand, the opportunity is there for you. The Standing Orders allow you to revert this bill back to select committee for further consultation after second reading. If other people on the Labour side do that, you'll be remembered for doing the right thing for New Zealand. Meanwhile, ACT opposes this silly piece of rushed legislation. Thank you, Madam Speaker.





SHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote): E te Māngai o te Whare, tēnā koe. As a new MP, and the MP for Northcote at that, in Auckland, it's interesting and outstanding at times that I still have to roll out "Te Tiriti o Waitangi 101" to some of our colleagues in this particular institution. But I do encourage everyone to read up on all articles and ensure that we are abiding by those particular principles, as we did with our Moriori whānau in the last round. 
I'm supporting this bill. Yes, I have thought about this bill and, yes, I have spoken to people in Auckland and in Auckland Council. I'm supporting this bill after three days of hearing submissions from across the motu, of people who support it and of people who didn't support this bill, and in amongst that was confusion—confusion and reasons why we shouldn't pass this bill, why we should stay the same, and why we should maintain this discriminatory law that we currently have. 
When I think about my council, Auckland Council, that was established to have 20 councillors—on 28 September 2017, Auckland Council "considered the opportunity to establish a Māori ward for the 2019 elections and resolved to support a Māori ward in principle subject to legislative change allowing the council to increase the number of members." This reiterated "the position adopted by Council in 2015 supporting the need for legislative change to allow Auckland to determine the number of members on the Governing Body and subject to that, agree in principle to establish a Māori ward and request for a consistent policy regarding Māori representation in line with legislation governing the composition of Parliament." In February 2020, the establishment of a Māori ward was again discussed. However, there had been no legislative change to allow it to take place. 
So when what I am asked today is do I trust our people and is it fair that we're moving this through, as an MP for Auckland, I am backing this bill to go through because our council wants it. They want better representation for Tāmaki-makau-rau—Auckland. They want to ensure that they have the right people—
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why are you afraid of a vote? 
SHANAN HALBERT: —around that particular table, and I was honoured to work alongside my friend and colleague across the room. He was wise in those submissions, but as I go through, what I look to is the number of bills that were passed in urgency by the former Government under National. 
I'm not going to share too much this evening on those particular ones, but what the Hon Dr Nick Smith across the room did say was that "This is outrageous. This is outrageous law being pushed through under urgency." That is not the case, the Hon Dr Nick Smith, because you've done it. You've been a part of a Government, and when it counts, it counts. I'm supporting this bill and I commend it to the House. 





JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise in opposition to this bill. I've spent much of my most recent career working as a lawyer in the courts, including in some of the High Courts of New Zealand, and I rise today in the highest court in the country, effectively. This is the House that makes the law. And the great mistake that the Labour Party has made, in my submission, is that this is creating a potential issue of division in our country by pushing through a change in our electoral system that is not bringing in the people of New Zealand to have an opportunity to properly discuss this, properly engage in the select committee process. Giving New Zealanders less than two days to file submissions is not appropriate on a matter that strikes at the heart of how our democracy works at local government level.
Whether it's right or wrong—and, look, I point to people who spoke at the Māori Affairs Committee and said they actually supported the change, but they opposed the process. It's an important distinction, and there's many people in New Zealand who don't have the opportunity, don't have the time, to look deeply into this issue, and all they're going to see is a Government pushing through a change to the law without signalling it in the election, without giving proper process to it, pushing it through under urgency, putting it through in a fast-tracked select committee process. That is not a process that inspires confidence of New Zealanders in our democratic arrangements, and it will not inspire confidence—I would suggest—in the Labour Government.
The member opposite has spoken about the National Government using urgency to push through legislation before. That has never been done for electoral law, and this is important. Electoral law is the foundation of our country.
And I'll make another point. I heard some of our members saying that this is a racist law that has to be changed urgently. Look, I'll just point to the fact that it was a Labour-led Government back in 2002 that is responsible for this legislation. So we've had some almost 20 years since then, and, if it was that urgent, the Labour Party should've done something before, I would suggest.
I cannot stress enough that our democracy relies on the trust of the people and those elected to serve them. It is not a proper discharge of the duties of the elected members' offices, I would suggest, by bringing this change to our local democratic systems in the way that they've done it. Not in urgency, not pushing it through select committee process, not having 12,508 submissions—which is quite impressive in less than two days, but not even the majority of those are read. Realistically, the majority of those could not be read. Having some 70 people who wish to actually be heard at the select committee not having an opportunity to be heard and to discuss. And I know from my career in the courts that whether or not people agree with the outcome, a critical part of the process for them feeling they have been involved in the process and they could accept the decision made—even if it's a decision they do not agree with—is being heard. People in New Zealand have not been heard effectively through this rushed process, and the Labour Party, I would suggest, should really take this back and think about it and give it the appropriate time so New Zealanders can properly discuss this, and, even if they do disagree with it, they at least have the option to be heard through the select committee process. So I do not commend this bill to the House.





DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori): Tēnā koe to the Speaker. We, Te Paati Māori, stand in absolute celebration that today we are here dismantling racism, and we are here to support our whanaunga over in Labour and very proud of what they've brought out today and over the last few months. We commend those out there that are our transformers. We commend the visionaries, the brave and the bold. 
I think of all of those who have been part of this journey: Rongomou Community Action, our kina conversations, our T-shirts, our podcasts, the young showing there is no room for racism in 2020-21. I think of Toni Boynton; I think of Fiona Chase; I think of Sam. I think of the first time we were listening to submissions of those who were so relieved it was over, they didn't realise they were still being filmed congratulating themselves, with the whole family screaming in the background. I think of Andrew Judd, who said that Māori representation on council is Tiriti-based, not race-based. To say otherwise is to colonise. 
I congratulate all my whānau who led this, but I especially mihi to our Tiriti partners. It is you who stood by us. It is you who understood the Tiriti and what it guarantees: equality. This is about dignity. It is you who helped rise against deceptive pamphlets, the Hobson's Pledgers. It is you that helped us raise the question of privilege. It was you that identified white fragility that continues to see Māori prejudicially affected through targeted legislation. It is you who helped to rise and raise: that Māori are not another community of interest. We are not stakeholders. We are not a general group. We are not to be treated as anything other than who we are: tangata whenua. And nowhere else are we tangata whenua but here, in Aotearoa. You seriously ask today, about process of democracy, to us, as tangata whenua? There has been a severe power play. It is not democratic to limit tangata whenua participation. It is not democratic to sit there saying, "All people are equal, but some are more equal than others." 
I'm proud to be from Taranaki, where New Plymouth District Council led this charge. I'm proud to be from South Taranaki; we are the first council in the country in this round to achieve a unanimous vote in favour of Māori wards. I remember the work that the Bonita Binghams have done. I remember the mahi and the commitment that Hohepa, that Puna, that Hinenui, that all our whānau upstairs have done—and they are here because they are imploring, "You make change." Let's be on the right side of history. This is not a story that has happened lately; it is a story about perseverance—200 years of perseverance. This is about us as tangata whenua who, despite having a Tiriti, are saying, "We want to be treated equally." 
For Te Paati Māori, this bill doesn't go far enough. Toni Boynton reminded us it's a small piece of justice in a river of injustice. We think this bill should extend itself to be able to say we can have a Māori ward on every council, mana whenua represented on every council, but for now we stand here humbly supporting what it is that Nanaia has brought out for us—Minister Mahuta, sorry. For us, we are asking that this House do what we should all be doing, which is identifying all legislation that affects us poorly as tangata whenua and undoing it. We sit here and we ask that you remind yourself how the democracy in this country was built. 
We saw before us some of the worst racism because we were simply asking for parity. Where does democracy start in Aotearoa? How come it starts now? How come we don't remember what happened in 1869? How come everyone's comfortable with accepting that this country was built off some of the worst, most racist legislation we've ever had—muru raupatu, the scorching of our earth, the raping and pillaging of our women, the imprisonment of our people. And you can sit there and say, "Yes, yes," but until we make right, which is what our rangatahi and our tamariki and our mokopuna expect—we saw it in Black Lives Matter, we saw it in climate strike. They were led by young people, and they're not tolerating the decisions that come out of those who are simply too archaic to move. So for Te Paati Māori, we commend this bill and we support it wholly. Kia ora rā.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): I call Rachel Brooking—Rachel Boyack, sorry.





RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. It's a privilege to be one of Labour's "Rachel Bs" in this term of Parliament. It is a pleasure to take a call on this important bill. I want to thank the Minister of Local Government, the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, for bringing this bill to the House. Can I also acknowledge those in the gallery who have travelled today, who have journeyed on this mahi for many, many years. It's been wonderful to share some kai with you tonight. 
This bill is important because it is about honouring Te Tiriti, because honouring Te Tiriti isn't just about getting to an exact representation percentage; it is about a true partnership between Māori and the Crown. This bill allows local government to forge those partnerships in their rohe, which is what local government and iwi have been asking us to do. The specific purpose of this bill is to ensure that as we move towards establishing a new framework for councils to consult and decide on Māori wards, we don't waste time and money on unnecessary, expensive, and divisive polls on this issue. This bill is about addressing inconsistencies. If a council wants to introduce a new general ward, it can do so without having to poll its community.
In my electorate of Nelson, all our councillors are elected at large and we currently have no councillors elected from the large suburb of Tahunanui. Our council could make a change and introduce a Tahunanui ward. It could make that change with no challenge. But to do the same for Māori means there is potential for a poll, and this is inconsistent. In Nelson, we were the first unitary authority to introduce a Māori ward, and I celebrated that day. But it was unanimously supported by council and then overturned by a poll in 2012, where less than half of the people enrolled to vote in Nelson participated. We now have no Māori members on Nelson City Council—none—and I want to acknowledge the hurt that this has caused our Māori people in Nelson. They should be represented at the table. I want to acknowledge our mayor, Rachel Reese, who has stood up for Māori representation on our council, and I acknowledge her and I hope she's watching tonight.
On the other side of this House, we see even more inconsistency. Just a week after announcing they would stand in Māori seats, the National Party came out in opposition to Māori wards, and their position is inconsistent. Local Government New Zealand has called for this legislation. Iwi have called for this legislation. Our communities have called for this legislation. I look forward to this bill becoming law, I look forward to the next steps, and I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora koutou.





Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National): This is a bad bill. It's being pushed through under an awful process and it is a misuse of the trust that New Zealanders put in Labour members opposite. There's a really important principle that my colleague Chris Luxon said, which I want to strongly emphasise: the electoral system belongs to the electors, not the elected. That's why when this Parliament was to be changed from first past the post to MMP, it wasn't for the people that are elected to decide to make that change; it was a decision for the people of New Zealand who own this democracy to make that decision.
When countries internationally make decisions about their constitution, is it for their presidents and for their senators to decide on how they are elected? No, it is not. It is for the people to make that decision, and that is why our law says that if you want to change the system of election in a council from first past the post to single transferrable vote (STV), they say that you have to have a referendum by 5 percent of the people to be able to advance it. I don't think the members supporting this bill understand the volume of their arrogance when they say on electoral law, "We decide and we'll overrule the people."
I say to the new member of Parliament for Nelson, you are making a grave error when the people of Nelson voted by 12,387 votes to 3,192 against having a separate Māori ward and she fronts up in this House and says, "I know best. I don't give a stuff what you decide. I will overrule and remove the right for you to have a vote."
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Order! May I remind the member not to bring me into the debate.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I remind the member opposite. Now, if Labour had gone to the electorate, they might be able to claim that they have a mandate. Well, I want to remind Rachel Boyack of what she told the voters of Nelson in their local government policy, and I'll read the exact words: "Labour will ensure that major decisions about local democracy involve full participation of the local population". Is there a single member of this House that will put their hand on heart and say that's what this bill does?
Hon Members: Yep.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, can they please explain: how does this bill ensure a major decision about local democracy? Well, I think changing and establishing Māori seats in the Nelson city would be a major decision about local democracy. And does this bill involve full participation? It takes away—
Hon Damien O'Connor: The councils are appointing people.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —the participation of the public. Mr O'Connor, you are doing exactly the opposite of what you pledged you would do at the last election. But then there's an equally important principle about democracy, and it is this—and I ask members opposite to reflect—democracy is where you defend the right of people to express opinions with which you disagree, right? Now, members opposite say, "Oh, just giving people one day for submissions, having dozens of people that wanted to appear before the select committee, we don't care that we didn't hear them, because we disagreed with them." That is not the heart on which our democracy should be based.
I want to go through a number of claims that Labour has made about this bill that are blatantly untrue. The Minister, Nanaia Mahuta, says that the law she wrote, the law that she spoke to in the third reading and said was great law, she now says is racist law. Well, my simple challenge to Nanaia Mahuta is: when are you going to apologise? You're the architect of the very law that you have labelled as racist.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Order! May I remind the member that I'm not part of this debate.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: It is not racist, and I say that the member is guilty of overstretch. She is actually harming race relations with those sorts of claims. 
Now, let's go on with the process. What members of this House think it is acceptable to reduce a six-month select committee process to six days? What members of this House think it's OK to say that if you're a supporter of the bill we'll give you the heads-up and we'll let you make a submission, but if you're opposed you get a day? I know, Mr Luxon, in business they would call that insider trading and members opposite would want to lock you up in jail for that activity. But here again, we see Labour's principles tested, and that is when it comes to them, they will stoop to any level of riggery and rotten process to justify the means. 
I also want to draw the attention to the House, where a very respected local government official was so offended by the Minister's comments that they wrote a feature article in Stuff, and here's what they said: "I feel compelled to write this feature piece to correct the Minister's false statements. The analogy that says that creating a general ward is absolutely identical to creating a Māori ward is blatantly false." I'll tell you why: it doesn't matter what corner of the world that you're in, if you want to have an electoral system, you need to divide a system up into electoral districts or wards. That is true wherever you are in the world. It's sort of like a car of democracy requires wheels. It's basic. It's required. But the notion of dividing up a community on the grounds of ethnicity is not basically required. It is unusual. It is different from what we do, and that is where both senior officials and others have said that the Minister is flawed.
Then we have this claim from the Minister: don't worry, all this bill does is make the process for creating a Māori ward the same as a general ward. Oh, is that what the bill does? What we found out is that if you have a general ward, you've got to publicly notify it, you've got to have consultation, and you create appeal rights. Are any of those provisions there in the bill? Of course not.
Here's the other interesting feature. The law specifically provides a process by which a council can either switch to STV or first past the post. The law specifically provides a process where you can either create and divide more wards in a general sense for a council or that you cannot do. But the law only provides a means by which you can create Māori wards. It does not provide any legal mechanism by which you can in future take them away. That is not treating them consistently. That is wrong.
And then here's the other little pearler in the bill: a council can create a poll on any issue they wish. There's a general provision in this Electoral Act that says that if a council wants to have a poll on whether they have a library or whether they have a road or any issue they like, they're allowed to have a poll. But this bill says there is one issue which you specifically never can, are not allowed to, are completely banned from: to ever decide to have a poll on the creation of a Māori ward. They can have a poll on creating a general ward, but not on a Māori ward.
When the Minister claims that this bill makes the provisions for creating a Māori ward the same as they are for a general ward, she is being disingenuous. What she's really about doing is screwing the scrum in a particular way. She knows it; it is part of the agenda. The bill is wrong. The process is awful. New Zealand's electoral law, the way we run our democracy—
SPEAKER: Order! The member's time has expired.





PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. I've got some good news, and I want to start with good news because I'm always about good news, and the best news for the former member for Nelson is that Her Worship the Mayor of Nelson City has just texted saying, "Go for it! I can't wait." So that sort of says it all. And I don't know what the confusion on that side of the House is all about when messages like that are quite clear. The member is honestly not listening to his very people of the good, sunny city of Nelson and has got this so wrong. But we've become used to that, because it seems like chaos over there, because suddenly, "Let's run for Māori seats."; the minute there's a Māori issue on the table: "No, no, no. We can't, we bring it all back. Can't do it."
I have to say that, when I was going through those long, great sessions of consultation led through our chair of the Māori Affairs Committee, Tāmati Coffey, I did sense a few of them on that side were actually keen to go with it. But look, we won't reveal their secrets, because their key lines have told them otherwise, but that's why they're on that side of the House and that's why we're on this side of the House, because the confusion is quite clear—the confusion is quite clear.
I know, from being a former elected member myself on the Wellington City Council, in 170 years there was only ever five of us that ever made it across the line. And good Māori names like "Eagle" go really, really handy at times, because that can get you elected with a world-famous Māori surname like that! And that proves my point in every way: that Māori seats will enable good councils all over this country, backed up by good evidence by their representative body, Local Government New Zealand—LGNZ—that says, "We want this." I don't know where that side of the House is really getting their research, getting their information, because I know that their members across the country are actually in support of this, too.
There is confusion—there is confusion. We've been bombarded with process issues, and I'm reminded by my father, the former Rev Brian Eagle, a good old Pākehā dad—he was talking about power sharing 30 years ago, and I think that's at the root cause of this—when Dad rang me and said, "I think my type are just not used to sharing power." I commend this bill to the House.





SPEAKER: Order! The question is that the motion be agreed to. Those of that opinion will say Aye; to the contrary, No. The Ayes have it. The bill is set down for committee stage forthwith.
Tim van de Molen: Party vote?
SPEAKER: I didn't hear a party vote called for.
Tim van de Molen: She did call a party vote.
SPEAKER: I will seek the assurance from the member that she called it.
Maureen Pugh: Absolutely.
SPEAKER: OK. We will backtrack a little bit and I will instruct the Clerk to have a party vote. Can I just remind people to say it loud; you know, there's a bit of noise around at the time.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.
Ayes 77
New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.
Noes 43
New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time.





SPEAKER: Time—[Interruption] Order! Please. Order! Order! We don't have assistance from the gallery, and, actually, when I'm on my feet, members should restrain from clapping. This bill is set down for committee stage forthwith. I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill. 










In Committee





Clause 1  Title
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The House is in committee on the Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill. Members, this stage is a chance for an examination of the detail of the bill and the effect of its provisions. It is also an opportunity for engaging in discussion with Ministers by taking short calls and asking questions.
Members, we come to the debate on clause 1. This is the debate on the title. The question is that clause 1 stand part.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National): The first point I wish to make in debating clause 1 on this Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill is that the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee did not allow National members to propose any amendments to the committee. The select committee was told that, with the very, very short process, it was not possible for any of our amendments to be considered, and that is why National has been forced into a position of bringing its amendments to the House in the committee of the whole House stage.
Now, on the short title, the guts of this bill is about taking people's voting rights away. That is, we've had a long-established principle, and that is that on electoral law issues it is for the electors to decide what sort of electoral system they want. That's why we have in the Local Electoral Act the provisions that say: if you're going to change to single transferable vote, you have a poll—if we want to change our electoral system at a parliamentary level, we have to have a poll. So my question for the Minister in the chair, the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, is that this bill is about removing the poll. That's what it does. That's what's repeated in all of her press releases. Why not be upfront in the title of the bill and refer to the removal of that poll?
The second question I have for the Minister is: why does the short title not reflect the fact that the bill skews the Electoral Act in favour of Māori wards? Despite the many press releases that say that this bill simply aligns the process for general wards with Māori wards, there are numerous clauses that we will come to that show it does not. Why do we not be upfront in the title and say that the Government is about favouring a law in favour of Māori wards?
I note there's an amendment from my colleagues in the Māori Party. They've been very upfront with their position. They've got the courage of their convictions, and they're saying all regional councils and all councils should have Māori wards. Now, that's upfront. I don't agree with that position, but I have to say to the Māori Party that we know where you stand, and you're clear about it. What this bill does is actually does it by subterfuge. What this bill does is screw the rules in favour of Māori wards as compared with general wards. So my question for the Minister in the chair is: why not be upfront in the title about what the bill does? That's about removing the opportunity for the public to have a say on a significant electoral change. Secondly, why not be upfront and say that this preferentially skews the Local Electoral Act to favour Māori wards over other wards?
Then the third question I've got for the Minister in the chair is: why does she persist with the different terminology that we have between regional councils and district councils? It becomes even more confusing when you deal with the unitary councils, of which we have four—Gisborne, Nelson, Tasman, Marlborough, and Auckland all have unitary councils. So why in the short title of the bill do we continue with this different phrase of "wards" and "constituencies"? Isn't this an opportunity? If the purpose that she has repeatedly said in the debate on this bill is to make it the same, well, why don't we apply the same view and either consistently use the term of "constituencies" or "wards"? I'm pretty relaxed, but it would make far more sense, if consistency is the aim, to have the same terminology for both wards and for constituencies. I look forward to the Minister's response to each of those points.
I would be also interested in a perspective from the Minister as to why this provision on the short title has any justification for being rushed. She's on the public record saying that this had to be the law three or four days ago. Quite clearly, with the COVID situation, that's not the case, and I'd really appreciate her comments on the short title debate—as to when she said it had to be passed several days ago and it's not, then what implications does that have for the short title of the bill?
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): I'm pleased to be able to speak to the short title of the bill. In understanding that this is a very narrow debate, let me be very clear, as I was when the bill was introduced into the House, that the title reflects exactly what we intend to do, which is, effectively, change the Local Electoral Act to ensure that Māori wards and constituencies can be created, by removing a discriminatory poll. The member the Hon Dr Nick Smith says that this, in his words, skews in favour of Māori wards, but I have said, time and time again, that removing a discriminatory poll provision that does not apply to general wards actually levels the playing field. So what we're trying to ensure is that there is no binding referendum in the creation of Māori wards.
The member has also rightly pointed out that the council, on a number of matters, can have a binding poll. That is indeed the case. But in the living memory of many officials in Local Government New Zealand and councils who have looked at whether or not a binding poll has been used to overturn the creation of a general ward, what's the answer? Never—I'll just say it again: never. Never has a binding poll been used by any council, in the living memory of this particular Act, to overturn general wards. However, we have a poll, which currently exists in legislation, which can overturn a council resolution for the creation of Māori wards. So when I say that we're levelling the playing field, we're levelling the playing field. There is perhaps an unsaid view around some councils that while that provision exists there has never been a need to invoke it.
The second point, around the binding provision, I think I've answered. The third point, around different terminology for territorial authorities and regional councils—and let me just point to a practical example. There have only been two regional councils that have been able to establish Māori constituencies. One was by virtue of a resolution—that was the Waikato Regional Council, at the time chaired by Jenni Vernon. That went through a full representation review process, and it, in a sense, named the constituency, because it covered a number of iwi within the context of that constituency. For many reasons, which will be well known to Māori and well understood, the reference to a constituency in that case does provide an opportunity for a number of iwi interests to be accommodated within the geographical boundary of a regional council. This was similarly so for the Bay of Plenty Regional Council, who, under the stewardship of Mita Ririnui, introduced a local bill into this House, with a very toxic debate which ensued, to establish two Māori constituencies, which, again, within the context of the geographical boundaries of those constituencies, covered a number of iwi. So I think that in part responds to the points raised by Mr Smith.
Can I say that my memory is as long as his; the same debate that we're having tonight we had 20 years ago, when this bill was introduced in this House, and the same arguments that were put up 20 years ago are being used tonight by that member. I can say that time has moved on, public sentiment has moved on, and the short title of this particular bill does exactly what it sets out to do, which is to level the playing field in order for Māori wards and constituencies to be created so that Māori can participate in a proactive way, with an air of optimism and hope that the Māori voice around the council table is a total sum benefit, not a negative. It's actually where the world is moving to. It's certainly where many New Zealand communities are moving to, evidenced by the fact that a number of local councils are putting their hands up and saying that it's time and that this is going to happen, and we support the bill.





CHRISTOPHER LUXON (National—Botany): Look, in speaking to clause 1 of this short title, I think it's actually really important that we do call it for what it actually is. And I think, if you go to the explanatory note of the bill, it says the intention of this bill is to, firstly, "align the treatment of Māori wards and Māori constituencies with the treatment of general wards and general constituencies", and, frankly, that's not accurate; this bill doesn't do anything like that. It doesn't do anything about aligning the general wards with the Māori wards whatsoever. It's not the same—it's definitely not the same. There is no public notice provision here in the detail. There is no public consultation. There is no appeal rights. There certainly, having created a Māori ward, is not the same revocation of a ward like there is in a general ward that happens—that's not here at all. So I think it's really misleading to say that that is one of the primary and the very first policy intentions of this bill.
What it does do, however, is it does two other things. The second thing it says it does is "remove all mechanisms for binding polls to be held on whether Māori wards or Māori constituencies will be established", and that's very much what this bill is actually about. The third thing it says, and it does do, is: "provide local authorities with an opportunity to make decisions on Māori wards and Māori constituencies, in light of these changes, in time for the 2022 local elections." It is that retrospective nature of it. It's very much a transitionary arrangement.
So the bottom line is that the Minister herself, the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, has just said that the bill is actually about the removal of the poll—that's what we've just been hearing—and I think that's the key thing that we really have to come back to. And so, with that in mind, I think it's entirely appropriate that we actually think about renaming this bill. I would like us to think about replacing clause 1, which currently reads "Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Act", and, I think, if we actually were honest with ourselves, we'd replace it with "Local Electorate (Removal of Poll on Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Act". And I'd quite like to move that clause because I think that actually captures what this bill is about.
It's not about aligning the treatment of general wards and Māori wards. We're all saying—you're saying that up front; the Minister's just admitted that. That's exactly what it's not doing here, in the detail of the situation. It is about removing all binding mechanisms in all polls, and it is about, actually, local authorities having an opportunity to make decisions on Māori wards. It's important we call it for what it is, and it should be reflected in the short title that we've got here in this bill. So I would ask that we actually move that that clause be considered and properly evaluated by all members of this Chamber.





Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National): I'm just picking up from where my colleague just left off, but first can I just refer to the comments made by Minister Nanaia Mahuta prior to Mr Luxon taking his call. She said that "Isn't it strange that here we are, 20 years later from a time when a bill like this was discussed, we're discussing the same things and we're hearing the same arguments.", and then there was sort of an idea that we hadn't made, somehow, some sort of progress. Well, what's wrong with there being argument that sustains over a long period of time?
It was to me—with all due respect to you, Minister—quite a statement about the arrogance of the position that you and your party are taking on this particular bill. If we look at it, you could take the other side of the argument and say that, when all of the binding referendum aspects of the polls on Māori wards and Māori constituencies are disestablished and it's just in the hands of the elected members who sit around a particular table as to whether or not they go or stay, or are created or are disbanded, then where is the gain for any community that wants a particular degree of representation? I just don't think there's been enough thinking about this.
In the earlier part of the debate, we heard from a number of people who were saying that, if you actually looked at the proportional representation of our population these days, Māori are well represented at local body levels. In the South Island, Ngāi Tahu have decided they don't want this.
Chris Bishop: Is that right—they don't want it?
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: They've decided they don't want it. Why? Because they work incredibly constructively with local government throughout the South Island—incredibly productively with South Island councils—and they have developed two things. They've developed the strategic partnerships and they have developed the whole concept of reasonable respect through a co-governance model. We found out a lot about that in Christchurch. Without the generosity of Ngāi Tahu, there would not be as much residential land available in Canterbury in the present time as there is, and there certainly wouldn't have been as quickly as it was after the earthquakes of 10 years ago.
So you've got to ask this question: why is there a Minister standing up and telling Māori throughout the country, "Wave a flag, thump a drum. This is great."? We have handed over the future of Māori representation at local government to all the old, grey white men who sit around council tables from one end of the country to the other—utterly ridiculous. And to say, "Well, the problem is that no one came along with a poll to say, 'Let's have Māori representation.' in the short time that the opportunity has existed.", a time where, if you go back to that point, the Minister welcomed it as groundbreaking legislation but now says, "No, it's racist." somehow—that's just an excuse. It's just an excuse.
I would like to know why it is that so many members in this Chamber tonight are going to stick their hand up repeatedly as we go through the clauses of this bill and say, "Yep, that's me." when they read here what it actually says. It takes away the authority or the power or the capability of a local community to go to their local authority and say, "We want specific representation.", and it hands it to all those people sitting at the council table to make a decision on. Well, guess whose shoulder they look over! Their own, and when they see people who don't like it, why are they going to stick their hand up?
It's unbelievable, it's almost the trick of charlatanism, but it most certainly should not be called a "Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill". "Abolition Bill" would be a good word, but I think the phrase that was used by Mr Luxon, which said "Removal of the Poll", was probably the most accurate title this could be given, because it doesn't guarantee anything. It doesn't guarantee a single bit of extra representation to Māori communities anywhere, from one end of this country to the other. What it does is put their fate in the hands of all of those who sit at council tables from one end of the country to the other, and we know where they come from.





Hon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): Thank you, Madam Chair. Normally we know that the way this goes is while the title clause is a relatively narrow debate—because, after all, it's only the title; it's not the substance—I want to suggest, Madam Chair, to you and to the Minister on this bill that it's incredibly important. This is a charged bill. It's a bill where there are a lot of strong feelings, and it is important—in fact, I would say it is crucial—for New Zealanders, particularly where there's been a shortened process, that they know at heart what this bill is about. That's something that New Zealanders deserve. 
I know that the Hon Dr Nick Smith has proposed here that this be a "Removal of the Poll Bill", and that's fair enough. I understand what he is saying. I actually prefer—I'm sorry; I've got that wrong. That was Christopher Luxon's amendment, wasn't it? I prefer what Dr Nick Smith has said, and I would put it to the Minister that that's the one that she should go for, if she is genuinely, truly, trying here to have a title for this bill that accurately reflects what it does. And that's the "Screwing of the Scrum Bill", because that's what this bill does. It quite clearly screws—
Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. Madam Chair, the member well knows that Speakers' rulings are quite clear that any proposed amendment to the title of the bill cannot be used as an opportunity to critique the content of the bill.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): It's up to the Chair to make that judgment, but thank you for the point of order.
Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Thank you, Madam Chair. As I was saying, this should be the "Screwing of the Scrum Bill". I say that because that is the real agenda in this bill. It actually only goes one way, and I say to Kiwis, Māori, non-Māori, Indian, Chinese, Pākehā that, actually, that's not fair. If the only thing this bill allows is to add on to increase Māori wards, that shows the real agenda, I suggest here, actually. We all heard it, I think, almost in as much in what the Minister said in her speech, which was that this is what she wants to encourage; it's what she wants to see. Dare I say it, Minister, is that the real agenda here? I ask you that question. I'd like her answer on that. We've seen in this week, as I said in my contribution at second reading, the Mental Health Foundation crying foul about interference, as they see it. Is that what we're going to see with local government here? A situation where, actually, this only goes one way; it's going to be tied to funding the issues; she wants Māori wards. 
Well, I say, actually, it's screwing the scrum. I would propose what we actually should be doing here is having a bill that goes either way. If I was to become the Mayor of Tauranga—and, by the way, I'd be a tremendous mayor of that fair city. I know it's not going to happen. I just want to say it is not going to happen, OK? He says, furiously backing out of that entirely preposterous proposition. But if I was, I'll tell you this much, and this is true around many councils: I would want to do away with the Māori wards, because, by the way, we'd get the thing that Willie Jackson says is so important. We'd get a Māori mayor in the most significant city in New Zealand. We would have that, and I'd say, you know what? Actually, we don't need to have that. We don't need to have these wards anymore. 
But here's the serious point, and I am being serious, actually, on this point—I think it's a very serious point—through this bill, we can't do that. This bill should tell it like it is in the title. It is the "Screwing of the Scrum Bill". It goes one way. It goes the way that's preconceived. It fits with the biases and the viewpoints that the Minister and this Government have. And that's not fair when you're setting up a democratic system that should be able to go both ways. 
Actually, I was going to make this point in my first reading speech, and I got into such a lather I didn't have the time to make the point. But on the screwing of the scrum, there's actually a fundamental point about the multicultural nature of New Zealand society. Why is it? And I appreciate the answer, to be honest. It's too touristy—it's too touristy. Why is it, though, that if we're a pluralistic society, this couldn't apply to Indian New Zealanders in certain parts of Auckland, or Chinese New Zealanders? I think the basic answer to that is because, actually, we say one person, one vote, on their merits, whether that's ratepayers at council or whether that's constituencies. 
So I'm about to run out of time, but I ask the Minister these serious questions I would like her answer to. Why hasn't it got that name? Isn't that accurate? Is, actually, what she is trying to do here is get to a point where every single council in New Zealand has Māori wards? And, if so, actually, why doesn't she just support the Māori Party's position? We don't see that. Why wouldn't she do what actually would be right here and have the ability to go either way—increasing Māori wards or, in fact, when cities get Māori mayors, like in Tauranga, as it could happen, doing the opposite?





CHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I want to echo the remarks of my colleague the Hon Simon Bridges. I do believe that this bill has been misnamed—I do believe that—and I do want to urge the Minister to consider a name change. We've heard some good suggestions from members on this side of the House, but it is critical, when passing legislation in this Parliament, that the Parliament names bills accurately, because people go and look up those bills. They go to the Legislation website, and they go and look up the bills, and they use the key words in the title. So it's very important that the legislation is named for what it is, and I do not believe that the title of the bill reflects accurately what it does.
The current title is Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill, but the whole premise of the Minister's argument so far around that has been misplaced. Actually, the bill should be called, "Local Electoral (Incentivising Māori Wards) Amendment Bill". That is the purpose of the bill. In the Minister's own words that is the purpose of the bill, and she needs to be transparent and upfront about that fact.
Why do I say that—why do I say that? For two reasons. First of all, the bill provides—after the bill is passed, the law will be—that, when a council proposes general wards, they've got to go through all the normal processes. They've got to publicise it, they've got to notify it, they've got to go out to the public, and they've got to hear submissions. I mean, I've seen my own local council do it. It's quite a process. They've got to go through all that. No dramas. No one's got any objection to doing that. That's actually what should happen when you're making changes to the wards of a local council. But once the bill passes, that won't be the case for Māori wards. All of that is removed—that is not the case for Māori wards.
So all of a sudden what we'll have is two separate processes. For general wards, councils have got to go out, they've got to consult, they've got to publicly notify, they've got to put it in the Gazette, probably, or at least the local paper. They've got to consult, they've got to have endless rounds of submissions. There'll be the bureaucrats working on it, analysing it—
Hon Members: Appeal rights.
CHRIS BISHOP: What's that?
Hon Dr Nick Smith: There's appeal rights.
CHRIS BISHOP: Appeal rights—that's right, as Dr Nick Smith and Mr Luxon point out. So that's all fine. But then for Māori wards: no need for that. The bill specifically removes all of those requirements. So where's the standard here? Where's the double standard here? The reason to do that is, as the Minister says, because we want more Māori wards. OK, that is a policy position. I don't think it's a defensible one, but that's a policy position. Call the bill for what it is, which is the incentive to create more, because, on the one hand, general wards, there's quite a process to go through. It's a cumbersome process. Māori wards: no process—easy as you like. That's the first reason.
The second reason is the bill changes section 9 of the Local Electoral Act, because it explicitly excludes a poll on Māori wards. It says you can't do it. And for other general wards, councils can go and have a poll. For other issues, councils can go and have a poll, but what is it with this Government and their opposition to polls? What is wrong with the local council deciding, "You know what, we actually want to go and consult our constituents"—or at least ratepayers in this case—"as to whether or not they're happy with a Māori ward.", and they may well be. I suspect most of them won't be, but they may well be. But the bill says you can't do that. The bill says to the council that you can do it if you want to change the boundaries of a particular ward in a particular part of the district or the territorial authority. If you want to change a number of representatives that that particular ward has, if you want to go from two down to one or if you do what my council did in the last election, which was they went from all the councils elected two per ward, down to half being elected in the ward and half being elected at large. If you want to go out and do that, have a poll, get a sense of what the community thinks about it, that's hunky-dory, go for gold. But if you want to go out to the public and say, "Hey the ratepayers of XYX district, we're thinking about dividing the population not by where you live but by race", which I suspect people will be upset about, the bill says you can't do that.
So what is the point of the legislation? The point of the legislation is to incentivise Māori wards, because it creates double standards around their creation. My question to the Minister is: why not call it the "Local Electoral (Incentivising Māori Wards) Amendment Bill"? Because that's what it does, and that's what the Minister wants it to do.





Hon DAVID BENNETT (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. There are two issues I want to raise with the title of this bill. The first is a very legal context, and that is the word "and" that is being used. Members may be laughing, but the reality is that if you look through the bill, it actually talks of "or", and then finally in the title we use the word "and". In legal terminology, that makes a huge amount of difference. So I think there may actually be an issue there that the drafters have got wrong, because, if you look through the clauses, it very clearly says "or". So if you go to clause 5, the section 9 amendment, (7)(a), it says "Māori wards or Māori constituencies", and you can see that all the way through the bill, and yet we're caught with the word "and".
So I think there is a structural issue there. It really relates to the definition of "Māori wards" and "Māori constituencies", because I don't know the difference.
Hon Willie Jackson: Oh, we knew that.
Hon DAVID BENNETT: Willie Jackson may say that I might not know, but I respect everybody in this House because I know they will do exactly what they can for any constituent that walks through their door in their office. The Labour members are nodding. They will act in the best interests of everybody that walks in their office. Nobody worries about the race of the MP or the councillor. Nobody worries about the race of the constituent.
Tāmati Coffey: You don't know that.
Hon DAVID BENNETT: You're saying you don't know that; I trust everybody in this House to do that. And I know that that is the integrity of members of Parliament, and councillors will do that. I wish that Tāmati Coffey would actually listen to his leader, because in the first words she meant on election night was that "I will govern for all." Joe Biden used the same words: "I will govern for all." What does that mean? That means that every member of any Parliament, or any position of authority, treats everybody the same; they work in the interests of whatever people come into their office and work in that way. So when we're talking about having Māori wards and Māori constituencies in the title, I find that a hard definition to take, because it assumes that some people don't work, as Tāmati Coffey says, for the best interests of everybody. The Prime Minister has said that she will work in the best interests of everybody. I know that I work in the best interests of them, and I reckon Tāmati would as well—I reckon he's not going to hold it against somebody that walks in his office that might have voted National for 40 years; I reckon he will actually work in their best interests. I'm sure that's the kind of person he is. I'm sure that's why he's in this Parliament, because why else would you come to this Parliament and why wouldn't you support your leader who basically says that everybody is equal, we will treat everybody the same? 
So why do we need to have a definition of "Māori wards" and "Māori constituents"? Because what is the difference between a Māori constituency and a general constituency? It's the same people. It's the same results. It's the same issues. The good people of Hamilton want the same things, whether they're Māori, European, Indian, or Pasifika, we all want the same things. We all want some fundamental things in life, and those things don't change. If somebody thinks because of the colour of someone's skin that those things change, that's not true. We all want to be treated with dignity and respect. We all want to be given a chance in life. We all want an education. We all want a good health system. We all want the same things. And that's what Government delivers.
So I'm very confused, and I would like the Minister in the chair, the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, to stand up and say, first of all, why the word "and" is in there, when it should be "or" if you're looking at the whole thing, and to actually define "Māori constituencies". If they're defining "Māori constituencies" as different from any other constituency, that goes against what their leader said in her very first words after winning the election, and that is that she would act for all New Zealanders—rich or poor, white or Māori, Pasifika or Chinese, rural or urban, National or Labour, Green or ACT voters—that the Prime Minister would act for all. So why do we now need to have a bill in the first urgency of the new year that specifically divides people and creates Māori constituencies and Māori wards, when the leadership we've been given is that everybody should be treated the same?





KIERAN McANULTY (Chief Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.





A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.
Ayes 77
New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.
Noes 43
New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.
Motion agreed to.





CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): First we have some amendments. Hon Dr Smith's tabled amendment to clause 1 changing the title of the bill to the "Local Electoral (Ignore the public vote) Amendment Act" is out of order as not being a serious amendment. Hon Dr Smith has also tabled an amendment to clause 1 changing the title of the bill to the "Local Electoral (Under-arm delivery by Labour Government) Amendment Act". It's out of order as not being a serious amendment. Hon Dr Nick Smith's tabled amendment to clause 1 changing the title of the bill to the "Local Electoral (Stacks the cards in favour of Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Act" is out of order as not being a serious amendment. Hon Dr Nick Smith's tabled amendment to clause 1 changing the title of the bill to the "Local Electorate (Screw the scrum in favour of Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Act" is out of order as not being a serious amendment.
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National): Point of order. Madam Chair, I think it would be helpful if you were to quote the Standing Order that reaches a conclusion like that.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The member will give me a minute. I have one more question to put to you all while the Clerk looks up the Speaker's ruling. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National): Point of order. The problem is that many of those questions that you have ruled out haven't been put, so if we move on, then there's no way of going back. You and the Clerk both know that's the case, and we have a right to wait for an answer.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Hon Gerry Brownlee, you've asked for more information about why the clause 1 amendments by Dr Nick Smith have been ruled out of order. They have been ruled out of order; the Clerk is actually looking for the information to give you, but I will continue with the next amendment, which is Christopher Luxon's amendment.
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National): The problem is that any Standing Order is contestable. The House is the master of its own destiny, so a Standing Order is contestable. To simply say, "No, it's been ruled. It's in Standing Orders, therefore we progress."—that is as bad as the intentions of this bill in itself. You can't ignore Parliament or parliamentarians. If there is going to be an amendment put on the Table and you are going to rule that it is just out of order because it's not serious, then there has to be some Standing Order backing to that. Members can put forward any amendments that they like—that's why we are here at Parliament. So before we progress, I think we need to know exactly what it is that you're relying on to make this ruling.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): So it is Speakers' ruling 122/2, which is about the title clause: "An amendment to the title of a bill must be a serious or objective description of the bill rather than an attempt to criticise its contents." 
Hon Simon Bridges: Point of order.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): I have ruled on this point of order; I am moving forward. 
Hon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): The problem is this, Madam Chair. Effectively, in what you said, you're saying, "Well, they're not serious." I'd suggest to you, if you take the "screwing the scrum" amendment to the title, for example, it may be colloquial, but it's deadly serious, and for you to rule that it's not serious—what you're, effectively, saying—
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The member will take his seat. I have made my ruling, and if you're seriously going to say that we should have a law that actually has "screw the scrum" in it—I've made the ruling, and we are moving on. It is up to me, as the Chair, to make a ruling as to what is in order.
Hon DAVID BENNETT (National): Point of order. I don't think you can say that you made a ruling, because you couldn't refer to the actual clause. If you had made a ruling, you'd understand what you're talking about, and the clause that you were ruling to. You had to refer to the Clerks to try to find a reason to do that, and—
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The member will take his seat. 
Hon David Bennett: Well, no, did you know that it was ruling 122/2 before?
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): David Bennett, I have made a ruling. I was asked to quote the Speakers' ruling; I have. We are now moving on.
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National): Madam Chair, what is the ruling you've made?
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): That they are all out of order—that all of Nick Smith's amendments are out of order.
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National): No, no, that's not a ruling, that's a procedural decision.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): That is a ruling by the Chair of the committee, and we are in committee at the moment.
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National): A ruling is something that's written down eventually in Speakers' Rulings, so there's another terminology, and I think we should get it right, because it's pretty, bluntly, insulting to be told that they're frivolous amendments when they are, in fact, reasonable—
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The member will take his seat, as well. What is insulting is when I give a ruling as the Chair of this committee and I keep on being challenged about the ruling.
CHRIS BISHOP (National): Point of order. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to be very clear with what's happened here. Are you ruling that the word or phrase "screw the scrum" can no longer, now, be inserted or be attempted to be inserted into the title of bills? Because that is a very serious ruling, if that's the case.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): So Speakers' ruling 122/2 states that the amendment to the title of a bill "must be a serious or objective description of the bill rather than an attempt to criticise" the contents of that legislation or the bill. That is actually the ruling that I'm referring to, and all of Nick Smith's clause 1 amendments to the title are not serious, and I've ruled them out of order. 
Hon David Bennett: Point of order.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): I have made my ruling. Is this a fresh point of order?
Hon DAVID BENNETT (National): Yes, it is a fresh point of order. I understand that you have said that they're not serious, and I can understand that that's your view, but the wording of ruling 122/2 actually says "or"—
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The member will take his seat. 
Hon David Bennett: It says "or"—
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The member will take his seat. [Interruption] I am on my feet; the member will take his seat. I have made a ruling on all of these amendments by the Hon Nick Smith. They are out of order.
Hon Members: Point of order.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): I will no longer take a point of order on this; I have made my ruling.
Hon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): It's a fresh one—I have a fresh point of order. Thank you, Madam Chair. I think what's incredibly important is to understand—because it does affect, frankly, whether we take the significant step of going further than this and having someone higher than the Chair rule on these issues—
Hon Member: Stop messing with the Chair.
Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Excuse me—point of order, Madam Chair. I'm trying to make a point of order, and they should be heard in silence. I simply want to know this: has Madam Chair ruled on these as a blanket ruling—she's just cursorily looked over them all and as a group said they're not serious—or has she given particular consideration to each one? Because it seems to me the former is simply not right and cannot stand.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): I have made a ruling on all of the amendments by the Hon Nick Smith—that all of the amendments that he's put through are out of order because they are not serious. 
The question is that Christopher Luxon's tabled amendment to clause 1 changing the title of the bill to the "Local Electoral (Removal of Poll on Māori Wards and Māori Constituents) Amendment Act" be agreed to.





A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 43
New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.
Noes 77
New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.
Amendment not agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 1 stand part.
Ayes 77
New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.
Noes 43
New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.
Clause 1 agreed to.





Clause 2  Commencement
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, we now come to the debate on clause 2. This is the debate on the commencement of the bill, and the question is that clause 2 stand part.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National): Members on this side of the House are concerned that we are being made fools of by being the fastest lawmakers in the west. Everybody would be aware that this is a bill that was introduced under urgency. It was a bill that has gone through a sham select committee process of only six days. It is a bill of which New Zealanders only received a single day in which to make submissions—something that I have never seen in my 30 years as a member of Parliament. And my question for the Minister is: why should the bill commence immediately? Why should we make a farce of the process?
Now, myself and the Minister in the chair, the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, have both been members of this House for a long time, and I have heard her give so many very principled speeches about why retrospective legislation is wrong. I've heard the Minister in the chair say that if Māori have lodged a claim before the courts and the process is midway through, this Parliament shouldn't pass law that cuts across it. I had some research done about how many times the Minister in the chair has argued that retrospective law is wrong, that if people are going through a process you shouldn't have law that cuts across it. Well, the commencement clause means that there are tens of thousands of people who are in the middle of a legal process that this commencement clause cuts right across. That is, we have seven communities across New Zealand representing populations of over a million people that are due to have a poll. They are in the middle of a legal process. They have acquired the numbers of signatures under a law that the Minister in the chair supported and wrote in 2002. So I would argue, based on her very own comments, that the commencement date of this bill should be deferred to the point where it is not retrospective, and the rights of those hundreds of thousands of people are respected.
Now, we raised these issues of retrospectivity at the committee. I would much rather at the select committee have been debating a more appropriate commencement clause for this bill. But the chair of the committee sitting opposite to me said, "There ain't time. We aren't having any amendments."—none.
Chris Bishop: None.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I'm at a loss, Mr Bishop, as to why would you bother sending a bill to the select committee if the Government chair of the select committee says no amendments are allowed to be considered. I'd love a member opposite to argue a simple point: what is the point of a select committee process if the Government says, "We're not prepared to consider any amendments to the clause, let alone this commencement clause." So I say to the Labour Minister in the chair: this has been a Government that's been there for four years; if it was so urgent, well, why was it not done in 2018 or 2019 or 2020? She's been a Minister and this has been a Government for a long time. Why have they not done it earlier? Why are we in this ridiculous process where we are riding roughshod across people's legal rights? What does she say to the thousands of people that have signed a petition quite lawfully seeking a poll? What is she saying to those people that have given thousands of voluntary hours to a legal process of which they are midway through? And that is why I ask the Minister to consider our amendments to extend that commencement date and, in this particular area of electoral law, show some respect for process and for the democratic traditions that make New Zealand such a great country. I challenge her to respect the advice of the officials that sit in this House that say that on electoral law, there is an extra duty to consult and to have respect for process, and that's why I ask the Minister to consider our amendments to extend the commencement date so those legal processes can be respected.





Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): I listened with interest to the contribution of Mr Smith and can remember many a time when he as a Minister introduced legislation into this House, through all stages, without a select committee, under urgency. So it's a bit rich for that member to be saying, never in his time, when plenty of times that member's been responsible for putting through numerous bits of legislation through all stages under urgency.
But let's come back to the particular clause, clause 2, which simply states that the bill will come into force on the day after Royal assent. But let me come back to a few salient points and why we were wanting to ensure that this bill was going to go through in time to give certainty to councils, who were worried because by 22 February, citizens could demand a poll. That's why at the beginning of February, I went down to New Plymouth to signal that there would be legislation coming into the House to remove the poll provisions in order to give effect to a short-term fix that would be ready for the 2022 elections. That signal was heard loud and clear by many councils, who over a period of time had lobbied for this particular change.
More so, in terms of the commencement date and the concerns of council that were well represented to me—and there were about nine that were well represented to me—it would cost in the vicinity of about $30,000 to $250,000 for them to undertake a poll. So getting this legislation through would send a clear signal in terms of removing the poll provision and not going into an onerous cost, and an unnecessary one. So again, this bill provided greater clarity for that in keeping to the time frame.
I note that last week, when we had intended to get the bill through under urgency, Auckland went into a higher alert level and the business of the House changed. On Thursday, it was clearly indicated by the Business Committee that this bill would go through today under urgency and still give that line of sight and assurance to councils that we intended to proceed with haste. That gave them confidence. That gave them confidence in terms of some of the limitations that might be put on them and unnecessary expense that might be put on them, which they wouldn't need to carry if this bill was going to go to its final stages.
Again, Mr Smith raises a very valid point, and he's done it time and time again through this debate. I was a member on the Justice and Electoral Committee—in fact, it could have been the Local Government and Environment Committee—when Sandra Lee was the Minister for Local Government and introduced the bill, and I was just a backbench MP, and there were a number of political sentiments at the time that challenged whether or not her innovation in that Act was going just a bit of a step too far.
I can remember the debate around the Treaty clause in that particular Act. I can remember the debate around introducing Māori wards and STV at the same time. I can remember the reasons why a poll provision applied to Māori wards and constituencies and an STV change in the electoral system. But suffice to say, there were sentiments at the time that thought even the prospect of councils putting a resolution to its elected representatives to have Māori wards was just a step too far, hence the poll provision.
Now, members on that side of the House over the last 20 years had 10 of those years to try and do something about it, but oh no. They've signalled they want to stand in Māori wards, but they don't want to make the changes that are critical to signalling "We want to work with Māori." Quite simply put, we do have an electoral system in New Zealand that has two electoral rolls—Māori and a general electoral roll—and what this does is pass on the same opportunities to Māori at a local level to be represented around the council table.
Can I come back to a very narrow—
Hon David Bennett: Please.
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: —part of the bill, which is the commencement clause. Well, the member on that side of the House took liberties—no one was worried about that. So while this is a very narrow part of the bill, the intention is to ensure that as we pass this particular bill, which is the first part of a short-term fix—firstly, to remove the poll. There will be a second stage. It will go through a full policy and select committee process to ensure a more equalising treatment of some of the issues that have been raised by submitters, and an opportunity for us to look for a longer-term fix beyond the 2022 election. I support this clause and no amendment to it.





DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. And I wish simply to ask the Minister how she made the decision that it was worth rushing this legislation through under urgency to achieve the commencement date in clause 2, just to ensure the provisions in the bill would apply for one extra local body election. This legislation was passed in 2002, and, if I recall correctly, there were local body elections in New Zealand in 2004, when Labour were in power; 2007, Labour were in power; 2010, we were in power; 2013, us again; 2016, us again; and then 2019, Labour. So there's been at least three, if not four, council elections where Labour had the opportunity to pass legislation like this and they didn't. How is it now so important to use urgency, with all the problems that comes with, just to ensure that the provisions come into effect one election earlier, when so many have been done under the current rules?
To help give the Minister an idea of what sort of answer would be helpful, can she tell us how she feels about parliamentary process? Does she think that it's important that people are consulted? Does she think the procedures of Parliament are important? And I ask that because her response to Nick Smith was, "Well, he did it so it's OK." I think to use Nick Smith as a kind of moral low-water mark is, potentially, inadvisable. Perhaps the Minister—
Hon Member: He has got a point though.
DAVID SEYMOUR: Potentially—I said potentially. I'm just raising the possibility, but there's a serious point here. The Minister should actually tell the House, in response to the criticism that's been levelled against her, does she value the processes of this place? It's not good enough just to say "Other people have abused it, so I can too." And once she's told us does she value democratic participation and parliamentary procedure and to what extent, then she could maybe tell us how she made the decision that bringing these provisions forward by one election when we've had the provisions for six in a row, at least three of which her party was in power—how did she decide that was more important than parliamentary procedure and respecting it? If she can tell us how she made that decision, I think that would help a lot of people rest a lot easier with the way that this bill's being passed. And if she gives a good answer, then I might not need to ask her any more questions. We look forward to hearing from the Minister.





Hon DAVID BENNETT (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm just very disappointed in the couple of words that the Minister used in her answer. She mentioned the words "unnecessary expense". Now, I'd like the Minister to explain what she actually means by "unnecessary expense", because that implies that the democratic process of a council—or if somebody brought a petition to a council, it would be seen as an unnecessary expense for that council to go through. I find it completely incredulous that the Minister would say that. We have a political system that is based on democracy, and that's why we have some of the most senior and respected members of our political system—
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! The member will resume his seat. This is a clause by clause debate. It is, being a clause by clause debate, very narrow in scope. I am very willing and happy for members across the committee to be fulsome in their contributions because of the truncated nature of this bill, but I would be appreciative if the member would stick to the essence of clause 2, which is the commencement of the bill.
Hon DAVID BENNETT: Madam Chair, it is about the commencement, because the Minister talked about the unnecessary expense, and that effectively means that she's bringing the commencement date forward, so councils don't have the potential of having to pay all costs of any unnecessary expense, in the Minister's view, of local democracy. So that's why the commencement date is so crucial, Madam Chair. It is in the sense that the Minister is basically saying that she wants to circumvent a political process for the potential savings of certain councils. Well, we have a political process for a reason, because councils are not infallible. Every three years, they go to election—just like Governments are not infallible. They go to election every three years. That is the ultimate sanction that the public has.
Now, to take away the democracy in the commencement date does that, because the Minister has made it very clear in this Chamber in the last half an hour that the reason behind this commencement date is to take away unnecessary expense. It takes away local democracy. That's what this bill is about. The Minister just admitted it. I would like the Minister to explain what she considers to be unnecessary expense. That is the fundamental reason why they've got a commencement date—that is the one we are seeing here today. How she defines "unnecessary expense", how that actually relates to local democracy and decision-making processes, and then, finally, what sanctions do the public have if they don't have the ability to actually make their voice known? Just say the public have a different point of view from the councillors—shouldn't they be listened to? Shouldn't they have the ultimate sanction like they do at election every three years? 
Is it now going to be a question of unnecessary expense, of a Minister's view of what the expenses of the council should be, that's going to override democracy? Or should it actually be a commencement date that actually looks at what is practical, gives the community the say that they deserve and the say they get every three years? 
It's a serious question for the Minister, to actually explain those words. I'm just using the words that she used in her commencement date debate, in her speech, and she was very clear that the unnecessary expense is something that is a driver for her decision making to have this current commencement date. If that is the case, then I would like the Minister to explain that because that overrides democracy in this country.





Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): I'm quite happy to explain my own wording and the things that I'm presenting to the committee. Firstly, the commencement clause in its intention is to ensure that as soon as the bill passes all stages, it will be given effect. That will give a signal to councils who will have been notified by 26 February about the intention to demand a poll about the intention of Parliament. We are passing this legislation through to give them certainty.
Can I just come back to the particular wording referred to by the member David Bennett and highlight that the nine councils who potentially would be required to hold a poll needed greater certainty because, if it is the intention of Parliament to pass the legislation that we are considering tonight, then holding a poll actually becomes a defunct exercise, and that's the unnecessary expense that I referred to.





Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. So we're talking about the commencement of this bill, the Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill, and the clause says that the Act should come into force "on the day after the date of Royal assent." Parliament usually takes a number of months to read through a bill three times and have a select committee process. Then, when it's passed its third reading, it goes off to the Governor-General, who signs the bill and gives it its Royal assent, and so that's after Parliament has done its business with it. This bill, of course, has been highly truncated down to about a week, and people have had a very small amount of time to make their comments made. 
So my simple question and suggestion to the Minister is that she changes that to "This Act comes into force three years after the date of Royal assent." I say that because that would give the people of New Zealand the opportunity in a general election to have their say on this issue, because at the most recent general election, the Labour Party manifesto said quite clearly that "Labour will ensure that major decisions about local democracy involve full participation of the local population from the outset." That was the statement of the Labour Party at the last election. So the moment they've been elected, arrogance has taken hold. They've got rid of Winston Peters, and they have wanted to bring in this piece of legislation in haste and without proper understanding on the part of the people of New Zealand. 
So the question is, I suppose: does this really matter or not? The Minister's view is that it's just a short-term fix, no big deal, not consequential, it seems—"A short-term fix and we'll get it sorted in time so that it happens ahead of the next local body elections." Now, the obvious response to that would be that if you really wanted to get ahead and send the signal to local government that these referendums wouldn't amount to anything and the voice of the people wouldn't amount to anything, then you could have introduced this bill a long time ago. 
The fact that the Government didn't introduce this bill is a reflection of the fact that they knew that the people of New Zealand didn't like it, and that's the basic message of this bill, which is to say, "We do not trust New Zealanders to make the right decision on these matters. Whenever it goes to a poll, it loses, primarily." It loses because New Zealanders don't like it, and New Zealanders don't like it primarily because they believe that people should be treated equally before the law. They recognise that in this House, there are Māori seats that were brought in more than a century ago, at a time when the country did face real issues—more than a century ago. Those independent Māori seats, I believe, have had their day, but it's a very big step to say, "Well, we should extend that further to local government." 
So this is a constitutional issue that we should debate openly as a people and as a House, and what we have here is a Government sneaking it through, deliberately disguising and misleading the people during the election campaign, and then bringing this bill through and not giving people a chance to have a say about it. So it seems to me that the obvious way around the matter, having introduced this bill, is to say that it should come into effect three years after it's been given the Royal assent. That would give the people of New Zealand the chance at a general election to toss this Government out and for the bill to be amended before it comes into effect, and at least we could have a decent discussion about it. 
The other point that I'd want to make, of course, is this—
Hon Simon Bridges: Well, you can make it. 
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Thank you, the Hon Simon Bridges. The other point I'd like to make is that, indeed, something that we try to avoid in this House is to bring legislation that is retrospective. 
Hon Simon Bridges: That's my point. 
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, it's a point that a number of us have made, and Nick Smith has made, which is that many good-intentioned, good-natured New Zealanders have signed petitions in the full expectation that they will have their say on an important issue of relevance to them. Not everybody agrees with the concept of having different seats at local government on the basis of ethnicity, and I just want to make the point that these are very difficult issues for New Zealanders to grapple with and we should have proper debate. We should not have it snuck through in this fashion. So I'd like to understand why we couldn't postpone this for three years. 





Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National): The first question I have for the Minister is in her contribution, three times I noted she said the bill is a short-term fix.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Thrice—thrice she said that.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: She did indeed. So I've got a very simple question. I've looked back on a number of statutes of which Ministers have said a bill is a short-term fix, and every one of them has an expiry clause that says, "Hey, look, I've got a really urgent problem. I'm going to race a bill through Parliament with a commencement date.", like what I've got here, but they have an expiry clause in them. Now, the reason I'm raising that at this time is the next clause that we debate is that expiry clause. National members would be more relaxed about the commencement date if the Minister was able to give us a signal that she is being honest and upfront with this Parliament and the people of New Zealand when she says it is a short-term fix.
You see, we had a bill last year about the party pills. You may remember? Rushed through. [Interruption] Yes it did, but it had an expiry clause in it. It was a short-term fix. It's got an expiry clause, and then what happens is that they're going to bring another bill along and then they're going to do it again, right? So my question for the Minister is: when she said it was a short-term fix, why is this law permanent? Done lots of short-term fixes. I can remember at least a dozen, and I could bore the Parliament by going through them. Each one of them had an expiry clause. So my question to the Minister, who has a habit on this issue of proposing and making a claim that is true to be false. She said the bill—[Interruption]—well, the member challenges on that. Well, I'll take her through it. The Minister said that this bill was simply to do one thing. We're just going to make the law the same for Māori wards and general wards. Well, that's actually not true—that's not true at all. The Minister said that this was about getting rid of a racist law. Well, when she found out that she'd wrote the law, she very quickly changed her tune on that. She said—I'll make another claim that she made—that if a community does not like this law, we have a thing called democracy and you can just vote out the mayor and the council and they can reverse it.
Hon Member: But they can't.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: But they can't, because in clause 9 of this bill, she deliberately puts in a provision that says that a newly elected mayor and council cannot do it. 
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Can the member come back to clause 2?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: And so I say again: the Minister, in speaking on this provision, has said that it's a short-term fix. And I want to test her and to say, well, if she says it's a short-term fix, let's put it in the law. Let's say what you mean. Let's do as you say. So if it is a short-term fix and the Government, in good faith, is going to have a process further down the track where there is proper public consultation, where there is a robust select committee process, let's put an expiry clause in this bill to ensure that that indeed happens.
Now, the second question I've got is with respect to retrospectivity. Now, this bill cuts across people who have acted in good faith. There are 8,703 people in the Northland Regional Council who have signed a petition for a poll. There's another 5,133 in Whangārei, 1,376 in Kaipara, 6,042 in Tauranga, 1,764 in Taupō, 903 in South Taranaki, 551 in Ruapehu—I think that's in my colleague Barbara Kuriger's, or is it Ian McKelvie?
Barbara Kuriger: Ian McKelvie's.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Ian McKelvie's. There are 722 people in Gisborne. There are 2,874 people in New Plymouth. Each of those people have exercised their legal right, and with this commencement clause, those 25,000 people are having their rights taken away from them.
Hon Simon Bridges: It's a right without any effect—that's right.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: That's right. Those 25,000 people are being treated with disrespect. Now I know that if this was a Māori legal process and these were 25,000 Māori people, there would be screams. There would be howls of horror. There would be almost a hīkoi on the steps of Parliament if we were to do that against 25,000 people. If you truly believe in equal rights of citizenship, then you need to explain why the 25,000 people who have complied with a Labour law in good faith are having their rights taken away by the provisions in this clause.





DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Well, thank you, Madam Chair. I rise as a reminder to the Minister in the chair, the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, that embracing the new format of the committee stage put in place by the Standing Orders Committee—where members are invited to ask questions of the Minister and try and seek more information that, you know, people watching the Parliament, members of Parliament, might be interested in hearing—we can actually ask what the Minister's thinking and what the rationale behind something like the commencement clause is. People sitting at home watching this might like to know that the Chair of the committee just turned to the Minister, as if to ask "Do you want to take a call?", and the Minister shook her head and said "No." So I'm probably wasting my time. People watching who want to know what the Minister's thinking are probably wasting their time.
But hopefully I'm wrong and she's going to get up and answer a simple question: how much does she respect public participation in the parliamentary process and consultation? Why was it so important that after six or seven council elections under the current rules, it was so critical to retrospectively change the rules for this next one? And how did she go about reconciling the two? Was it a conscience matter for her? Did she have a debate with her colleagues? Did she seek advice about the importance of going fast versus respecting the procedure? I think if the Minister could stand up and answer that question, it would allay a lot of the concerns, because people are sitting there, saying, "How is it so important to bring forward a change by one electoral cycle after seven in a row that were the same, so important that we're actually going to have almost no meaningful parliamentary process and no opportunity for the vast majority of the public to be consulted?"
I think it's a question that the Minister should get up and answer. So here's her opportunity, right? Just to repeat it once more: how much does the Minister respect parliamentary process and public consultation, on the one hand? Why is it so important to bring forth this change by one electoral cycle, when there's been six just like this already? And how did she weigh the two up?





Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): Firstly, in response to clause 2 of the bill, which is a very narrow clause, and in speaking to the two amendments that have been tabled in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith—firstly, one recommending the commencement date of the bill being 1 May 2021, and then the second one, that the commencement date be 9 October 2022. I'll take them as a combined supplementary set, which is, in effect, changing the day and the dates of the bill coming into effect.
Quite simply, my response as to why I do not support that and recommend that the committee do not support those amendment changes is that it will, in fact, delay the opportunity for those councils who resolve to have Māori wards to be in readiness for the 2022 elections. It will prevent them from doing so, and the whole contention of this bill was to try and ensure that local authorities have the opportunity to make decisions on Māori wards and constituencies in time for the 2022 election.
I do have respect for process, and I actually respect councils who over a period of time have contemplated this issue. They've worked in very practical ways to try and give effect to local representation. Over the past 19 or 20 years, 24 councils have tried. Only three have succeeded: one by resolution, the Waikato Regional Council; one through a local bill—
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Are the people wrong?
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: You either want to hear the answer or you don't. One through a local bill, which is the Bay of Plenty Regional Council, and most recently the Wairoa District Council. So only three out of 24 who have tried to use this legislation have in fact succeeded. Now, that in itself is indicative of how challenging and onerous this discriminatory provision is to establish Māori wards and constituencies. 
Secondly, the other point to note is that throughout this submission process—and I want to acknowledge all the views on all sides of the spectrum who took the time out to present to the select committee and have their voices heard, because the select committee heard all manner of views. But 21 councils submitted to the select committee in favour of the provision. Yes, some concerns about time frame, but by and large the principle and the policy approach, they support it because they know within their local community that time has passed and sentiment and mood has moved on, and the benefits of having Māori voice around the decision-making table at the local level is in fact a positive contribution to the way in which the world is moving—certainly New Zealand communities. 
So I think it's disingenuous for members on that side of the Chamber to make out as if the views that have been around over at least the past six years, wanting significant change in this area, have been ignored. They have not. Two-thirds of those unique submissions that were heard by the select committee—
Hon Dr Nick Smith: 'Cos you jacked it up! They got forward notice.
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: —over 2,000 of them—again, if the member wants to hear the answer, he's quite welcome to stay silent. If he doesn't want to hear it, I'll sit down. But two-thirds of the 2,000—
David Seymour: Point of order, Madam Chair. Quite apart from the fact the Minister appears to be filibustering her own bill, this is a narrow debate. The question is over the commencement.
Hon Members: Ha, ha!
David Seymour: Well, I actually have been keeping a narrow debate. If you could stay silent during a point of order, that'd be great. But what the content of the submissions was is simply irrelevant. The questions that have been put—
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Oh, thank you—[Interruption] Thank you. The member will resume his seat, thank you. The member made a good point of order and then started to debate. I will note that I did alert the committee to the fact that this is a clause by clause debate. Therefore, the debate should be narrow. However, we are in urgency. This is a truncated debate, and so I am allowing the debate to range a little bit wider—not too wide, members, a little bit wider—in order to keep the committee running smoothly. But thank you for that point of order.





Hon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): Thank you, Madam Chair. I wanted to speak to a very clear consequence of the commencement clause and the effect of it, and that is the clear retrospective nature of this bill from commencement. We have heard from the Hon Paul Goldsmith and the Hon Nick Smith about this, but I want to give a more significant exegesis in relation to—
Chris Bishop: A what?
Hon SIMON BRIDGES: An exegesis. In relation to the legal and, if you like, theoretical aspect of retrospectivity, and I don't do that to take the mickey; it's very important. It's important because retrospectivity, when it applies in the criminal sphere, particularly where there are criminal penalties applying backwards, is contumelious—
Hon Member: Whoa!
Hon SIMON BRIDGES: —I just thought I'd show them I could do it twice in one speech—is entirely wrong. But, look, the serious point is this: regardless of whether it's criminal or civil, it is always against the rule of law—which should govern how we operate in this Parliament, in our courts to act retrospectively in relation to bills that become Acts in this Parliament. The reason in this case, I suggest, is very, very simple, and it's the practical point that Nick Smith made. We apply the legal theory about retrospectivity to the practical consequences the Hon Dr Nick Smith talked about. People go out, they work hard to get signatures, they plan on a certain basis—that the law is going to stick with them as they do it, because it was the law when they collected the signatures of this referendum petition, but by the way, what we're doing here is we're changing the rules. We're pulling the rug from out under their feet. That is, quite simply, against the rule of law and it is wrong.
The reality of that legal position here—in relation to the commencement clause, which by its very nature is retrospective as applied here, because we're passing this law at this current time—is there's seven communities where, in each of those communities, quite a number of thousand people signed the referendum petitions and, in fact, for a series of rohe, if you want to put it that way, of about a million people, who won't get the chance to vote on this, notwithstanding the several thousand that signed the petition. I can tell the House about a woman who I'm sure is watching. Some of my colleagues may know her: Margaret in Tauranga, who went out to Grey Street—I'm sure I'm right. She set up the stall, she had the pieces of paper for people to sign this petition, she had the pens, the biros, the refills, and rain, hail, sunshine, she was there collecting the signatures to trigger the 5 percent on the basis of the law that should be in place, and would be in place, and would still be in place if it wasn't for the fact that the commencement clause here is, in practical effect, retrospective in this bill. 
So I've three questions for the Minister, and, dare I say it, they are the most important in this party that she should be asked and answered, if I do say so myself. Firstly, did she know—I'm not being a smart alec—did she know that the commencement of this bill will be retrospective in its practical effect? Secondly, was that—and again, I don't think I'm being a smart alec about this—was that the reason that she did it, to effectively knock out the referendum provisions, or is that simply in her view a highly regrettable side-effect, if you like, from this? And thirdly, did she get the advice—actually while I'm a-roll, I'd add to that—and will she release the advice? I'd like to see what that advice was in relation to the very clear implication of this commencement clause, that this is a retrospective bill that will become retrospective law and, as I say, is offensive to the rule of law in this land.





BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): Thank you, Madam Chair. Many of us are concerned about the commencement order of this legislation. So, to the Minister, we're told that part two is designed to ensure the process between Māori and general wards are aligned and ensure we'll be following the best process. So, apart from cost, could the Minister please tell us: why could we not put the cart before the horse, instead of the other way around, and ensure the processes are correct and consulted on before we take the steps that we are taking? And I want to ask the Minister if she's absolutely certain that there will be no unintended consequences from doing the process back to front. My question, really, that I'd like the Minister to answer is: will there be any "Uh oh!" moments when we do part two of this legislation, given that part one will already likely be enacted? Thank you.





Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, I want to challenge the Minister in the chair, the Hon Nanaia Mahuta's comments, or one of the reasons she's given for the commencement date in this debate tonight, where she said that we need to do this all very quickly and rush to have the date come into commencement a day after the Royal assent, because this is a short-term fix that will deal with something that needs to be dealt with very quickly. So the obvious question that flows from that is: what is the long-term fix or goal or solution that she has in mind? 
The very short period that we had for public submissions showed that there is a view out there that the idea of the Treaty partnership, a notion sort of introduced by judges in recent times, is interpreted by some to mean that decision making should be 50:50 between Māori and everybody else. There were some arguing that, basically, at local government level, we should have 50:50 seats. So what I want to get a sense of, in relation to this short-term fix, is whether there is a longer-term plan to extend that to 50:50. Fundamentally, I totally oppose that as a notion, as an undemocratic notion that is repugnant, frankly, to what New Zealanders see as the world that they live in, where it's one person gets one vote and we're all treated equally before the law.
So that is just one instance of why this is an important debate to be had in this House, and why I've put in an amendment suggesting that the commencement date should be three years after it is passed, so that New Zealanders have a chance to have a say on this issue and we don't have it railroaded through late at night, at a time when New Zealanders are not watching—well, some people may be watching, including Margaret from Tauranga, but not many. So I do want to hear from the Minister as to what the long-term plan is and why she thinks it is absolutely necessary to pass this bill and have it commence so quickly.





SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I rise as the member of Parliament for North Shore for the first time in this House. I wish to speak on the Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill, and in particular I wish to speak on clause 2.
This bill comes into force, as it states, on the day after Royal assent, and I want to question the Minister, the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, on one key aspect and a number of elements around that, because I think it is very, very important that she clarifies to this committee the background around why she has stated what she has stated in this committee. The statement by the Minister was as follows: that this change, or the inability to change the commencement date, relates to the fact that this will result in unnecessary expense. I must say that my background is very much involved with dollars and cents, so I am very interested to understand a couple of key elements in regard to the Minister's comments, because, in effect, I see this as pretty fundamental around the commencement date, which a number of my colleagues here have put some good recommendations around.
So I ask the Minister to clarify, in particular: how did she calculate that additional expense? She quoted quite a significant range in dollars, and I think quoting somewhere around $25,000 through to around $300,000. I'm reasonably good at numbers, but that's quite a big range. What I want to understand is: how did you calculate that range as an expense? I admit that that is a lot of money if we're talking about the upper range. The second aspect I wish to clarify is: is this a real cost or is this an estimate? I think that's important to clarify as well. The last aspect is: what is the cost of following true democracy? What is the cost that our communities, our electorate, the people of this country should pay to be giving up their rights, which I think this bill takes away in terms of that commencement date? So I'm looking forward to the Minister to clarify that point, and that's all from me.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National): Point of order, Madam Chair. I do want to acknowledge that that was the new member for North Shore's very first speech, and I feel he's been short-changed. Normally, the clock goes for five minutes; when Mr Watts took his seat, it only provided for two, and I wonder whether there was an error in the system, because I thought for a very good first speech we should not be short-changing our new members.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Thank you for that point of order, and, indeed, there was a malfunction on the front desk here, for which I take responsibility.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: He could start again, I suppose.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Thank you—thank you. The member actually has a further three minutes, should he wish to take it. 
SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and I appreciate the good observation by my colleague the Hon Nick Smith on the clock there. I must say, I was getting right into the swing of this feedback and didn't notice the clock, which I now note isn't moving at all. However, as I say—[Interruption] Three minutes has started—right, so we're back on. 
As I was saying, I wish to clarify around the way in which these costs are calculated, because I think it is a really important point in terms of looking at a decision around a commencement date. I think we've heard some really good amendment suggestions around—and I do support my colleague's proposal around an amendment of three years from now. I think that is a very sensible, a very pragmatic, and a very reasonable time line in order to do that, because this is an important consideration.
But going back to the point around unnecessary expense, which, as the Minister has stated, was pretty much the key reason why this commencement date could not be altered, I want to understand: what is the opportunity cost of incurring that amount of money or taking away the rights of local democracy? Because I think this is right at the heart of this. I don't think you can put a number on that in terms of supporting our local democracy to be able to do what it needs to do and what it should need to do. And I think when we start putting dollars and cents around electoral law, elements around, you know, where people can have a view, I think we're starting to move into territory which, to be honest, is not the reason why I joined this House. 
So I think what I'm looking for is clarity around the expense from the Minister. I'm really looking forward to a good outline around the calculation of that expense, particularly some of the methodology around that; maybe some assumptions that were used. Ideally, the expense should be substantiated or evidenced, or there should be some background around that context. I mean, I think that's reasonable. It's hard to know. 
Simeon Brown: They'd have to do some work.
SIMON WATTS: Well, I think it's reasonable, but I'm sure those numbers are there, and so I'm looking forward to hearing a little bit about that, and, yeah, I appreciate that, and I thank you very much. 





Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): I want to respond to the new points that have been raised in this very narrow clause. And just by way of reference, there has been a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) tabled by the Hon Paul Goldsmith which, effectively, in terms of clause 2, changes the commencement date to 31 December 2023. I use the same argument as I did for the previous SOPs to change the commencement date: that that will, in fact, not enable the purpose of this bill, which is to give effect to the provision for Māori wards and constituencies by the 2022 election.
In relation to the points raised in regards to cost—and I have proactively released the advice that I have received from officials on this bill, as well as the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act test, as well as the Cabinet paper. But members will note, were they drawing reference from the advice that I have received, that the cost of the poll varies due to the size of a council, and I have information here that says that holding a Māori ward poll for the Tauranga City Council is estimated to cost approximately $216,000, while a poll for a smaller council—say, for example, the Kaikōura District Council—would cost approximately $30,000. The members can contest it; it's in advice that's been proactively released.
Can I come back to the point, however—the very good point—raised by the member in relation to retrospectivity. And the member well knows that there are legislative guidelines in relation to this matter, but let me, for clarity's sake, on the record, have it stated that the legislative guidelines that I'm quoting from, in the proactively released Cabinet paper on this issue, state that, "Legislation should have prospective, not retrospective, effect. However, if retrospectivity is intended, this must be stated in the legislation and be capable of justification."—then it has a reference. And then I refer to my previous Cabinet paper: "The repeal of the poll provisions is justified because the changes avoid community division as well as supports greater opportunities for Māori to engage in local government. The bill is also clear that all councils have until 21 May"—which I've referred to in questions in relation to this matter—"to reconsider whether to establish Māori wards for the 2022 elections, knowing that the poll provisions will no longer apply after this stage." And, in effect, that is the reference that I would draw the member's attention to in relation to the issue of retrospectivity.





SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for the opportunity to take a call on the Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill. I just want to pick up on what the Minister was telling us regarding the issue of retrospectivity. I think she really just touched on the issue of retrospectivity and sort of brushed over it to try and excuse the Government for what they are doing here by passing legislation which has retrospective effect in New Zealand.
Retrospective legislation should be used at the very, very, very last resort, not on something—
Hon Member: Not on electoral law.
SIMEON BROWN: Exactly—not on electoral law, and something which is to do with democracy. So the justification that we were given by the Minister on why retrospectivity in this case is justified is because it avoids community division. Well, this is the redefinition of democracy—it's now called "community division". I find that absolutely astounding—that we've had a Minister come down here, on to the floor of this Chamber, and try to redefine democracy as community division. And the reason and the rationale for passing legislation through this Parliament, which retrospectively takes away the rights of New Zealanders to use what the law says—they can put forward a petition and have a referendum, a democratic referendum, and they've renamed that as "community division". I think that New Zealanders watching at home—and I know there are many New Zealanders watching at home—will be very, very shocked that that is how this Government treats them and their democratic rights under the law. 
I think that's absolutely astounding and speaks to the heart of this Government and the shonky process that this bill has had right from day one. It wasn't even put on the manifesto of the Labour Party when they took to the election. I think that's absolutely shocking. And that's another reason why this commencement clause—if this Government is going to be true to the democratic institutions and the processes of Parliament, this clause must be amended so that it has a prospective effect not a retrospective effect.
That's why I'm very supportive of the amendment by my colleague the Hon Paul Goldsmith, which says that the Act does not come into force until 31 December 2023. I would be happy with anything which says, basically, "This legislation doesn't come into effect until after the next local government elections." That's what the principle should effectively be. Ideally, it should be that this should have been taken to the public and the public should have known what parties were going to be putting forward in the election and what legislation they were going to pass in their Parliament if they were elected.
But the next best is to essentially say, well, this is going to come into effect after the next local body elections so that the local body elections can debate these issues, can have a discussion around, do the candidates—the people going for those roles—support Māori wards, or do they not, and the public can then have their say and vote through that mechanism. But, no. The Government has decided that, actually, that process would cause community division. That would be divisive and that would mean that by taking away people's democratic rights, we can reduce some of that community division—i.e., democracy—and somehow have a more peaceful and united New Zealand, where everyone gets along.
Well, I'm sorry, but, actually, our democracy—sometimes people have different perspectives in our democracy. Sometimes people disagree. Sometimes people disagree very passionately in our democracy, and that's part of what it is to live in a free and democratic society—a liberal democracy. I might not agree with you but I can still sit here and we can discuss it and we can debate it, and sometimes it will be quite hot and it will be very excitable and it will be tough, but we should have those discussions. But, no, the Government has decided that we're going to label those discussions as "community division", because this Government would rather divide, and divide New Zealanders, rather than actually allow New Zealanders to have their say in a free and democratic society.
So I will be proudly supporting the amendment by my colleague the Hon Paul Goldsmith—excellent amendment—because this legislation must be prospective not retrospective, and that amendment says the Act will come into force on 31 December 2023, which gives effect to that. That's what this Government should be supporting as well. Thank you, Madam Chair.





Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Junior Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.





CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the question be now put.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.
Ayes 77
New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.
Noes 43
New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.
Motion agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the Hon Dr Nick Smith's tabled amendment to clause 2, changing the commencement date to 1 May 2021 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the Hon Nick Smith's tabled amendment to clause 2 changing the commencement date to 1 May 2021 be agreed to.
Ayes 43
New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.
Noes 77
New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that Dr Nick Smith's tabled amendment to clause 2, changing the commencement date to 9 October 2022 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the Hon Nick Smith's tabled amendment to clause 2 changing the commencement date to 9 October 2021 be agreed to.
Ayes 43
New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.
Noes 77
New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the Hon Paul Goldsmith's tabled amendment to clause 2, changing the commencement date to 31 December 2023 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the Hon Paul Goldsmith's tabled amendment to clause 2 changing the commencement date to 31 December 2023 be agreed to.
Ayes 43
New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.
Noes 77
New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that clause 2 stand part.
A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 2 be agreed to.
Ayes 77
New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.
Noes 43
New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.
Clause 2 agreed to.





New Clause 2A  Expiry of this Act
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National): This is a very important amendment that tests the integrity of the Government's assurance that it is a temporary bill. I've checked. The Minister has said "This is temporary law." over 20 times. In the earlier clause that we've debated, she has repeatedly said it is a short-term fix. The line of argument that the Minister has used is this: I'm using this appalling process, giving people a day to make submissions, a six-day select committee process—a law that would normally take nine months to get through Parliament is being introduced and rammed through under urgency. She says, "I'm doing all of that because further down the track the Government's going to have a proper consultation process to have an in-depth look around these laws and to come up with a proper answer." Well, if that is the case, then every law reform that's been done in that way has had an expiry clause.
Parliament will remember that just prior to Christmas, we did an urgent party pills bill. In that bill, the Government said, "Hey, look, there's an urgent issue. We want to get testing into party pills and so we're going to ram it through, but what we're going to do is we're then going to have a thorough process down the track and that is going to involve consultation and good lawmaking, and we have an expiry clause in the bill." Well, how come this has no expiry clause? It's because it's a stitch-up. It is a rogue process for a Government that will sell its soul, ride roughshod over what it said at the 2020 election. It is riding roughshod over select committee process.
I do want to test something the Minister said. The Minister said, "We can justify the short process, because this issue has been around for a long time." So I'd like to ask the Minister a question. The Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary was proposed 22 years ago.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! The member will resume his seat. This debate is narrow in nature. The member is speaking to his own Supplementary Order Paper. I would encourage him to stick to the very narrow question, which is that clause 2A gives effect to repealing the bill after the next local body election. So I'd invite the member to stick to that.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, the core issue is: is this temporary law or is this permanent law? It's as simple as that, isn't it? The Minister has said it is temporary law. Temporary law has an expiry date. So is this Parliament to take the Minister of the Crown at her word that it is a temporary bill? Members opposite, I'm one of those old-fashioned people that if people say what they mean and do as they say—if the Minister says that it's short term, if the Minister says that it is a temporary provision, then it should have an expiry clause. Or I can only conclude this is just a cynical manipulation of the parliamentary process, that, really, the reason this is being done under urgency is because the Government knows it's controversial. And if it can ram it through Parliament without giving New Zealanders an opportunity to have a say on it, then they can get it off the agenda and just ram it through.
Hon Member: Shameful!
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Righto, that would be shameful. But I'm going to take the Minister at her word, and I'm going to say, well, let's assume that what she says is true and it's temporary, then the Parliament should set up the incentives. Here's the problem: if they get what they want with this bill, why would they bother doing the consultation down the track? Everything that's in this bill is part of the permanent law. The only way this Parliament can exert good faith on the Minister and on the Government is to put it in the law and have an expiry clause, and that says if the Government doesn't do what it says it's going to do, have a public consultation process, go out and have a bill going through the proper process, allow a six-month normal select committee process—they can do all of that. But my clause, having an expiry clause, ensures they must do it. 
I tell you, Minister, I've heard a hundred times Ministers saying, "We're going to do a review. We're going to have consultation." Nothing ever, ever happens. What the expiry clause in this bill will do is ensure that we keep the Government to its word. That is why it would be absolutely consistent with what we did on party pills. It would be absolutely consistent. I don't know whether people remember a bill that was on the waka hopping that Michael Cullen did. In fact, actually, I've replicated the expiry clause from that time. An expiry clause is needed in this bill.





Hon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): I want to support Nick Smith's amendment to this bill, which seeks to add—
Hon Member: Very wise.
Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Well, I don't always support him—an expiry clause to it. It seems to me there's a very strong principled reason he hasn't mentioned for why we would want a clause like this. If what I have said before and other parts of this bill are true, that it is egregious that it is retrospective—and we've gone through that, and I won't canvass all of those arguments, but if you accept that as so—and if we also accept the urgency of this, the rushing of it and all of the ways that has offended the norms of this House—if all of those things are true—then one thing that won't cure those defects but will go some way to making this better law that is less offensive to this Parliament and to New Zealanders who are reasonably concerned about constitutional-type issues would be to have a time limit set in the law. I note what Nick Smith has said, and he's precisely right. I thought it was a curious thing that they did, but there is a precedent in this from another colleague of Nanaia Mahuta's in this House, not very far long ago, and that is in relation to the pill-testing bill, where they said exactly what the Minister has said, and to make good on their words in this House, the Government did have that time-limited expiry clause.
But outside all of the principled reasons why an expiry clause in this bill is right to, as I say, not cure but somewhat make good the defects in this law on Māori wards and Māori constituencies, I say there's actually just a very simple reason, and that's that I take the Minister at her word. Of course I do. I don't just do that, actually, because she's a member of this House and that's what we're obliged to do under the rules; I believe her. I think she's an honourable person, and she means what she says. But if she does, she should do this. If she does, there is precisely no reason not to put it in. If she doesn't, frankly that leads members on this side of the House to be somewhat distrustful that she does actually mean it, because, look, if she did, she would. And if she doesn't, you can sit there, and I think it's reasonable to have a few suspicions about this. Otherwise, if she's not going to put in this kind of safeguard stopgap clause, the Minister is, effectively, saying to the House "Trust us—just trust us." 
It's not just New Zealanders outside of this Parliament who are a little cynical of politicians in power who say that; look, I think even in this House we can be somewhat cynical of that. We actually have an example, in relation to this bill, that shows, dare I say it—I'm not suggesting the Minister is the person who wrote it—on this very issue, actually, just a few months ago, we couldn't trust what was said by the Labour Party, and that was their manifesto, where it was quite clear right there that they want to bring all of New Zealand with them. They weren't going to do this. And yet, cynically—I think, dishonestly—the Labour Party said one thing there and has done quite a different thing before you can say bobsy-die in this House as one of the starting—
Hon Scott Simpson: Very scurrilous.
Hon SIMON BRIDGES: —contumelious, I think you'll find, Scott Simpson—before we've barely started the law.
So I say, in summary, to the Minister: this is a principled thing to do and to support. It costs the Minister and the Government nothing. If she means what she says, she can and she should do it. Just saying to this House, "Look, actually, trust us. We know what we're doing. Look, I've said that."—that's not good enough, actually. If she can say that's what she's going to do, she could certainly support this, and we ask her to do that.





Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Oh, thank you, Madam Chair. Look, I support this amendment by the Hon Nick Smith and the inclusion of an expiry clause. It makes absolute sense. The Minister has set up—a number of times, she said it's a short-term fix, and we do have concerns about what the long-term fix is, but at least there seems to be an indication that at some point, there'll be some broader discussion about it.
The slight problem that I have with the suggestion from Dr Smith—
Hon Simon Bridges: You said you're supporting it!
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: I support it, but the issue is what happens is in the meantime, there will be a whole number of local bodies which will adopt these separate seats for one ethnic group—Māori in New Zealand—and they'll do it without a referendum, so the people will not get an opportunity to have their say on it. Then that'll be kind of permanent, and so we'll have this very significant constitutional change in our country happening on a substantial scale, and there's a whole bunch of members, local body politicians, who think this is a great idea where their voters seem—a large majority of the examples so far have shown that they don't like this as a proposition. So you'll have this so-called short-term fix bill come in, without proper process, in a rush, under urgency, against what was promised in the manifesto, and then over the next year or so, a whole bunch of separate seats based on ethnicity will be put into our local body electorate.
Louisa Wall: Based on the status of Māori as the indigenous people of Aotearoa. Get it right.
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Yeah, and that is a perfectly legitimate argument for the member to raise if she wants to talk about this and make the argument for it, but I would hope that she has the respect for other members of Parliament and for other New Zealanders to hold a different view, which is to hold a different view that New Zealanders should be treated equally before the law. If she doesn't agree with that, that's fine for her, but I think you will find that there are many other New Zealanders who hold a different point of view. It's important in our democracy—and we all enjoy living in a democracy where we're treated equally before the law, and the worry that many New Zealanders have is that we have inherited something from 100 years ago in this central government. That's something we've inherited from 100 years ago. What is a substantially new addition is to say we're going to extend that to local government, and then, at the same time, we're also being told by some of the submitters that, actually, even that's not good enough; decision making should be 50:50 from Māori and everybody else. And so, at some point, you're left with the question of: well, hang on a moment; what's happened to the foundations of our democracy—one person, one vote—where we're all treated equally before the law? What's happened to that?
Now, I perfectly respect that member Louisa Wall's opportunity to have her say on this, but what was seen through this process is that most New Zealanders are being deprived of their opportunity to have their say, quite deliberately, by this Government—quite deliberately.
Hon Simon Bridges: That's probably why they're ramming it through.
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Precisely. They're ramming it through, but they're also saying that—the fundamental message of this piece of legislation is, "We do not trust New Zealanders to make the right decision in a referendum." That is what this piece of legislation is saying, "We do not trust New Zealanders to make the right decision on this.", and so they've brought this legislation which says "We do not trust referendums. We will scrub that opportunity for New Zealanders to have their say, because we know best and we don't trust the instinct of New Zealanders." And the instinct of New Zealanders is—and it doesn't come as a great surprise to me. The instinct of New Zealanders on the majority is to say we actually want to be treated equally before the law, and we don't want to go down more and more a path towards treating New Zealanders differently because of who their parents are, and who their grandparents are, and who their great-great-grandparents are. These are pretty basic, and I absolutely—I absolutely—[Time expired]





Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): Having listened, again, very carefully and respectfully to the views—which I do not agree with—on the other side of the Chamber, and mindful that at this time of the night people are listening to this debate, looking for clarity about what I've said, I'll clarify what I said, which is that this is a short-term, immediate fix to enable those councils who choose to, to establish Māori wards and constituencies in time for the 2022 election. As indicated, councils will have up until 21 May to make that decision. Now, they could do one of two things. They could continue down the pathway of establishing their Māori wards and constituencies, or they could revoke that. The provision in Schedule 1 in the Schedule of the bill and the date of 21 May is actually the date that becomes really important for this bit of legislation. So in many ways, the argument that Mr Nick Smith has put up becomes somewhat defunct. 
But let me come to the stage two, which is the substantial and enduring fix. I come back to the primary premise of this bill: we are removing a discriminatory clause that prevents Māori wards and constituencies from being established, and having that provision remain in legislation does not make it right. So an enduring fix in the stage two part of this process, through which I intend to make sure that we address, for example, what role might the Local Government Commission take in establishing Māori wards and constituencies beyond the 2022 election—so, for 2025, for example, and thereafter, we will have a full process, and I've said that time and time again in the House. 
So for those people who are listening to the debate and wondering how we're trying to achieve this change, we're wanting to make sure, firstly, we remove the poll—because it's discriminatory—in time for the 2022 election. Councils will have until 21 May this year to make that decision. Those decisions will go through a full representation review committee process, which has a consultation process within their ambit, and then, by the end of the year, a full stage two process to ensure an enduring approach to the establishment of Māori wards and constituencies. 
But I see what's happening and I hear what's happening: they simply do not want Māori wards and constituencies to be established. But it will be too late, because councils will have already made their decision. Many already have. They will have already gone down this road and it will be very hard to wind back—very hard to wind back—and I think that is really at the nub and the heart of the criticism on the other side of the House. 
Can I come back to the Schedule in the bill, which makes it really clear what we're trying to enable for councils, who will ultimately make the decision. Every three years, citizens and ratepayers get to vote for those people who represent them around the council table to make decisions like this and many other things in the best interests of all New Zealanders. This isn't divisive. In fact, this has been called for from many local government sectors—in fact, 21 councils submitted on the issue in favour of it—and I'm really disappointed that members on that side of the Chamber are getting up to try and make this something it's not. 
The world has moved on. New Zealand has moved on. The short-term fix is to ensure the 2022 election actually opens the door to having more Māori participating in local decision-making. I think that's a good thing. 





Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Junior Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the question be now put. All those in favour say Aye, against say No.
Hon Members: Party vote.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that Dr Nick Smith's amendment inserting new clause 2A set out on Supplementary Order Paper 7 be agreed to—
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Point of order, Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The member will resume his seat.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National): We haven't put the motion of closure.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Thank you for that. I am putting that now, but I will check. I thank the member for that point of order, and I am going to put the closure motion. Right. The question is that the question be now put. 





A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.
Ayes 77
New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.
Noes 43
New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.
Motion agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the Hon Dr Smith's amendment inserting new clause 2A, set out on Supplementary Order Paper 7 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 43
New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.
Noes 77
New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The time has come for me to leave the Chair. The committee is suspended until 9 o'clock tomorrow morning.
Sitting suspended from 9.56 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Wednesday)