WEDNESDAY, 30 MARCH 2022
The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.
KARAKIA/PRAYERS
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ian McKelvie): Almighty God, we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests, we acknowledge the Queen and pray for guidance in our deliberations, that we conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom, justice, mercy, and humility for the welfare and peace of New Zealand. Amen.





PETITIONS, PAPERS, SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS, AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLS
SPEAKER: No petitions have been presented, no papers have been presented, no bills have been introduced, but select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.
CLERK:Reports of the Education and Workforce Committee on the:2020/21 annual reviews of the education sector and the2020/21 annual reviews of the labour sectorreport of the Environment Committee on the 2020/21 annual reviews of the:Department of Conservation and theMinistry for the Environmentreports of the Governance and Administration Committee on the 2020/21 annual reviews ofFire and Emergency New ZealandNational Emergency Management Agency andPublic Service Commissionreport of the Health Committee on the notice of motion regarding the Misuse of Drugs (Classification and Presumption of Supply) Order 2022report of the Social Services and Community Committee on the 2020/21 annual reviews of the arts, culture, and heritage sector.
SPEAKER: The report of the Health Committee is set down for consideration. The briefing is set down for consideration.





ORAL QUESTIONS
QUESTIONS TO MINISTERSQuestion No. 1—Finance
1. NICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement that "I acknowledge that a number of New Zealanders are facing a cost of living crisis"; if so, will his Budget include income tax reduction for New Zealanders who do not qualify for any Government benefit or Working for Families payments?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I do stand by that statement, which is why the Government moved quickly to reduce fuel excise this month—to help Kiwis experiencing pain at the pump due in particular to the price increases triggered by the war in Ukraine. It's also why the Government, at the end of last year, put in place measures to increase support for the family tax credit and also the 1 April changes that are coming forward. In response to the second part of the member's question, she well knows that the Budget decisions are not announced at this point in the process, but what I can say is that there is no place for the kind of tax package that she and Christopher Luxon are proposing, where they'd get a multithousand-dollar tax cut while those on middle incomes get two bucks a week.
Nicola Willis: Why does he think middle-income earners should not receive tax relief, when according to ANZ "CPI inflation is moon-bound" and—
SPEAKER: Order! I'm just going to ask the member to start the question again in a question form without an assertion at the beginning.
Nicola Willis: Does he think middle-income earners should receive tax relief, when according to ANZ "CPI inflation is moon-bound" and "Inflation pressures are extremely broad-based and still intensifying"?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What most economic commentators are acknowledging is that those inflation pressures are indeed continuing. They are driven by supply chain issues, by the rise in the oil price that comes out of Ukraine, and by—
Nicola Willis: What are you going to do about it?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: —a whole lot of matters that are beyond the control of New Zealand. On this—
SPEAKER: Order! Let's get it right, right from the beginning. The member knows she must not interject in that way, doesn't she? Right. No more. 
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On this side of the House, we have determined that the best response for us at the moment is the fuel excise duty cut that we've made; to make public transport half price; to continue to invest in strong public services like health, education, and housing, while supporting those on low and middle incomes, including through the family tax credit changes.
Nicola Willis: Does he agree with ANZ that "Households are facing increasing headwinds and budgetary pressures", and if so, will he offer tax relief to households who are ineligible for Working for Families support?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: In answer to the first part of the question, yes, and that is precisely why the Government has acted the way that we have. If the member wants to talk about meaningful tax relief, I invite her to go out and talk to people who are earning around $48,000 a year and explain to them why $2 a week is meaningful for them, where thousands of dollars a year is suddenly meaningful for her and her colleagues.
David Seymour: Does the Minister accept that core Crown tax revenue taken from New Zealanders has increased by $17 billion a year since 2020, and if so, how is that not the time to cut taxes and let people keep some more of their own money?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What I do accept is that, yes, the Crown's tax take has increased. That is partly as a result of the fact that companies are making greater profits, partly as a result of the fact that more people are being employed and earning higher wages, and partly as a result of the fact that we've had confidence in the economy that means people have been going out and spending.
David Seymour: If things are so good, then, why can't the Government afford for people to keep some more of their own money when they're facing record high prices and being squeezed at the petrol pump and the checkout?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On the last point around the fuel, that's precisely why the Government did do what we've done in terms of moving swiftly to make sure that we relieve that pain at the pump. Overall, the Government's tried to get the balance right here. That's making sure that we do support those on low and middle incomes, who are the most affected by rising prices, while at the same time making sure that we do actually invest in health, education, housing, and the public services that New Zealanders want and deserve.
Nicola Willis: Is it the Minister's position that New Zealanders who don't qualify for a Government benefit or Working for Families are too rich to need tax reduction, and if so, how does he explain that to a New Zealander earning an average wage of $72,000 a year confronting a cost of living crisis with no income relief in sight?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No, I don't accept the first part of the member's question. In answer to the second part of the member's question, on this side of the House we understand that all New Zealanders benefit from a properly funded health system. That isn't something that the National Government delivered back to New Zealand when we took office. We have consistently continued to increase that investment, but much, much more needs to be done. The member might want to reflect on those who sit around her who want a great deal more money spent in our health system, but that won't be able to happen with the tax cut package she's proposing.
Nicola Willis: Why would he deny $1,600 in tax relief for a two-income family, each earning $60,000 a year, who are faced with a cost of living crisis—
SPEAKER: Order! The question—just get to the question.
Nicola Willis: Why would he deny the tax relief to that family facing the cost of living crisis, rising mortgage payments, and predictions of worse to come?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On this side of the House, what we are ensuring is that those who are the most affected by the increase in the cost of living do get support. At the same time, we have reduced fuel excise duty, which means that every single household in the country that relies on going to the petrol station is better off.
Nicola Willis: Why should a worker whose wage has only just kept up with inflation pay more tax today than they did four years ago, and why won't that Minister provide $800 in annual tax relief to someone earning $60,000 a year?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On this side of the House, we're extremely proud of the fact that wages have actually gone ahead of inflation for the period of time that we have been in Government, up until the point that we have a global supply chain crisis and we have a war in Ukraine. On this side of the House, we want to make sure that we support low and middle income people through this, and all New Zealanders, through initiatives such as the fuel excise duty cut. 
Nicola Willis: Is he concerned about New Zealanders like Sarah, who writes, "My family have left New Zealand as we cannot afford to live there anymore. We are now in Brisbane. Our rent has halved, our cost of living has halved, and there are plenty more opportunities for us all.", and will his Budget contain measures to ensure tax-paying middle-income Kiwis can see better prospects in New Zealand than over the Ditch?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What the Budget will contain is a continuation of this Government's balanced approach that makes sure that we invest in health, that we invest in education, that we invest in housing, and that we do support New Zealanders to make sure that they've got economic security through good times and bad. What the member's party is proposing is once again the National Party tilting the playing field to those who have the most away from those who have the least. 




Question No. 2—Finance
2. Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Statistics New Zealand reported earlier this month the GDP rebounded by a solid 3 percent in the December 2021 quarter. On an annual basis, the economy grew 5.6 percent and was 3.5 percent higher than the pre-pandemic December 2019 quarter. The New Zealand economy finished 2021 in good shape overall and shows that the actions of hard-working New Zealanders are making sure that we respond to the pandemic well. The support from the wage subsidy scheme and the resurgence support payment help cushion the impacts of Delta and allow businesses to bounce back quickly. Unemployment is at a record low and we're in a strong fiscal position with debt levels well below those of countries we compare ourselves with.
Dr Duncan Webb: How widespread was the growth in the December quarter?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The expansion was broad-based. The services industries, which make up two-thirds of our economy, rose 2.5 percent, with strong gains in retail accommodation and restaurants. And with the opening up of the borders, the future is bright for those in those sectors. The goods-producing sector also performed strongly, with manufacturing up 6.5 percent and construction up 8.7 percent. In contrast, primary industries during this period did see a fall of 2.2 percent as inclement weather affected growing conditions. We know that some sectors and regions and businesses have been doing it tough. We're continuing to support those who have been affected the most, and, as our borders open to workers and tourists, that will help accelerate our recovery and build on New Zealanders' successful response to COVID-19.
Dr Duncan Webb: What other reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, the ANZ New Zealand Business Outlook for March was released today and it shows that business confidence has recovered by 10 points, while firms' own confidence in their activity rose five points. Activity indicators generally, including hiring and investment intentions, also lifted slightly. ANZ said that the improvement was likely due to waning fears about the impact of the Omicron outbreak, although everyone acknowledges the confidence does remain low against historical trends. We recognise that challenges remain as businesses deal with inflation pressures due to global factors, including Russia's invasion of Ukraine, which has driven up oil prices, and the ongoing impact of the pandemic on supply chains. While economic growth is forecast to slow this year, the resilience of the New Zealand economy and our strong fiscal position means we're in good shape to be able to support New Zealanders to deal with these challenges.




Question No. 3—Social Development and Employment
3. Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does she believe too many New Zealanders are dependent on jobseeker support; if not, why not?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (remote): Jobseeker support is there for New Zealanders who need it and qualify. Over the course of the past two years, many people have had to grapple with the possibility of losing jobs. Many New Zealanders became more aware of what they may or may not be eligible for through the welfare system. We believe the welfare system is an integral safety net for those that lose jobs or are unable to find employment. We also need to keep in mind that of the 178,821 receiving jobseeker support, 77,619 receive the health and disability exemption. We would also never deny sick or disabled New Zealanders access to the welfare system where they are eligible.
Hon Louise Upston: How can the Minister claim "We are tracking in the right direction.", when 116,000 people have now spent longer than one year on jobseeker—an almost 50,000 increase under Labour—when businesses are desperate for workers?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: If we look at what was happening two years following the global financial crisis, we see that about 13.1 percent of the working-age population was on benefit. At the moment, we have gone through a very serious economic crisis, off the back of the pandemic, and two years after it started we are looking at 11.1 percent of our working-age population on benefit. Early predictions were much worse than what we're seeing now, and what we are seeing are the best exits off benefit into employment than we've ever seen since economic records were kept or started being kept. We absolutely do believe that we are tracking in the right direction and we are focused on continuing with this mahi.
Hon Louise Upston: How can she claim "We have increased our focus on getting people back into work.", when fewer people on benefit for three years or longer have exited into employment in 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021 compared to 2017?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: We've discussed these numbers in the House before. When you have an increase—
Hon Louise Upston: No, we haven't.
SPEAKER: Order!
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: —an increase—
SPEAKER: Keep going.
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: When you have an increase in the numbers of people on benefit, then in every time period you will see that raw figure go up as well. There hasn't been a significant increase in the proportions in any given category. However, we do watch it closely. It's also important to note that when we have difficult economic times and the labour market is tight, which at times it has been over the course of the last two years, then those that were already disadvantaged in the employment market will be even more disadvantaged in the employment market. So we continue to invest in the right places and are targeting those who need most support through the welfare system not only for income support but, of course, for upskilling and training and employment support.
Hon Louise Upston: Should someone be able to continue receiving the jobseeker benefit if they do not take up a vacancy in a local supermarket?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The member really needs to be clear that she's talking about the jobseeker work-ready versus the jobseeker benefit where people have a health condition or disability. About 43 percent of those that are on the jobseeker benefit have an exemption because of health condition or disability. In the past, unfortunately, there has been very little focus on supporting that particular cohort, and only recently have we, as a Government, launched a—the first ever, I believe—disability employment action plan. There are lots of barriers in place for people that are on benefit to finding employment, and we shouldn't just put it down to their lack of willingness to work. We're very focused on removing those barriers whilst supporting those people into employment. 
Hon Louise Upston: Does she agree that children's outcomes are better with a parent in work? 
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Yes, often that is the case. That's why we invested as a Government into the Training Incentive Allowance—the Training Incentive Allowance that was disestablished by the previous National Government. All of the research tells us that a child's level of education—
SPEAKER: Order! I am going to interrupt the Minister. She, I think, answered the question in the first word, and some of her answers have been very long. Is there a further supplementary? No.




Question No. 4—Energy and Resources
4. GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: What is the Government doing to enable development of offshore renewable energy in New Zealand?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources): In November last year, I announced the Government would commence work on the regulatory settings needed to enable the development of offshore wind generation in New Zealand. The Government recognises New Zealand's significant potential for offshore wind generation presents an exciting opportunity to support our transition to net zero carbon by 2050, stimulate regional economic activity, create jobs, and provide renewable electricity. We will be working with stakeholders, including iwi, Transpower, the New Zealand Wind Energy Association, Government agencies, environmental advocacy groups, and others, on the settings to enable offshore wind generation. The work is already providing certainty to investors, with a number of major future investments in offshore wind on the horizon.
Glen Bennett: What response has she seen to the work the Government is doing to enable offshore wind development?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: In the last few months, we've seen interest from a number of potential independent generation partners looking to invest in offshore wind generation. Yesterday, the New Zealand Superannuation Fund and Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners announced feasibility work into a massive wind energy development offshore in the South Taranaki Bight. The project is initially planned to deliver 1 gigawatt of electricity, 11 percent of New Zealand's current electricity demand, and could power over 650,000 homes. The project would see an estimated $5 billion pumped into the New Zealand economy, including in Taranaki, stimulating regional economic activity and creating jobs. It's an example of the kind of exciting 21st century energy projects that will help us decarbonise our energy system.
Glen Bennett: What will be the role of iwi in the development of offshore wind in Aotearoa?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: It is crucial that Māori interests and rights are incorporated, and, therefore, any regulatory tools or frameworks will need to be worked through in a meaningful partnership with iwi Māori. I've already met with iwi leaders in Taranaki, who have shared their views on how we can work together on a fair and equitable transition away from fossil fuels in Taranaki. Iwi leaders have shown strong interest in new energy projects and the potential of offshore wind. Our engagement will continue while we work to understand the significant benefits of offshore wind.




Question No. 5—Health
5. MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri) to the Minister of Health: Does he agree with the Mental Health and Well-being Commission's monitoring report finding that "improvements in services have not materialised as we had hoped for over this time", and what is his response to the article in New Zealand Doctor that says, "the $1.9 billion Wellbeing Budget touted as a game-changer, the Government has done little or nothing for mental wellbeing"?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): I acknowledge the total context in which the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission made its findings, which also included the following finding: "we [the commission] acknowledge some examples of genuine progress. There is evidence of growing collaboration between public health services and other community-based organisations. We recognise the enormous effort that is going on to effect changes like this, which we believe will ultimately pay huge dividends in service improvements." It should be noted that this report that the member refers to did not focus on the access and choice programme, which is the integrated primary mental health care programme we're implementing and which was the subject of a separate published report last October. But I do agree with and acknowledge the sentiment of the latest report by the commission, which is that there has been slow progress in improvements in the acute end of mental health care. So far, as this Government rebuilds mental health services, which were badly neglected by the previous Government, we have given priority to primary mental health services. This has seen around 870 fulltime-equivalent new front-line positions created that were not in place two years ago. Regarding the comments by Barbara Docherty, I have read the article that Ms Docherty wrote and I find her comments ill-informed and confused.
Matt Doocey: Is he aware of the report finding "access to specialist mental health … and addiction services has not changed over the past five years."; and does he think this is a good outcome for the $1.9 billion announced for mental health by his Government?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I am aware of that comment and that's why I also reminded the member that the centrepiece of the $1.9 billion programme is the money that this Government is putting into primary mental health care services. The 2018 report He Ara Oranga made it very clear that the biggest gap in mental health services was for those with mild to moderate mental health conditions and that report recommended that priority be given to those services. That's what we've given priority to; that explains the 870 fulltime-equivalent new roles in primary mental health care services. The reason why I find Ms Docherty's comments so confusing is that she seemed to be criticising this Government, separately from the primary mental health care services, for a recruitment campaign to get more mental health workers into the acute end of services 
Matt Doocey: When he says his new front-line mental health service at 870 fulltime-equivalents at 20,000 sessions a month, has he done the figures that show that is one appointment per worker per working day?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I've got around and met some of the people who are actually doing these front-line roles, doing many sessions, many appointments in their work, and they are doing fantastic work—doing the very sort of work that Ms Docherty says in her article needs to be done. So, for example, last week I met Adam. Adam is a former butcher by trade but he's got into mental health supported services through a range of his own personal experiences and he is doing incredible work with a range of people in the Tauranga Moana area and helping them get on top of fitness issues, activity issues, and nutrition issues to the point where the day I met him he had that very morning accompanied one of the people who he was supporting in a trip to the supermarket to assist them in making good choices on food and nutrition. That's the stuff that actually makes a difference to people and gets their lives back under control and helps with their mental wellbeing.
Matt Doocey: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked the question: was he aware of the calculation.
SPEAKER: And we had a very, very long answer—[Interruption] Ms Willis, will you ever learn?
Nicola Willis: I was genuinely laughing at your joke.
SPEAKER: I'm now trying to decide whether the member wants to stay here or not. You know, getting up and putting another comment in while I'm on my feet is even sillier than her first attempt. Now, Mr Doocey, your question as to calculations and maths was right at the edge of being ruled out. We had an answer which was, as I indicated, far too long and addressed much more than it should have. Do you want a further supplementary? If so, wait until after Brooke van Velden. 
Brooke van Velden: Does he believe that money spent is a better indicator of success than measured results? 
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: No. I look at what is actually happening on the ground and when you add 870 fulltime-equivalent roles to the front line of our mental health services—so people who have levels of anxiety, low levels of depression, people who just need that little bit of extra help to get on top of the issues that they are confronting in their lives and can get that free of charge, and ongoing assistance—that's the stuff that makes a difference. It's happening now and it's helping New Zealanders up and down the country. 
Matt Doocey: Is he aware of reports that there has been a "catastrophic collapse" of Wellington's Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service, with an exodus of staff resulting in ballooning waiting times, and does he think this is a good outcome of the $1.9 billion announced for mental health by his Government?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I'll try to help the member again, because the principal investment made in the $1.9 billion was for services for those with mild to moderate mental health problems. We know that there continue to be challenges in the acute end of services and, in Wellington, I can assure the member that the DHB is taking appropriate action, including relying on the assistance of senior mental health professionals from other DHBs and from out of the region, and doing their best to keep abreast of the major challenges that the services here in Wellington are facing. When I look across acute mental health services generally across the country, they are holding up, but it is true to say—as the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission acknowledged—more assistance is required. 
Matt Doocey: Can he explain why solitary confinement, as shown by this graph, was trending down prior to 2017, and is now at record levels under his Government? 
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: What we do know is, from a range of reports from the Ombudsman and from other independent monitors, that this has continued to be a problem. I think the most recent reports show that most DHBs who operate mental health facilities, where this has become a regular practice, it is starting to improve but more is required, and that is why—and again, in accordance with the recommendations of the He Ara Oranga report—we are reviewing the mental health Act so that the powers and responsibilities of those running acute mental health services are aware of their responsibilities. 




Question No. 6—COVID-19 Response
6. PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai) to the Minister for COVID-19 Response: What recent announcements have been made relating to changes to the COVID-19 Protection Framework?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): Last week, the Government announced simplified changes to the COVID-19 Protection Framework that are designed to target the restrictions to those activities which reduce transmission of the virus the most. These new settings, which came into effect last Friday, support greater economic activity and get everyone closer to feeling that life is back to something more normal whilst also continuing to manage COVID-19 and provide protection and care for those who need it the most. New Zealanders have worked incredibly hard to get through this pandemic, and as a result of those efforts, we're now in a position to move forward and to change the way that we do things.
Paul Eagle: What do these changes mean at red, and is he confident that it is safe to make these changes in the current environment?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: At red, face mask requirements remain the same for indoor venues, but they're no longer required outdoors, recognising that outdoors, the transmission risk is significantly lower. Where a My Vaccine Pass is used, indoor capacity limits increase up to 200, noting that seated and separated rules for food and drink in businesses will remain at red. All of these changes have been informed by public health advice based on the latest evidence from here and overseas, and on the advice of the Strategic COVID-19 Public Health Advisory Group. With our high vaccination rates and the immunity acquired from the current outbreak, we can manage future waves of Omicron with less restrictive settings.
Paul Eagle: What will these changes mean at orange, and does this modified framework account for the possibility of a new variant?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: At orange, all capacity limits are removed but face masks are still required in many indoor settings. For indoor events, we know that close contact is a higher risk, so to help organisers continue to provide the safest possible environments, we're encouraging larger events that have over 500 people to either add extra capacity at their venue or to provide seating. It's an encouragement, not a requirement. The public health measures that we use are under constant review, and then we continue to be informed by public health advice, and when the virus has changed, so too has our approach. If another variant does emerge that is more severe, our approach will continue to be informed by public health advice. Keeping the traffic light framework in place helps us to minimise the current outbreak whilst also helping to protect us against future unknowns.
Paul Eagle: What do these changes mean at green, and what is the ongoing plan for quick response (QR) codes?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Ultimately, green means guidance and not requirements. However, we want people to keep up good health habits and to look after those of us in the community who are at higher risk of getting seriously ill from COVID-19. Green is very much the new normal. There are no requirements or restrictions, but there is some additional guidance. With regard to QR codes, people are no longer required to scan at any level of the framework, and businesses are no longer required to provide the mechanism to do that. However, if a variant arises in the world which evades vaccine, or is more deadly, contact tracing will likely become critical once again. So we don't want to throw away all the hard work, expertise, and learning which went into the process the first time around. So we're asking that businesses and others stand ready to be able to put up their QR codes again if required, and for people to be prepared to pull out their tracer app again if it's needed in the future.




Question No. 7—Local Government
7. SIMON COURT (ACT) to the Minister of Local Government: Does she stand by her statement that "Māori have not expressed rights and interests in three waters assets over and above those as ratepayers within their respective communities of interest"; if so, what justification is there to apply a co-governance model to three waters entities?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Acting Minister of Local Government): On behalf of the Minister, yes, I stand by my statement. Iwi have not expressed rights and interests in the assets themselves. That is not to say that they do not have rights and interests in the three waters system more broadly and an interest in service delivery. What I have heard is a concern from iwi about the state of water infrastructure, the safety of our drinking water, and protecting our freshwater resources for future generations. These are concerns that we share, and that's why we're undertaking the three waters reforms. The current situation where thousands of New Zealanders get sick from their drinking water is simply unacceptable and doing nothing is not an option.
Simon Court: Does this mean that over four years of consultation on the Three Waters Reform Programme not a single iwi or hapū has expressed rights or interests in three waters assets; and, if so, why did the Minister decide that co-governance should be the centrepiece of her Three Waters Reform Programme?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: In answer to the second part of that question, the centrepiece of the Three Waters Reform Programme is making sure that thousands of New Zealanders don't get sick every year from drinking the water that comes out of their tap.
Simon Court: Does the Minister believe that all ratepayers regardless of their ethnicity should have equal representation on three waters service delivery entities; and, if not, why not?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I think the member needs to make sure he gets clear in his head the difference between ownership, governance, and management. In the case of these assets what we're committed to on this side of the House is public ownership. I think the ACT Party is a new-found convert to public ownership of assets like this. No—Mr Seymour is shaking his head, so they're not. What we do know is we that want regional representative groups that do cover off local authorities and mana whenua in the governance space and then to make sure we have competency-based boards running the entities.
Simon Court: Has the Minister asked iwi and hapū whether they prefer a co-governance model or if they would prefer to invest in three waters assets through public-private partnerships?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Here we are—the real agenda of the ACT Party is now out here, and the smokescreen that ACT is putting up around co-governance issues to cover up for the fact that they still want to privatise the assets. Roger Douglas called—he wants his policies back.
Simon Court: Will the Minister accept that Māori have not expressed rights and interests in three waters assets and, therefore, make a commitment to dump co-governance from the three waters reform agenda?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: In respect of the first part of the question, on behalf of the Minister, that's what I said in my answer. In respect of the second part of the question, no, because on this side of the House we believe that it's possible for New Zealand to have a modern, sophisticated democracy where we recognise the rights and interests of all New Zealanders.




Question No. 8—Transport
8. BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of Transport: What recent progress has been made to improve transport links in the Wellington region?
Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): It was my pleasure to join the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, and parliamentary colleagues—past and present—to officially open Transmission Gully today. This road represents one of the largest Government investments in New Zealand's transport infrastructure in a generation. It'll transform the Wellington region, making it quicker and easier for goods and people to travel through the lower North Island. The 7- to 15-minute shorter journey for about 25,000 vehicles per day means a productivity gain of around 1,600 hours, meaning less time spent in cars, and more time at work and with family. I know this day has been a long time coming for Wellingtonians. Ministers have worked hard to ensure that the road can open safely, as soon as possible. I'm sure that Wellingtonians will enjoy the benefits of this important asset. 
Greg O'Connor: How will projects such as Transmission Gully contribute to the COVID-19 economic recovery? 
Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Projects such as Transmission Gully will help New Zealand to bounce back from the impacts of COVID-19 better. Transmission Gully will develop economic benefits, with faster movement of freight and people around the region. It'll build more resilience into our transport links. This is why the Government is investing a record amount into infrastructure all across New Zealand, to reconnect New Zealanders, to reduce emissions, and also to support jobs across our economy. As part of the 2021-24 National Land Transport Programme, and with local government, the Government is investing a record $24.3 billion into transport services and infrastructure—74 percent more than the previous Government.
Ginny Andersen: What safety and resilience benefits will Transmission Gully provide? 
Hon MICHAEL WOOD: The Government's road safety vision is an Aotearoa where no one is killed or seriously injured on our roads. Reaching this vision requires improving all parts of our transport system: safer roads, safer vehicles, safer drivers, and safer speeds. Transmission Gully is built to the highest possible safety specifications, and will provide a much safer route for road-users in the Wellington region. The new motorway will also see fewer vehicles using the old coastal route. Transmission Gully also provides a safer and more reliable route to ensure that Wellington remains connected in the event of an earthquake, or a major storm severing other transport links. 
Hon Grant Robertson: Does the Minister have any reflections, on this historic day, about what could have been done better when it comes to the construction of Transmission Gully?
Hon Gerry Brownlee: The Government shouldn't have rolled over in the first place.
Hon MICHAEL WOOD: I have a number of reflections, but let me keep it relatively brief in response to the member's question. It's very important that when any Government invests in significant infrastructure projects like this that they do so in a competent way, that they do so in a way that is transparent, and that they do so in a way that ensures value for taxpayers' money. There are many lessons to be learnt from this project, and I refer members of the House to a recent report from the Auditor-General to give good information around that.
SPEAKER: Order! I'm just trying to reflect on whether that question and answer breached the—I think it came very close, and on that basis I will give Mr Brownlee the opportunity to ask an extra supplementary if he so wishes. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee: I don't have a—
SPEAKER: No, he doesn't. 
Simon Court: Mr Speaker—
SPEAKER: Sorry?
Simon Court: Mr Speaker, I'll take Mr Brownlee's supplementary.
SPEAKER: No, you won't. It'll be a long time until the member gets to that point.




Question No. 9—Transport
9. SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga) to the Minister of Transport: Does he have confidence that the Government is not increasing the cost of vehicles for New Zealanders; if so, why?
Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): Yes, I do. The Government is committed to ensuring the cost of vehicles are manageable and that fast and reliable public transport alternatives are available, particularly for New Zealanders on the lowest incomes. That's why, for example, we've reduced fuel excise duty and will be reducing road-user charges for the next three months. We've halved public transport fares for the same period. We're offering rebates for new and used low-emissions vehicles, and we've started work to reduce the cost of getting a driver's licence. On this side of the House, we're supporting Kiwis not only to manage the cost of vehicles but we're also committed to expanding access to low emissions vehicles and public transport options that will help New Zealand reach our decarbonisation goals.
Simeon Brown: Why are the fees under the Land Transport (Clean Vehicles) Amendment Act coming into force this Friday when it will significantly increase the cost of many vehicles by thousands of dollars for Kiwis, who are already struggling under a cost of living crisis?
Hon MICHAEL WOOD: If the member is referring to the fees that come into effect as a result of the clean car standard, it's important for members of the House to be aware that those fees do not in fact come into effect until 2023. If he's referring to the fees that come into effect as a result of the clean car discount, then it's important for people to be aware that balancing out those fees, there are a range of significant discounts on vehicles and that, in fact, recent modelling shows that more than half of the vehicles—both new and used—coming into the country will either attract no fee or will attract a discount. What importers of vehicles also tell me is that the clean car scheme is supporting them to get increased stock of clean and more efficient vehicles into the New Zealand market, which is good for Kiwi consumers in terms of giving them more efficient vehicles.
Simeon Brown: Does he agree with the Prime Minister, who stated of ute buyers that "A large number of those buyers of those vehicles are not using them for the legitimate use", and, if so, is this why the Government is increasing the cost of utes?
Hon MICHAEL WOOD: I always agree with the Prime Minister. The member's characterisation of why the Government is pursuing its clean car package policy is not correct and I do not agree with it.
Simeon Brown: Does he agree with the Motor Industry Association chief executive, who said, "plug-in hybrid utes might become more widely available by 2025 and full battery electric utes after that.", and, if so, why is he penalising farmers and tradies with a ute tax when they currently have no electric alternative?
Hon MICHAEL WOOD: I agree with the Motor Industry Association, along with the vehicle importers association, along with the Automobile Association (AA)—all of whom support the Government's clean car discount scheme. I'm also very pleased to confirm to the member and the House that the first vehicle importer into New Zealand to offer an electric ute—LDV—has started taking orders on those vehicles in recent weeks, and the industry assures me that they continue to work very hard to improve the supply coming into New Zealand over the next 12 to 24 months.
Simeon Brown: So how many fully electric utes will be available in New Zealand this Friday?
Hon MICHAEL WOOD: As I've just explained to the member, LDV, the first importer who has confirmed they will be bringing electric utes into New Zealand, is starting to take orders on them, which are expected to come in later on in the year. But what the member also needs to know is that the vast majority of utes which are bought and sold in the New Zealand market place, are bought and sold on the second-hand market, which is unaffected by the clean car discount scheme.




Question No. 10—Immigration
10. RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) to the Minister of Immigration: Does he agree that disabled migrants are discriminated against by the acceptable standard of health criteria in immigration policy; if so, will he commit to an immigration system that upholds the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities?
Hon DAVID PARKER (Attorney-General) on behalf of the Minister of Immigration: On behalf of the Minister of Immigration, this Government supports inclusive policies for migrants with disabilities. This does need to be balanced with ensuring that people who apply to move here will not place significant demands on our health system, which has a finite capacity to provide for the universal healthcare needs of New Zealanders. That is why we have a threshold test. Partners and dependent children of New Zealand citizens and residents, and refugees, will ordinarily be granted a waiver of that threshold, even if it's not met. A balance is appropriate. The Government is reviewing whether the current threshold is appropriate but is not proposing to remove all thresholds.
Ricardo Menéndez March: Does he think it's inclusive to send Ruby, a four-year-old girl who was born here, back to Ireland due to her TBCK diagnosis, and reflective of the value of care and inclusivity that this Government claims to uphold?
SPEAKER: Order! Can I just check whether the member has the agreement of the family to bring that person up in the House? I'm not going to rule the question out, but members normally do, when they're bringing up a very specific individual immigration case like that, make it clear that they're doing it with the permission of the people involved.
Ricardo Menéndez March: Yes. 
Hon DAVID PARKER: There will always be difficult cases where individuals do not meet immigration requirements, and there is a waiver system to ensure that discretion remains, but that does not mean that the discretion will always be exercised in favour of waiver of rules.
Ricardo Menéndez March: Why is he applying the discriminatory acceptable standard of health policy to convention and community sponsorship refugees, and does he think this is a humanitarian approach to refugee resettlement?
Hon DAVID PARKER: Answering as I am on behalf of the Minister, I'm not briefed on that particular issue, so if the member would like to either ask that when the Minister is in the House or put down a written question, I'm sure that could be addressed.
Ricardo Menéndez March: Will he commit to working with disabled people and the Office for Disability Issues to review the acceptable standard of health policy, and if not, why not?
Hon DAVID PARKER: As I said in answer to an earlier question, the threshold is being reviewed, but it's not proposed to drop it.
Ricardo Menéndez March: Why is he only choosing to review the $41,000 acceptable standard of health cost threshold, given that recommendations from the disability convention's Independent Monitoring Mechanism, migrants personally impacted, the Office for Disability Issues, and the Education and Workforce Committee all point to the need to either remove this policy or carry out a much wider review?
Hon DAVID PARKER: Because we do not believe it is either necessary or appropriate.




Question No. 11—Commerce and Consumer Affairs
11. NAISI CHEN (Labour) to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: What recent announcements has he made regarding updates to responsible lending rules?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): The Government is making amendments to responsible lending rules to curb any unintended consequences that might be caused by the Credit Contract and Consumer Finance Act (CCCFA) legislation. The amendments we're making are informed by the feedback I've received from banks, from other lenders, from consumers, and from budget advisers, and they sit comfortably within the intent of the Act. During my meetings with banks in particular, I've detected little enthusiasm for wholesale changes to the Act but instead a preference for practical amendments which ensure the purposes of the legislation are best met.
Naisi Chen: What does this mean for the review being run by the Council of Financial Regulators?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: That broader investigation is ongoing. Thus far, the investigation has thrown up no reason to believe the CCCFA is the main driver in reduced lending. The Reserve Bank's December figures highlight seasonal variations as a prominent contributor. Furthermore, in December 2021, first-home buyer lending was still above lending for the same month in 2017, 2018, and 2019—and well above first-home buyer lending prior to that. It's important to note that the practical changes we're making are not the final word, and further amendments will be considered after the full investigation wraps up in April.
Naisi Chen: What reaction has he seen, following the announcement?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: John Bolton, the chief executive of lender Squirrel, remarked that these were appropriate changes that didn't throw out the baby with the bath water. He went on to say that it was a "good outcome". Kiwibank CEO Steve Jurkovich praised the changes as quick action which would make a significant difference for consumers. In the last 24 hours, we've heard from Harcourts managing director Bryan Thomson, who told media that the amendments were "heartening news for first-home buyers and others trying to make home-buying decisions from across the board".




Question No. 12—Police
12. Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa) to the Minister of Police: Does she stand by her statement "the reality is that this Government has never been more active in targeting the gangs and criminal leaders and getting them off the streets"; if so, how does she reconcile that statement with the over 40 percent increase in gang membership since October 2017?
Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister of Police): I thank the member for his question—the same question he asked me yesterday. In answer to the first part of the member's question, yes. This Government is committed to combating the harm caused by gangs and organised crime through a variety of measures which I outlined yesterday. In answer to the member's second question, the member is referring to the national gang list—an intelligence tool designed to give police a high level understanding of the gang environment. It was never designed to be an accurate statistical count of gang membership in New Zealand. This Government will continue to support police in their work to disrupt organised crime and gang membership.
Hon Mark Mitchell: Why did the Minister not establish a well-resourced, dedicated national gang task force when the Labour Government was called on by National three years ago to do so; and does she think that it might have helped prevent the over 40 percent rise in gang membership and the 21 percent increase in violent crime?
Hon POTO WILLIAMS: I stand by the record investment that this Government has made into increasing police numbers: 1,800, to be exact, 700 of which will be targeted towards organised crime. If that is not a specific group to deal with organised crime, I am not sure what is. We've already recruited 300 and we are well on our way to having the dedicated 700 members of that organised crime group by June next year.
Hon Mark Mitchell: Has gang violence increased or decreased under her watch?
Hon POTO WILLIAMS: There is no doubt that violence and gang tensions are a feature of our community and we have to do everything we can to ensure that we deal with that, and we do that by ensuring the police have the resources that they need—a record $450 million increase into their budget. I might remind that member that under their Government they froze police funding, which meant there was a drop in police numbers. We are committed to 1,800 further police and we are committed to also further legislative support to ensure that our police can keep our communities as safe as possible.
Hon Mark Mitchell: Point of order.
SPEAKER: I think I can anticipate it, but have a go.
Hon Mark Mitchell: Can I ask the question again, Mr Speaker?
SPEAKER: Yes.
Hon Mark Mitchell: Thank you. Has gang violence increased or decreased under her watch?
Hon POTO WILLIAMS: I reject the premise of that question, because in order to keep our communities safe, we must ensure that our police are resourced to do so. Now, I'd like to remind that member yet again—yet again—that, under National, police numbers dropped because they froze funding. You cannot do more with less, Mr Mitchell. You must make sure your police are resourced to do the job that is in front of them, and that's what we are doing.
Hon Mark Mitchell: What exactly is the premise that the Minister is rejecting?
Hon POTO WILLIAMS: I reject the premise that gang tensions have increased under this Government's watch, because we have Operation Tauwhiro, which resulted in a thousand arrests; every week, the organised crime groups are seizing millions of dollars' worth of cash and assets; they're making dozens and dozens of arrests. We are supporting the police to do a significant job. Can I remind that member he used to be a police officer and he spends every day in this House disrespecting and diminishing the work of New Zealand police, and I stand by the police every single day against your record.





GENERAL DEBATE
NICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. 
So much for working hard to get ahead. Under this Labour Government, New Zealanders are working hard just to stand still, because they are facing a cost of living crisis: the highest inflation in 30 years; sky-rocketing costs—literally "moon-bound", in the words of ANZ; prices for everything are going up; and those prices are in a race with wages and they're running laps around wage growth. It's there at the supermarket: it's the price of cabbage; it's the price of cheese; it's the price of eggs. It's rents—up $50 a week in the last year alone. That's a record rental increase in our country. It's childcare costs. It's rates. It's everywhere New Zealanders look, and it's going to get worse. ASB predict in the next year the average household will spend an additional $150 each week just to stand still. They will face diminishing living standards on this Government's watch.
So where is the Minister of Finance? Where is he on all of this? Well, he says, "Let's blame Ukraine."; never mind that last year, in the year ending December, inflation in New Zealand was at a record high already—5.9 percent—before Putin was anywhere near invading Ukraine. Far higher than in Australia—only 3.5 percent—far higher than Singapore and just about every other developed country we compare ourselves to. But the Minister of Finance, he says it's all about Ukraine. Never mind that, when the punch-bowl was out and the money was being borrowed, he was happy to take the credit for the economy, wasn't he? "Oh I've done such a good job." But now it's nothing to do with him!
So what's he going to do next? Well, he's got a plan to do the record biggest spend up in New Zealand's history. He thinks this is the time to have an operating allowance of $6 billion in the Budget. Will there be a dollar back to hard-working New Zealanders? Will there be a dollar back to those taxpayers who aren't eligible for a benefit, who aren't eligible for Working for Families? No, no, because Grant Robertson says he can afford to spend $6 billion on his pet projects but he can't afford to give tax relief to hard-working New Zealanders.
What we're expected to believe is that that's because he's going to use every dollar as carefully as possible. What we're expected to do is judge him by the amount of money he is spending, not by what it delivers. This is the same Minister of Finance who presided over a $1.9 billion boost for mental health that delivered not an extra specialist service, that was poorly coordinated, that didn't deliver outcomes. But, yet, he says, "Trust me; just give me $6 billion more. I'll do better next time." This is the Minister who put billions into housing—and what do we have? The longest waiting list in history. We have thousands of children living in motels. But don't worry; the officials at head office found $24 million to do up their digs! And don't worry; Kāinga Ora has enough money to bid against first-home buyers, to buy up State houses!
We're expected to believe that this Minister will deliver, when his Prime Minister said that her reason for being in politics was to reduce child poverty. Today, as I stand here—today, as I stand here—there are more children growing up in benefit-dependent households than when that Minister came to office, and that is a disgrace.
So that Minister may think that he can pull the wool over New Zealanders' eyes, but they get it. They know that what is needed for the economy is a Government that knows how to get bang for buck; a Government that will use their money as carefully as they have to; a Government that knows, when you add cost, someone has to pay; a Government that will have the back of those who work hard—of the entrepreneurs, of the innovators, of the people who, right now, I'm worried about. Because they are looking over the ditch and they're saying, "You know, over there, I'll earn more, it'll cost less, and I'll probably get a tax reduction too."
And here they are today, and I've got a message for them. I say to them: we know the management of this country is suboptimal right now. But there is a new Government coming. A National Government will get it. We get that your money needs to be spent carefully, that the economy needs to be managed carefully, that we should judge a Government by its results, not just by its rhetoric. So hang on; National's on its way.





Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Prime Minister): It's a pleasure to follow the member Nicola Willis, funnily enough, just as we did this morning on our way out to the Transmission Gully opening, where the member sped through, at Grays Road, the amber and red light on her way there. It's the perils of driving in a branded car. Perhaps the member might have considered the option that she took when she became the deputy leader of parking her branded car in the basement, going out somewhere, and coming back in a black Mercedes, because that's what the member did when she became the deputy leader. That shows you just how out of touch this National Party is.
There was a much better example and, sadly, a much more tragic example of that when Christopher Luxon spoke on Newstalk ZB just last week, and this is what he said: "we don't just do bottom feeding and just focus on the bottom. We focus on people who want to be positive and ambitious and aspirational and confident. Right?" Well, on this side of the House, the notion that if you perhaps are struggling or if you are perhaps growing up in a household where there aren't people in work or that there are people who are sick, you are somehow a bottom feeder or that you are somehow a person who lacks aspiration, who lacks positivity, and who lacks confidence is a disgraceful notion.
But what it tells you is that the National Party of today, under Christopher Luxon and Nicola Willis, is exactly the same as the National Party of old. Be it Christopher Luxon calling people in New Zealand bottom feeders or be it a tax policy that delivers thousands of dollars to the highest-paid New Zealanders and two bucks a week to the lowest-paid New Zealanders, it's the same old National Party: favouring those who are the best off and ignoring those who are the worst off. I think Christopher Luxon needs to reflect for a minute, because he tried to explain this away and justify it. But let's be absolutely clear: he doesn't think that people in New Zealand who are in receipt of income support or who are struggling at the moment have aspiration. He doesn't think that they have confidence. He doesn't think they deserve to be positive.
I can recall on the night that Justin Lester was elected as the Mayor of Wellington listening to Justin speak, and Justin has talked about this very openly in public—that his family was one that relied on a benefit when he was growing up. That's a person who went on to start a successful business. That's a person who went on to become the mayor of a major city. That's a person who's now a successful entrepreneur. Here's what Justin said on election night in 2016 for local government: "Tonight proves it doesn't matter where you come from, it doesn't matter how much money you've got in the bank, it doesn't matter if you have two parents or just one. It [just] matters if you work hard and stick to your values [and] achieve great things." On this side of the House, we stand for every New Zealander having that opportunity. We don't run New Zealanders down and say they're bottom feeders just because they might not be able to be in work at the moment, but that side of the House, once again, return to their old roots of making sure that they favour themselves, that they favour their mates, and they leave people behind.
Well, on this side of the House, we simply do not agree with that, and this week, on 1 April, the proof is in the pudding, because this side of the House has said that those on low and middle incomes actually deserve the chance to be able to get ahead. That's why we put in place the largest benefit increase in a generation in last year's Budget, which gets paid out in its final form on Friday, and that is turning around the 1991 benefit cuts—that's turning around Ruth Richardson's legacy of saying that people at the bottom don't deserve the support. That is the National Party of 1991, and, very sadly, it's the National Party of today as well. There is no plan from the National Party to support those on the low and middle incomes, and thank goodness that we have our 1 April changes coming through that also include the lifting of the family tax credit, that also include lifting superannuation and student allowances, and making sure that we help people to deal with the cost of living crisis.
We heard from the IMF this week that they congratulated New Zealanders on the fact that we got through COVID-19 not just with one of the lowest death rates in the world but also with an economy that continues to deliver. Tourists are about to come back on to our shores. More workers are about to come back on to our shores. New Zealanders are confident in the future because they know that they have had a Government that has backed them, and they have backed each other. We on this side of the House are about making sure we lift up every New Zealander, not divide as the National Party would have, and that's why I'm proud of this Government.





KAREN CHHOUR (ACT): I rise today as a Māori woman who is frustrated and saddened by the direction this country is heading. I have watched over the past week as ACT Party leader, David Seymour, has been brave enough to take on a topic that many New Zealanders feel deeply about only to be labelled a racist. Well, I stand here today to say that is wrong and I wholeheartedly support him. ACT says every child born in New Zealand and every legal immigrant has the same rights. Those are the rights of a citizen. Nobody should get extra say because of who their grandparents were and nobody should have to be treated differently because of who they are.
I am not standing here to claim I speak on behalf of all Māori, and I would be so arrogant as to think that this was my place, as others in this House do, but what can I do is speak to this issue from my own life experiences and how it affects me and my family. 
I have recently celebrated 20 years of marriage to my wonderful husband Menglin, who is a Cambodian refugee. His parents and family are some of the bravest and most compassionate people I have met. They have faced atrocities that most of us would never be able to comprehend, and they came here to this country to give their children a better tomorrow, in this country where everyone gets an equal chance, and they succeeded.
From this marriage, I have four amazing children who share both Māori and Cambodian ancestry. Today the Labour Party would have us believe that there are two types of New Zealanders: tangata whenua, who are here by right; and tangata Tiriti, who are lucky to be here. Well, how are my children supposed to identify themselves by this logic? Half of them is here by right and the other half should just be thankful to be here? If the Labour Party and the Māori Party have their way, my children would be labelled Māori by default and their Cambodian heritage would become insignificant. As far as I'm concerned, my children have the same one-in-5-million say as all people born in New Zealand, Cambodian refugees, and many other races who have made New Zealand their home.
The Māori Party's narrow-minded view that we only exist as Māori and Pākehā in New Zealand is damaging and disappointing. When they stand and claim to speak for Māori, I can guarantee you it is not for Māori like me, who dare to have a different view from them. I know what this attitude brings, because I've heard it all before—"You're a whakapapa Māori but you're not kaupapa Māori.", "You're a plastic Māori.", "You're a born-again Māori.", whatever that means—and have even been called a traitor to my race on many occasions, just for daring to be different.
Well, my voice does matter, and my Māori voice does matter, and I refuse to be silenced and shamed, especially by my own people. By ending this obsession with constitutional reform, we can get stuck into the real problems in this country: education, housing, welfare, and crime, which Māori get the worst end of. We would use practical solutions that change real people's lives for the better. Charter schools were just the start of that, and, by the way, Willie Jackson supported disestablishing these. Something else far more important would happen. People who feel alienated would find a place in the Kiwi identity. Māori culture would be taken for what it is—a rich and essential part of New Zealand's tapestry that is no threat but there to be embraced along with every other culture that makes up our country. In the words of Sir Peter Buck, "Beware of separatism. The Māori can do anything the Pākehā can do. But in order to achieve this we must all be New Zealanders first."





Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): This Government has proven in the last two years that the best economic response to the pandemic has been a health response. More than that, in order to secure our recovery, we had to ensure that our health response was the best possible, and we had to do it with a health system that has been run down year after year after year, and midway through the attempts by this Government to rebuild it and build it back up.
I want to acknowledge the incredible work of our health workforce right across the motu. Health workers in our hospitals, in our GP clinics, and in our community clinics—in the full range of facilities that we've got—are all doing a tremendous job to keep New Zealanders safe from the pandemic, and often putting themselves at risk, as well. Keeping themselves safe, keeping patients safe, providing the care, often with short-staffed shifts because there was a staff shortage anyway, and having each other's backs and looking after each other—that's the quality of our health workforce at the moment. But I'm the first to acknowledge, of course, that's not sustainable and we have to make change.
I want to talk a little bit about how we're going to ensure this country's ongoing economic recovery by having a high-quality, high-class, world-class health system—and that's what our reforms are about right now. The reality is, as a country, we have under-invested in health for far too long—or at least not invested in the right things; the stuff that can really make a difference. I'm very pleased to be leading a set of reforms that I know, over time, will start to see that shift in what we spend in hospitals and the very expensive end of health into the front end: the primary care, the places where most people go to get the healthcare that they need. The consultation with the GP or the kaupapa Māori health service or the Pacific health service or the community clinic or the youth one-stop shop clinic that they go to for a bit of healthcare—that's the stuff that stands to make a real difference, and I'm pleased that we are putting in place a system and a set of measures that will see that shift towards that end.
When we have a look and see what's happened to our health system and the consequences of under-investment: buildings being left to run down, buildings literally with sewerage systems that are not working properly any more. I think one of the worst things is, too, in the nine years of the previous National Government, nurses' incomes going backwards in real terms. They talk a big game now about wanting to lift incomes; they didn't give a darn about our hard-working nurses in our hospitals. This is a Government that, in the four years we've been in Government, has not only negotiated pay increases worth, roughly, 20 percent on average to nurses but has recently reached agreement in principle on the first pay equity deal for that part of the workforce, and with more to come with other parts of the health workforce as well. We will have a health system that is better coordinated, that is more coherent, and that will lead transformation of the system; better joined-up care, because that is what we have long needed.
Not only that but a system much more focused on equity, and that's the important role that the Māori Health Authority will play—in the way that we've seen with the vaccination campaign, when we asked Māori to lead, gave them the room and space and the funding to do so; they led and did a terrific job. That was rangatiratanga in action. That's what we need to see more of, and I'm confident that we will. The interim Māori Health Authority and interim Health New Zealand now, with their boards in place, their chief executives in place, and their senior leadership teams now coming into place, working hand in hand together, are about to make a real difference and are making sure that in the future Māori do not miss out any more.
I want to talk a bit about mental health, too, because that's a very important part of our health services. If there is anything that was completely and utterly galling, it is members of the National Party who literally neglected our mental health services for nine years—not only neglected it but the independent monitor of our mental health services, what was then called the Mental Health Commission, they abolished. They abolished, in 2012, the Mental Health Commission that was the independent monitor of our mental health services. No wonder they thought they could get away with neglecting it, but they can't any more. It's interesting now how they claim that they want to work collaboratively on mental health services, but they've run them down—they've never acknowledged it; they've never admitted it.
The contribution that this Government has made—the four- or five-year investment commitment we've made, starting in 2019—we've added, now, 870 new front-line roles to primary mental health care; 870 new roles that were not there two years ago. And we've got more to go, and they're not just in the GP clinics and the community clinics; they're in youth one-stop shops, they're in kaupapa Māori health services, and all over. We will have a health service that will be the envy of the world.





Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and it's so good to see you in the Chair, reflecting the gravitas of the position in such a powerful way! This is an opportunity to have a parliamentary debate on a Wednesday afternoon at a time that many New Zealanders are facing a cost of living crisis that we have in this country. The price of so many everyday items is going up very substantially—fruit and vegetables, rent, housing costs, as well as transport costs—at a time that is putting real pressure on families.
And wages are not keeping up. We heard the headline figures: 6 percent inflation and about a 2.6 percent increase in wages—people going backwards. And what's this Government's response? Well, it's typically to blame Vladimir Putin and the tanks going across Ukraine, when this, of course, has been the situation for the last 18 months and has been driven primarily—primarily—by a Government that is addicted to spending; addicted to spending.
Grant Robertson is the leader in chief, pumping and stimulating the economy with all the borrowed money that they have found through the COVID crisis, and continuing to do it well past the point of the crisis. Even now, as businesses can't get access to workers, there's these two great puzzles going on: you can't get access to workers sufficient to keep your business going, and everywhere we go—and everybody in this place has been walking down streets, going to restaurants or whatever, and has found that there's a little sign outside saying, "We're closed because we haven't been able to get staff." We see those signs everywhere we go.
And yet, at the same time, the number of people on the job seeker benefit continues to increase because this Government has done away with all the effective sanctions in the system to encourage and give people a nudge to get back to work, and, secondly, at the very same time, the Government's still spending hundreds of millions of dollars on make-work schemes, such as Jobs for Nature, where we're actually paying people to do things—nice things to have—for a billion dollars, to take workers out of the workforce and give them to a Government make-work scheme. It is absolutely amazing that the Government still thinks this is a good idea to be funding expensive make-work schemes when employers can't get access to workers.
We also have a Government that's addicted to spending other people's money. Of course, it does that always in the tax sense, but it's also doing that through applying new and additional costs to small businesses that are struggling. The latest example of that is the so-called—misnamed—fair pay agreements that were introduced; the legislation was introduced yesterday. It will force employers and employees across the country to sign up to a mandatory national award in particular industries or for particular occupations—a return to a rigid 1970s-style industrial landscape—at a time when younger people, particularly in New Zealand, but New Zealanders generally, value their freedom and want to be able to have the flexibility and the working arrangements to sit down with their employers and work out what works for them. Instead, this Government's going back to more rigid union-controlled organisations. And what does it do? Ultimately, it adds to the cost structure that New Zealand businesses face, and that makes them less competitive internationally, it makes it harder for them to succeed and compete on international markets, and it also fundamentally adds to the cost of living, alongside all the other increases that have been passed on.
So we have a Minister and a Government that just do not seem to accept that basic principle that, if you add a lot of costs into the structure of the economy, and into businesses, those costs have to be paid by somebody, and it flows through to the cost of everything that we pay for in this country. It is contributing to the cost of living crisis that New Zealanders face every day, and that's why we'll be fighting that over the next few months. The Government probably won't listen. They'll use their massive majority to ram it through, and we'll have to deal with it, with the support of the New Zealand public when we come to power next year to sort these things out.
Briefly, on law and order, we are seeing again and again the strange contrast between a Government that claims that it's doing all sorts of wonderful things to hold the gang members to account and an ever-increasing list of gang members in this country and a sense of lawlessness on the streets of this country—and an increase in violent crime. The only point I would make is that the criminal community gets its message from this Government, and the message is that we'll come up with an excuse for what you do and we'll explain it away and we won't hold you to account. That message is coming through loud and clear, and we need to change that message and ensure that the absolute priority of any Government should be the security of its citizens.





Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Tourism): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Last night, I heard that member, the Hon Paul Goldsmith, speaking, and he argued against the minimum wage. He argued against an increase in workers' holidays. He argued against increases in sick leave. He wants to get rid of Labour Day. He argued against fair pay agreements. I want to know, what does that member have against good, hard-working New Zealanders? Goodness me, really, you can tell he's from Epsom, can't you? The other thing I would say is the Jobs for Nature programme which, again, that member just ran down; what I can tell the House is that programme kept a whole lot of workers and a whole lot of tourist towns well connected to their communities and, without that, they would have moved on. So the Minister of Conservation, the Hon Kiritapu Allan, was partly responsible for that, and I think that was a fantastic initiative that continues to add value to our communities. 
We now have dates; no self-isolation, an innovative activation programme, and we are open for business. I have always acknowledged, since my time as a Minister of Tourism, that a number of tourist operators have done it hard over the last two years. I acknowledge that, but now they can gear up for the Australian school holidays. They can gear up for the sensational ski season, and the direct flight from New York. Finally, we have a CEO of Air New Zealand who is opening up new routes, rather than closing down provincial runs. New Zealand is open for business. 
In fact, on the day that myself, Dame Therese Walsh who's the chair of Air New Zealand, and the CEO, Greg Foran, announced the first direct flight from New York, I received this message from one of New Zealand's legend tourist operators, Dr Gerry McSweeney: "A September 2022 booking came to us today at Wilderness Lodge, Lake Moeraki, West Coast, for a three-day stay for two New Yorkers flying direct to New Zealand, and on the Air New Zealand flight. They booked through an enthusiastic New Zealand / Australia specialist US travel agent. Great that New Zealand is shortly to open. Great work by the Labour Government in keeping us safe, but also allowing international tourism-focused businesses like ours to recommence operations." That tends to be the sentiment I get from the vast majority of tourism businesses. They know that things have been hard; of course they know things have been hard because they've done it tough themselves. But they understand the reasons why we did what we did, what we had to do to keep Kiwis safe—and now we're about to open for business. 
In the last two years, Tourism New Zealand under chief executive René de Monchy and the team have spent a lot of time, effort, and energy building "Brand New Zealand", building up the aspiration, keeping our brand alive in troubled times—all the while urging New Zealanders to "Do Something New, New Zealand". And we did; we got out and we saw the country in a way that we haven't before. In fact, domestic tourism, which actually made up about 60 percent of tourism in a pre-COVID world, increased by over 16 percent. We got out there, and I want to urge New Zealanders to continue to get out there—head up the East Coast, head to Gisborne, head to Napier, head to the Bay. But the other thing I'd like to say is now these tourism businesses can get ready to accept international tourists back. 
Erica Stanford: Not for ski fields. 
Hon STUART NASH: Oh yes, back into the ski fields, I would say to you, Erica Stanford. They will be back in Queenstown in force. In fact, it's interesting to note that Australians, more than any other nationality in the world, travel more to ski, and it's actually easier for Australians living in New South Wales to jump on a plane and fly to Queenstown than it is to travel to their own domestic ski field. So we're expecting a huge number of Australians to ski Queenstown in this current ski season. 
But back to Tourism New Zealand: building aspiration continued to keep "Brand New Zealand" alive. And, as a consequence, we are now viewed as one of the most aspirational tourism brands and destinations in the world. It is now time to turn this aspiration into action. My absolute focus is ensuring our reconnection strategy goes to plan, and letting the whole world know that we are open for business, to ensure that we are as ready as ever to receive international tourists, that our tourism businesses are gearing up. It's why we have a $49 million kick-start plan for the five destinations in the South Island that have done it the hardest in terms of international tourists. 
As I told potential Australian tourists on Australian TV the day we made the announcement we were going to open the borders: apart from on the sports field, we love our Australian cousins; welcome back. 





Matt Doocey: Mr Speaker—
SPEAKER: [Member of the public speaks in the gallery] No, Order! Order! Sorry, I'm just going to address the person in the gallery. Two things: one, you must have a mask on; and, two, you may not use cellphones. [Member of the public speaks in the gallery] I'm going to make it very clear: I am the person who gives exemptions, and I haven't.





MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I want to start by giving the House a challenge, and then at the end of my speech I'd like to come back and see who's got the answer. So we have a health Minister who's trumpeting the success of his new front-line mental health service, and fair enough—it's a good service. The mental health inquiry said quite clearly we need to support the mild to moderate for mental wellbeing and illness issues. But we have a Minister who's trumpeting success when he clearly outlines that he's employed 870 fulltime-equivalents who are delivering 20,000 sessions a month. Someone go away and put that in your computer or your calculator, and I'll come back at the end of my speech and we'll work out how many sessions those workers are delivering a day—870 workers at 20,000 a month.
What we had last week is an absolute damning report into this Government's performance in mental health. We had the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission, the independent watchdog, saying that despite the announcement of $1.9 billion into mental health, there was no improvement materialised. No access has increased. Waiting lists have got worse. Shortages in the workforce have got worse. So you've got to ask the question: where has the money gone? Why is it not making a difference? Why is it harder to access a mental health service today than it was five years ago, when this Government came into office? Where has the money gone?
What's really concerning today—in the Health Committee, when we moved a motion just to ask for a briefing from the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission on this report, it was blocked by the Labour MPs. What do they fear? What do they have to hide?
SPEAKER: Order! Order!
MATT DOOCEY: Why can we not ask the questions about why the authors of that report came to the conclusions that they did?
Let's be clear: this Labour Government initiated an inquiry that led to the recommendation of the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission being established. They've just passed legislation through the House to set up the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission. Yet its first report, they block a briefing of it in the select committee. How does that add up?
Of course, it's important to have this independent report, because the last two reports we had—let's be frank: the first one was from the Ministry of Health, and Official Information Act documents revealed that the bureaucrats were running a risk lens over negative data as to not embarrass the Government around mental health performance. Then we had the absolute failure in mental health facilities. Andrew Little announces an independent review, and it gets kicked off to Grant Robertson's implementation committee. He came out and said, "Nothing to see here. All good progress." Yet out of those 13 mental health facilities announced over three years ago, not one of them has a shovel in the ground. How is that good progress?
The first time we get an independent report produced by the Government's own inquiry recommendation of the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission, and the Labour MPs in the Health Committee block a briefing—a briefing on an independent report. They will have to answer to that. Why are they stopping us asking the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission some questions? In fact, what was interesting—some of the comments were, "Oh well, it's public now, so why do we need to ask a question?"
I know what questions we need to ask. Where is the $1.9 billion announced for mental health? I'll tell you what—out of that report, parents and mental health professionals will feel listened to, because what they saw in that report is what they've been asking the Government and getting no response. As I go round the country: time and time again, mental health groups and services tell me they haven't seen any of the $1.9 billion for mental health. They can't point to where it's gone. This Government needs to front up and answer the questions of why they've failed in mental health.





Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Minister of Customs): E te Māngai, tēnā koe, otirā ngā mema katoa o te Whare nei, tēnā tātou katoa. As is customary in debates acknowledging those that have recently passed, can I go on record in acknowledging the recent passing of Sir Wira Gardiner and, of course, recently losing Dame June Jackson—and all throughout the country who have lost their ones at this particular time. I want to acknowledge and give my sincere condolences to the Gardiner, the Parata, the Batley, and of course the Jackson whānau at this very incredibly sad time.
It's also for me to acknowledge yesterday's announcement from our tuahine, our sister, Louisa Wall after 14 years in this House. I want to go on record to say thank you very much, Louisa; the country is a better place for your contribution in this House.
What COVID has taught us in the last two years is working together helps all. Working together works well. Collective responsibilities benefit all—benefit all. So I was annoyed—not annoyed; I was upset to hear of a member in this House that talked about the rights of the individual and whakapapa doesn't matter. That's what we heard. That's what we heard from Karen Chhour of the ACT Party—that whakapapa doesn't matter, that constitutional arrangements shouldn't be the responsibility of any Government, and that we should just get on with housing and health.
Well, that's exactly what this side of the House is doing. We're getting on with housing, we're getting on with health, the Māori Health Authority, the enormous investment that was given to Māori hauora providers throughout the country: in the last two years, $140 million specifically targeted for Māori. And what do Māori hauoras and iwi and service providers—what have they done in the last two years? They've looked after all. They have looked after all. There has been no turning away of anybody, no matter what their ethnicity was. They delivered and they awhi'd and they manaaki'd all from within their community. So it's a bit rich that I have a member in this House saying that it's time that we leave that to be, that we all just should be equal people. 
You know, I want to talk about COVID's contribution to the make-up of this country that we should never, ever forget, and that is that collective responsibly, but also to acknowledge the strong iwi Māori leadership that we saw up and down the motu who responded to the need of our most vulnerable, who put their lives at risk, and everybody in their whānau and organisation who stepped forward and took up the challenge to look after their own and everybody in their community. Not anybody was turned around.
So, I'm standing on this side to recognise the importance of our Treaty partner and I haven't even gone down that route because what I wanted to share in this House is the importance of when we work together, when we trust each other, and—to be honest—when we trust Māori iwi. Iwi Māori, they know the community like no one's business and they will deliver and they have delivered and will continue to deliver as we come through this pandemic, as we come through Omicron, and then we start rebuilding our lives because it is in the housing and it is in the health and it is in the education, and it is in telling our stories that I'm proud about this side of the House—telling our stories of what happened, telling and sharing the stories of what happened in our communities so that we were informed, in our schools.
I want to talk about celebrating the Matariki bill that we have introduced in this House to again go to the developing of our national identity where Māori are at the centre of it. There is nothing to be afraid of here, people—absolutely nothing to be afraid of. There are only good lessons and learnings and there's everything along the way that iwi Māori have contributed to this country, and that is why I'm standing in support of this side and the mahi that we continue to do. It's not over. We've all acknowledged that we have gaps and there is much more for us to do on this side of the House. But I can totally say with hand on heart that we made a great start.
But we need to do more and this side will do more around engaging with iwi, hapū, and the partnerships around housing, particularly in Rotorua—a one-stop shop. I'm very proud of that. I'm talking about the Māori Health Authority, which will turn around some uneven health outcomes for our people, and that is what this Government's done. And this is why I'm proud to belong to this Government and this side of the House, who have put their words into action and are delivering and are making a benefit for us as Māori indigenous and as Treaty partners. But what I'm mostly proud of is the ability to deliver for all.
SPEAKER: Order! Before I call a member I am going to—there's a person in the public gallery with no mask on. Thank you.





RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. I'd like to begin by paying tribute to the many communities holding us together with radical love and care. The communities who have been doing the mahi because successive Governments have left them behind. I'm talking about the volunteers at the front lines checking up on their neighbours to make sure that they're holding up OK when they've got COVID, and people delivering food parcels because they know that people around them simply do not have enough to make ends meet. 
The right side of my House keeps talking about how the cost of living crisis is a new thing, but people have told us for many years that we've been living in an inequality crisis. So it's a bit rich to suddenly talk about inflation, to talk about communities struggling, as if it was something new. Since before this Government came into power, families were already doing it tough. Children were living in motels, and the number of hardship grants were growing. This is because Governments had accepted that people should get by without livable incomes. And in the words of Brooke Stanley Pao, "Livable incomes are people's birth rights." 
I want to question my colleagues: how much are we willing to accept? Are we willing to accept children going without? Are we going to accept people being put through dehumanising processes at Work and Income, having to justify every purchase to get the help that they need to survive? Are we going to recognise the toxic stress that families are experiencing, as a result of this hardship, that leads to ill health? Because when I hear the National Party talking about "bottom feeders", I hear them talking about dehumanising the communities that they themselves have been complicit in putting them through hardship. They were the ones who introduced those punitive sanctions that we are just starting to roll back. 
While I commend the Labour Government for starting to do some of that work, it is clear so much more needs to be done, and we shouldn't just sit with excuses, that, for example, in April we're going to see the biggest increase to benefit. Because in the context of just how low incomes are, we need to do far more. We need to do more than just pat ourselves on the back and say that we've done more than the previous Government, because the bar is deeply low. What I want to see is an Aotearoa where people are not put in debt because they were seeking help from Work and Income; an Aotearoa that says that we're going to give you unconditional support no matter who you are, where we're not going to question the difficult decisions that people have had to make in order to provide for their communities. 
The people that the National Party want to demonise are also the caregivers, disabled people, and actually some of the migrant communities who have been without a safety net. As we talk about going back to normal, are we going to normal as in people continuing to struggle, in a system where many workers continue without income support when they lose their job? Or, when we say return to normal, are we looking forward to an aspirational future where everybody has livable incomes?
Just this week, we saw amazing research by Fair Futures, who were calling for far more substantive benefit increases than what we're going to see on 1 April. They recognise that some families need an additional $300 a week to simply participate in their communities. And if we do not do this, what we are accepting, again, is that people deserve to have that toxic stress that many communities have been talking about.
It's almost is as if in every electoral cycle, people have to explain to politicians the hardship that exists in their communities. How many more people on the benefit will have to go on the news to explain that they do not have enough; t go to the breakfast shows to talk about their lived realities? How many more lived experiences and time are we expecting from people on the benefit, so that Government finally commits to livable incomes? 
We're calling for Labour to scrap all benefit sanctions, to lift benefit levels to allow people to thrive, and to provide a high-trust model at Work and Income. That is the absolute bare minimum we should be expecting from Government, and it is the bare minimum that the many communities that we're supposed to serve have been calling on for years. It's time to truly commit to the transformative change that many politicians talk about. Kia ora. 





GREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): Thank you, Mr Speaker. This morning, I was very privileged to be at the official opening of Transmission Gully, and for those of us who were there, for those of us who got to drive on the road, it was something to behold. In an ocean of criticism, an ocean of bad news, I think it's important as New Zealanders to look and see that we do do a lot of good in this country.
Now, I know there's a lot of New Zealanders listening to this general debate because if they don't really watch much other Parliament, it's a time they feel that many issues are being covered. Listening to the debate, each side goes into their polar corner and argues that corner, and it can leave those watching a little confused. But I'd just like to assure those that are watching that New Zealand's actually in pretty good shape and that we're actually in a lot better shape than you would think, listening to this debate.
What I really am looking forward to is New Zealanders now travelling again—we have become a little insular by necessity. And what that means is that we sometimes, as New Zealanders, travel and as we arrive back, as we get off that plane, in Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch or Queenstown, as we've heard from before, we think: actually, this is a pretty good country. Because what we do is we actually have something to relate it to. And what New Zealanders will now do—as someone who has just been to Sydney and rang me this week said, "Oh, actually, from what we had heard, Sydney was thriving; it's one big party. Actually, Sydney is much quieter. There's much more downtown carnage in commercial activity than there is in New Zealand." I suspect that's going to be the case as New Zealanders go around the world. We're going to actually come back, get off that plane and say, "Actually, we did it pretty well."
I'll just look to, in this House, something that happened here that involved us all relatively recently, which was out the front where we had an invasion, where we had the streets around Parliament, including Parliament grounds, taken over. It was an affront to democracy, and the world did watch as our police came here, the same police that have been rubbished today—unfortunately, for political gain. But when our police were asked to stand up, as much of our Public Service have, they stood up. That operation, for anyone that understands the need to have a well-disciplined, well-commanded group of men and women in order to achieve what was achieved out the front here today—they will actually understand just what was achieved. In fact, it's not just been recognised by New Zealanders; there has been overseas recognition of how well done that operation was compared to what is being done in many other capitals.
One thing that was reflected on by those watching was the fact that the people out the front here—we had a really good mixture of races in our police, we had a really good mixture of cultures, we had a good mixture of genders out there, and that became very obvious. That has been reflected in a lot of the commentary that has been received from those overseas who watched it. That's apart from how well planned it was. And without just reflecting on the police—and I think New Zealanders who are watching, who are looking to see how we do things, we do do things pretty well here. We only have to look at what transpired during our COVID response—an excellent response.
Also, yes, we have to acknowledge that things have got tougher for a lot of New Zealanders. Again, we now look at what is happening overseas that has brought that about. The supply issues were a major problem. Our select committee had our shipping companies in, we had our local ports in, and all of them were looking at what's happening around the world that is impacting on prices and supply issues here. Supply and demand; it's quite simple. We've had, obviously, the fuel issues, the fuel price issues—all these things that anyone who will take time to simply look at an overseas paper, look at an overseas website, will see these are issues that are happening everywhere. It's the response that's important, and it's the response that New Zealanders can look at now: that we do do it well. And you'll see, particularly this weekend, when we're going to see something in New Zealand that we do well—we trickle up. We're going to give more income to those who need it, who will actually spend it, and the result will be better businesses in New Zealand. So for those watching, have faith in New Zealand. Thank you, Mr Speaker.





SPEAKER: Before I call Jo Luxton, who is participating remotely, I'm going to indicate to people in the gallery that this is the first week back, or the second day we've allowed people to be in the gallery, and, as part of our kawa, masks are to be worn and they're to be worn not as chin straps. Thank you very much.





JO LUXTON (Labour—Rangitata) (remote): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It's a pleasure to take a call in the general debate. Can I firstly say that I am extremely grateful that we've had a stable and united Government that has led us through some of the most difficult times in the last few years that New Zealand has actually ever experienced. As the Hon Andrew Little mentioned today, the best economic response has been the health response that this Government has taken.
I take issue with some of the comments that the Hon Paul Goldsmith made with regard to the Government's "addiction" to spending, and he referred also to the amount of money that has been borrowed. I would say to Mr Goldsmith that that money that has been borrowed, that has been spent, has allowed businesses to continue to operate during this global pandemic. That is not to diminish that many businesses have done it extremely hard. That is happening without a doubt, and some have also even closed up. However, that money that has been provided to business has allowed some to continue operating. It has allowed them to continue to employ New Zealanders, to keep New Zealanders in jobs during what has been an awful time globally and nationally.
He also referred to the Jobs for Nature scheme—about how it was taking people that were workers away from jobs where there were job shortages into this Jobs for Nature - type programme. I also take issue with that, Mr Goldsmith. I met two young, intelligent, outstanding women at the beginning of this week who were employed by the Jobs for Nature programme. One had been an outdoor guide whose job had been affected by, obviously, tourism and the fact that tourism was no longer happening so much in this country. She is absolutely loving and thriving in this role in the Jobs for Nature programme.
I also spoke to a gentleman who oversees some of these young people coming into this work, and he talked about the benefits, the increase in confidence that he was seeing in these young people, who may have been unemployed for many years: the confidence that he was seeing come through this type of work; the improvement in their mental health. So I think it is wrong to diminish the Jobs for Nature programme in any way, shape, or form. I would encourage Mr Goldsmith to actually get out of there, get out of the area that he lives in, and talk to some of those people that are undertaking that work. I commend our Minister Kiritapu Allan for the work that she has undertaken in that area.
But I would like to move on to some of the things that this Government has continued to do throughout the pandemic. It has continued to focus on things like housing, child poverty, improving health outcomes, and climate change. Yes, there is more work to do in that respect, and we are going to see some huge improvements as we move through the rest of this year, starting on 1 April. We are going to see one of the biggest increases in our main benefits here in New Zealand. We're going to see an increase in our superannuation payments, student allowance payments, and other such things—a huge increase in the minimum wage.
We have members opposite disagreeing with the increase in the minimum wage, saying it's going to hurt businesses. Yes, there will be a cost to businesses. However, those people, we know that when they have an increase in their wage, they spend it locally, and they spend it locally at a time when our businesses are screaming out for customers to come in and purchase from them and spend with them locally.
We have an Opposition who is simply like a stuck record, reverting back to tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts. It's like they are stuck in a time warp and cannot think of anything better to improve the lives of New Zealanders other than tax cuts, which will actually only benefit those that are higher income earners—unlike this Government, who wants to see everyone benefit, particularly those who may be doing it a little bit harder than others at this time. They are the ones that need our support the most and they are the ones that will see some real benefit from 1 April. We are going to be opening our borders very soon, and the whole country will be seeing the benefit of that tourism right across New Zealand.
It's been a tough couple of years. This Government has a plan and they are putting it in place and continuing on as they intend to.





BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Fa'afetai tele lava, Mr Speaker. As a Samoan woman and a member of this House, I wanted to take the opportunity today to pay tribute to Ngāti Toa Rangatira, the iwi that are tangata whenua in my electorate of Mana.
According to their Treaty settlement Act, "By 1840 Ngati Toa … had established a powerful position in the Cook Strait region with settlements in the lower North Island and upper South Island … Several Ngati Toa Rangatira chiefs, including Te Rauparaha and Te Rangihaeata, signed the Treaty of Waitangi. … In 1839, Ngati Toa Rangatira signed the Kapiti deed with the New Zealand Company for approximately 20 million acres between Taranaki and north Canterbury. The oral translation of the English deed [like the Treaty] did not accurately convey its meaning and effect." This led to the opposition of the New Zealand Company surveys in Wairau. "In 1843, an attempt by an armed party of Nelson settlers to arrest Te Rauparaha and Te Rangihaeata resulted in a violent clash and the deaths of twenty-two Europeans and up to nine Maori."
Most know of this battle as the Wairau Affray. "During 1845, Te Rangihaeata and his section of Ngati Toa Rangatira supported the claims of their allies living on disputed land north of Rotokakahi in the Hutt Valley. These tensions led to several violent incidents between Maori, settlers, and Crown troops [including in Battle Hill, which is in Pāuatahanui in Mana]. The Crown subsequently took political and military action against Te Rauparaha and Te Rangihaeata in order to establish its authority and reduce the power and influence of the senior Ngati Toa Rangatira chiefs. In July 1846 the Crown seized Te Rauparaha and several other Ngati Toa Rangatira chiefs at Porirua. The Crown detained Te Rauparaha without trial for 18 months. Crown forces pursued Te Rangihaeata who withdrew into [the] Horowhenua. … By 1926 most of the Ngati Toa Rangatira reserves at Porirua had been alienated."
At the time of their Treaty settlement, in 2014, Ngāti Toa Rangatira were virtually landless. The summary of these events are from the agreed "Summary of historical account" in the Ngati Toa Rangatira Claims Settlement Act 2014.
Fast forward now to 2022. In less than 10 years, Toa Rangatira, through housing, through the Te Āhuru Mōwai community housing arm, manage over 900 social houses and have acquired the final stages of Kenepuru Landing, Porirua's newest suburb.
In health, Ora Toa are one of the few primary health organisations in this region. They are the lead for the COVID response—that is vaccinations, testing, and community care in the Porirua area. Together with Te Ātiawa and Raukawa, they are part of the joint-governance group which will help lead the region in health initiatives as part of the new Māori Health Authority.
In education, Toa lead the Mana in Mahi programme for our region and lead The 502 Rangatahi youth hub out of Whitireia Polytechnic.
In infrastructure, just this morning, Ngāti Toa Rangatira gifted the name Te Ara Nui o Te Rangihaeata, meaning "The Great Pathway of Te Rangihaeata", their ancestor who was fierce in the battle in the area we have come to know as Transmission Gully. Today, I observed current and past chairs and CEOs of Ngāti Toa Rangatira—Tā Matiu Rei, Dr Taku Parai, Callum Katene, and Helmut Modlik—and nannies and aunties of the Māori Women's Welfare League stand side by side with representatives of the Crown—our Prime Minister, our Deputy Prime Minister, and our Minister of Transport—to open a 27-kilometre highway that runs the stretch of the Mana electorate from Paekākāriki in the north to Linden in the south. This road represents the largest Government investment in New Zealand's infrastructure in a generation. We have invested a record $24.3 billion into transport initiatives—that is 74 percent more than the previous Government. 
So what does Te Ara Nui o Te Rangihaeata, Te Āhuru Mōwai, Ora Toa, and Mana in Mahi have in common? It is partnership. Unlike the members of the ACT Party, who are too scared to see a modern and sophisticated constitutional framework, Ngāti Toa are an example of what only eight years post their Treaty settlement can achieve. Ngāti Toa CEO Helmut Modlik once said to me that Ngāti Toa know what their obligations are to tangata manuhiri, like myself, a Samoan woman who lives in Porirua. The member of ACT who spoke today said that the Government should focus on health, education, and welfare, rather than constitutional frameworks. Like the Hon member Meka Whaitiri said today, "We are.", and so is Ngāti Toa and iwi alike throughout the country, in housing, education, and infrastructure. I absolutely thank the strong iwi leadership throughout the country. Together we work better. Collective responsibility helps all.
The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.
SPEAKER: I don't recognise the people standing up there as being diplomatic protection people, and if they're not, they're going to have to find themselves some seats. There are quite a few other seats around. They look the right shape, but are not wearing the right clothes.





APPROPRIATION (2020/21 CONFIRMATION AND VALIDATION) BILL
Second Reading
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister for Trade and Export Growth) on behalf of the Minister of Finance: I move, That the Appropriation (2020/21 Confirmation and Validation) Bill be now read a second time. 
A party vote was called for on the question, That the motion be agreed to.
Ayes 75
New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.
Noes 43
New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time.





APPOINTMENTS
Chief Electoral Officer
Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Conservation) on behalf of the Minister of Justice: I move, That, pursuant to section 4D(1)(a) of the Electoral Act 1993 and section 32 of the Crown Entities Act 2004, this House recommend Her Excellency the Governor-General appoint Karl Mervyn Le Quesne as Chief Electoral Officer for a term of five years.
The Electoral Commission is responsible for maintaining the electoral rolls, administering parliamentary elections, and—
SPEAKER: Order! There's no debate.
Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: Well, that makes my job very much easier.
SPEAKER: It does make the job a lot easier, and I think we'll probably say that the member's sheet and mine probably have different references to it. The question is that motion be agreed to.
Motion agreed to.





TE ROHE O RONGOKAKO JOINT REDRESS BILL
First Reading
Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I present a legislative statement on the Te Rohe o Rongokako Joint Redress Bill.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): 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 Te Rohe o Rongokako Joint Redress Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Māori Affairs Committee to consider Te Rohe o Rongokako Joint Redress Bill.
Tākiri mai ana te ata, ki runga o ngākau mārohirohi. Korihi ana te manu kaupapa, ka ao, ka ao, ka awatea. Tihei mauriora.
E mihi ana ki a koutou kua tae mai nei runga i te karanga o te kaupapa o te rā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. E mihi ana ki te hunga mate, haere, haere, haere atu rā. Ki a tātou te hunga ora, tēnā tātou. Tēnei au, otirā mātou te Kāwanatanga e mihi nei ki te kaupapa o te wā, Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki-nui-a-Rua, Rangitāne o Wairarapa, Rangitāne o Tāmaki-nui-a-Rua, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.
[Dawn breaks, a new morning and a dauntless heart. The voice of this issue now sings, a new dawn leads to the full light of day. I now begin.
Greetings to you all who have responded to the call of this issue to be here today. I acknowledge those who have passed. May you rest in peace. And to us who remain, welcome one and all. I stand here, we the Government stands here acknowledging the issue of the time. Therefore, to Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa, o Tāmaki-nui-a-Rua, Rangitāne of Wairarapa, Rangitāne of Tāmaki-nui-a Rua, greetings to you all, greetings, greetings, one and all.]
I'm pleased to be able to speak today at the first reading of Te Rohe o Rongokako Joint Redress Bill. This has been a long journey for these iwi, and we were reminded at the powhiri today, it's a journey that started in 1990, so we are 32 years on.
First, I wanted to thank members of Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua, Rangitāne o Wairarapa, and Rangitāne o Tamaki nui-ā-Rua. I want to acknowledge those representatives who've been able to travel to Parliament today to watch this reading, and, of course, those who are watching remotely. I sincerely appreciate the work, commitment, and tenacity of Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua, Rangitāne o Wairarapa, and Rangitāne o Tamaki nui-ā-Rua which has brought us together on this important day. I particularly want to acknowledge those who are no longer with us who carried this important work. Today, they are in our thoughts and are with us in spirit.
I'd like to start by thanking iwi negotiations teams, including for Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua, Ron Mark, Ian Perry, Robin Potangaroa, Hayden Hape, Haami Te Whaiti, and Marama Tuuta. For Rangitāne o Wairarapa and Rangitāne o Tamaki nui-ā-Rua, John Sproat, Jason Kerehi, Mavis Mullins, Tipene Chrisp, and Richard Jones. Their commitment to finding a shared path to carry these treasures forward for future generations is commendable, and I thank them for their work and dedication. I also want to acknowledge the work and support of the Crown negotiation team, my ministerial colleagues, Government agencies, and local councils who have helped build this package.
Te Rohe o Rongokako Joint Redress Bill gives effect to certain provisions contained in the deeds of settlement signed between Rangitāne o Wairarapa, Rangitāne o Tamaki nui-ā-Rua, and the Crown in August 2016, and between Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua and the Crown in October last year. For generations, Wairarapa moana has been a jewel in the lives of the people of Wairarapa. The annual hinurangi, or flooding, historically provided kaimoana, enabling iwi to trade far outside of the Wairarapa rohe. 
However, in 1853, as the Crown first began purchasing land around Wairarapa moana, disputes arose over the purchases and encroachment of the natural boundaries of the lakes. This resulted in a royal commission of inquiry, and in 1896, the lake was gifted to the Crown by iwi as tuku rangatira—a chiefly gift—with the intention of ending the disputes and to, hopefully, protect the lakes. In return, the Crown was to provide iwi with ample reserves in the vicinity of the lakes. However, this didn't occur, and instead the Crown provided reserves that were several hundred kilometres away, in the King Country. The settlements each provide for Crown apology redress, which details this history, and this bill facilitates the overdue return of the lake to its rightful owners. Throughout the negotiations, the Crown has heard how the devastating effects of land loss have caused Ngāti Kahungunu and Rangitāne intergenerational suffering. It's a testament to both iwi that despite all they have endured, they have continued to engage in negotiations in good faith, and have committed to rebuilding a new partnership with the Crown. 
I'd like to highlight how this bill offers joint redress over Wairarapa Moana, and the Ruamāhanga River catchment, to both Ngāti Kahungunu and Rangitāne, acknowledging the significance of the taonga for both iwi. The Crown-owned part of the bed of Wairarapa Moana will be vested in Rangitāne and Ngāti Kahungunu as undivided, unequal shares as tenants in common. The Wairarapa Moana statutory board will be established to act as a guardian of Wairarapa Moana and the Ruamāhanga River catchment for the benefit of current and future generations. Significantly, half of the board will be composed of iwi members. The other half will comprise members appointed by the Department of Conservation, Wellington Regional Council, and the South Wairarapa District Council—you might say a joint governance process. The Wairarapa statutory board will administer the Wairarapa Moana reserves. A natural resources committee of the board will be established, which will provide advice on sustainable management of natural resources in the Ruamāhanga River catchment. 
The joint redress bill will also vest two other sites jointly in Rangitāne and Ngāti Kahungunu. A property in Mākirikiri to be vested in the name of the tipuna Te Rangiwhakaewa, and a joint management board will be established to administer the reserve. A property in Mataikona will be vested in both iwi as tenants in common, as undivided half-shares. Further key redress for iwi will be an overlay classification that recognises the traditional, cultural, spiritual, and historical relationships of Ngāti Kahungunu and Rangitāne with the Castlepoint Scenic Reserve. The redress offered in this bill to Ngāti Kahungunu and Rangitāne acknowledges the significance of these sites for both iwi and their special connection as kaitiaki of these lands. 
I hope that this joint redress provides the foundation for a new relationship, as we look together to a better future for Ngāti Kahungunu, Rangitāne, and the Crown. I'm hopeful that this bill is an opportunity for all of us to move forward towards a true partnership—one that is based on cooperation, genuine mutual trust and respect for Te Tiriti o Waitangi and its principles, and a vision to stand together and share the future. I look forward to continuing to take this legislation through the House, to provide redress to both iwi. It's my hope that the bill will progress swiftly in the select committee process. I commend this bill to the House. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the motion be agreed to.





JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'm pleased to rise to speak as the member of Parliament for Southland and as National's Treaty negotiations spokesperson on this first reading of Te Rohe o Rongokako Joint Redress Bill. To Ngāti Kahungunu and Rangitāne: ahakoa kei hea koutou poipoiā e tēnei whenua, e tēnei motu o Aotearoa, he mihi tēnei ki a koutou. Wherever the descendants of Ngāti Kahungunu and Rangitāne may be, may they be cared for by this land and this country of Aotearoa New Zealand.
I acknowledge all those who are watching these proceedings, and I extend my warmest greetings to one and all. The National Party supports this bill at first reading, and we look forward to it progressing through to the Māori Affairs Committee, which I am on, and I'm looking forward to hearing the submissions from members of Rangitāne, Ngāti Kahungunu, and the community.
This bill, Te Rohe o Rongokako Joint Redress Bill, will give effect to specific cultural redress shared between Ngāti Kahungunu and Rangitāne and provided for in the respective deeds of settlement. It excludes redress for each of the settlements as provided for in the respective settlement legislation as required. The respective Rangitāne and Ngāti Kahungunu settlement legislation will settle all the historical claims of each group.
Ngāti Kahungunu has a population of approximately 12,000 people and consists of two of the six taiwhenua regions that make up the Ngāti Kahungunu iwi: Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa and Ngāti Kahungunu ki Tāmaki nui-a-Rua. The Ngāti Kahungunu area of interest spans from Cape Turnagain down to Cape Palliser, and encompasses the wider Wairarapa and Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua regions.
Rangitāne is an iwi of approximately 3,000 people. The Rangitāne area of interest spans from Mākaramu, near Porangahau, down to Cape Palliser, and encompasses the wider Wairarapa and Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua regions. I'll just make a personal note here as I was born in Waipukurau, and I spent a small part of my childhood in Porangahau, so I'm quite familiar with the area. Kia ora.
This bill recognises that while Ngāti Kahungunu and Rangitāne are different groups and trace descent from different eponymous ancestors, they are also closely interconnected. Ngāti Kahungunu and Rangitāne share whakapapa and hapū affiliations throughout the Wairarapa and Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua regions. The term "joint redress iwi" is used to refer to Ngāti Kahungunu and Rangitāne in this bill.
Following nine weeks of hearings between March 2004 and March 2005, the Waitangi Tribunal released the Wairarapa ki Tararua report in June 2010 at Te Ore Ore Marae in Masterton. The report covered 28 claims filed by members of Ngāti Kahungunu and Rangitāne hapū, and other claimant groups. The inquiry district covered the south-eastern corner of the North Island inland to the Ruahine and Tararua Ranges and northward to southern Hawke's Bay. The claims investigated by the Waitangi Tribunal concerning Wairarapa ki Tararua covered the Crown's purchase of land, including land around Wairarapa Moana, and the compulsory acquisition of Māori land for public works.
The grievances of Ngāti Kahungunu and Rangitāne included the Crown's acquisition of vast areas of land and its failure to ensure that adequate reserves were protected in their ownership; and the Crown's failure to provide ample reserves near Lake Wairarapa as it had agreed under the tuku rangatira of the lakes; and the Crown's failure to protect the iwi from virtual landlessness and from the erosion of their tribal structures, the social deprivation that resulted from that, and the loss of te reo Māori. Both Ngāti Kahungunu and Rangitāne have gone on to negotiate, conclude, and ratify their respective settlement agreements with the Crown. Joint redress was agreed between the Crown, Ngāti Kahungunu, and Rangitāne as part of their respective negotiations.
Various provisions in this bill provide for shared cultural redress. Cultural redress is intended to recognise the cultural, historical, and traditional association of Rangitāne and Ngāti Kahungunu within the areas of interest. The bill recognises the Rangitāne and Ngāti Kahungunu statements of association with land, describes the underlying values and principles associated with that land, and identifies actions to protect the land. The bill also jointly vests shared properties which are specified in Schedule 3 of the bill. Additionally, the bill provides for the making of regulations, under the Fisheries Act 1996, for management of customary fishing in the Wairarapa Moana and the Ruamāhanga River catchment.
The respective deeds of settlement provide that the Crown, the Ministry for Primary Industries, the Ngāti Kahungunu settlement trust, and the Rangitāne Tū Mai Rā Trust are committed to working collectively to explore the development of customary fisheries regulations for Wairarapa Moana and the Ruamāhanga River catchment.
A unique arrangement in this settlement is the Wairarapa Moana framework. The bill establishes an inclusive governance structure that includes representatives of both iwi, the Ministry of Conservation, the Greater Wellington Regional Council, and the South Wairarapa District Council. This structure, the Wairarapa Moana Statutory Board, will act as a guardian of the Wairarapa Moana and the Ruamāhanga River catchment for the benefit of present and future generations by administering the Wairarapa Moana reserves for the purposes set out in the Reserves Act 1977 and the joint redress legislation, including the protection and enhancement of their cultural, spiritual, and ecological values. It also will be the manager of the Wairarapa Moana marginal strips. It will provide leadership on the sustainable management of the Wairarapa Moana and the Ruamāhanga River catchment, and promote the restoration, protection, and enhancement of the social, economic, cultural, environmental, and spiritual health and wellbeing of Wairarapa Moana and the Ruamāhanga River catchment as they relate to natural resources.
The settlement redress is to be managed for the benefit of all members of Ngāti Kahungunu and Rangitāne, wherever they live. Importantly, the bill also provides that the overlay classification does not affect the lawful rights or interests of a person who is not a party to the deed of settlement.
The title of this bill, Te Rohe o Rongokako Joint Redress Bill, refers to a rohe-wide committee established by iwi in the 19th century under the Maori Council's Act 1900 to address health and welfare issues among their people. This joint redress legislation recognises the enduring bonds that exist between Rangitāne and Ngāti Kahungunu. It is important that a settlement process enhances rather than jeopardises those bonds.
Last year, after Rangitāne Tū Mai Rā Trust board took an urgent application to the Waitangi Tribunal—it was asked to review the Crown's actions in failing to engage with Rangitāne regarding the additional redress of Wairarapa Moana in the Ruamāhanga River, and alleged breaches of its commitments to Rangitāne in its deed of settlement. The Waitangi Tribunal found that the Crown had failed in its Treaty duty of good faith to Rangitāne. It did not continue to negotiate with them about Wairarapa Moana in good faith, as required by clause 7.6 of the Rangitāne deed of settlement, and it breached the principle of whanaungatanga, knowing the nature of the engagement and relationship between the two groups in the past, and the Crown's historical errors putting Rangitāne interests under those of Ngāti Kahungunu. The Crown should have taken active steps to ensure that the relationship between them was not harmed by its approach to shared or joint redress.
In view of these findings, the Waitangi Tribunal recommended the Crown pause the introduction of settlement legislation to take steps to rectify its Treaty breaches around the joint redress concerning Wairarapa Moana and the Ruamāhanga River, help Rangitāne and Ngāti Kahungunu to work together to ensure that the further redress and processes do not jeopardise the relationship, and to do so before any matters that were concluded about redress concerning the Wairarapa Moana and Ruamāhanga River.
I look forward to examining this bill, as I said at the outset of my speech, at the Māori Affairs Committee and hearing from the relevant parties and, importantly, from Ngāti Kahungunu and, I should say, from Rangitāne. I hope that we have an opportunity to visit as well, and we have had, with COVID lately, a lot of appearances where we've had to do it on Zoom, and I certainly hope in this new environment that we can actually come and visit and do it kanohi ki te kanohi.
So with that I recommend this bill to the House at this first reading and I look forward to the progress of it through this House.





Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Minister of Customs): E te Māngai, tēnā koe, e ngā Mema katoa, tēnā tātou katoa. E ngā iwi Ngāti Kahungunu Wairarapa Tāmaki-nui-a-Rua, Rangitāne ki Tāmaki-nui-a-Rua, Rangitāne ki Wairarapa, nau mai, nau mai haramai. Nau mai, haramai ki tō whare, te Whare Mīere o Aotearoa. Nau mai haramai ki te kaupapa whakahirahira. Nau mai haramai i runga i te wairua o te rangi. Tū tonu, tū tonu, tū tonu. Nō reira, ōku rau rangatira mā, e kui mā e koro mā, tēnei koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.
[To the tribes, Ngāti Kahungunu Wairarapa Tāmaki-nui-a-Rua, Rangitāne ki Tāmaki-nui-a-Rua, Rangitāne ki Wairarapa, welcome, welcome, welcome. Welcome to your house, New Zealand's Beehive. Welcome to this important issue. Welcome in the spirit of the heavens. Stand firm, stand firm, stand firm. Therefore, to my many chiefs, and female and male elders, greetings, greetings, greetings, one and all.]
I'm pleased to take a call on this significant day, the significant day where we receive the first reading of this bill, Te Rohe o Rongokako Joint Redress Bill. I did want to acknowledge the whānau, our iwi, who have arrived here in the gallery, and can I say it is so nice in these recent times to have people in our public gallery. Due to COVID, it has been quite a pōuri undertaking in this House doing first, second, third Treaty readings with no whānau in the public gallery. So it is a special day in acknowledging your presence here today and for those that can't be here.
This is a shared cultural redress bill that the Minister has outlined between two very formidable iwi that are based in the Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua region and the Wairarapa region, and I mihi to you all here today. I don't plan to go in detail but I do understand in reading the bill that there are four cultural redress instruments that I just want to highlight before I respond to some of the kōrero that was received at the pōhiri.
I want to acknowledge one of the instruments, being the overlaid classification over Castlepoint Scenic Reserve. I want to acknowledge the customary fishing regulations of the management over Wairarapa Moana and the Ruamāhanga River catchment. I want to acknowledge the vesting of cultural redress properties: Mataikona property, Wairarapa moana property, and, of course, Mākirikiri property to the tipuna Te Rangiwhakaewa. I want to also acknowledge the Wairarapa Moana framework, which establishes a board and enables the development and the setting of the vision and desired outcome statements for that board.
It's important to acknowledge rangatira on both sides, to those that are no longer here with us, to the Minister of Treaty settlements, but also to the negotiating team. I want to acknowledge you all. As a former Treaty negotiator, I know it's never ever easy—never ever easy. It's often a thankless task and you're always told you never quite got it right. But I want to say to you, the negotiators that have joined us here, thank you for your leadership; thank you for your preservation in staying at the kaupapa. But, more importantly, thank you for coming together as two iwi. I had a big smile on my face when I knew that this bill was coming to this Whare for us to debate and to passage through as the completion of what we're setting out here to do.
I want to acknowledge our officials, Te Arawhiti, for the work that they've been doing. But it was really the coming together of two peoples, two iwi, who share common interests in Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua and Wairarapa. We all know the stories. We've always experienced them, no matter which side we sit on. But it lifts my heart to know that we are all here together as one seeing the passage of this bill. And, like I said at the beginning, may that continue—the working together, acknowledging our uniqueness, our mana motuhake, our tino rangatiratanga, but in an area of interest that we all passionately love—our awa, our maunga, our moana, our puke. It's important that occasions like this continue, because only when we work together can we achieve great gains.
At the pōhiri, it was talked about, the importance of shared whakapapa. And, interestingly, before we started this bill, we had another kōrero in this House, which is the general debate, where we generally have a bit of a crack at each other across the House on what's been achieved and the Opposition saying what we haven't achieved. And the issue of whakapapa and identity as a Māori was discussed in this House prior to this bill. So I wanted to draw that out because it came in the pōhiri, and the strength of shared whakapapa, as opposed to a hindrance or a prohibitive—shared whakapapa, collective responsibility, working together for all. I want to acknowledge our speakers Paora and Mike—Paora Ammunson and Mike Kawana—who spoke on the paepae today. Of course, Uncle Haami Te Whaiti and, of course, Tipene Chrisp, who shared their perspective as negotiators.
But that point around shared whakapapa, it's not lost on me in terms of what was shared at the pōhiri—but also a message to us in this House to remind ourselves about our collective responsibility for the nation and to not go down rabbit holes that divide and rule us, but actually enhance us as a people. 
The other point that I want to just address briefly—and, look, four minutes isn't going to do it. But the kōrero around seamless negotiations, or trying to aim for seamless negotiations when it comes to grievances and working with the Crown—so that was also raised at the pōhiri, around how we look for systems improvement, and I'm pleased that the new head of Te Arawhiti was there to hear that kōrero too. 
As Rongowhakaata negotiated, the Government of the day introduced the large natural groupings, which was to do exactly that. It was the fast-track Treaty settlements. Eleven years later—nowhere near as long as 32 years—we finally settled. So there is a point to always remind the Crown around how we can improve it. And one idea—and it's appeared to me because I've had many settlements across the rohe—is the front loading of us just talking as Māori, as hapū, as marae, and as iwi, before we enter the formal process of negotiations. Because once you enter the formal process of negotiations, it is no longer your process. And what comes undone—and I've seen it many, many, many times with counterclaims and going back to the tribunal—is that we've jumped into that process, in my view, sometimes too soon and not spent time at the front end to getting an understanding of what is critically important, including cross-claims, including interest from other iwi in our rohe, and all those critical issues and trying to head them off before we start negotiating with the Crown. 
I think the Crown has a responsibility. I'm not the Minister of Treaty settlements, but the Crown simply has a responsibility to enable that part of the process before we start the process proper. And those are my thoughts. Those are my thoughts personally around how we can streamline settlements. 
But today is a great day for the people of Rangitāne o Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua, Rangitāne Wairarapa, Ngāti Kahungunu, Wairarapa o Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua to celebrate the coming together in the passing and this consideration of Te Rohe o Rongokako Joint Redress Bill. It is a way forward that I'm proud of; that I hope those in our gallery are proud of, and all the people that you represent back on the homelands. This is far-fetching work. It will bring huge benefits to our respective region and to our respective iwi. It will create the opportunities around those properties, but it also enables us to tell our story as we see fit. And it's always about the future generation, with our rangatahi, that we always think of at times like this. 
So, without further delay, it has been my absolute honour to have a small kōrero around this particular bill at its first reading. It will go through its process and I look forward to it coming back to the House so we can consider what the public has viewed on it, but, more importantly, to end this part of the process for the people of Rangitāne and for the people of Ngāti Kahungunu, Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua, and Wairarapa. For those few words, I commend this bill to the House. 





Dr SHANE RETI (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to speak to this, Te Rohe o Rongokako Joint Redress Bill, at its first reading. As it is with many bills, you do the preparation, you do the background, and I learnt so much more around the bill. Of course, I'm sure we'll learn more through select committee and through other readings. But this interests me particularly as the bill speaks to the Wairarapa and the Wairarapa Moana, and particularly to the Ruamahanga River and its traverse through many electorates, actually. I was speaking with my colleague Ian McKelvie and it turns out that this river actually traverses through his electorate and around through Masterton as well. So it's been an interesting exploration, looking at what this bill is trying to address as it goes to select committee, and looking back at the work that brings it to this point.
Of course, the deed of settlement was signed between Ngāti Kahungunu and the Crown in October 2021, so credit here to the Office of Treaty Settlements and the team who have brought the bill to this place today where it's ready to go through its first reading.
The main provisions are relatively clear and concise. I know a number of bills sometimes, as we talk to redress and acknowledgments, can be quite wide-reaching. I found this to be quite concise. The main provisions talk to the deed of settlement for Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua and Rangitāne o Wairarapa and Rangitāne o Tamaki nui-ā-Rua, as I've said. 
The key points of cultural redress—Castlepoint Scenic Reserve. This is what I mean by doing the background and preparation before you come to a bill. So I need to sort of then go to the geography and say, now, whereabouts is that? What do I need to know about that? I'm more informed and better here as I come today, and will be more informed as we go through select committee—in fact, somewhat distracted by, oh, is that where that point is? How did it get its name? What is this bill going to do that's going to change or improve that? How's it going to help the iwi?
Regulations for the management of customary fishing in Wairarapa Moana, as I said, and the Ruamahanga River catchment, and the vesting in fee simple of three cultural redress properties is what the deed of settlement is also talking to. There are three Schedules, each which talk to the Wairarapa Moana and the river. 
I think, as I look at this bill overall, what we'll see more detail around is the cultural redress and the grievances. So it's quite skinny at this point in time. This is what the select committee particularly will flesh out with submissions and with select committee hearings and evidence. 
So far be it for me to stand in the road of this bill. I'm better informed than I was a week ago as to what this Treaty settlement is looking to do, and I'm very encouraged and excited to see this go through select committee. Even though I don't sit on this particular select committee myself, my colleagues who do—Harete Hipango and Joseph Mooney—will keep us up to date with the progress of this bill. It's fair to say I now have a knowledgeable interest to overview it as it makes its progress as well, and I'm excited for the people—excited for the iwi who have been able to come here and to join us in the gallery, which is an unusual event of recent days, to actually have iwi here, due to COVID. It adds an ambience and a wairua to the deliberations that we're making here today. 
So let's move this bill along. Let's get it to select committee. Let's do the work and let's give the benefits to those who should receive the benefits. Kia ora koutou.





RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. It is a pleasure to take a call on Te Rohe o Rongokako Joint Redress Bill. This bill gives effect to specific to the cultural redress shared between Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua and Rangitāne o Wairarapa as Rangitāne o Tāmaki nui-a-Rua and provided for in their respective deeds of settlement. I would like to begin by acknowledging the members of Ngāti Kahungunu and Rangitāne who have travelled to Parliament today and those who are watching and participating remotely. I mihi to you all.
As others speakers have noted, it is wonderful to have you all in the gallery today. Madam Speaker, I'm not sure if Mr Speaker is watching, but I wonder if he has made a ruling on whether we will allow waiata in the Whare today. One of the most special moments of participating in this Whare is the waiata when we finish a reading of a Treaty redress bill. Something I have had the privilege of learning is kapahaka, as a member of the New Zealand Youth Choir, and waiata in this Whare, and that is something that I'm really looking forward to, and I'm going to stay specifically for that. I hope that it will ring around this Parliament as something we haven't heard in here for a very long time.
Today we're beginning this particular legislative process to further acknowledge you and the historical wrongs against your people, but the work to get to this point was started a very long time ago. I want to acknowledge all who were involved in this process and who have passed since that time. This bill will give effect to specific cultural redress shared between Ngāti Kahungunu and Rangitāne and provided for in their respective deeds of settlement. You may be wondering a little bit about why a Pākehā MP from Whakatu in Te Wai Pounamu would have anything to say on this particular bill. I consider this to be the first opportunity I have had to give a speech, a kōrero, in this Whare on a Treaty settlement bill. I'm really proud to whakapapa back to Wairarapa, where my mother grew up and where members of my whānau still live, and where I spent a lot of time as a child, and I'm proud also to have grown up in Manawatū, which is also a whakapapa to Rangitāne. As the MP for Nelson, Whakatu, we have eight iwi in our rohe, one of which I spent a lot of time working with—Rangitāne o Wairau. My colleague Barbara Edmonds earlier in her speech today mentioned the Wairau Affray and what happened to Te Rauparaha and the history, which is so important for the area that I come from and I know this is whakapapa that many of you here today will share.
I just want to note that it is so important that these stories and your history—the history that has led us to this place for this kōrero so that we can right these wrongs—are shared properly in Aotearoa. We are currently in New Zealand having a discussion at times about the role that history plays in our country, and it's because of times like this, in my view, that that history really matters so that we don't end up with Pākehā MPs like me standing up here today, having had to do the research. This research and this history should be taught to our tamariki early in their lives, because it's part of who we all are.
As previous speakers have pointed out, there are a number of things that this bill does. It provides for an overlay classification over Castlepoint Scenic Reserve. Castlepoint is a place I visited a lot as a child with my whānau in Wairarapa. It provides for the making of regulation for the management of customary fishing in Wairarapa Moana and the Ruamahanga River Catchment. It jointly vests the Mataikona property in fee simple with both iwi, and it also jointly vests the Crown-owned parts of the Wairarapa Moana property in fee simple.
The bill establishes the Wairarapa Moana Statutory Board. The bill sets up the functions, membership, procedure, and committees of the board and it also sets out the preparation and approval requirements of the documents in a vision statement for the Wairarapa Moana.
I want to make a specific point about the role that our local government and our territorial authorities have played. When reading through the bill, I was particularly interested to see the contribution from local government—the Tararua District Council making available the Mākirikiri Recreation Reserve; the Masterton District Council relinquishing its control and appointment of the Mataikona reserve; and the fact that the Crown and the trustees of the Ngāti Kahungunu Settlement Trust and the Rangitāne Tū Mai Rā Trust have agreed, along with Wellington Regional Council and South Wairarapa District Council, to be part of the Wairarapa Moana Statutory Board. Those parties, together with Masterton District Council and Carterton District Council, have agreed to be part of the Wairarapa Moana Statutory Board's committee for natural resources. 
Again, I point this out for quite a specific reason. Again, we are having conversations and kōrero in Aotearoa at the moment about the role of co-governance and the role of iwi and Māori relations in local government. Part of that conversation at times has gotten very ugly and inappropriate. In my view, this is an example of the work that local government and iwi have been doing for so many years, in such a positive way, to work together in the true spirit of partnership. There is so much that the Crown can learn from that and there is so much that all of Aotearoa can learn from that. I wanted to point out specifically how good it was to see the inclusion of work by our councils in getting here today.
This is the first reading today, and from here we go through that select committee process. And from here we have an opportunity to hear from people further as this bill progresses through this Whare. I'm not here to hold this up any further. We want to hear your voices ringing out through this Whare tonight, celebrating another step in this milestone. So I commend this bill to the House. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. 





JAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise today to take a call on behalf of the Green Party on this, the first reading of the Te Rohe o Rongokako Joint Redress Bill.
As has been stated by others, this bill gives effect to specific cultural redress shared between Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua, Rangitāne o Tamaki nui-ā-Rua, and Rangitāne o Wairarapa as provided for in their respective deeds of settlement.
The redress in the bill includes sites to be jointly vested, including property at Mākirikiri Gravel Reserve, the beautiful Mataikona, the bed of Lake Wairarapa property—the Crown share of that, I understand from the Minister—and provides for an overlay classification over Castlepoint Scenic Reserve, being a site of significance to both iwi. And it provides for the establishment of the Wairarapa Moana Statutory Board, who will act as a guardian of the Wairarapa Moana and the Ruamahanga River catchment for the benefit of the present and future generations. Such important work.
I'd like to particularly note this magnificent wetland of international significance within their care and the stellar work of Ngāti Kahungunu and Rangitāne that they've been leading to restore the mauri of Wairarapa Moana. All of this is essential to the affirmation of the kaitiaki responsibilities under Te Tiriti justice, and we know we need to see more of this.
Today, too, I would like to acknowledge the negotiators and hapū, for whom this day has been a long time coming, who will quite naturally feel a sense of urgency and hope to be able to move on towards a new relationship with the Crown, to be able to really start restoring the whenua, awa, moana, and rebuild as whānau. I want to be very clear that the kaha of the negotiators for this rohe cannot be disputed and we uphold their efforts to right past wrongs and move forward. But the Greens at this point in the process have some outstanding questions about the Crown process that we hope to resolve through the select committee process before we can offer our support to this bill.
Our questions arise primarily from the proximity of this bill to the Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua settlement and the need for some reassurance that the recommendations of the Waitangi Tribunal in relation to that settlement are being followed and not in any way ignored to the benefit of the Crown. There is intra-hapū disagreement on most, if not all, settlement bills. Sometimes corrections are made through the select committee process, but mostly we just have to acknowledge those who oppose the deeply imperfect process enforced by the Crown while we stand by and congratulate the majority for their hard-fought-for settlement. 
The Treaty settlement process leading to the aspects of this bill, though, have been heavily criticised by the Waitangi Tribunal, and at this stage our concerns relate primarily to the following points.
So the Crown has indicated an intention to settle with the Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua Settlement Trust, whom the Waitangi Tribunal has found does not have a mandate to settle on behalf of the claimants in Wai 429 and Wai 85, and the Waitangi Tribunal's primary and strong recommendation was that the proposed settlement with Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua does not proceed at this stage because, as they said, and I quote, "the cumulative effect of the deficiencies we identified, the process was unfair, will exacerbate divisions in the claimant community, and will not be durable."
Our third concern is that the Waitangi Tribunal also found that in this settlement process, the Crown failed in its Treaty duty of good faith to Rangitāne: "It did not continue to negotiate with them about Wairarapa Moana in good faith as required by clause 7.6 of the Deed of Settlement. It also breached the principle of whanaungatanga. In its dealings with Rangitāne and Ngāti Kahungunu about Wairarapa Moana, it should have been aware of the implications for the mana of each." In relation to this claim, they recommended the Crown pause to take steps to rectify its Treaty breach, and before any matters were concluded about redress concerning Wairarapa Moana, help Rangitāne and Ngāti Kahungunu to "work together to ensure that any such redress, and the process for agreeing upon it with the Crown, [do] not jeopardise their internal and external relationships;" and reimburse Rangitāne for the costs of the urgent claim.
And the final paragraph of that Waitangi Tribunal ruling stated—again, I will quote: "We have recommended that, in relation to all the claimants, the Crown should now pause to rectify the deficiencies that have made the settlement process we heard about unsound and unfair. If the Crown acts on our recommendations, there are implications for the deed of settlement already signed. It is for the Crown to satisfy itself on what basis and how it should withdraw from the deed of settlement."
To have a related bill introduced and proceeding to first reading only a few sitting weeks after this ruling worries us. The Greens have met with some of the interested parties who have been in the courts over this issue, and I want to stress that not one of those parties has wished to trample on the mana of the negotiators. Everybody expressed to us a wish for a settlement to go ahead, just without the sections of concern or the inclusion of Ngāi Tūmapuhia-a-Rangi and Wairarapa Moana ki Pouakani Incorporation and that is what we need reassurance of in the select committee process. 
We will vote to support this bill if we are confident that it will not lock in a deed of settlement that the Waitangi Tribunal said should pause and will have no impact on the resumption of litigation in front of the courts and will not in any way undermine the mana of Rangitāne Tū Mai Rā Trust.
So I'll finish by lamenting the fact that Te Arawhiti in their briefing to the incoming Minister, most recently, had to note that the Waitangi Tribunal made a number of findings in recent years suggesting the Crown has been too keen to achieve settlement and has not taken sufficient time to resolve overlapping claims between Māori or to ensure there is widespread and ongoing support for the mandated entity representing an iwi. In seeking to resolve past wrongs, the Crown should not create new grievances. The Green Party wholeheartedly shares this view, and whilst seeking to uphold the mana of all the negotiators and hapū who have been subjected to this process, we will still need reassurance that no new grievances are being created by the Crown. The Green Party believes in the need for a tikanga-based approach, where all parties are given the opportunity to determine and collectively agree what the redress process and outcome looks like. To us, that is tino rangatiratanga. 
So we look forward to the select committee discussions but will be abstaining on the bill today. Tēnā koutou katoa.





SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. The ACT Party wishes to acknowledge those who have come to the House today to hear the first reading of the bill, Ngāti Kahungunu and Rangitāne, and we want to let you know that the ACT Party will support this bill at first reading to go to select committee, where any remaining details can be ironed out, hopefully to the satisfaction of the claimants and to those who may be affected by some provisions of this bill. There are a couple of matters that I'd like to canvass very briefly.
Firstly, the ACT Party believes that New Zealand is unique in that we have a Treaty between the indigenous people of New Zealand and the Crown, Queen Victoria, which sets out the rights and privileges of all citizens, and that we are all equal before the law. The ACT Party believes that is one of the truly unique and wonderful things about New Zealand, that founding document. We support the process—that is, to bring historical grievances to a tribunal where all of the evidence can be documented and then worked through for the purpose of achieving a settlement to deal with historical grievances, which have often held back the development—the economic and social development—of people whose lands were alienated by the Crown or by the actions of others. So it's important that we recognise that this process is vital for past grievances to be addressed and that it is one of the most important things that leads New Zealand to a place of social cohesion. For that reason, the ACT Party supports this process. 
It's also wonderful to hear that the interests of the iwi and hapū in the very important wetland are to see the values of the wetland enhanced, the biodiversity and the ecology of the special place protected, and that there is also a provision for people who wish to fish in this wetland and to enjoy all of the benefits of the natural resources that this wonderful wetland produces. So, again, those are shared values and that is recognised by the settlement. 
I was surprised to hear from the previous member who spoke, Jan Logie, that in fact the Crown might have been too keen to settle the claim. That surprises me because in my short time in the House I've seen the Crown, as represented by the current Government, be extremely reluctant to acknowledge problems and to seek to settle them unless it becomes too embarrassing. So I think it's wonderful that the Crown is keen to settle the claim and I think, at the risk of creating new grievances, that's what the select committee process is for—so that, in fact, if there are risks which haven't been sufficiently resolved they can be addressed through the select committee process.
It's important also to consider whether settlements that benefit some of the parties who have rights and interests in land and waters do not conflict or override the rights of others who believe they also have interests in lands and waters. So in order for the settlement to be durable, all of those matters must be fully explored—and despite the fact that some parties might feel that actually they haven't been able to recover all of their property or to have all of their rights and interests fully acknowledged, that they are sufficiently satisfied with the deal that's on the table and that it means they can move forward as a group, as an iwi, as a hapū, and have sufficient economic power to actually go about and develop their own business and their own land in a way that benefits them for the long term. So that is the purpose of the settlement process and ACT supports that. 
I do note at some stage in the bill it refers to setting up statutory boards that will have a co-governance approach to the wetland, to reserve land, and to conservation land. Now, where the scope and the purpose and the objectives of those statutory entities is clear, and that revolves around ecology and making sure that the people who have an interest in these lands and waters are satisfied that the ecological and the biodiversity values are being enhanced, then, look, there may very well be good reasons to have a co-governance model. But there will always be concerns from some people who feel that in the absence of a democratically elected pathway to people who control reserves and other what are currently common lands held by the Crown for the purpose of administering them so that all New Zealanders can access them, that a co-governance arrangement may, in fact, exclude some people who wish to be heard. 
But I do note in the bill that there are extensive provisions for consultation on reserve management plans that the statutory board wishes to implement and so it seems like, in this particular case, many of the concerns that people have about co-governance could, in fact, be allayed by very high quality legislation that delivers the best of both worlds. So on that note, I would like to confirm that the ACT Party supports that this bill should go to select committee for further investigation and, on that note, ACT commends this bill.





KIERAN McANULTY (Labour—Wairarapa): Tēnā koutou ngā uri o Rangitāne, ngā uri o Kahungunu. Nau mai, haere mai hoki mai ki tō tātou nei Whare, te Whare Pāremata.
[Greetings you, the descendants of Rangitāne, the descendants of Kahungunu. Welcome to our House, the House of Parliament.]
It's wonderful to see you here today. I acknowledge your presence and I acknowledge those people of Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua, Rangitāne o Wairarapa, and Rangitāne o Tamaki nui-ā-Rua, from the regions of Wairarapa and what is now known as the Tararua District.
Wairarapa Moana is a beautiful site. It is the site that gives our beautiful region its name. "Glistening waters" is what it loosely translates to. Anyone that has left Wellington on the train to head to Wairarapa, leaving the dreary, miserable weather of Wellington, going underneath the Remutaka Pass, and emerging to the beautiful sunny valley of Wairarapa, to the right sees the beautiful site of Wairarapa Moana.
It's wonderful to see in this bill today recognition of the cultural redress that needs to occur in regards to recognising the unique and special role that iwi have in the management of Wairarapa Moana. How good is co-governance? That's what I have to say. Because it recognises that there is a special and unique role that should never be overlooked in the management of important cultural assets, be it Wairarapa Moana, be it out Castlepoint or Mataikona. It is vital that the wrongs of the past be acknowledged and attempts to address that be made, and that is what is outlined in this bill today.
This is the first time that I've spoken to a redress bill, and it is a great privilege to be able to speak to it today. For the first time, listening to the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, the Hon Andrew Little, acknowledging those that took part in the negotiations, I was able to sit back and say, "I know those people." That meant a lot to me, because I know that this means a lot not only to Ngāti Kahungunu and Rangitāne but also to our region. This shouldn't just be seen as something that's important to local iwi. This should be seen as something that's important to all of us.
I've been reflecting on my family's heritage in leading up to this contribution, and I remember back in 2014, when I first stood for Parliament, and I told the story of my great-grandmother's great-grandfather, who built the first building in what is now Featherston, which was the first pub. I was really proud of that. Rawiri Smith, who was running for Te Paati Māori at the time, came up to me and said, "That's pretty impressive, but don't forget how long we've been here." And I haven't.
But I also reflect on my great-grandfather's great-uncle, Daniel O'Connell, who the main street of Dublin is named after. He was a politician of the time and led the fight against the British to have the Irish recognised in their own land. I was raised being told of this, raised to be proud of this—that fighting for the rights of the people who were there before they were colonised is something to be proud of. If I were to stand today here not only as the member of Parliament for Wairarapa but with that as my background and not support this and not support co-governance, then I would be a hypocrite, and I'm not going to be a hypocrite. I support this wholeheartedly.
To those that suggest that co-governance should not go beyond the management of natural resources, I would point them to Te Ahu a Turanga, the Manawatū-Tararua highway that is currently being built at the moment. Now that Transmission Gully has finished, it is the largest earthworks project in the country.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: Yeah, still one of ours.
KIERAN McANULTY: It is a case where a unique approach has been taken. While some may want to interject and try and play petty politics on roading projects, there is a serious point to this, and that is that unlike previous projects, the New Zealand Transport Agency and the alliance of which it is part formed a relationship with local iwi—recognising the unique role, recognising the importance of the land to them—and had a co-governance approach to that construction. Some may argue that there is no role for that in such things. But this project has taken into consideration the unique and special insight that local iwi were able to provide. It has taken into consideration the importance of preserving the mana of the land, the water that flows through the Manawatū River; the importance of restoring the land, once the road is built, with native planting, but also working with local iwi to ensure that actually the majority of the people working on that project are from local areas.
Those are the sorts of practical, tangible benefits from taking the time to recognise the unique role that mana whenua have and the possibilities that working together brings. Mavis Mullins mentioned at the time when the Hon Phil Twyford came to Woodville to sign this agreement that this was the Treaty principles at work, and I couldn't agree more. Something like building a road can follow Treaty principles, and I think it's a prime example for those that try to say that co-governance is something to be scared of. Go up to the Tararua District and see it in action, and I promise you, it'll be nothing to be scared of at all. I wholeheartedly commend this bill to the House.





NICOLA GRIGG (National—Selwyn): Rau rangatira mā, tēnā koutou katoa.
[To the many chiefs, greetings to you all.]
National is very pleased to support the Te Rohe o Rongokako Joint Redress Bill, which, along with the Ngāti Kahungunu settlement legislation that was introduced in February, will complete Treaty settlements in the Wairarapa.
Can I acknowledge iwi and whānau gathered in the gallery this evening. New Zealand is a very small country. My mother is a St Hill-Warren of Porangahau, and her family married into the Mohi whānau, so I have Ngāti Kahungunu cousins. So I mihi to you.
I want to also acknowledge the Hon Chris Finlayson, who settled the Rangitāne negotiations in 2016, and the Hon Andrew Little, who signed the settlement with Ngāti Kahungunu late last year and finalised the joint redress that we are here canvassing this evening.
The Minister and other speakers have already spent time on the settlement redress itself, but I do want to say something about the role of cultural redress in settlements. There is a reason that so much cultural redress is related to the environment, as is the case here. It's an attempt by the Crown to recognise the aspirations of iwi to be involved in the management of natural resources of cultural significance that matter deeply to them, and also to make room—most importantly—for the exercise of their rangatiratanga. It is a vital part of Treaty settlements and relies on the enormous generosity of the negotiating iwi to make what can be at times difficult compromises.
Like other settlements, the bill we are debating this evening provides for environmental and cultural redress, the joint vesting of property, and new arrangements for the Crown and iwi to work together to make customary fishing regulations. The centrepiece, however, is the new statutory board to govern the Wairarapa Moana. It's been formed as an important part of the negotiations and sits squarely in the middle of the Waitangi Tribunal's Wairarapa report, to use the tribunal's own words. One of its primary roles will be to produce a Wairarapa Moana document setting out the vision and the aspirations for this management. It will also set out a reserves management plan and a natural resources document for the Ruamahanga River catchment.
We often see in the headlines the dollar figures, the amounts spent on the settlements, and the financial redress, but it's the cultural and relationships redress that I think has become most important. It is the part that often places continuing obligations on the Crown and local government to make things work. So when Parliament legislates for the Wairarapa Moana Statutory Board, it does so in the expectation that the Crown and local government appointees work to make the agreement that Parliament legislates here to work in practice.
Chris Finlayson always says that if the Crown doesn't respect its obligations, Treaty settlements will not last the distance. In my humble view, "New Zealand Inc." needs this legislation, along with all other Treaty settlement legislation, to last the distance. I am very pleased to commend this bill to the House.





RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori) (remote): Tēnā koe e te Pīka otirā tēnā tātou i te Whare. Tēnā tātou i ō tātou tini mate o te wā. Ko Kahurangi June Jackson, ko te kuia a Aunty Barlu tērā, ko Tā Wira tēnā, ko Marina Sciascia anō hoki tērā, arā ko wai atu, ko wai atu. Rātou te hunga wairua ki a rātou.
Ka hoki mai rā ki a tātou, e hika mā, kua pae nei, tēnā anō hoki tātou katoa. Kahurānaki tū mai rā, Ngāti Kahungunu iwi, Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa, Ngāti Kahungunu ki Tāmaki-nui-a-Rua, karanga mai whakatau mai rā. Tēnā tātou i te āhuatanga o ngā tawatawainga anei rā tō mokopuna, te uri o Kahakura Mihiata, e mihi nei e tangi nei. Ngā pae maunga o Ruahine, o Tararua, tū mai rā. Rangitāne o Wairarapa, Rangitāne o Tāmaki-nui-a-Rua, karanga mai, whakatau mai tā. Tēnā tātou i tā tātou tipuna, te tipua kaitā ko Rongokako. He nui ngā kōrero mō te tipua nei ki roto i awahau ki te Tai Rāwhiti, ā, ki Te Whānau-a-Apanui hoki. Kei reira tonu tōnu tapawae kei ngā toka tū moana ki Waiōrore, Te Whānau a Hinetekahu ki Toihau. Nō reira ngā mihi nui ki a koutou e whakawaha nei, e hautū nei i tēnei kerēme. Tēnei tātou i te āhuatanga o tēnei taihonotanga kerēme Tiriti a Ngāti Kahungunu me Rangitāne me ngā kaupapa kua poua ki roto i tēnei kerēme i tēnei rā, ā, te paparua i a Castlepoint Scenic Reserve, te mahi tahi mō te tiaki i te moana ki Wairarapa me te awa o Ruamahanga, te whakahokitanga mai o ngā whenua tāpui a Mākirikiri me te Mataikona Scenic Reserves anō hoki. E hika mā, kei te mihi atu rā ki a koutou i ngā whakatōpūtanga o ngā rawa nei.
Ahakoa ngā tūāhuatanga o tēnei kerēme kāore e tarea te whakatika i ngā hē o te Kāwanatanga me ōna ture, ka roa nei e apo i a tātou. He apo whenua, he apo tikanga, he apo tangata, he apo mahara a te Māori. Kātahi te taniwha whakawehewehe tangata ko tēnei, whakawehewehe whānau, whakawehewehe hapū, whakawehewehe iwi hoki. Heoi anō. Ko te tūmanako ka tarea tonu te whai oranga i roto i tēnei tūāhuatanga, te waihanga pakihi, te tipu mahi, te whakaora hapori, te whakaora tikanga me te reo me wērā mea katoa. E tūmanako nei e tātou i roto i ēnei rangi tonu ā, anō hoki i runga i te mahi tahi. Ahakoa kotahi pai heneti noa iho kua whakahokia mai ki a mātou, me waiho ake mā ō tātou mokopuna te iwa tekau mā iwa pai heneti e toe ana e whawhai.
Heoi anō, kei roto i tō mātou kaupapa here Mana Motuhake te huarahi mō tēnei tūāhuatanga. Kei runga i te pīrangi a Te Paati Māori hei tauawhi i ō tātou iwi me tahuringia i te whakaaetanga whakaatu whakataunga kerēme, te whakakore i te kōpaki putea, the full and final settlement me te large natural grouping, te whakamana i ngā whakataunga a te Taraipunara o Waitangi me te whakatikatika i ngā WAI kerēme e tārewa tonu ana, ā, te whakatūngia i tētahi komihana Tiriti o Waitangi hei āta mātautau i te Kāwanatanga me ōna tari katoa, ā, me te whakahoki i ngā whenua rāhui katoa ki ngā iwi. Nā reira, e hika mā, kua rongo tātou i ngā kōrero whakaparahako, arā a ngā pāti pērā anō i a ACT i tātou me tō tātou mana motuhake me tō tātou tino rangatiratanga. Kia kaha anō tātou i runga i te huarahi e whai nei tātou, me te mea hoki kei a tātou ko tātou mana. Waiho mā Māori anō a Māori e kōrero, waiho anō a Māori anō a Māori e rangatira.
Nō reira, Ngāti Kahungunu, koutou ko Ruahine kei te mihi atu rā ki a koutou i tēnei rā, nau haramai, e hika mā, ki Te Whare, ki te pānuitanga tuatahi o tō kourou kerēme. Ka whanga awahau ki te wānanga ki roto i te komiti Māori me te whakarongo ki ngā kaupapa katoa kei roto i te kerēme nei. Āe tae ake rā ki te pānui tuarua me te pānui tuatoru. Nō reira, e hika mā, Ngāti Kahungunu Rangitāne, maranga mai, tēnei te Pāti Māori e tautoko kaitā nei i tēnei o ngā kerēme i tēnei rā. Kia ora tātou.
[I acknowledge the many dead at this time. Dame June Jackson is one, the elder Aunty Barlu another and Sir Wira, as well as Marina Sciascia and others. Let the dead be with the dead.
Returning to us who are sitting here, greetings one and all. Kahurānaki who stands there, Ngāti Kahungunu tribes, Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa, Ngāti Kahungunu ki Tāmaki-nui-a-Rua, I call to you and formally welcome you. Greetings to all. With respect to our connections, I am your relative, the descendent of Kahukura Mihiata, I greet you and mourn with you. To the mountain ranges of Ruahine, of Tararua standing there. Rangitāne o Wairarapa, Rangitāne o Tāmaki-nui-a-Rua, I call to you and formally welcome you. I acknowledge our supernatural giant Rongokako. There are many stories about this giant in my territory in the East Coast, in Te Whānau-a-Apanui too. His footsteps are still on the coastal rocks at Waiōrore, the subtribe of Te Whānau a Hinetakahu ki Toihau. Therefore, I acknowledge you who are carrying and guiding this claim. Greetings, everyone, to this joint Treaty claim of Ngāti Kahungunu and Rangitāne and the issues that have been established within in today, the Castlepoint Scenic Reserve, the collaboration to care for the body of water at Wairarapa and the Ruamahanga river, the return of the reserved lands of Mākirikiri and Mataikona Scenic Reserves as well. Well, I congratulate you on the consolidation of these properties.
Despite the attributes of this claim, it cannot rectify the wrongs of the Government and its laws, which have for so long been appropriating from us all. Appropriating land, destroying customary practice, exploiting people and wrongly acquiring Māori thought. What a beast this is, adept at separating people, breaking up families, splitting sub-tribes and dividing tribes as well. It is hoped that it will still be possible to find benefits in this situation, to create businesses, to grow work, to revive sub-tribes, to enliven customary practice and language, along with other things. That is our desire here today, and of course to work together. Although only 1 percent has been returned to us, we must leave our grandchildren to fight for the other 99 percent.
In addition, in our Mana Motuhake policy, is the way out of the current circumstances. To enable the Māori Party's desire to support our tribes, first we must overhaul the current Treaty settlement process, end the fiscal envelope, the full and final settlements and the large natural groupings, make Waitangi Tribunal decisions binding, and resolve all outstanding WAI claims, establish a Commissioner for the Treaty of Waitangi to oversee the Crown and all its departments, and to return all reserve land to the tribes. So we have all heard the disparaging comments—that is, from parties such as ACT—about us and our independence and self-determination. We must stay true to the path ahead, where it seems we have our own authority. Let Māori themselves speak for Māori, let Māori themselves ennoble Māori.
Therefore, Ngāti Kahungunu and Ruahine, greetings to you on this day. Welcome to the House, to the first reading of your claim. I await for the discussion with the Māori Affairs Committee and listen to all the issues within this claim—yes, right up to the second and third readings. Therefore, Ngāti Kahungunu and Rangitāne, rise up. This is the Māori Party completely supporting this bill today. Thanks to all.]





HARETE HIPANGO (National): E karanga au nei ki ngā uri o Rangitāne o Wairarapa, Rangitāne o Tāmaki-nui-a-Rua, Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki-nui-a-Rua. Tēnei te mihi atu ki a koutou i tēnei wā. Nau mai, haere mai i roto i te Whare nei. Ko au Harete Hipango he uri nō W'anganui. Ka nui te mihi ki a koutou i tēnei wā.
[I call to the descendants of Rangitāne o Wairarapa, of Rangitāne o Tāmaki-nui-a-Rua, and of Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki-nui-a-Rua. This is my greeting to you all at this time. Welcome, welcome in this House. I am Harete Hipango, a descendant from Whanganui. Warm greetings to you all.]
I'm standing to address the House but, more significantly and importantly, the uri of those tribal peoples and hapū I have acknowledged and addressed today for the first reading of Te Rohe o Rongokako Joint Redress Bill. I was unaware that I would be taking a call on this bill until just earlier today, and so the time that I have had in preparation has been somewhat compromised, but I assure those who are gathered here, and who have travelled afar—and I acknowledge you; thank you for coming—and those of your people who are not able to accompany you today, that we will give this bill the due diligence that is necessary and is appropriate before the Māori Affairs Committee. 
This legislation is required to give effect to all cultural redress shared between, as I said in my mihi, Rangitāne o Wairarapa, Rangitāne o Tamaki nui-ā-Rua, and Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua, as was contained within the deeds of settlement signed between Rangitane and the Crown on 6 August 2016, and the deed of settlement signed between Ngāti Kahungunu and the Crown on 29 October 2021. 
When these matters come before the House—and this is a joint redress bill to those previous Treaty settlement matters that have been locked in under the deeds of settlement, but this is a history lesson for New Zealanders, also. The people of the tribal and the hapū areas who are here today are but a representation of a small part, because there are many of your forbears who are present in you today and, importantly, these bills are also about moving forward into the future—the aspirations and the hopes to be fulfilled. 
This bill was introduced to the House on 3 February 2020 and here we are on 30 March 2022 with the first reading. It will move to the Māori Affairs Committee for all members to give this the due diligence and the scrutiny that it is deserved of. With that scrutiny, there will come differing viewpoints, and that has been touched on by some of the members in addressing the House today. Those differing viewpoints take into account part of the journey that has been traversed to date. There is more to traverse in terms of the settlement of the bill as it passes into law with this joint redress. 
I well know, in terms of our Wanganui River settlement, that, over the course of decades—in fact, over the course of generations and lifetimes—the stories, the lived experiences of our people are aired and viewed, often with agreement, often with disagreement. And the beauty is how we are able to address and redress those differences amongst ourselves. It takes time. Often this process that's imposed by the Crown can create division, but we draw deeper where we can also create unity. I look up in my blurred vision—part of the blurring of the vision is the ageing of the eyes but never of the heart—but also with these readings, with this kōrero in the House, there is the emotion that's tinged. So I look amongst you all in addressing the people gathered here today, and I recognised one of my own whanaunga, Mavis. Mavis, you were also W'anganui but, importantly today, you are Rangitāne, and I acknowledge you and everybody who is joined with you and before you, your tupuna, your father, and the journey that is being traversed over time. 
When this bill comes back to the House, I will speak more pointedly to the detail of this bill, which is in three parts. It is a bill that has some 122 clauses and three Schedules, and with my legal eye, I will give the due diligence and scrutiny that it is deserved of. But today, I stand to acknowledge that, with the journeys, comes the challenge that we have, out of a measure of divisiveness, how we pull together and create unity. 
The timing of this, also; the last time, in fact—and I'm being somewhat intimate and personal—that I reached out to Mavis, by text, was when I happened to view on Māori TV on Waitangi Day, episode five, a replay of The Negotiators, and it was part of the journey that many of you have been on to arrive at this point here, and further points moving forward with aspiration and hope into the future. We know full well, those of us who've been on the journey, of these negotiations and settlements as it traverses through into law, the challenges. However, with those challenges, as I've repeatedly said today, we draw within and look to our tikanga for the tika and the pono of getting and making things right. 
Some of us are aware of the application to the Waitangi Tribunal. What I drew from the limited information that I have to hand is that—it was noted in the reports in the media; the findings, the recommendations from the Tribunal, but what I picked up, importantly, was one of your tribal peoples, one of your own, said, "We will take this back and we will kōrero further, to strive to find a solution." 
As has been noted, there are two deeds of settlement. This bill is a joint redress bill which identifies within those 122 clauses, within the three parts and the three Schedules, the significant features and landmarks, the significant watermarks and waterways, but significantly, the aspirations that will be fulfilled moving forward into the future so that—from the opportunity—prosperity will grow. Prosperity will be potentialised so that, out of Te Rohe o Rongokako and this joint redress bill, with those two deeds of settlements—with the differing views of others who feel that their needs have not been addressed—the Māori Affairs Committee will pay due recognition and take heed of what those of you will further submit and talk to. 
On that note, the National Party supports this bill to the first reading, through to the Māori Affairs Committee, to hear further the kōrero and the heartfelt and the lived experiences and stories of the people of Rangitāne and Ngāti Kahungunu. I commend the bill to the House. 





PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare, e mihi ana nei ki a koutou kua tae mai i runga i te karanga o te kaupapa o te rā. Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki-nui-a-Rua, Rangitāne o Wairarapa, Rangitāne o Tāmaki-nui-a-Rua, tēnā koutou, kia ora koutou katoa.
[Mr Speaker, greetings to you and to all of you who have travelled here responding to the call of the issue of the day. Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki-nui-a-Rua, Rangitāne o Wairarapa, Rangitāne o Tāmaki-nui-a-Rua, greetings to you all, be well.]
Mr Speaker, thank you for this honour to be able to speak to this redress bill, the joint redress bill, Te Rohe o Rongokako Joint Redress Bill. It's been some journey to get here, and I'm a real fan of today, because it is the first reading. I want to acknowledge the members of the three iwi and those representatives who are here today, sitting with us here in te Whare Pāremata, our Parliament, to experience this process, which gives effect to certain parts of the deed of settlement, signed by the Crown and the iwi in August 2016 and, I'll just add, Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki Nui-a-Rua and the Crown in October last year. So it has taken some time, but we're here now, and I want to acknowledge those with us but also those who are no longer with us who have been part of this process.
I know that, being a member of the Māori Affairs Committee—and can I acknowledge all members, and particularly the chair, Tāmati Coffey. But these are always a learning process, because you get to hear about some horrific pain and the journey that our iwi across the motu go through.
Can I acknowledge those iwi negotiation teams. I know the names of the members have been read out, but I want to applaud them for one particular aspect, and that's that they saw the need to do a joint redress. I know there are other settlement claims coming through the process through Te Arawhiti Māori Crown Relations, on through into the Māori Affairs Committee, and I'm a fan of just ensuring that the joint redress components of these Treaty claims is put forward as soon as possible. Too often, I notice with others, is that as claims are dealt with with singular entities, there's a real overlap, and it would be far more useful, in my view, that sometimes if we did the joint redress up-front, maybe we could iron out some of those raruraru as we go through.
But all credit to those negotiation teams, our Crown negotiation team. Can I acknowledge the Minister the Hon Andrew Little and the councils involved, who have really helped build up this package that's before us.
When I look at the purpose of the bill, I said that it gives certain provisions contained in those deeds of settlement effect, and I know and in talking to people from the iwi they certainly recount their history in some pain. It goes back to 1853, where some of that land purchase and what was gifted with the intention of ending these disputes actually, with the hope of even protecting those lakes and there was going to be some return with some ample reserves—these just did not happen. I heard the Minister talk about that some of the reserves provided by the Crown were, in fact, located away in Te Rohe Pōtae, the King Country. That's unacceptable, and I know that those devastating effects of the loss of land that had caused this intergenerational suffering is now well documented, and it's important. We're on our history waka to ensure that it's recorded accurately, and I want to applaud those involved in this negotiation to get that history documented accurately and correctly.
So the redress, the joint redress over the Wairarapa Moana, the Ruamāhanga River catchment, to both Ngāti Kahungunu and Rangitāne acknowledges the significance of that taonga. I know there are other sites, and there is one aspect of this that I think is worthy of mention, and that's that Wairarapa Moana Statutory Board to act, as I've learnt in other settlements, as a guardian of the Wairarapa Moana, the Ruamāhanga River catchment, and that's really for that benefit, again, of current and future generations.
What's significant really is the membership of that board, half being iwi members and then we've got the Department of Conversation and the Greater Wellington Regional Council and South Wairarapa District Council. This is good. It means that the partners involved in the kōrero are there at the table. They're in a governance setting, so they are making decisions that have real strength and real impact, no doubt reflecting back into the 1850s and when those other deals were done. There was no certainty of whether they would actually come to fruition. There'll be a natural resources committee of that board, and they will certainly look at the sustainable management and catchment—sorry, the natural resources of the river catchment.
Just in terms of the Castlepoint Scenic Reserve, which has been mentioned. I'm a regular visitor. But I know that there will be what's called an overlay classification that recognises some of those traditional cultural and spiritual relationships between iwi and Ngāti Kahungunu and Rangitāne. So this is significant. I too look forward to seeing the process come through the Māori Affairs Committee. I'm hopeful, like I am with all settlements, that this is the beginning of a reset, a true partnership that allows an attempt, I guess, so that some of that suffering and pain that will be addressed in its history is actually acted upon in a positive manner for the future for the people of these iwi and shows a new respect and trust for Te Tiriti o Waitangi and their principles.
I'm proud to speak on this and will be proud to look at the subsequent readings, and I commend this bill to the House.





TĀMATI COFFEY (Labour) (remote): Tēnā koe e te Pīka o tēnei Whare, otirā ki a koutou katoa Ngāti Kahungunu Rangitāne kua huihui i tēnei, i tērā Whare i tēnei rā. Nei rā te mihi ki a koutou.
[Greetings to the Speaker of this House, and to all of you of Ngāti Kahungunu Rangitāne who have gathered in this, in that House today. This is my greeting to you.]
Can I give my acknowledgments to you of Ngāti Kahungunu and Rangitāne for making it to Wellington today. Not all of us have made it to Wellington, and I acknowledge that there were a few of us missing at the pō'hiri today, but we're about to spend the next six months together. So that's a really good time for us to be able to drill down into the settlement, drill down into the details of the settlement, and look into how we can make sure that we make this the best legislation that we can, all things considered.
Can I say to our whānau from Rangitāne, from Ngāti Kahungunu, thank you for honouring this process; thank you for entering into it. It's a tough process. As many speakers before have said, it can be a divisive process as well. The Treaty settlement process has been something that we have been doing for quite some time in this Whare, for better or for worse. But the overall objective is to try and make sure that everybody leaves with their mana intact, and I hope that, through this settlement, through your settlement, we'll be able to do that, as well.
You come at a very auspicious time, as well; a time when the country is talking about things like co-governance and things like co-management. It's a hot topic at the moment. There are some people in the House of Parliament who believe that it is something to be feared and something that we shouldn't be encouraging. I want to put that on the table right now as something that I hope that you can help us with, because as we traverse forward into this space, not just for your settlement but for lots of settlements, we need to put a message out there to the rest of Aotearoa—as your local MP for Wairarapa, Kieran McAnulty, said earlier—that co-governance and co-management is nothing to fear. We as a country have been doing this for quite some time, and in many parts of Aotearoa, it's happening really successfully.
But there is a darker part to this conversation and it started coming through in some of our select committee hearings. There's a very organised group of people who talk about the co-governance and co-management as not being democratic and that it's against the principles that we all stand for. "It's against the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi."—we've heard that one too. So, on this journey, we're going to need some support if we're going to continue to do what we believe is right.
Let me put on record, too, that the New Zealand Labour Party are committed to settling all of our historical Treaty settlements here in Aotearoa—we're absolutely committed to that. We need to stick true to things that we know work: things like co-governance and co-management. Through your bill, hopefully, we'll be able to not get some of those submissions through the select committee, but, no doubt, we will because it's a place where we hear from all sides, all opinions. You will be subjected to that, as well; to hearing some of those submissions.
As the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee, I look forward to progressing your bill through the House, and, in quite a different approach, we're looking forward to actually travelling too. I know, like much of the country, that many of us have been locked down and staying in our whare. Through our Māori Affairs Committee, we've been managing to do Treaty settlements via Zoom, which isn't really what we want; we would prefer to be there ā-tinana, ā-wairua, so that we can come there and we can actually takahi te whenua [walk the land], look you in the eye—kanohi ki te kanohi [face to face]. All of that really matters when we're dealing with Treaty settlements. We've made a decision as a committee that we were very open to travelling out to your rohe, so that we can get a bit of a tiki tour around the sites of significance of the pā in your bill. A decision was made this morning.
So I did note to the committee that whilst it's our intention to travel, it also relies on our hosts wanting to have us there, as well. So that's something that we'll wait for your instruction on. If you'll have us, we would love to travel to your rohe so that we can talk through and see and meet and eat together with you, as well. We'll leave that discussion for another day.
The whole process through the select committee is one of honour and one of mana. We as committee members completely acknowledge the work that's been done to get to the deed of settlement point, and we see ourselves as committing an administrative task in this whole Treaty settlement process, but an important part of that too. Scrutiny is good and we look forward to dissecting the bill, taking your advice, listening to the submissions, and that process will happen immediately. The call for submissions will go out. The usual time frame is a six-week process to call for submissions so that we can gather those in from around the country and tee them up so that we can listen to the kōrero—the good, the bad, and the downright ugly as well. We look forward to having you before the committee, but we look forward to travelling out to your rohe, as well.
I've got nothing left on this, other than to say to Rangitāne and to Kahungunu, nei rā te mihi ki a koutou katoa. Kia kaha, kia māia, kia manawanui.
[This is my acknowledgment to you all. Be firm, be brave, and be stout of heart.]
Let's do this. I commend this bill to the House. 





A party vote was called for on the question, That the Te Rohe o Rongokako Joint Redress Bill be now read a first time.
Ayes 110
New Zealand Labour 65; New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.
Abstentions 10
Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a first time.
SPEAKER: The question is, That Te Rohe o Rongokako Joint Redress Bill be considered by the Māori Affairs Committee.
Motion agreed to.
Bill referred to the Māori Affairs Committee.
Waiata





TE PIRE MŌ TE HARAREI TŪMATANUI O TE KĀHUI O MATARIKI/TE KĀHUI O MATARIKI PUBLIC HOLIDAY BILL
In Committee
Wāhanga 1 Whakaritenga takamua / Part 1 Preliminary provisions
CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): Members, the House is in committee—I was going to say "for that bill", but I won't. The House is in committee on Te Pire mō te Hararei Tūmatanui o te Kāhui o Matariki/Te Kāhui o Matariki Public Holiday Bill. I remind members that they're able to participate remotely. If you're on Zoom and want to take a call, please type "call" into the chat, and I'm sure you all know that. You should also use the chat if you want to raise a point of order. 
Members, a tabled amendment in the name of Joseph Mooney has been lodged. The scope of this bill is narrow. It is to provide for an additional public holiday to observe Matariki. The bill does not seek to affect any existing public holidays. The amendment would remove Labour Day from the Holidays Act 2003, which would also have the effect of turning the bill into an omnibus bill. I'm ruling the tabled amendment outside of the scope of the bill. I'll permit some debate on the topic, subject to the usual rules of relevance and repetition. However, there will be no vote on this amendment. 
We come first to Part 1. 
Joseph Mooney: Point of order, Mr Chairperson. If I could just clarify that it was to ensure that there are only 11 public holidays in the Holidays Act 2003. 
CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): Yes, I understand that, and none the less that has been ruled out of order because it is out of scope of the bill. 
We come to the debate on Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 3 and 4, the preliminary provisions. The question is that Part 1 stand part.





ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, obviously, Part 1, clause 3, deals with the business days of the particular days, and it specifies "a Saturday, a Sunday, Waitangi Day, Good Friday, Easter Monday, Anzac Day, the Sovereign's birthday, … Matariki Observance Day, and Labour Day". I suppose the big question is—and it is a central question for the Minister—why was no consideration made of reducing the days rather than adding an additional day, which means we've now got 12 public holidays, plus the specified four weeks of holiday that New Zealanders are entitled to, which means that when you put all that together, you've got 28, plus 12 holidays? Why was no specific consideration made of looking at reducing existing public holidays? 
We've talked about reducing the one, as an example, of Labour Day, which we think probably is less relevant now. But my central question to the Minister is why was no consideration made of that when the Cabinet considered this and also when working its way through the select committee process? That's a question for the Minister.
HARETE HIPANGO (National): So, in relation to this committee of the whole House, with questions being directed to the Minister, I'm speaking specifically to Part 1, "Preliminary provisions", "Meaning and significance of Matariki to Māori"—I need to put my glasses on, not my mask. So page 5 of the bill, Minister, underneath "Mānawa maiea te putanga o Matariki", it goes to the explanatory that "Matariki is the Māori name for Pleiades,", and further down, in the third sentence, starting "the winter sky, during the last quarter of the lunar month of Pipiri,". 
Minister, in the specialist adviser's report, with that specialist adviser being Rangi Matamua, at page—if I could refer the Minister in the House to the advice. I was talking about Pipiri—the full name for that—and also the explanatory of the correlation or the relativity of that period of time in the Māori lunar calendar to the common calendar as we know it, which would be for June. 
Now, I'm still just looking through the specialist adviser's report, and I will find that. But for the benefit of all New Zealanders and clarity within this bill, would it not be of, I think, clearer interpretation for the application that "during the last quarter of the lunar month of Pipiri," it be inserted in there—and I wasn't at the meeting of the Māori Affairs Committee at the time this was discussed, or otherwise I would have brought it up—that the full name for Pipiri is Pipirioterangi, and that it approximates or is the equivalent of the period of June in the calendar month? So I put it to the Minister and to the committee for consideration that for the purposes of clarity and understanding, for the benefit of all New Zealanders, that that be considered, as has been the advice given by specialist adviser Rangi Matamua.





Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Associate Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage): Mr Chair, thank you. Tuatahi māku e tuku he mihi ki te mema o te rohe Whanganui mō tērā atu pātai ki ahau ki a mātou ki a tātou o te Whare nei. Ka huri ki tēnei pānuitia mai te tohunga o Rangi Matamua, kua kite au i tana pānui ki runga i te pepa nei. Ko tēnei te whakamārama i runga i tana pānuitia ki a mātou. Ko te kupu kei roto i tēnei ripoata ko te ingoa Pipiri anake. Heoi anō ka huri ake ki ngā ripoata o te komiti nui, mai i te Komiti Whiriwhiri Take Māori, heoi anō ka huri atu au kāore e kore he whakaaro, kāore i tērā he tono ki a mātou te Kāwana ki te huri i tērā atu ingoa ki te ingoa Pipiri o te Rangi. Heoi anō koinā. He whakaaro pai ki a rātou ngā tohunga o tēnei pire te ingoa Pipiri, heoi anō ki a mātou me whai atu a mātou te Karauna ki te mātauranga o te kāhui o ngā tohunga e āwhina i a mātou e whakarangatira i tērā atu whakaaro Māori kei roto i tēnei pire. Heoi anō ko tēnei tā rātou nei whakaaro, heoi anō me whai atu a mātou mai i te Karauna. Koinā.
[Firstly, I wish to acknowledge the member from the Whanganui electorate for that other question to me, to us all of this House. I now turn to this statement from the expert Rangi Matamua. I saw his statement on this paper. This is the explanation to us about his what he said. The word in this report is just the one word, "Pipiri". However, if one goes back to the report of the main committee, of the Māori Affairs Committee, I went back, and it is no doubt that was an idea, but it was not suggested to us, the Crown, to change that name to the other name of Pipiri o te Rangi. So that's that. It was a good idea to them, the name Pipiri, the experts involved in this bill, but to us, the Crown, we had to follow the knowledge of the expert group who were helping us and venerating other aspects of Māori thinking in this bill. These are their thoughts, which we of the Crown must follow.]





SIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Oh, thank you very much, Mr Chair. Once again—it's no disrespect—it's actually a good chance to take the mask off, although I've been inspired by the fact that a waiata was able to be sung maskless in this Chamber. I think it's a sign of good things to come.
Look, in Part 1 of this bill, clause 3—and my colleague Harete Hipango touched on it that it is in here, around about line 7—is talking about "Matariki is the Māori name for Pleiades," which is fantastic. It's probably a twofold question to the Minister. One is that I understand there are various names in Māoridom for Matariki, and I know Ms Hipango herself would reference one from Whanganui. How we are going to respect that, because there is not a Māori name; there are many.
The second too is how we are respecting the cultural diversity of the countries, because they've chosen to use the word "Pleiades". Now, that's a term particularly out of Greek mythology. I will not lecture the committee of the whole House on all the names of the gods, with a small "g", from Pleiades. Of course, the Japanese call this Subaru. 
Hon David Bennett: Tell me five.
SIMON O'CONNOR: No, I won't. I'm not going to—I'm not that bad. Of course, it's Subaru, particularly to the Japanese. Those of us who are more colloquial would think of this as the Seven Sisters. Of course, in more astronomical terms, this is Messier 45. So I suppose the question, Minister, is why officials or the people have chosen to be so specific to use Greek mythology—I'd be biased; I like it—but there are multiple, multiple names, and maybe a suggestion of why she hasn't used the neutral astrological term Messier 45, which would have kept everyone happy, and would have prevented me from having to list off the seven gods in—
Andrew Bayly: Can you please, please—just do it.
SIMON O'CONNOR: No, I'm not going to do it. You know, as a Christian, that it would put me in a terrible position, Andrew Bayly! 
Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Associate Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage): Tēnā koe e te mema. Kua huri atu au ki te mātauranga o te kāhui, o ētahi kaupapa, o Te Kāhui o Matariki. Ko te tino whakaaro o ngāi mātou o te Karauna ki te huri ki a rātou, ngā tohunga o ērā atu kaupapa. Kei a rātou, ko te whakaaro rangatira i waenganui i a rātou. Ko Pleiades te ingoa tūturu e mārama ngā tāngata maha o te ao katoa te whakaaro o ētahi ingoa o ētahi kāhui o ngā whetū. Heoi anō ki a mātou he whakaaro pai, he whakaaro rangatira ki a mātou, heoi anō, koinā.
[Thank you to the member. I will now turn to the Māori knowledge of the cluster and other aspects of the cluster of Matariki. We of the Crown think strongly that we should turn to the experts who have expertise in those other areas. They are a rich source of knowledge. Pleiades is the original name, understood by lots of people in the whole world, when they think of names of clusters of stars. However, to us, it is a good idea, a noble idea, and so that's that.]
SIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you, Mr Chair. If I might, I'll continue in English. While I appreciate the Minister's contributions there and, obviously, the use of the terms as we know them in New Zealand, and also respecting that there are different terms, as you mentioned—the rangatira in Whanganui. Yes, just sort of wanting to follow up why we didn't use the neutral term and just keep clear of what's sort of just general parlance?
Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Associate Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage): Kua whakamāramatia anō tētahi pātai, heoi anō me whakautu anō ki a koe e te hoa i waenganui i te Whare nei. Ko te whakaaro i waenganui i a rātou te kāhui tohunga e āwhinatia i a mātou. I waenganui i a rātou kei te whakawhiti kōrero a rātou tēnei kaupapa whakahirahira. He aha te mea whakamārama ngā tāngata katoa, ngā iwi katoa, ngā hapū katoa, ngā tāngata o Aotearoa katoa? Ko wai te ingoa Pākehā, ko wai te ingoa Māori, ko wai te ingoa e whakaaro ana a rātou e mōhio ana rātou pai, ā, koinā, ko te whakautu mai ngā tāngata katoa ko te ingoa Pleiades, heoi anō me whai atu a mātou, koinā.
[I have already explained this question. However, I should answer again to you, my friend, in this House. This has been thought about among the advisory committee who are assisting us. They have discussed this important issue amongst themselves. What would be the clearest thing for everybody, for all the tribes, all the subtribes, all the people of New Zealand? What is the English name, the Māori name, what name did they think, did they know, was suitable? The answer from everybody was the name Pleiades, so we should use it, just that.]





TEANAU TUIONO (Green) (remote): Kia ora. Tēnā koe e te Minita, me mihi au ki a koe ka tika, nāu anō i hēpara ana tēnei pire ki roto i ngā tukanga Pāremata, ā, ko tāku pātai e pēnei ana. Ki tō whakaaro he aha ngā oranga he aha ngā painga mō ngā tamariki ki roto i ngā kura, ngā tamariki Māori, ngā tamariki Pākehā, ngā tamariki katoa o Aotearoa, ki tō whakaaro?
[Hello. Greetings to the Minister. I have to acknowledge you for shepherding this bill through the parliamentary processes. My question is this: what, according to you, are the benefits and the gains for children in school—Māori children, Pākehā children, all children in New Zealand?]
Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Associate Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage): Tēnā koe e te mema o te Pāti Kākāriki, ki a koe, Teanau. He pātai rangatira tērā. He aha ngā hua o tēnei pire mai a mātou mai ō tātou nei tamariki, mai tō tātou nei mokopuna, mai i ngā tāngata katoa o Aotearoa? Me huri au ki ngā kupu kei roto i te pire nei. He aha ngā tino hua kei roto i tēnei pire o Te Pire mō te Hararei Tūmatanui o te Kāhui o Matariki?
Ko te mea tuatahi, te whakamaharatanga. Te whakahōnore i te hunga kua mate mai i te aranga ake o Matariki i te tau o mua atu. Ko te mea tuarua te whakanuia i tēnei wā, te huihui tahi ki te whānau me ngā hoa. Kei te mōhio mātou i roto i te Whare nei ko tēnei te tino hiahia mai o mātou i tēnei wā taumaha o te mate urutā. Koinā te whakaaro pai ki a mātou ki te whakapiripiri mai ki te whakanui i tēnei wā. Heoi anō, ko te mea tuatoru, te titiro ki tua, te titiro whakamua ki ngā painga ka kawea mai ki te tau hou. He maha ngā hua i raro i ētahi whāinga mō tēnei wā kei roto i te pire nei, ko te aroha, ko te whakamaharatanga, ko te kotahitanga, ko te manaakitanga, ko te tohatoha, ko te mana taiao—he whakaaro rangatira tērā—ko te hākari, ko te wānanga, ko te noho tahi, ko te atawhaitanga, ko te whakanui, ko te tuakiritanga.
Maha ngā hua kei roto i tēnei pire, heoi anō, kei hea te, ko wai te kākano o ētahi hua, ā, ko te mātauranga Māori, ā, ko ngā mea e pupuri ana mai ō tātou tīpuna mō tēnei reanga, mō ngā reanga maha e whai atu i a mātou. Heoi anō ka puta mai kei roto i ngā tamariki, ngā mokopuna, ngā tāngata katoa, ngā iwi katoa kei roto i te reanga hou ētahi kākano i waenganui i a rātou. He ngā hua o tēnei pire? Maha, maha. He rā, he wā, he wā, he wā—he aha te kupu? He wā kei te huria mātou mō he wā hou mō ngā tāngata o Aotearoa katoa. He whakaaro pai tērā he taima tika. Koinā. Kei a koe, te mema o te Pāti Kākāriki, koinā ngā hua mō ngā mokopuna, mō ngā tamariki o tō tātou nei wā. Āe, koinā.
[Greetings to the member of the Green Party, to you, Teanau. That is a good question. What are the benefits of this bill for us, for our children, for our grandchildren, and for all the people of New Zealand? I should turn to the words of this bill. What are the benefits of this bill, Te Kāhui o Matariki Public Holiday Bill?
Firstly, it is remembrance. The honouring of those who have passed since the rising of Matariki in the previous year. Secondly, it is the celebration of the now, gathering with family and friends. Those of us in the House know that this is our real desire with the burden of the pandemic at this time. That is a nice thought, that we could gather closely together to celebrate at this time. However, the third aspect is the looking to the future, to the good things we can carry into the new year. There are many benefits and purposes included in this bill. There is compassion, remembrance, unity, caring, sharing, environmentalism—that is a big issue—then there is feasting, studying, togetherness, kindness, celebration, and identity.
There are many benefits of this bill, but where, what is it that seeded these fruits? It is Māori knowledge, and those that held on to it, our ancestors, for this generation and the many generations who will follow us. However, in the new generation there will be seeds appearing, from our children, our grandchildren, from everybody, from all the tribes. What are the benefits of this bill? There are many. It is a time—what is the word? It is a time that is being changed into something new for everyone in New Zealand. It is a great idea whose time has come—that's it. To you, the member of the Green Party, those are the benefits for the grandchildren, the children of our time. Yes, that is it.]
TEANAU TUIONO (Green) (remote): Kia ora e Te Minita mō ēnā whakautu, ā, kei te whakaaro ake au mō ngā tamariki mokopuna, kei te whakaaro ake au mō te katoa o ngā whetū o Matariki, engari ko tāku pātai e pēnei ana. Ko wai te tino whetū ki roto i Te Kāhui o Matariki, ā, he aha te take i pērā ai?
[Thank you, Minister, for those answers. I am thinking about the children and grandchildren. I am thinking about all the stars in the cluster of Matariki. But my question is this: what is your favourite star in the Matariki cluster, and why?] 
Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Associate Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage): Tēnā koe e te mema o Te Pāti Kākāriki anō. Kāore, he pātai pai, kei te mōhio koe ko wai taku tino whetū, heoi anō he rerekē mai i ngā kaupapa i raro i te whāinga tahi, heoi anō me whakautu i tērā atu pātai i te mea he pātai pai ki ahau. Āe ko te tino whetū i waeganui i Te Kāhui o Matariki, ki ahau nei, ko te whetū a Hiwa-i-te-rangi. Koinā te whetū me whiu atu ngā whakaaro mō te tau ki mua. 
Tuarua koinā te ingoa o taku tamahine, ko ia, āe, ko ia te tino tangata te whakatinana ngā hua o tēnei kaupapa o Matariki, heoi anō, ko ahau tērā. 
[Greetings once again to the member of the Green Party. Indeed, it is a good question, because you know very well what my favourite star is. It is not in line with our main focus, but I have to answer it as I like that question. Yes, my favourite star in the Matariki cluster is Hiwa-i-te-rangi. She is the star where we send our plans for the next year. 
Secondly, that is the name of my daughter; she is the perfect person to embody the fruits of this Matariki initiative, so that's me.]





JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you, Minister, for engaging in the kōrero this afternoon. 
Look, in Part 1, clause 3, "Meaning and significance of Matariki to Māori", it marks the beginning of the Māori New Year, also known as Mātahi o te Tau. However, I note that it also says that some tribal groups use the heliacal rising of other stars as their marker of the Māori New Year—in particular, the star Puanga. Other tribal groups and regions also have variations regarding when and how the Māori New Year is observed and celebrated. So my question, Minister, is how has the decision-making process been come to and how has it been formed in determining that the focus will be on Matariki and at this time of year, and not on the other markers that some other tribal groups use and the other stars that they use as their marker for the Māori New Year, and the timing that they do for that?
Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Associate Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage): Tēnā e te mema. He pātai pai tērā. Koinā he kaupapa o maha ngā wānanga i roto i ngā kāhui o ngā tohunga ki te whakapuāwai ētahi ingoa o te pire. Te Kāhui o Matariki; kei raro rā he maha ngā ingoa mō ētahi whetū, heoi anō ko te tino ngako ko te wā o te tau. Ka huri ki ngā iwi o Taranaki pea, kei a rātou ko te tino ingoa o tērā atu wā ko Puanga.
Ka huri ki a rātou ki te Nōta, ko Rehua. Ki a rātou maha o ngā iwi ko te whetū e whiu atu ngā whakaaro ki te Poutūterangi. Kei te whakawhiri, ā, whakawhiti kōrero a rātou, kei te wānanga rātou, ā, kei a rātou e whakatau, e whakaea i tētahi ingoa mō tēnei pire, ko te mea e whakaputa rātou koinā te ingoa he maha o ngā iwi, he maha o ngā hapū e whai atu nei ko te kupu o Matariki. Heoi anō, mō tēnei pire ko te tikanga ko tēnei te Kāhui o Te Matariki, heoi anō kei raro rā ko te Puanga, ko te Poutūteranga e maha ngā whetū anō.
[Greetings to the member. That is a good question. That is an issue that took much discussion in the Māori advisory group, to develop some names for the bill. The cluster of Matariki; beneath this are the many names of other stars, but the nub of the issue is the time of the year.
If we turn, for example, to Taranaki iwi, their favourite name for that time of year is Rigel. If we turn to those in the North, it is Antares. To many tribes, the star they send their wishes to, Altair. They discussed and considered this and they decided, and settled on a name for this bill, and the one they chose was the one that most tribes and subtribes follow, and that is Matariki. So for this bill, the practice is this, the cluster of Matariki, and within that are Rigel, Altair, and many other stars.]





A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 1 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.
Part 1 agreed to.
Result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 75, Noes 43 to include Te Paati Māori's votes.
CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): Members, we shall now adjourn for the dinner break, and resume at 7 p.m.
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m.





CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): Members, the committee of the whole House is resumed, but before I go to Part 2, I understand that the Green Party wish to correct a vote.
RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you. I want to do a point of order to seek leave to correct the vote on Part 1 of Te Pire mō te Hararei Tūmatanui o te Kāhui o Matariki/Te Kāhui o Matariki Public Holiday Bill to add Te Paati Māori votes into it, to be in favour. 
CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): Is there any objection? There's none. Leave is granted. 
RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): I'm seeking guidance on how to express—thank you.
CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): All you need to do is ask permission to correct the vote, and correct the vote.
RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: OK, I seek permission to correct the vote.
CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): And the vote is?
RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: To have two votes in favour on behalf of Te Paati Māori. 
CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): On behalf of Te Paati Māori? 
Ricardo Menéndez March: Yeah.
CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): Thank you—perfect. 





Wāhanga 2 Hararei tūmatanui o Matariki / Part 2 Matariki public holiday
CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): We come to Part 2. This is a debate on clauses 5 to 7, schedules 1 to 4.
ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): I have to say we're having a wonderful debate. We're talking in languages of te reo, English, Greek, and we are covering a wide range of topics—astrological formations, the principal stars in the group; it's a fascinating debate.
Obviously, we're just now turning our minds to Part 2, and I think clause 6(2) is the first bit I want to ask about. Why was the decision made that the Matariki holiday would always fall on a Friday? Obviously, during the first stage of the debate, just before the dinner break, we were talking about how we had different days, different significance, and when Matariki actually came into existence some iwi had a different perspective on it. So what's been obviously taken and what's been written into clause 6(2) is that it would always be on a Friday.
I suppose my first question to the Minister is: why is it always on a Friday? I think we've got to bear in mind who is bearing the cost for this. This is the not the Government writing out the cheque; this is business owners using their hard-earned cash to pay for this additional day. And, of course, it's an extension—it's another public holiday; it's not a reduction or at least keeping the same number, the current number, of holidays, which is 11. This is taking it to 12, so not only is there additional cost but when a public holiday falls there is also significant impact for business owners in terms of how they arrange their staff, and what this means is obviously that staffing their business on that Friday is a very difficult issue. So that's my first question to the Minister: why always on a Friday and what other considerations were taken into account on whether it should fall where it should fall?





Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Associate Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage): E te Tiamana, tēnā koe e te mema mō tēnei pātai. He pātai pai tērā. Ko te tino kaupapa ki te kāhui mō tēnei kauapa he aha ai te Paraire kāre kore te Mane, ērā atu rā, tuatahi. Mō he wīkene roa ki te whakaawhina i te tāpoitanga o te tāpoi kua haramai ngā manuhiri mai i ētahi wā ki ngā wāhi rerekē, ki te āwhina i ngā pakihi ki te whai pūtea, ki te manaaki i a rātou mō tērā atu mea. Koinā he whakaaro pai.
He whakaaro anō, ko te tino kaupapa o Matariki ki te whakanuia ki te whakapiri ngā whānau mai i ngā wāhi ki te whakahokia ki te kāinga. He maha ngā whānau i tēnei wā e noho ana ki ngā rohe rerekē. Heoi, kei te pai ki ngā pakihi maha ki te āwhina rātou ā te Paraire ki te hoki ki te kāinga, engari kāre he tino pai mō ngā pakihi katoa ki te āwhina i ngā kaimahi ā te Mane. He whakaaro mai i ētahi department o Te Kāwana me ngā kaitono ki te komiti.
Heoi ki te whakaaro o tō pātai ko wai e kawea te utu o tēnei kaupapa o Matariki. He whakaaro e pātai atu ahau ki ngā āpiha i te rā tuatahi me hōmai au tēnei Bire. He aha te utu, ā, ko wai e kawea? Ko te whakaaro mai i te, kei roto i te regulatory impact statement mai i Te Hīkina Whakatutuki. Ka huri koe te whāinga tekau mā ono ki te wāhi Section 4 o te Impact Analysis, i tēnei whāinga (whārangi) he maha ngā reanga o ngā utu, ā, ko wai e kawea. Ko te tino kaupapa kei roto i tēnei tono ko te whiu e maha ana ngā pūtea mō ngā tāngata katoa o te whā rau whā tekau mā toru ngā miriona tāra e whakatinana kei roto i te economy pea. Koinā ngā whakaaro o ngā āpiha o te Hīkina Whakatutuki. Tuarua, o te mea, kāore e whakautu pai tērā, kāore e whakautu pai. Ki a rātou ki te kaimahi mai i ngā pakihi katoa, ko te utu ki ngā kaiāwhina e toru rau whitu tekau mā iwi miriona tāra. Ki te taumahatanga o tērā ko te whā rau tekau mā whitu ngā mirona tāra mō ētahi rā, ia rā, ia rā katoa. Kei roto i te ripoata e kī ana ngā apiha.
Heoi, mō ngā iwi katoa, mō ngā tāngata katoa o Aotearoa maha ngā whāinga pai, ko te tikanga, ko te mātauranga mō te pūtea hoki. Ki a mātou ki tēnei taha o te Whare nei, maha ngā hua o ngā tāngata o Aotearoa.
[Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you to the member for this question. That is a good question. This was a big issue for the advisory group; firstly, why the Friday and not the Monday or another day. For a long weekend, to assist with tourism, to support tourist visitors who have travelled sometimes from one area to another, to help business to make money and to host them for that occasion. That was a good idea.
Another thought was that one of the main themes of Matariki is for families to return home from other places, to celebrate and gather together. There are many families these days that live in different places. However, many business were happy about helping them to return home on Fridays, but businesses more apprehensive about helping workers on a Monday. It was an idea from some Government departments and the submitters to the committee.
Turning to your question regarding who will carry the cost of this initiative of Matariki. It is a question that I asked the officers on the first day I was given this bill. What is the cost and who will bear it? This is covered in the regulatory impact statement from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE). If you turn to page 16 in section 4 of the impact analysis, on this page the costs are listed in detail and who will bear them. The main issue contained in this report is the spending such a large amount of money on everyone, $443 million to implement this in economic terms. That is the view of the officers of MBIE. Secondly, of the thing, that not a good answer, that's not a good answer. For the workers from all businesses, the cost of support is $379 million. The burden of that is $417 million for each day, each year. This is stated in this report by the officers.
For all the tribes, for everyone in New Zealand, there are many benefits, in terms of customary values, Māori knowledge, as well as financial. To us, on this side of the House, there are a great many benefits to the people of New Zealand.]





ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): First of all, I just acknowledge the Associate Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage for responding to that. I'm glad that she spoke about the issue of cost. So, she was saying there the cost is up to about $450 million per annum for holding this holiday, which is now specified as being on Fridays. I can accept the proposition that Matariki's very important, and, as a party, we all agree that Matariki should be celebrated in New Zealand. But the issue with the cost is where does the cost lie? The Government seems very generous in terms of wanting to impose that cost burden on small business owners, and that is who's going to have to pay the check—who is, ultimately, going to have to write out the check for the $450 million. And so my issue—and this is the biggest issue that National has with this bill—is that if it was the Government paying and the Government wants be generous, that's fine—and I see the Hon Stuart Nash sitting there, as economic development Minister—
Hon Stuart Nash: I'm also the Minister of Tourism.
ANDREW BAYLY: And tourism. If the Government wants to fund tourism activities, it should do so directly. What it's doing is requiring business owners to write a cheque out of their business account to pay for a public holiday. So the issue still remains: $450 million is a substantial amount that small business owners have to incur because the Government chooses to make an additional public holiday, as opposed to saying, "Look, we will keep the number of public holidays at 11, not extend it to 12." That is the central issue.
It's all very well for Government to be generous spending other people's money, but this is just another case—and when you line this up with the estimated $2.8 billion of additional costs that the Labour Government has imposed on small business over the last 4½ years, this is just yet another cost. The assumption, of course, is that small business owners are good for it. The mums and dads who own those businesses are good for it. They're always rich; that's the assumption. So, again, the question is: why is it appropriate that the Government is so generous with the chequebooks of mums and dads that own all our 500,000-odd small businesses and employ most New Zealanders—hard-working New Zealanders, working every day to try and grow their businesses and support the New Zealand economy.





Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Associate Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage): Tēnā koe e te Tiamana, tēnā koe e te mema mō tērā atu pātai. Heoi anō, ko te mahi o te komiti ki te tono ki ngā tāngata katoa, ki ngā pakihi ki te homai ngā tono o ētahi rā, he aha te taumahatanga i runga a koutou. Heoi anō korekau ngā pakihi kua haramai ki te komiti ki te kī ētahi kupu o tō tono ki a mātou kei roto i te Whare nei, kāore rātou e kī kei roto i ngā ripoata mai i ētahi Departments ko te Hīkina Whakatutuki. Kāore a rātou i kī ana tēra hoki. Heoi anō e pai te āhua, e pai te rangi o te pātai. Heoi anō kāore a mātou e tono ki te komiti he tino taumaha tēnei taumahatanga i runga i a mātou.
Heoi anō ko wai ka haramai ko ngā pakihi o te tāpoi ki te āwhina tēnei pire. He aha ai? Kei a rātou ngā pakihi tāpoi, he whakaaro rangatira tēnei mō te pakihi mō ngā pakihi tāpoi. Kei a rātou he whakaaro he wīkene roa he pai rawa atu ki ngā pakihi tāpoi kua neke atu ngā tāngata maha mai i tēnei wāhi ki tērā atu wāhi. Koinā te kī o taku hoa ko te Minita Stuart Nash kei korā. Ko tēnei te tono mai a rātou ngā pakihi tāpoi, homai tēnei wīkene roa. Kei te āwhina ki a mātou tēnei kaupapa o te tāpoi kei roto i a Aotearoa.
Heoi, ki tēnei taha, he whakaaro pai ki te mātauranga, heoi ki tēnei taha ki te āwhina ngā pakihi. Koinā te tono ki a mātou, āwhina mai i tēnei wā rerekē, te wā mai i te mate urutā heoi anō, ka puta mai āwhina ki a mātou, ā, he wīkene roa he whakaaro pai ki a rātou.
[Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you to the member for that question. Well, the work of the committee was to ask everyone, the businesses, to give us their opinions on a proposed date, and what are difficulties involved for you. However, no businesses came forward to the committee to say a single word about your request to us in the House, nor were they spoken about in the reports from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment. They didn't mention them either. However, the gist of the question is good. However, we did not report to the committee that there was a heavy burden on us.
But who did come along were the tourist businesses to support this bill. Why? According to the tourism businesses, this was a great idea for business, for the tourism business. They thought that a long weekend was a really good idea for the tourism businesses, as many people would move from one place to another. That's what my friend Minister Stuart Nash, over there, said. This was the request from them, from the tourism businesses, "Give us this long weekend. This initiative will help tourism in New Zealand."
So, on one side, it is a good idea with regards to Māori knowledge; on the other side, it will help businesses. That was the request to us, help in these strange times of the pandemic, give us some help, and we think a long weekend is a good idea.]





SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Mr Chair. Kia ora, Minister. Thank you for making yourself available this evening to answer some questions about the bill. I'd like to ask about the basis for the timing of the dates that Part 2 provides for. So Part 2, clause 6(2) says that the Order in Council for each public holiday must specify a date that's a Friday and that's in the calendar year following the last time we had Matariki. OK, we understand that.
When you look at the next part, the Order in Council must be made at least four years before the last date in the Schedule—in other words, it's forecasting four years ahead—we can see why that would have some benefit into allowing businesses and communities to plan.
But that's pretty much the extent of the thinking that appears to have gone into the way that the date for Matariki is chosen to be observed, because when I go and look at the actual dates that are specified, they're all over the place. We've got a 24 June, a 14 July, and then we've got a 6 July and an 18 July. It just indicates that while the intention of the observance of Matariki around the appearance of a star cluster, which in the Northern Hemisphere—particularly in Japan, it's actually known as Subaru. So it's the same star cluster, Subaru. That may be familiar to people who are familiar with the Subaru brand of cars, which also features on the decal. The emblem for the Subaru is actually the Seven Sisters, the seven stars that Māori describe as Matariki.
So I think it's important that we acknowledge that there is a good reason why Matariki may be observed in New Zealand, but when we look at the proposed dates and days, it's very difficult to understand what the reasoning is.
Then we need to understand what the implications are. So the implications are for the first date for it to be observed in June 2022, on 24 June 2022. That's not school holidays. That means the Friday of the day that it will be first observed is a day where secondary school students will be getting ready to play rugby the next day, and other winter school sports. Senior students and university students will be studying for exams, because this date falls a couple of weeks before the school holidays, Minister. This is the time when most families are incredibly busy—students and young people are actually working hard on their schoolwork and university work, and the rugby season, netball, and other winter sports are really, really ramped up. It's an important part of the season, and that's often when parents want to make absolutely sure that their children are fit and well and attending their school sports. Schools depend on it and clubs depend on the kids being there, turning up on the Saturday to play.
The chances that those parents are going to decide to take a random Friday off in the middle of winter to go some place at a time of the year when New Zealand's weather is notoriously damp, even in places like the winterless North or the almost tropical Auckland where I live, where my hibiscus are still blooming and my frangipani are still in full bloom—I can tell you that 24 June is still a very cold, damp time, even in Auckland.
One of the members over here mentioned potentially it's the ski season. Well, I can tell you from my personal experience, having spent many, many seasons at Mount Ruapehu, that there is no snow to ski on, on 24 June. [Interruption] Well, I wouldn't know about the South Island, Mr Bayly or Mr Smith, but if you're suggesting that one of the benefits of Matariki is that some very privileged people could go skiing, then that's not one that's actually mentioned in the bill.
So there is a problem that the date that is selected and the method for choosing the date does not recognise things like is it during the school term or is it not, because it makes a material difference to the way people plan their lives, plan holidays, and choose what's important for their children, in particular, and young people attending university and school.
I would like to compare that to Christmas and New Year's Day. That is where we need to understand how these things are chosen, because we're all aware that Christmas Day is based on the solstice. That's the time when the sun reaches its zenith in the south and its nadir in the north. In fact, we go further back, Christmas is based on an ancient festival of Saturnalia. So, look, if we're going to say we're going to pick the day of every calendar year when the star or the sun or the thing appears over the horizon or does its thing, then it would be impossible to plan for businesses, for families, for community events. You would never be able to plan with certainty when to paint the gnomes, when to get the Christmas decorations out, if Christmas moved around every year. That's one of the risks with Matariki as a holiday that New Zealand is expected to observe.
It will potentially lose its relevance when it moves around between June and July—potentially a month, a month or so—
Hon Stuart Nash: Like Easter.
SIMON COURT: Well, and Mr Nash here mentions Easter. Look, in that Minister's role as the Minister of Tourism, he should be well aware that there is a major problem with Easter, and the problem with Easter is the Easter trading laws that prevent businesses from opening and carrying out their normal trade, as my colleague Chris Baillie has rightly pointed out, not being able to sell food or alcohol. So as the member Stuart Nash pointed out, Easter does move around. The problem is with Easter, though, that that Minister introduced into the debate, is that, in fact, it's actually not easy to do business.
What this bill does is introduce another cup of sawdust into the engine that is the New Zealand economy and that is the hospitality industry and which—because, of course, those businesses will still remain open on this day. This isn't necessarily going to be a day when everybody packs up the car in the middle of winter and decides to go off on a three-day or one-day holiday to visit family in other regions, in the middle of winter, when the days are extremely short and the nights are long and the weather's typically pretty poor. Actually, those businesses are going to continue operating. All it's going to be is they're going to have to pay their staff extra over salary or wages for the pleasure of operating on a day that the Minister in this Government designates as Matariki, and they're going to have to give them a day in lieu, and all of that is going to add to the cost of business that is sawdust in the engine of the New Zealand economy.
If this Government was really honest about improving productivity, as they say they are, with the fair pay agreements and all of these other things—if they were really honest about improving productivity, what they'd say is we're not going to pass a single law that's going to affect the ability of businesses to operate in the current environment. We certainly wouldn't impose hundreds of millions of dollars of costs on those businesses, as the Minister has suggested.
So when we come back to "this is a Friday", and a Friday in the middle of winter, on a cold, short day close to the shortest day of the year, the winter solstice, that is not going to be a day that's going to see a massive amount of economic activity in response to this day that the Government designates as a public holiday.
So, look, while we all appreciate that there is a role to observe Matariki, the New Year that Māori observe, in our calendar, that is important to impose those costs on business and to impose this calendar that Part 1, through Schedule 1 and Schedules 2, 3, and 4, imposes on business—that is completely unacceptable to the ACT Party. It is, as I've said, sawdust in the engine of the economy. It's not going to deliver healthier communities. It's not going to deliver a healthy economy. In fact, it's disappointing, because rather than an opportunity to bring New Zealanders together, through passing the legislation now and insisting on dumping all of these costs into the economy which will force up the price of everything at a time of massive inflation, it's actually more likely to cause division than bring people together.
The challenge that I would lay down to the Minister and to the Government is if they wished to impose a new public holiday on New Zealand, they should choose one to remove—they should choose one. The ACT Party says that should be Labour Day. We don't actually need a holiday named after the Labour Party. I mean, do you think there will ever be a holiday named after the ACT Party—"ACT Day"? Well, I'll tell you what—it could be a day in October 2023, after the next election. They could be calling that "ACT Day", but we won't be asking for that to be made into a public holiday and forcing businesses and communities to observe it. Thank you, Mr Chair.





TEANAU TUIONO (Green) (remote): Tēnā koe e te Tiamana, me mihi Saturnalia Subaru hoki ki Te Komiti i tēnei pō.
E pēnei ana taku nei pātai ki Te Minita i te mea i a au e rongo ana i ngā kōrero mō te taha o te pakihi. Ki te whakaaro o Te Minita, he aha ngā painga, he aha ngā oranga mō ngā tāpoi pakihi ki roto i ngā rohe, ki roto i ngā takiwā i te mea kei te whakaaro ake au i a ia e kōrero ana mō te rerekē o ngā tikanga, Puanga ki ō tātou nei whānau ki Taranaki, Puaka ki te Wai Pounamu, Rehua ki te Nōta, Matariki whānui. Nā runga i tērā ka pēhea tērā āhua e hāpai ana ngā pakihi, e hāpai ngā tāpoi pakihi ki roto i ngā takiwā?
[Greetings, Mr Chair. I should offer my Subaru and Saturnalian greetings to the committee tonight.
This is my question to the Minister after listening to the accounts regarding businesses: what does the Minister think are the gains and benefits for the tourism businesses in the districts and the regions? Because I was thinking as I was listening to her talk about the varied protocols, Rigel for our family in Taranaki, Rigel in the South Island, Antares in the North and Matariki more widespread. With that in mind, how will the nature of that support businesses and support tourist businesses in the regions?]





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





HARETE HIPANGO (National): Thank you, Mr Chair. The last speaker asked a question of the Minister: what is being done in the regions to promote Matariki, and particularly those of us with tribal areas who have a regional variation and difference in terms of the dates and the timings of Matariki? In Whanganui, it's Puanga. So I'm waiting to hear a response from the Minister to that question.
Whilst we're waiting for that response, I add another question to the mix. Well, in fact, it's a statement, Minister. Earlier you said in this Chamber that there weren't any submissions put to the Māori Affairs Committee from the business sector and from the business community. I correct the Minister in relation to that, because it was reported, at page 3—I beg your pardon, page 12—of the Māori Affairs Committee report back to the House, discussing that "Some submitters expressed concern about the costs an additional public holiday might present to businesses that are already facing an increased minimum wage, additional sick leave, and ongoing effects of COVID-19." So I think it's important that there is accurate factual information that the public are predisposed to, rather than a certain view that comes from the Government in maintaining and supporting this as a public holiday, which the National Party does not oppose the principle of, but we do query and question the implications in the imposition on our business communities.
I addressed this matter in the House when I spoke to the bill either last night or the night before or the day before, and a statement, again, that a Labour member of the Māori Affairs Committee made was that it's a Pākehā perspective to say that the fiscal implications only comes from that whakaaro, that line of thinking. That's not the case. As a former Māori business owner and knowing current Māori business owners, the implications on our SMEs, our small and medium enterprises, our business operations—they are the ones who carry the cost and the burden. So if the Government is so insistent that this bill is going through, I invite the Government to consider some form of subsidy—and whether that's out of scope of this bill in the way was deemed that substitution of another holiday—some form of subsidy might be imposed that comes from the Government coffers as opposed to the taxpayer coffers. 
So again, the reason why I raise these issues is that these are the practical implications and impositions on a sector of our community—of course, many of whom will support the principle behind Matariki, but let's get real. Cost of living is huge. For our members—
Hon Member: Wrong bill.
HARETE HIPANGO: It's not the wrong bill, because this is about the kai of a nation. So I'm speaking to the bill, and I'm addressing the Minister's answer, which stands to be corrected in terms of a misinterpretation of what the Māori Affairs Committee had reported back. There are fiscal implications, so to dismiss and dispense with that is not correct.
I also, in speaking directly to the bill—I'm trying to find a copy of it. Regrettably, I wasn't sitting on the Māori Affairs Committee at the time of these matters, because I had other duties calling me to important issues, which is about the wellbeing of our children. But coming to Part 2, a clarification please, because the wording of this is not clear. Clause 6, "Regulations": "(1) The Governor-General may, by Order in Council made on the recommendation of the Minister, make regulations adding to Schedule 1", and Schedule 1 details the dates for the next 30 years that Matariki as a holiday will fall. So "make regulations adding to Schedule 1 a date in a year on which the public holiday will be observed to acknowledge Matariki in that year."—could we please have some clarification as to what that actually means?





Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Associate Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage): Tēnā koe e te Tiamana, tēnā koe e te tuakana mai i te rohe o Whanganui, otirā ki a koe e Simon Court mō tō pātai hoki, otirā ka huri ki e whā ngā kaupapa kua tono mai koutou. Me whakautu anō ki tēnei kaupapa o ngā utu. Ko te kaupapa o ngā whakautu ki ngā pakihi, ko tēnei he tono mai i ngā pakihi, maha ngā pakihi tāpoi ki te āwhina ki a rātou me tono mai me maha ngā tono mai i ngā rohe o Rotorua, Waiariki. Harikoa rātou mō tēnei wīkene roa. Rerekē te whakaaro o te tangata mai a Simon Court o te Pāti ACT.
Ki a rātou o te rohe o Waiariki, o Rotorua, āe. Ka huri ngā tāngata mai i Tāmakimakaurau i te waenganui o te tau, o te tīmata o te tau Māori, heoi i te waenganui o te Gregorian tau. Kua haramai maha ngā tāngata i waenganui i te tau ki te haramai mai i Tāmaki Makaurau ki ngā rohe o Rotorua, Waiariki, ki taku rohe o Te Tai Rāwhiti, ki te rohe o Whanganui pea o te pito o te ao o Tūwharetoa ko Ruapehu. Maha ngā tāngata kua wehe atu, ā, koinā ki a rātou, ngā pakihi tāpoi, e pai ana te tono ki te āwhina i a rātou. Heoi, me whakahoki anō te whakautu anō ki tērā atu pātai.
Ka huri ki te tono mai a taku tuakana mai i Whanganui, āe e tika tāu e te tuakana, kua haramai e rua rau tekau mā whā ngā tono mai i ngā tāngata katoa kua whiu ki te komiti, āe tika tau. E rua ngā tono anake e kāre e pai te utu o tēnei pire i runga i a rātou, kāre e kore e rua anake, ngā tono mai i ngā tāngata kua whiua atu ki te komiti, mai i te katoa o te rua rau tekau mā whā.
Ka huri, ki te pātai mō taku hoa a Simon Court anō. He aha ngā whakaaro o te hāngai o ētahi ngā rā? Tuatahi, ko te matauranga Māori e āwhina i a mātou mai i Te Kāwana mō ētahi ngā rā mō ngā tau e toru tekau, ka haere. Heoi, ōrite pea, ki te wīkene o Ahurei [Aranga], nā wai e tono mai ngā rā mō te Ahurei [Aranga]? Ko te Vatican, ko te Vatican e whiu ana ngā rā. Kei a rātou te mana, kei a rātou te tikanga e piki ana ngā rā mō tērā atu hararei ko te Ahurei [Aranga], heoi, mō tēnei pire, mō tēnei wā, o te wā o Matariki, ka tahuri ki tō tātou nei tohunga.
Ka tahuri ki tō tātou nei tohunga, he maha te mātauranga kei roto ki tērā atu kāhui e āwhina ki a mātou, te Karauna mō te hai i mua mō ētahi ngā rā. Kei te huri a rātou ngā tohunga ki te mātauranga o ā rātou ngā hapū o iwi. Kei te whai a rātou tīpuna mai i ngā whetū mai i ngā whetū o te Matariki, mai i ngā whetū o te Puanga, mai i ngā whetū o te Poutūterangi, mai i ngā whetū o te Rehua i ngā wā o mua.
He tino mātauranga tērā, he science, he tino science tērā, ā, kei te pupuri a rātou ngā tohunga o te Kāhui o te Matariki, kei te pupuri a rātou ngā hua o ētahi mātauranga, ā, kei te puta mai a rātau mai i maha ngā wānanga i tērā atu tau ka huri ki te pupuri ngā mātauranga kei roto i te pire nei. Kāore ko te Vatican, kāore ko ētahi rā i ētahi tāngata. Ko ngā tohunga e pupuri ana tētahi mātauranga, ā, koinā te tino tikanga mō ngā rā kei roto i tēnei pire mō ngā tau e toru tekau e haere ake. Koina ngā pātai katoa.
[Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you to my sister from the Whanganui electorate, and also to you, Simon Court, for your question. I now turn to the four issues you have raised. I will return to the issue of cost. As to the issue of costs to the businesses, this was a request from the many tourist businesses for help, there were a large number of submissions from the Rotorua and Waiariki districts. They were very happy about this long weekend. Simon Court, of the ACT Party, thinks differently.
According to those from the Waiariki and Rotorua districts, yes, people will travel from Auckland in the middle of the year, at the beginning of the Māori year, well, in the middle of the Gregorian year. Many people will travel in the middle of the year from Auckland to the districts of Rotorua and Waiariki, to my district of the East Coast, perhaps to the Whanganui district, to the centre of the world for Tūwharetoa, to Ruapehu. Many people have left their region, and that, according to the tourism businesses made it appropriate to ask for help.
However, I should get back to answering the other question. I now turn to the request from my sister from Whanganui. Yes, you are right, 214 submissions were received from all the people who presented to the committee—yes, you are right. There were only two submitters who were not happy with the costs imposed on them for this bill—only two—from all the people who presented to the committee, out of the total of 214.
I now turn, again, to the question from my friend Simon Court. What was the thinking behind the appropriateness of the dates? Firstly, Māori knowledge helped us, of the Government, to set the dates for the next 30 years. However, perhaps it is similar to the weekend of Easter, who sets the dates for Easter? The Vatican—it is the Vatican that sets those dates. They have the authority, they have the procedures to pick those dates for that holiday at Easter. However, for this bill, for this time of Matariki, we turn to our own experts.
We turn to our experts—there is much Māori knowledge held within that group to help us, the Crown, regarding the selection of the dates. The experts turned to the Māori knowledge of their own tribes and subtribes. Their ancestors followed the stars of Matariki, Rigel, Altair, and Antares in times past.
That is real knowledge, it is science, real science, and the experts on the Matariki cluster have held on to this knowledge and they have talked about it in the many conferences held in the last year, so that this knowledge is retained in this bill. Not by the Vatican, nor were the dates chosen by certain people. The experts held firmly to Māori knowledge, and that is the real reason for dates included in this bill for the 30 years ahead. That's all the questions.]





A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 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.
Part 2 agreed to.





Āpitihanga 1 / Schedule 1
A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 1 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.
Schedule 1 agreed to.





Āpitihanga 2 / Schedule 2
CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): Joseph Mooney's tabled amendment to Schedule 2 is ruled out of order as being out of scope of the bill.
A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 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.
Schedule 2 agreed to.





Āpitihanga 3 / Schedule 3
CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): We now move to Schedule 3. Joseph Mooney's tabled amendment to Schedule 3 is ruled out of order as being outside the scope of the bill.
A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 3 be agreed to.
Ayes 77
New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa 10; Te Paati Māori 2.
Noes 43
New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.
Schedule 3 agreed to.





Āpitihanga 4 / Schedule 4
CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): We now move to Schedule 4. Joseph Mooney's tabled amendment to Schedule 4 is ruled out of order as being outside the scope of the bill. The question is that Schedule 4 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 4 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.
Schedule 4 agreed to.





Ngā Āpitihanga 1 me 2 / Clauses 1 and 2
CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): Members, we now come to our final debate, clauses 1 and 2. This is the debate on clauses 1 and 2, "Title" and "Commencement".





A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 1 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 1 agreed to.





CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): The question is, That clause 2 stand part. All those in favour say, Aye—
Simon Court: Mr Chair, point of order. Is this a debatable motion?
CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): It is.
Simon Court: I would like—
CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): Hang on. I call Simon Court.
SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Mr Chair. In terms of commencement, clause 2, we have a major problem with the New Zealand economy and our social conditions right now. There are enormous costs being imposed on business, which is struggling to get staff—
CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): Order! Order! I have put the question. As I put the question that clause 1 as amended stand part, that, effectively, ends the debate. So I apologise to the speaker that I gave the call to, but that ends that debate. So I now—
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Point of order. Given that the debate will be short, I seek leave that a debate be held on clause 2.
CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): Leave has been sought that a debate be held on clause 2. Leave's not been granted.





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.





House resumed.
CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): The committee has considered Te Pire mō te Hararei Tūmatanui o te Kāhui o Matariki/Te Kāhui o Matariki Public Holiday Bill and reports it without amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.
Motion agreed to.
Report adopted.





NATURAL HAZARDS INSURANCE BILL
First Reading
Debate resumed from 29 March.
Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. After such a notable bill it may seem that this is perhaps not as important, but I must say I am very happy indeed to be speaking on this Natural Hazards Insurance Bill. You know, strange as it may seem, we all come to this place with some ambitions. One of mine was not particularly glamorous, but it was to make sure that the maltreatment of New Zealanders after natural disasters, that I saw in Christchurch and elsewhere, never happened again. And I actually said in my maiden speech that insurers, and the Earthquake Commission (EQC), didn't look after people. They didn't look to their legal obligations; they looked to their risk exposure and they used a law not as a guide but as a weapon. This bill is an important step to address that change. The Earthquake Commission as it is today is a wildly different thing than it was then, and this bill takes it this step further. 
The Labour Party, when it took office in 2017, committed to a public inquiry, and Dame Silvia Cartwright undertook that inquiry and reported back in March 2020. This implements large parts of that inquiry. I would also note we established the Greater Christchurch Claims Resolution Service, the earthquake tribunal, and the EQC On-sold programme—just part of the raft of things that this Government is doing to right the wrongs of the past that happened in Canterbury. So this bill is a further step in making sure that the heartbreak and unfairness that happened in Canterbury is not repeated, and it further meets those requirements in the Cartwright review. 
It's really important to note that, at the heart of this bill, the Natural Hazards Insurance Bill, is collectivism. Whilst the insurance market works well most of the time for most of the people, the fact is that in some cases it fails. It fails when the catastrophe is so large that the balance sheet of even the largest insurer can't manage it, such as AMI showed us, and Western Pacific, and Ansvar—all failed insurance companies after Canterbury. The insurance market also fails when it simply refuses to insure on commercial terms because their actuary tells them that it's not economic to underwrite those risks. But here in New Zealand, we think that the insurance of homes is too important to leave to the market alone. 
So, since the Earthquake and War Damage Act 1944, we've had a social contract that across New Zealand we will share the risk of loss to homes, and after the Abbotsford slip in '79, we also insure the land underneath them. Our land is subject to many hazards, and it's entirely reasonable that we spread the risk of those hazards evenly across all homeowners. And with that cushion, there is the expectation, an important expectation, that insurers will step up and offer comprehensive natural disaster insurance to all homeowners at an affordable price. 
The Canterbury earthquake insurance sequence showed that EQC badly needed updating, and the most obvious update here is the significant increase in the amount of natural hazard insurance. In 2011, it was $100,000, and this will raise it to $300,000. Still not enough—importantly to note—to replace entirely an average home. But it is a substantial sum, and it's likely that the new entity Toka Tū Ake—the Natural Hazards Commission—will bear far and away the greatest part of any underwriting cost after a natural disaster or catastrophe.
The other thing, that might slip past some, that struck me about this bill, is a real shift in accountability. The culture of EQC in 2011 was to use every device to limit their exposure and liability. Now, Toka Tū Ake will have a code of insured-persons' rights, a complaints management procedure for breaches of that code, and an independent review process if that isn't resolved correctly. And also, an independent dispute resolution scheme for what are, essentially, insurance disputes about the settlement process itself. This is an absolutely seismic shift from the wall that homeowners faced when they were unhappy—often justifiably so—with EQC. 
As someone who worked through a raft of detail of EQC claims, a lot of the other changes are also very, very welcome—like, for example, the difficulty in measuring land damage when land subsides. The bill puts into legislative form the diminution of value framework—evaluation based not just on the costs of repair to land but on the value that it's lost. And of course, multi-unit dwellings were an absolute nightmare, where there's shared areas and common areas, party walls, and the like—can be very problematic—and the bill clarifies that as well. 
Having said that, this is not absolutely perfect. I am sure we will get lots of submissions, and I admit I lobbied the Minister David Clark that this gets sent to the Finance and Expenditure Committee because I take a personal interest in it. One issue that I'm looking forward to exploring is the standard of repair—a familiar framework is used to costs reasonably incurred to replace or reinstate the property to a condition substantially the same as when it was new, using current materials and meeting current building standards. That can throw up some tricky situations—for example, where a house was dilapidated, or where it's a very old house using older materials, or even a modern house using unusual architectural techniques, or where the damage is minor but the costs of repair are wholly disproportionate. So those are some of the issues we may need to explore. 
There's also changes to cover for bridges, retaining walls, and culverts. It used to be depreciated value, which was very unfortunate if you had a perfectly good 100-year-old stone wall whose depreciated value was pretty much zero but it was perfectly sound, but the insurer would not pay out on it, or EQC would not pay out on it. The bill clarifies this by using replacement cost, but it does cap the value at $50,000, and at $25,000 for bridges. That also needs to be understood, because $25,000 won't pay for a significant bridge, or even a small one in many cases, and certainly $50,000 won't pay for a significant structural retaining wall. So we need to understand how that will fit in with private insurance, and explore where we need to go with that.
Look, for some people these matters are exceedingly dull, when you're considering them in advance in a technical manner, but I can tell you that, if you have a broken home and you can't rebuild it without fixing the retaining wall and you don't have the money to fix the retaining wall, it is heartbreak. It is a personal catastrophe. So getting this right now isn't just about crossing t's and dotting i's, it's about getting it right to cushion the blow for homeowners and ensuring we're prepared for the next—and absolutely inevitable—catastrophe. I commend this bill to the House. 





STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is a pleasure to speak on this Natural Hazards Insurance Bill. As my colleague Gerry Brownlee said yesterday, the National Party actually welcomes this bill. I too have had quite a bit to do with the earthquakes and the Earthquake Commission (EQC) over the years, and I think the one thing that we can all agree on is that EQC didn't do a stellar job. There were a whole lot of issues that occurred during, certainly after, the Christchurch earthquake series. There was a lot of change that occurred between then and the Kaikōura earthquake, and it worked very well, but it was a much smaller event. I'll put it to the House that, actually, the next time there's a really large one, we will end up with similar issues, because there will be gaps and these things don't get tested until there is a really big event. Each event has its own characteristics and it causes damage to a community in different ways. This bill is going to go a long way to fix all the gaps that we're aware of, but I'm certain that we will be back, or the House will be—it might not happen for 50 years, or longer, who knows, but it could happen tomorrow. So getting this done is a really good step forward. We support that.
My colleague Gerry Brownlee said there were over 700,000 claims from the Christchurch series of earthquakes. It's a massive undertaking. There were certainly some big issues because of the managed rebuild and the way that was managed, and there was some bad behaviour by contractors, which has come back to bite a lot of homeowners, and that's certainly a very serious issue. In fact, I'm working on a member's bill that might actually avert some of those issues in the future. But that's another story.
This bill goes to set up new definitions around land damage—where the barriers lie. I think that's a really important thing to do. That caused a lot of issues in the Christchurch one and, indeed, in the Kaikōura earthquake. I do note in clause 42 that the maximum land cover amount for residential land—and it goes down into "(1)(b)(ii) the number of dwellings in the residential building multiplied by $50,000 plus GST;", and then damage to bridges and culverts in residential buildings, the lesser of "(1)(c)(ii) the number of dwellings in the residential building multiplied by $25,000 plus GST." I look forward to understanding, through the select committee process, where these numbers came from, how they were calculated, and if they are adequate. What really worries me about this, and the cap that's gone from $150,000 to $300,000 under this bill, is we're in a cost of living crisis in New Zealand at the moment, with rampant inflation. It's only going to get worse. How long are these numbers going to remain valid? Should they be linked to the Consumers Price Index, or the building cost inflation at least? I don't know the answers to those, but I'm sure that we will hear quite a bit about that during the select committee process. These things all need to be teased out.
The bill allows the new Natural Hazards Commission to raise reinsurance against different hazards other than earthquakes, and I think that's a really interesting proposition for several reasons. One, if we can just—the $300,000 rise in the cap is significant. The Christchurch earthquake sequence was—private insurers paid out $21 billion, EQC paid out $10 billion. EQC were already the largest single reinsurance buyer in the world for these types of events, and now they are going to go up by three times, effectively. So that is a massive amount of reinsurance. How will the reinsurance market react to that? I don't know. I suspect it's a big buy. They're going to have to look for a much wider spread of reinsurance than they perhaps have at this stage, but most of the reinsurance goes through one centre. So, I mean, I really look forward to learning more about that during the committee stage, because it's a really important issue. And it has been raised when we did these other series of legislation in the last term. That was an issue. And so there must be quite a bit of information about that, and I certainly want to hear about that. That is a really important area.
Expanding EQC to other natural hazards does raise some questions with me. There is a scheme in the UK called Flood Re, which is to deal with flood-prone housing in particular. It's, effectively, what EQC is doing: socialises the cost of insurance across the whole market. The problem that they have with is that is that it, effectively, locks people in to areas which are flood-prone when, actually, the better long-term solution would be, in the really worst places, to have a managed retreat from those areas. I mean, we can think of Westport, where we've had several floods there recently. That's a very serious issue, and maybe we should be looking at that. I don't want to see EQC expanding their mandate to cause people to be locked into those homes—
Dr Duncan Webb: We already cover floods. It hasn't changed.
STUART SMITH: —that have already dealt with several floods and will have to deal with that again. I think that's a real issue, and I'm surprised it hasn't been raised by the member on the other side, because he certainly had a bit to do with it. I thought he'd be all over that. But it is a serious issue, and I think that's something we have to consider.
There's quite a lot of information-gathering powers here, and we just really have to know and understand whether the unfettered access to information that the commission will have—is that really necessary? I don't know. I don't see any justification, in the information provided, for that amount of information being gathered. And where is it going to be spread out to? I don't know. And who's going to get it? It is, as I said, unfettered in the bill as it stands. I look forward to debating that. So that's an important one. 
This is a minor one, although it could be quite important. I think it's clause 23 where it defines the events that would be covered by the commission. It doesn't include meteor strikes—a very unlikely event, but it is something that can and does happen. Meteor strikes, actually, are covered by reinsurance, and most—not all, but some—existing insurance policies do cover meteor strikes. If we are going to have a sort of socialised insurance cost, surely that would be one of the things that should be covered.
The other important issue, about the increase of the cap from $150,000 to $300,000, is the impact it's going to have on people's insurance bills. Particularly in this place here, where we are, in Wellington, there is going to be a significantly lower cost for people living in high-risk areas. However, far more people are going to be affected by having higher insurance costs, because they live in lower-risk areas. The reason for this is because the private insurance area which is covering the cost currently from $150,000 upward is based on a risk-based pricing model. Therefore, the risk is assessed in the premium, and, from my information, those people living in a low-risk area—say, in Northland—could be saddled with up to a $200 increase in their premium. So we're socialising that cost across New Zealand. Yes, the people in Wellington Central will benefit from that, but I would put it to the House that the people in Northland will be disadvantaged. So I'm looking forward to teasing that out in the select committee, because—I'm sure the people of Northland won't feel too bad about me saying this, but, actually, they have much lower incomes than people in this part of the world, and there are already social difficulties in that part of the world. I have great concern for that, being in the National Party. We do care about these matters.
It's with that that I do commend the bill to the House, with the caveats that I have just laid out before you. Thank you.





GREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just leading on from the previous two speakers, I think it's important when we look at the Earthquake Commission (EQC) to look at what it doesn't cover currently. It takes a disaster for people to get rather nasty surprises. For example, it doesn't cover intangible property—for example, information stored on a computer; motor vehicles, or parts or accessories of motor vehicles; trailers, or parts or accessories of trailers; boats or other vessels, or parts or accessories of boats or vessels; aircraft or anything in or on an aircraft; bushes, forests, trees, plants, or lawns; growing crops; explosives; animals; roads; streets; drives, or paths. Well, of course, we've already heard one of the previous speakers say that some of that is going to be addressed now—drains; channels; tunnels or cuttings; dams; breakwaters; fences or poles; reservoirs; swimming pools; baths; spa pools; tanks or water towers; tennis courts; jetties, wharves, or landings; paving or other artificial surfaces.
So one can imagine that after a disaster such as that which struck Christchurch, that which struck Kaikōura recently—although, I do have to say the Kaikōura earthquake was as much the Wellington earthquake as it was the Kaikōura earthquake; just, of course, Kaikōura claimed it much earlier. But when one looks at those things, rather than guaranteeing a surprise following a disaster, it is absolutely appropriate that we look at the legislation, look at what we've learned. After all, New Zealand is a country that, in many parts, is actually defined by its earthquakes. We have the member for Napier in front of me. The Napier earthquake caused a whole city to be rebuilt—the fact it was rebuilt quickly so Hastings wouldn't get a start on them is neither here nor there, but, of course, the Napier earthquake is something that looms large. I know, growing up on the West Coast, the Murchison earthquake was something that loomed large. The Īnangahua earthquake, and, of course, Christchurch and Kaikōura latterly. In fact, just while I do speak about the Wellington earthquake, the fact that there was so much damage in Wellington—I know that I was offshore when the Kaikōura earthquake occurred. I had no idea of just how much damage had been caused to Wellington, and still today there are buildings which are being affected. That list which I actually read through—people are getting nasty surprises.
So it is apt and timely that we now look at the lessons that we have learnt, and, of course, the inquiry recommendations, we're now putting them into practice, because now the Natural Hazards Insurance Bill will cover damage covered by landslips, volcanic eruptions, hydrothermal activity, and tsunami. What is interesting, of course, is that what started out as the earthquake and war damage—war damage has actually dropped off. Now, as the world looks at the possibilities of us slipping into another world conflict, it's time that we did have a look and make sure that we are actually included. So, of course, it was actually the War Damage Commission up until the 1940s. It was the Wairarapa earthquake that actually did bring about the need to ensure that those houses that weren't able to fixed following that 1942 earthquake—there was requirement for a bill like this.
So it gives me great pleasure to be—knowing the generosity, the eagerness of our committee chair to stand and wave his hand when the decisions were being made about where this bill would go. I think such is the gravitas of the Finance and Expenditure Committee chair that he was able to ensure that it does come to our committee. I look forward to having it, and I'm sure that with our collective experience we can send this back to this House in an improved, relevant, and, more importantly, in a state that New Zealanders—knowing that it is only a matter of time before we get the next big one, then at least this aspect of it will be covered. So I commend this bill to the House.





Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker; thank you. The Green Party is pleased to support the Natural Hazards Insurance Bill. At 89 pages, it's reasonably complex and technical, and it replaces the Earthquake Commission Act 1993. Having lived through the Canterbury earthquake series, this bill seeks to learn the lessons, takes on board quite a number of the recommendations—around 10—from the very thoughtful and accessible report that Dame Silvia Cartwright did in her inquiry into the whole way the Earthquake Commission (EQC) had operated, and also the 2015 public consultation that was done then. So there's been a really good basis of policy analysis and development to come to the House with this bill.
So anyone who insures their home or other residential building, such as a rental property, against fire can access EQC cover in the event of a natural disaster because the levies that they pay to the insurance company are then passed on to EQC and into the Natural Disaster Fund. It's this point—which Duncan Webb also made—that because EQC is taking that first loss with the private insurers picking up the balance, it makes insurance against natural disasters much more affordable in New Zealand Aotearoa and much more certain than overseas, where people are often having to rely on their Government after a natural disaster to provide funding, support, and assistance. Because it's much more affordable, the insurance cover is that much more widespread here.
So this certainty, and the fact that we have EQC, does really improve the ability of people and communities to recover from natural disasters. As Dame Silvia Cartwright said in her April 2020 report, regardless of people's views of how EQC had performed in the 2010-11 Canterbury earthquake sequence, New Zealand is very fortunate to have a natural disaster insurance scheme backed by the Government.
So, as others have said, there were more than half a million claims to EQC after those Canterbury earthquakes, and even though the commission took on board an extra 1,000-odd staff, it was totally overwhelmed by both the number of claims and also the efforts to roll out a managed repair process where EQC took all the responsibility for managing those repairs and doing it on a mass scale. That led to some pretty horrendous experiences for homeowners, long periods of negotiation with EQC and insurance companies, and as Dame Silvia also noted, previously EQC had been regarded as being a helpful and supportive face of the Government, but after the earthquakes, it was seen to be—and I quote—"uncaring, miserly and inefficient", and people saw it often as being sort of dominated by financial objectives, seeking to minimise the costs for the Crown in claims management and settlement. Since then, of course, there have been a number of quite significant operational changes by EQC and how it works, both with claimants and with private insurers: the transfer of contents to private insurers; it's developed a toolbox of options for recovery; it's established a hub for claimants to access information; it's sought to ensure that there's one point of contact for people making claims and resolving their claims; and it's developed a much better partnership with private insurers.
So this bill makes some really significant changes, and one of them is that it took the Labour Government in the first term to establish a Greater Christchurch Claims Resolution Service because otherwise people were being forced to go to the courts. This bill makes sure that there is an independent dispute resolution service so that people don't have to go to the courts, and it requires EQC to participate in that standing dispute resolution scheme. It also provides certainty around matters that a claim to the commission can be assigned if the house is sold. It provides a very clear statement of the commission's repair standard for both buildings and land cover, and again, that will help address the issues that arose in Ōtautahi Christchurch around EQC's performance. It also deals with things like mixed-use buildings. How do you decide, when you've got an apartment, maybe on floors two and three of a building and then a retail premises on the ground floor, who covers what in relation to repair of the foundations or the roof? The equity issues for owners of mixed-use buildings mean that those claims were often very complicated and took quite a while to resolve, and would sometimes have required court action. So the bill does make some more consistent guidelines around that.
Probably the biggest thing that householders will appreciate about the bill is the increase in the cap from the present $150,000 plus GST to $300,000. That means that the Government is taking on more risk from private insurers, and it also recognises the much higher costs now for building repair. That's beneficial because, again, it makes insurance more affordable. Stuart Smith raised the point of making sure that this was tied to the Consumers Price Index, but as I understand the bill there are some new provisions in it around financial governance to make sure that premiums are reviewed so it will keep up to date. The levy wasn't reviewed between 1944 and 2012, and the insurance cap wasn't reviewed between 1993 and 2019. So, of course, those got completely out of date. So the bill is setting in law a process for this to be regularly updated at least every five years, and some criteria that the Minister must use in going through this updating process, making sure that it is transparent by requiring a funding and risk management statement to be released after each review of the financial settings, and this is all based on something similar that applies to ACC—so, again, much more accountability and transparency around financial governance and ensuring that EQC is adequately resourced, able to seek reinsurance, and is in a sound position to respond to further natural disasters.
This is an area where, as others have noted—and I think the National Party was slightly mistaken in thinking that, by changing the name of the commission to the Natural Hazards Commission Toka Tū Ake, the range of hazards which are covered is being expanded. My understanding is that the range of hazards stays the same, but this is where the issue potentially arises with things like sea level rise. There will be pressure on the Crown to expand the range of hazards which can be covered, because how do we as a community ensure, as we've done with EQC, that that cost of recovery is shared across the community and doesn't just fall primarily on those who are affected. Things like the increased risk of flooding—yes, EQC covers damage to land from flooding, not damage to buildings from flooding. There will be more conversations, I think, around this and how that risk is shared. This again is an area where the commission has a critical role because, with the seismic research that it has done in Canterbury and elsewhere, it has a much better understanding of risk, how buildings can be modified and better built to protect against seismic hazard. This research function of the commission is quite critical, and that's also dealt with in the bill in making sure that the commission is adequately resourced to do that.
So there is a lot of work that the Department of Internal Affairs is pulling together around a multi-agency community resilience programme in the face of the disasters that we've seen on Tairāwhiti, on the East Coast, in Westport, and increased stormwater flooding in Auckland. It's about how, as a country, we have the key conversations about policy issues like managed retreat and how, as a wider community, we ensure that people can survive those disasters. We deal with the stress of people having to repeatedly worry whenever heavy rain is occurring. What will happen to their homes? What will happen to their communities? The huge social and economic disruption and dislocation that occurs with those disasters. So that's a bigger conversation, but the Green Party is very pleased to support this bill and looks forward to it being considered by the Finance and Expenditure Committee.





Dr JAMES McDOWALL (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. We're approaching this bill with cautious optimism. The evolution of the Earthquake Commission (EQC) and how it operates and how people make claims and what it covers has evolved over quite some time, but I think there is a general consensus that something does need to change, that it needs to continue evolving. As we discovered with the Canterbury earthquakes, the system just wasn't up to scratch and couldn't function well under great pressure. That, as we all know, resulted in great pain and frustration and a lot of lessons learnt.
Now, as others have said, legislative changes like this, in this area, notwithstanding amendments, don't happen very often, so there's a bit of a feeling out there that it could be a once-in-a-generation opportunity we've got here. That might be a bit dramatic, but it does have to be done right.
Now, there is a fair amount of confusion out there when speaking to stakeholders and getting information, and what I'm hearing here in the House tonight as well, in terms of cover and range and exactly what we're getting into. It would have been very helpful, I think, for the sector to have had an exposure draft and actually had a bit of upfront consultation here, because we absolutely do need to get this right.
So I'm hopeful that this bill is the right way to go about it and that there is a thorough process, which means a full select committee. They need to spend a fair amount of time getting stuck into this, listening to the sector and those who have experience in dealing with this system. Again, I stress the importance of this, because stakeholders, insurance companies—they did not get an exposure draft, as I noted. They are still reacting to it. The bill is considerably larger than the one it is replacing in terms of pages and clauses, and it's pretty technical.
Some of the initial feedback I've received is there's questions about raising the cap to $300,000, which is locked into this bill, and there are concerns about how much risk the Government wishes to take on, and therefore away from the private sector, despite their confidence in actually being able to insure and their ability to do so. There are questions about the financial settings over time—the cap itself and the levy. It seems logical that it will increase, but some more certainty around that would be helpful. The overall feeling, the overall direction of this bill out there, is positive but it's cautious. Again, I stress that a lot of that could have been solved by a bit more communication with the sector previously.
As others have noted, the name of the commission, including "Natural Hazards Commission", runs the risk of causing a bit of uncertainty about what exactly is covered and to what degree. There's certainly been some different commentary out there, so we need to absolutely make sure we unpack that in the select committee. One could argue it's just semantics and operationally it will be fine, but I'm very keen to hear that discussion. I agree there is probably justification for a name change. The EQC brand has taken a bit of a beating over the years, so it's understandable there's a wish to move on.
Those covered by this need confidence that the fund itself has solid oversight and cannot be tapped into inappropriately, and that running costs do not get out of hand given they rely on that fund. Overall change is needed because there has been too much inefficiency and too much heartache, but we should always be mindful that there needs to be sufficient or substantial justification for Government intervention in a market, and when there is, for the State to not get carried away, because when it does that, that is when unintended consequences come along—or very foreseeable ones, in many cases—and we have to come back here and fix things. 
That's why the select committee is so important and the Government should give this bill its full hearing that it deserves and not rush the process like it has for pretty much everything else. So, with that, we commend this bill to the select committee. Thank you.





HELEN WHITE (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It's a pleasure to speak in support of this bill, and I will be part of the select committee that gets to hear the submitters. I recognise that that will probably be a very interesting but quite emotional experience because we're, no doubt, going to hear from some of the people who were really hurt by the previous iteration of this legislation—the culture that surrounded it—those people, particularly, of Christchurch who suffered in the earthquakes of 2010 and 2011. I have a great respect for Silvia Cartwright; she is one of the most interesting people I've had to meet, because she's a very independent person and she has great structure in her thinking, and she brought us an inquiry and a report with a lot of detail in it, and a lot of lessons to be learnt. And, while those lessons have begun to be learnt and have been adopted, this bill will actually clarify and crystallise a lot of them in the law. So I welcome it coming.
I wanted to comment on a few things I've heard from the other speakers, just to clarify them. I went through the legislation that we have, and it is quite right that there is a concern about the cap being $300,000, but actually that's subject to a review, so, according to the draft, that would be looked at every five years, as would the levies. My friend in the Green Party has talked about the process that would be adopted in that area, and I can see quite a lot of resonance, in what I've read so far, that goes to the methods that are used in accident compensation. So that happens both in that area, and it looks like the proposal is that we adopt quite similar ways of handling claims, and there's a lot to be learnt in those areas, because what we're dealing with here is actually a piece of legislation that's a key part of our safety net in this country. It really is going to provide an underpinning security to not only people but also business in our country, because we all rely on being able to actually know where we stand in terms of this very important asset in people's lives, which is their home.
I also wanted to comment on another issue that was raised, about whether in fact it was progressive enough in a time of climate change, in terms of movement of people from hazardous areas. I noticed, also, a provision which was about relocation of homes, and allowed for equivalent relocation—either on the land itself or on another piece of land. That seems to me a very sensible part of the legislation, so there's obviously a looking forward to a time when there are going to be much greater challenges than we have had. After all, we do live in a country that is—I noted when I was looking through the material—the second-most dangerous country in the world apparently, in terms of natural hazards; so add to that climate change, and this is one we have to get right. I fully intend to work hard, alongside my colleagues, in terms of listening to submissions and listening to the lessons learnt, and making sure that we do get that right.
I think another important part of the bill, with regard to that, is that it does focus on three subsidiary purposes, and the third of those is actually education, research, and information. So it's a bill that's looking towards the future in that way, and it's very much trying to build the resilience of our culture in these situations. The other subsidiary purposes of this legislation that are being introduced in this piece of legislation are claims management and fund management. With regards to claims management, I think that's worth a pause, because I think that's a lot of where the heartbreak came in the Christchurch earthquakes. We have to get that right. We have to have a system where people can actually engage in a process that doesn't go on and on, and doesn't try and actually break their spirit in order to break the cost of a repair.
This is a piece of legislation that I can see has so much to offer in terms of clarity, of people knowing where they stand, but also a process where they might be able to resolve their dispute, where they know where they stand, and where there's a code of conduct that's not all about driving people down, and is actually accessible to people—hopefully, without lawyers. I belong to that lovely profession and, actually, a lot of money was made by lawyers in the Christchurch earthquakes at the expense of a lot of people's agony. So that is an area where I'd like to see a lot less involvement of lawyers and a lot more proactive, good faith resolution of claims at the earliest possible stage, and I can see that this bill has that potential. With that, I will finish and will say I'm looking forward to the learnings that will come out of this for me personally, and I commend this bill to the House.





NICOLA GRIGG (National—Selwyn): I was one of the hundreds of thousands of Cantabrians who hid under the dining table on 22 February 2011, and I really did think my number was up. Then, of course, five years later I was hiding under the doorway in my flat in Wellington, and I really thought, "I'm not going to get away with this a second time." But luck thus far has been on my side.
The disruption and the destruction and the distress that was caused on both of those occasions has been long felt and continues to affect the Canterbury region in particular to this day. What the earthquakes, I think, highlighted in part was firstly the ability of New Zealanders, and Cantabrians especially, to pull together but it also brought to the surface a number of shortcomings in the way that the Earthquake Commission (EQC) was able to respond to major events like those quakes.
Those shortcomings have been well traversed in Dame Silvia Cartwright's public inquiry into the Earthquake Commission, which the National Government set up in 2011. It was clear following the Canterbury and Kaikōura events, as well, I think, as the floods and the scrub fires we've seen in the past 10 years, that natural disasters are very much part and parcel of life in the "Shaky Isles", and as a result the functionality and range of EQC's reach does need to be clearly defined and managed. I would agree with the member from the Greens Eugenie Sage, who spoke earlier and said that the range of events like this likely to hit our nation needs to be canvassed widely. This is our opportunity as a Parliament to take a good hard look, and we can do it once, we can do it right, and, yes, with a view to revisit these things every five years.
The bill seeks to deal with, among other things, the key issues and recommendations outlined by Dame Silvia. The National Party supports aligning the cover under the bill with that of standard private insurance practice, and if it means that the commission and insurance firms are all working from the same playbook, then that, I have to say, is a very good thing. It is so important to reduce the opportunity for dispute between the different interpretations of the bill, because we have seen that go on and on and on for 11 years in Christchurch particularly. And, because insurers are going to be acting as agents for EQC, it is critical that these two sides, so to speak, are not operating to different standards.
We would also support improving the consistency between the rules used to determine if a building is mixed-use, and the resulting cover of that building. We've seen complex cases involving bodies corporate still running through the courts today. If you ask any resident in Christchurch, I am sure they would agree that in the past there has been much difficulty trying to determine whether EQC cover is available and, if so, what the homeowner is entitled to. I personally have reopened a case 11 years after the fact; after I was given a $200 settlement to pull down and rebuild an entire brick wall. This bill will, hopefully, clear up things like that.
There are some common-sense changes, like extending the damage period of volcanic activity—we joke about it a little but we have seen it occur with devastating consequences in this country—and I am particularly pleased to see that, given the amount of advocates who have emerged since 2011 purporting to act on behalf of claimants but actually pocketing often sizable commissions. There are some aspects of the bill which would require more clarification and review at the select committee, and we look forward to supporting this bill as it progresses though its stages in the House.





ANNA LORCK (Labour—Tukituki) (remote): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I must say, as a member of the Finance and Expenditure Committee, where a lot of the work we do is in the tax legislative space, which is of course excellent and full-on work, I am however very pleased to learn that our chair, Duncan Webb, has lobbied hard to make sure that this bill is coming to us. It's going to attract incredible interest from right across New Zealand because it impacts on every one of us. It will create good, robust policy, which I'm looking forward to.
Every one of us lives in New Zealand knowing that a major earthquake can strike at any time. As the member for Tukituki living in Hawke's Bay, the memory of the 1931, 7.8 earthquake lives on, where we remember every year the 26 people who tragically lost their lives, along with the thousands who were hospitalised. But then, through the art deco architecture, where a city was destroyed to rubble it was able to be rebuilt. I find it incredible that 111 new buildings were constructed in the downtown area between 1931 and 1933, in just two years, and yet we've heard tonight from the struggles of people in Canterbury and the unfair challenges they faced in trying to get paid out so that they could just get on with rebuilding their homes and lives.
In Hawke's Bay, we've also witnessed just last year a one-in-200-year flood, which left flood-prone, low-lying areas covered, sections of housing in metres high of mud, as well as those suffering from slips on Napier Hill. It was a massive dark cloud that literally poured down on a very isolated area, reminding us once again that at any time mother Nature is an incredibly strong force, leaving destruction in her wake, and now no more closer to home than in the past week, where again parts of our region from across the East Coast have been left a sodden, washed-out mess.
We all know the cost of insurance is going up, but we need to make sure that we all help in making sure that there is security in knowing that people will be paid out in a timely and fair manner. As we see storms and cyclones coming at us faster year on year, we also know that New Zealand has the world's second-highest natural disaster costs in the world as a proportion of GDP. Our natural hazards insurance scheme supports us to have one of the world's highest rates of residential property insurance, so it is extremely timely that this Natural Hazards Insurance Bill enters its first reading. It will modernise the Earthquake Commission Act 1993 and its associated natural hazards insurance scheme and governing Crown entity, the Earthquake Commission.
The bill makes the following key changes. It makes rules for mixed and multi-purpose buildings clearer; clarifies regulations relating to repairing buildings and land following a landslip or other land damage; simplifies the excessive calculations for retaining walls, bridges, and culverts; introduces a claimant code and a standing dispute resolution service; and changes the name to the National Hazards Commission to reflect the broad range of hazards covered by the Act and dealt with by the commission.
I am looking forward to working on this bill, one that I believe many, many New Zealanders right across the country—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! The member's time has expired. Can I remind the member that, while she is coming in from a remote source, speeches are not to be read in this House. The member's been around for long enough to be able to speak from notes.





INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Christchurch earthquakes touched everyone in New Zealand, I think. On 22 February 2011, Dr Dominic Bell, father of three, 45-year-old, larger-than-life character, who happened to be my brother's best man at his wedding, went into the CTV Building, to his surgery there, and never came out alive. A few years later, I was shooting a documentary in Christchurch and I was just noticing the devastation at the red zone, and the higgledy-piggledy roads, the paint on the roads that still went everywhere, and to me they were a visual metaphor of how people's lives had changed and become higgledy-piggledy. 
Certainly, after that second earthquake, I knew a couple of sisters who were very close. They wanted to get out of Christchurch. They threw a dart, and they moved to the city where the dart landed. They had a little boy with them, who stayed at the noho marae with my children. A happy little boy during the day; at night time, we could hearing him crying, thinking another earthquake would strike. He actually went on to become a very good scholar and athlete. He was resilient, but others weren't so lucky, and, really, that trauma was incredible.
On top of the trauma of the quakes came the trauma of the insurance claims. We've heard various numbers in this House—half a million; I think 700,000 was mentioned by the Hon Gerry Brownlee last night; I've seen between those numbers in media—and it just shows, actually, the complexity that the earthquakes caused, which speaks to what this bill is trying to help to resolve.
And then, of course, after that came the royal commission and Dame Silvia Cartwright's work. Amongst the almost 1,000 submissions, there were some positive submissions from people who were deemed vulnerable; they got their claims dealt with quickly and they were lucky. But there were many, many others, as we've heard, who spoke of the lack of operating procedures; poor communication; the repeating of details of their case over and over to different people, which was re-traumatising; and the delays in getting things resolved. One person in their submission said, "The earthquake didn't break me. EQC almost did".
So there were high stress levels, reports of suicidal feelings, and post-traumatic stress—the effects of living in quake-damaged homes for months, or, as we've heard from Nicola Grigg, even for years, and ongoing injuries that happened. There was one claimant who said that they had experienced asthma for the first time in their life by living in a damaged home; another one who sustained a serious injury from slipping on cracked floor slabs.
The inquiry heard about the pressure on assessments, of quantity over quality, that assessors sometimes had to assess up to five dwellings per day, and people admitting that they had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on lawyers and sometimes given up trying to get the claims that they were entitled to, because they had given up the battle with the Earthquake Commission (EQC).
So what this bill does is it tries to change all of that, and, really, this is about changing the culture of claimants, and putting claimants back at the centre rather than the process, which was so damaging to so many people. It simplifies and clarifies the Earthquake Commission Act. And, as we've heard, it incorporates many of the recommendations that Dame Silvia Cartwright made.
There are three main streams of work: it's the claims management; the fund management; and the education, research, and information that goes with that process, and also keeping that up to date as things move on as the country experiences climate change and the different types of disaster and the different challenges that they present.
We can see a significant change in the title. EQC has become Toka Tū Ake—or the Natural Hazards Commission. So it covers not just earthquakes now but volcanoes, tsunamis, landslips, geothermal events, also fire as a result of any of these, and land damage caused by flood or storms. We've heard some discussion tonight about the need to have more thinking done around flooding in particular, and I'm very interested in this as the MP for Taieri, having seen people in my electorate traumatised by the floods of 2015. So I look forward to a public conversation where we can look at climate change adaptation and social insurance for flooding as we move into the new climate-adaptive future.
What the bill does is it has clarified mixed and multi-use buildings; it clarifies the regulations around landslips—it simplifies calculation, the excesses and certain structures around that—and, very importantly, it introduces a standing dispute resolution service.
I'd like to just focus on the claims management, because what it does do is codify the commission's participation in a code of conduct and dispute resolution process, which is something that was clearly needed after the Christchurch quakes. It codifies a process for independent reviews of unresolved complaints. And it also extends delegation of claims to private insurers, and that's about speeding up the process for claimants, because, as Nicola Grigg has said, 11 years on there are still people churning through the system.
So I'd like to commend Minister David Clark, who comes from the best part of the country—Dunedin and South Otago; just a little Facebook joke we've got going on—for his work on bringing the Cartwright recommendations to life.
This bill, it won't bring Dr Dominic Bell back to life and it won't bring back lost time or undo the stress for those who had to deal with the EQC after the Christchurch quakes, but I do hope that it brings reassurance to them that others won't experience the same thing. Therefore, I look forward to hearing the submissions at the Finance and Expenditure Committee, and I strongly commend the bill to the House.





SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to take a call on the Natural Hazards Insurance Bill. I just want to acknowledge all of the people who've spoken before me, particularly those who have a far more personal connection to the issues behind this piece of legislation, and particularly colleagues who are from the Canterbury region who have been at the forefront of some of these issues in New Zealand over recent years.
I think this is an incredibly important piece of legislation to many New Zealanders, and I'm pleased that the National Party is supporting this piece of legislation, because it is critical that after such significant events, such as what did take place during the Christchurch earthquakes, the impact of it is assessed and the systems and processes and the insurances which New Zealanders have in place and the Government has in place are assessed to ensure that that is all happening and all taking place in a way which actually means that New Zealanders are looked after through that process.
I do just want to acknowledge the report done by Dame Silvia Cartwright and the 70 recommendations, which have helped to feed into this particular piece of legislation, and the work that has been done to ensure that the voices of New Zealanders who did have to go through incredibly challenging and difficult processes following the earthquakes to be able to be heard—to be able to get their claims assessed and to be able to ensure that they could get on with their lives following those incredibly serious events with their homes damaged, lives disrupted, and then being able to, effectively, rebuild or have their homes fixed and being able to navigate that system. All of these things are things that we don't hope anyone has to go through. These are not the types of situations we wish upon people, but, unfortunately, this is part of living in a country which has many natural disasters and which has many risks that we have to manage and we have to deal with. 
This piece of legislation makes a number of very important changes, not only updating the legislation, the name of the earthquake agency to the natural hazards entity, but also about ensuring that it has a wider scope over the types of activity or natural events which take place and which it is able to respond to, about ensuring that there are improved systems and processes for New Zealanders, as they go through this process, to be able to make their claims, have those claims assessed, and for them to be, effectively, put more towards the centre of that process. 
I note that a large part of this legislation deals with how complaints are managed, about having a code of insured persons' rights, and having complaint procedures and then dispute resolution to ensure that those processes are managed in a timely manner. But there will be a number of areas which I think will be of interest to the committee. I won't be on that particular committee. I'm sure the Finance and Expenditure Committee will be—
Andrew Bayly: The august body!
SIMEON BROWN: —doing a lot of work. What was that, Mr Andrew Bayly?
Andrew Bayly: August.
SIMEON BROWN: August body. They'll be doing some great work. And, in terms of looking into the issues, I think a number of these issues have already been traversed in the debate. But, in terms of the issues of multi-level buildings, bodies corporate, and how that is managed, I think, as we see more intensification in our cities, more multi-level buildings being built, more New Zealanders are choosing to live in these types of buildings, that that becomes a bigger issue in a number of areas. And, obviously, it's not just this bill which is addressing that issue, but the unit titles reform legislation, which is making changes there as well. It is an important issue for many New Zealanders to ensure their rights and that they also have their property rights protected if, in the case of a natural hazard, they're requiring some form of assessment and pay out—and how that is managed to ensure that they have their rights protected.
So the final point I'd make is around the $300,000 limit, which has been increased. I'm pleased that there are review mechanisms, but I understand that is every five years. The point has been made, I think yesterday, by my colleague the Hon Gerry Brownlee, around the rapidly increasing costs in building materials and other issues to do with the cost of building. That is something which needs to be, I think, considered in more detail by the committee, because these are real issues facing New Zealanders, and what the adequate amount will be—and then, of course, what that means in terms of the impact it has on people's levies. There will be some parts of the country which will have improved levies; there will be other parts which will go backwards. Having a good understanding about how those costs are shared across New Zealand, I think, is something which needs to be looked at in detail to ensure that that fair balance is being struck.
So, Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak on this bill, and I commend it to the House.





BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Good to be able to take a call on the Natural Hazards Insurance Bill and to support it through the first reading. There are two certain things, they say, in life—that's death and taxes. I believe insurance is actually not far off it. If you look at history, there are records going back to 4,000, 3,000 BCE of insurance—of merchants going off to sea and the goods that are on board those ships being insured from land.
Before I went into the scintillating area of tax and tax law, I was a claims assessor for a fire and general insurance firm, and I was also a private medical and travel insurer claims assessor. So I've had a little bit of history in the insurance industry. Anybody that's worked in the claims industry for the insurance industry, you know that Monday mornings are always going to be difficult if it's been a wet and rainy weekend. I can recall very clearly being able to advise on particular claims on Monday mornings, when all you see are people on the phones—your claims adjustors and claims advisers on the phone—and you see them put their hands up, which is basically when a claims assessor and negotiator has to go on to the call and be able to work through a contract with people on the spot.
There's no surprises that New Zealand does have a high insurance rate. Again, many speakers in the House tonight have gone through why we do, and that's obviously for a lot of the natural hazards that we've had. One of the areas that is always difficult when you are assessing claims is when you come to areas of what we call total losses. Total losses is where an insured has, for whatever reason—whether it be due to a car accident or due to a fire; sometimes due to floods—absolutely lost everything for that insured property. It's not just around the actual physical loss of that house or that physical loss of whatever that property is; it comes with a big package of emotions. Most people here have some sort of sentimental connection to whatever the property is that they have or that they own. Particularly for New Zealand, you can't get a mortgage without insurance, so one of the biggest items that you're going to have in your entire life will be your house. It needs to be insured. If you go through the process of a total loss, there are a lot of emotions that come with it.
I was not in the insurance industry in 2011, during the Canterbury earthquakes. I was in the tax industry at that time. But I remember, when those earthquakes happened, I thought of my former colleagues, and I thought of the stress that they would have to handle, and to be able to support people that would come to them with insurance issues at that time. That's why it's really important for this bill that the Earthquake Commission—that a lot of the lessons that were learnt from those earthquakes have been brought forward through this bill.
One of the areas that I'm going to be really interested in looking at and scrutinising, as well as when we get submissions from the industry and from insured people themselves, is clauses 55 to 83 in the bill, and those are the clauses in relation to assessing, deciding, and settling claims. For example, in clause 55, it requires the commission to decide whether a claim is valid and, if it is, to assess, decide how to settle it, and then settle the claim. This is a really good improvement on the previous policy, because actually what it means is that the commission can now actually make a decision. Previously, it was really difficult to. You'd need to go to court for it. What is also really good to see in this bill is that there's going to be some dispute resolution. Clause 58—again, whether the claim is valid is a really important question which now the commission will have the authority to be able to decide on.
So I'm really looking forward to being able to sit down with submitters to see what they say—whether the draft legislation meets the intention that is set out in the explanatory note of this bill. There's not much more that I want to say on this bill, because actually I'm looking forward to it coming through to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. I'm looking forward to being able to see where we can improve this bill, and I'd like to commend this bill to the House.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a first time.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is, That the Natural Hazards Insurance Bill be considered by the Finance and Expenditure Committee. 
Motion agreed to.
Bill referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee.





COMMERCE AMENDMENT BILL
Third Reading
Debate resumed from 17 March.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): When last we considered this bill—the National Party has the call.
CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to take a call on the Commerce Amendment Bill. It's one that I've not had a particular history with, so it's with fresh eyes and great enthusiasm therefore that I get to join the debate at this, the third and final reading. In doing so, I've taken note of other comments that speakers before me have made at various stages of the bill, and acknowledge too the legislative statement that's been put forward by the relevant Minister, who joins us in the House now. I acknowledge the work that he's done, that others throughout the process have done, including the select committee, the EDSI, or the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee—the very well-known body that I've just had to remind myself of its name. Of course, it's so well-known as to be referred to, usually, simply, by that acronym. Of course, they've done some serious work, some serious consideration, of the bill on the way through, and those comments have, largely, been reflected in the second reading, so I don't intend to rehearse those, except, perhaps, to touch on them in passing.
But I did want to speak about the fact that there are four main areas in which the bill is going to bring change in the area of commerce, and, more specifically, the area of competition and anti-competition law. The way that it mostly does that is by, first, strengthening the Commerce Act's prohibition against the misuse of market power; second, repealing safe harbours in the Act; third, by allowing a balance to be conducted between the public interest on the one hand and situations that would otherwise be considered contravention of the Part 2 of the main Act, or the Act as it currently exists; and then sort of various miscellaneous changes.
So, to go through each of those four areas in turn, the first, I think, is actually really interesting, because that's clause 14, the section 36 prohibition against the misuse of market power. There's a philosophical distinction, I suppose, oftentimes between the left and the right about the way that we ensure competition, the way that we seek to decide how it is that different players in a marketplace can perform to the maximum potential, because that's good for them and, of course, that's good for the consumer. That allows the market as a whole to function. But I think the good news is—and I do want to acknowledge it, because it seems that the bill is attracting bipartisan support. I do want to acknowledge that we have, at least in this matter, a fundamental starting point that is the same, which is to say that in a market such as the New Zealand economy, let's say—roughly speaking, just to simplify grossly—that we do believe that allowing competition is a mechanism for ensuring the best outcomes overall. We assume—again, somewhat of a simplification, but—the consumer's a rational beast and will make decisions in their best interests, and so the way to ensure that the best possible outcomes occur in an efficient manner is to allow the most possible options in front of that consumer.
So we let the market decide as best we can, but we do at the same time acknowledge that there are barriers to entry in the market. And so we don't want to take an approach that's completely laissez-faire, attractive as that may be to those of us on the right—for example, the ACT and National parties. But we would say that there are distortions in the fact that the market exists with barriers to entry, oftentimes, so we want to acknowledge those and we want to prohibit the misuse of market power in a way that would distort the market, reflecting some of the barriers to entry, as I've said. And so it is that the Commerce Commission will be able to publish detailed guidelines within the 12-month period following the passing of the Act, or, rather, it receiving its Royal assent. So with that period of time, there is the opportunity not only for those guidelines to be made but also for the relevant key players to make adjustments in their own thinking, their own behaviour, if needed, to avoid this misuse of market power in trans-Tasman markets.
The second point is the repeal of safe harbours. As someone who's spent a bit of time in literal harbours, in a previous life I had before coming to this House, the idea of safe harbours is very attractive, superficially and in the literal sense. The idea of repealing safe harbours is worrisome to a former sailor. But, actually, of course, we're talking in a figurative sense of areas in which those who might seek to exercise intellectual property rights could take refuge from scrutiny under competition law. So the bill is really, I think, taking quite a sophisticated approach. It's a modern approach that says, actually, while it might be counterintuitive, we are enhancing and protecting the idea of competition by allowing those who own intellectual property to have rights to exercise in that space. And the reason that's counterintuitive is because, of course, it would be possible to argue that if there are property rights and intellectual property that are held by one entity, that precludes others from joining in and using and developing those. But, of course, there's incentives and the mechanisms that we want the market to employ, which is to say that there is profit, both in that economic sense but also, again, more generally, to be gained, to be obtained, by entities developing intellectual property. It's a valuable thing. It's worth investing in. It's worth investing time, energy, and capital.
And so by preventing the erosion of those intellectual property rights, we're actually saying that, overall, in time, society, the economy, the market, the community will be better off for that. Again, a 12-month transition period applies, according to the bill, and the select committee's commentary and, indeed, the legislative statement, which I've already acknowledged, states that the reason for this is to allow those who will be affected by the repeal to come to agreement, to make adjustments that are necessary, and so forth. And it's expected that the Commerce Commission, which is, of course, our public body that monitors such things—and, indeed, it does more than merely monitor; it actually actively intervenes at times—just at the risk of going into the next area that I wanted to talk to, the idea there is that they'll be able to produce or amend existing guidelines so that interested parties can understand the effect of the repeals and adjust themselves accordingly.
The third, then, was to allow on an interim basis restrictive trade practices to take place, notwithstanding that they are restrictive. And the rationale for that is that the Commerce Commission is to be empowered to allow practices that would otherwise be prohibited to be allowed, if they assess it to be within the public interest. Now, there's an application of judgment—I suppose to some extent it's subjective, but one would hope that it would be exercised in a way that is reasonable. And so I suppose the Parliament is saying, really, to the Commerce Commission and all those who are affected by its exercise of power, that the principle involved is that if it's in the public interest overall to allow, for a certain period of time, the application of or conduct that would otherwise be anti-competitive, then that would be allowed within terms defined and determined by the commission.
I understand that the commission has already published guidelines setting out its approach to these decisions—and that's important—in a way that promotes at least some measure of accountability and allows some measure of certainty. So even though we might not be able to predict in any individual case with 100 percent certainty how the Commerce Commission would land, so to speak, on any given decision in the space, we can say at least that if we understand the factors in those guidelines as to how it would make those decisions, then there is a measure of predictability. And so the Commerce Commission has that power entrenched, they say, and confirmed and clarified. So I'll state for the record, in this the third reading, that the National Party agrees with the bill overall, but also understands and acknowledges the purpose of that, at least as an interim power, where it is appropriate.
The final category of changes that are being made—there are a number of different ones within that, but one is, for example, allowing the authority, in black and white, for the Commerce Commission to exchange information with other Government agencies and regulators, including New Zealand Police. And the reason for that is, of course, we want them to be able to fulfil the duties and the functions that we as a Parliament and the executive Government and society expect and hope that it will fulfil. Of course, there's always a question about privacy rights, so it seems that it's appropriate that there are safeguards relating to the use and storage of that information. We hope that those will be taken seriously and that power exercised very carefully, because, of course, the privacy of information—it's not only individuals but other entities who have the right to that privacy, and that right should be respected.
So, in conclusion, the National Party continues to support the legislation and congratulate those involved in its passage.





NAISI CHEN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. In third readings, we tend to give thanks to many people who have helped us work on this bill, but can I just start my contribution by thanking the member who's just resumed his seat, Chris Penk, for that really comprehensive review of this bill. And may I add, because we've got the Minister, thank you to the Hon David Clark. This is a wonderful piece of bill that really modernises the Commerce Act to what we need it to do in this modern-day history. Right now, in this day and in this context that we've given, we're walking out of the economic effects of a post-pandemic era. We're looking at competition. Our Commerce Commission has just come out in the recent month with a market study on our competition in our supermarkets and our grocery sector. We've looked at fuel prices, we're going to look at building supplies.
Competition is in peril in our little country of New Zealand. Our economy is small, so that's why we are very susceptible to anti-competitive behaviour. It's really important that we choose as a Parliament to uphold competition in our economy to the best of our abilities. I do want to quote our capable chair, Jamie Strange, in, I think it must have been another bill that he contributed to, saying that competition breeds innovation. I think that is exactly why we are doing all of this—is that we need to make sure that we also have an innovative economy to be driving us forward in the 21st century. So that's why I think it's incredibly important that this bill addresses section 36, and that we make sure that in this commerce Act that we actually are able to give our courts the full power of not only constructing a scenario of hypothetical analysis but also we're able to just look straight into the intention of these cartel behaviours and actually be able to give them the full suite of tools to prosecute, for those who are harming competition in different markets.
We've seen in Australia that they have also adopted similar frameworks in terms of how they judge and they rule in their competition law. I think it's really important that we look at the benefit that it has brought on, including the effect that it's had on their concrete market, from what I understand. So I think that's really important in New Zealand that while we're looking at things like the building supply industry we know competition law will lay the good foundation to ensure that we have a healthy market so that we can recover our economy from the pandemic as well. I'm also really pleased that we've been able to address the safe harbours in our intellectual property law as well, to make sure, as the chair has said, that we are looking to make sure that that sector is innovative so that we can bring technology to actually push on innovation in our economy as well.
Finally, my thanks goes to the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee. We've definitely had a very busy period with all of these laws coming in, but I also thank especially a member, Todd McClay, for working really constructively with us as the National spokesperson on this issue. I'm glad to hear that the other party is supporting this bill, and I think that we are really looking forward to seeing that this bill will breed better competition in our economy. So on that note, I commend this bill to the House.





RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (remote): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. I have lost count of how many sitting nights I've been waiting to give my speech on this bill, and so it's a great pleasure to be able to give a brief contribution, noting that previous speakers have done a very lengthy and thorough running of what the bill actually contains. From a Green Party perspective, we really do want to encourage an Aotearoa where competition is fair. And, echoing the sentiments from our previous speaker regarding unfair competition, particularly in a duopoly of supermarkets, I think this bill is really timely so that the Commerce Commission feels far more empowered—particularly with the delay of this bill coming into effect, having the Commerce Commission empowered to give proper advice to people in the market, or who wish to enter the market, is deeply, deeply important.
My thanks also goes to the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, to the people who have provided submissions on this bill, particularly those who have given feedback around intellectual property (IP) laws, as well as the people who have contributed to feedback on protecting Māori IP laws. We hope that this bill has some effect in ensuring fair competition in Aotearoa. I look forward to this bill coming into effect.





DAMIEN SMITH (ACT): Competition is an amazing thing. As we've seen tonight with Air New Zealand, the charade has cost each member of the team of 5 million a thousand bucks each. It should be going into their hands, not the Minister of Finance. So I just wanted to expose the highs and lows of competition, and that this has been a gift from the Labour Party to the rich, at the expense of the working class. Well done to Labour. You can see why sometimes we get frustrated on this side of the House.
On 14 December 2021, the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee recommended this bill with certain amendments around the effects of competition and market power; intellectual property rights and leveraging, and safe haven aspects of those; and increasing the realities of anti-competitive mergers and cartel behaviour. For most of this part we're not going to stand in the way of that as a bill. But we would like to point out that from an intellectual property rights point of view, it does have the potential to mirror some of the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act problems that we've experienced—in the sense that we should be encouraging businesses to be innovative, to commercialise, to actually leverage the strength that they've thought about, through their teams, through their companies, and through their capital investment in making and bringing a product to the market. The impact of this is now likely to make owners reticent, sometimes even getting to the point where we may suffer in New Zealand in terms of product development, because they'll think the size of our market isn't worth it, isn't worth the investment, and are we going to get challenged by the Commerce Commission, as somebody who wants to grow market share, or who has market share and actually wants to manage that.
So the merit of this bill is to increase competition, but it is also to take a look at one very simple aspect: does it grow the economy of New Zealand? At the moment, there's only two cases that have come up where, sort of, the elements of this law have been applied. It makes me think that the Commerce Commission, in its empire-building status, would like to create more case law, which, obviously, the lawyers will love, to actually justify this. But I'm predicting now that in the area of intellectual property rights, we will have competition issues where lots of challenges and money will be expended in an unregulated market.
We are all for competition and minimum regulation, in the ACT Party. But we also respect the philosophy of the bill, which is behavioural, in terms of making sure that the competitive playing-field is standard size between Australia and New Zealand. It is likely to follow that the Australian benchmark has application here. But also other applications could be received from the United Kingdom and other various countries. So the majority of coverage on the bill has focused on the market powers section, and there is a fine balance here between market power, competition law, and intellectual property rights. If people, companies, and organisations, especially in the era of new technology, are afraid to innovate in this country because of a Government department, then we have a serious a problem.
So we've been asking to reinstate the safe harbour intellectual property (IP) section and give business confidence that they can invest in their IP, and license their IP. If you take an example in the horticultural industry, you could have packaging equipment that would work for avocados, it could work for apples, but they are two different markets, and you can't get transfer knowledge or IP. So with regards to the Minister's bill, there will be an impact we feel—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! With apologies to the member, could the members on my left, if they're going to have a conversation, could it not be for the benefit of the House. So just if you could keep your voices down it would be appreciated.
DAMIEN SMITH: Thank you very much. The point we make is that competition and intellectual property right leverage is a mixed area, and we do not have the confidence that this has been fully thought through, that there's enough case law yet. So we would recommend that the Government takes a view on reviewing this bill as that case law comes through.
So ACT will be supporting this bill, but we wanted to point out the inherent weaknesses around intellectual property right leverage, and that some of the Supplementary Order Papers did cover this off and should have been passed to add value to this bill.
Thank you very much.





GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. Thank you for letting me, as others have said, finally take a call on the third reading of the Commerce Amendment Bill. As a member of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, we have been busy but probably not as busy as our Minister, actually, and I would acknowledge the Hon David Clark, our Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs. I mean, this is another bill yet again tonight that you are, you know, pushing through the House at great speed and doing a lot of work. So we acknowledge you, Minister, for your hard mahi ensuring that New Zealand is a fairer place, ensuring that we are set up.
Obviously, as has been said, we are a very small nation. I often talk to people about us very much being a large, narrow, spread-out city of 5 million people. And because of our remoteness, because of the way we live and operate down here in our remote economy, we can be susceptible to the concentration of market powers. So it's important for us as a small nation to have effective protections against firms with substantial market powers who may be able to engage in anti-competitive conduct. So this piece of legislation very much is around protecting consumers. 
But I think, as actually my colleague Naisi Chen said and as the chair of our select committee, Jamie Strange, said, competition breeds innovation. I really think that's true and this piece of legislation, hopefully, helps with that innovation. Because competition between firms can be intense, it can also lead to some losing out. But in all of that, it delivers better products, it delivers better innovation, and it often delivers lower prices for our consumers. This competition law that we talk about is not about protecting individual businesses as such but it's about protecting competition as a whole. For us here in the bottom of the world, protecting competition is important to us and that's why we've worked hard with our colleagues across the floor to get this piece of legislation to where it is today and to pass it tonight.
Competition law very much aims at promoting and at protecting the competitive process. Again, it's not about individual competitors. It's about protecting the process. So tonight I want to again come back and thank a few people: the advisers and the officials who steered us, who supported us, who answered all of our curly questions; our select committee, and as I've felt we've worked really well together to get to this place tonight, our competent and on to it chairperson, Jamie Strange. Thank you for holding us together and bringing us along the way. I also want to acknowledge the Hon Kris Faafoi, who was in this role in a previous Government and began this process and again acknowledge the Hon David Clark for bringing good legislation to this House—good legislation that works for competition in New Zealand, that works for innovation, and that works to ensure that those of us consumers get a fair deal and a fair go. I commend this bill to the House.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The Hon David Bennett—a five-minute call.





Hon DAVID BENNETT (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I appreciate the chance to talk on this bill, the Commerce Amendment Bill, third reading. Although I'm not a member of the committee of the House that discussed it, National does support this bill. We see that there are some parts of the legislation that are important.
Proposed new section 36, "Misuse of market power" moves away from the intention test to a purposed effect or likely effect of substantially lessening competition. That is something that is a change in our law and probably under that clause isn't so much of an issue, but when it comes to the actual effects test, the National Party has some concerns around the nature of that test and how it will actually work out in practice for companies that may then be subject to that test.
The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment's regulatory impact assessment supports the National Party's view, stating that there is a genuine risk that some businesses may act overly conservatively and compliance-focused to avoid any risk of contravening the amended section 36—"This would impose some costs, and could lead to some firms not engaging in conduct that is ultimately pro-competitive."
Effectively, the risk is that this achieves the ultimate difference in purpose from what the bill is actually there for, which is to enable competition. It would actually potentially mean that businesses take an overly conservative view and potentially could be liable for any unforeseen reduction in competition.
That's where one of the key fundamental parts of our law is enshrined, in most legislation—is an intention test. There needs to be an intention to commit an offence. I'm going back to the legal system days, and I'm sure Mr Chris Penk will understand this very well—the mens rea of intention. I can't actually believe I can remember that, those days, but even a non-lawyer myself that did study it—[Interruption] Yes. Remember the lectures on mens rea and how important that is, especially in the criminal justice system. Here we are moving away from that to any unforeseen reduction in competition as being sufficient.
So when we have the words "purposed effect" or "likely effect", and it's now "purpose" or "likely effect", that actually then creates—well, that should be the change in the amendment that the National Party is looking for, which would actually give a little bit more comfort to those businesses that could potentially be in the position where, without any intention, they are ultimately responsible for unforeseen consequences.
Although the bill is generally in the right intention, you could say, the actual nature of the test that is being used could actually lead to a situation where some businesses are not in a position that they would have endeavoured to have themselves in. We understand that some companies have written to the Minister to that effect, and there hasn't been that response from the Minister to be aware and change this law to make it more satisfactory for those that are in business.
We will support this legislation but we have some concerns around it, especially around those unforeseen circumstances and possible options that it could create for business, and we would encourage—it's a bit late now, in this reading, for the Minister to make those changes, but it's important that the Minister looks at how this law is actually implemented through the various mechanisms that he has or she has to make sure that we actually get to a situation where it is not an unjust law that's being passed through this House. So we look forward to the Minister actually implementing this law in an appropriate way through the relevant departments rather than in a very strict way, which potentially could happen, too, under this legislation as it stands at this time.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): I call Ingrid Leary—five minutes.





INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): This is a great piece of legislation because it's consumers who will benefit. So it's another really good law that's been brought to the House by my good friend and colleague the Hon Dr David Clark, who—like me—represents the best part of New Zealand: Dunedin. And I wanted to commend him for having the best interests of consumers at heart. He has brought in a suite of laws that really look at relevelling the playing field and making sure it's as competitive as it can be. Last year, it was an amendment to the Fair Trading Act; we've had the recent review into consumer credit laws, and I believe that there are some more likely to come; there's been the review into the supermarket duopoly—I'm looking forward to his responses to that; and now we have this Commerce Amendment Bill, which is about protecting consumers.
And to get a bit geeky on it, I just want to sort of do a little forensic on section 36 in clause 14, because it's such an interesting part of this bill. Section 36 is basically New Zealand's anti-monopolisation provision, and it has four elements which need to be established. First, one needs a relevant market. Secondly, there must be substantial market power in that relevant market. The firm in question must have taken advantage of that substantial power. And fourthly is around motivation, or acting with one of the prescribed purposes—and over on the other side of the House, they referred to it as mens rea, although that's actually more attributable to the criminal legal system.
What's been interesting with this is that there's been a hypothetical test rather than an actual test, and the question becomes whether the defendant has engaged in a particular activity in a hypothetical market—which is a really difficult question. The problem is that it fails to capture categories of conduct which deserve condemnation. An example might be where an importer of a particular product prevents other importers of that product from, say, having access to the ports. So one can see the disadvantage they'd be placed at, and yet the way that section 36 stands, it currently would not capture that anti-competitive behaviour. So what this amendment does is it introduces the effects test, and it makes it an exercise about looking at actual intention and an actual market—which, to my mind, is a much more sensible way to proceed when looking at competition law.
The arguments levelled by Damien Smith and David Bennett about unintended consequences and being anti-competitive don't really stand, because—as Glen Bennett said tonight, my colleague—this law is not about protecting individual businesses. It's not going to stifle competition by deterring firms with market power from lowering their prices or innovating. Competition law is aimed at protecting the competitive process, not individual competitors. So it's all about becoming more efficient, introducing better products, lowering prices—and they are all legitimate and pro-competitive practices.
I would note that Australia has already introduced a similar law. And given the proximity of our markets, and the way that our markets operate sometimes as, effectively, one market, it just makes sense to align our legislation with the Australian legislation so that we don't need to rely on the courts to reach the same conclusion—which is much more expensive and onerous for everybody.
The other thing, I guess, is just noting that the New Zealand market is made of mainly small and medium businesses. In that environment, small firms arguably do need more protections. Therefore, it stands to reason that we would see a section 36 change like this to afford that extra protection from market dominance by the big players.
So it's great to see the enthusiasm from across the way. I think we've dispelled the notion that there are risks to anti-competitive behaviour, because clearly this is about the process of competition not individual companies and the impact it would have on individual companies. It sends the right signals to the market, and I'm really proud that it has reached the third reading, and I look forward to the next piece of legislation that my good friend the Hon Dr David Clark might have to make sure that consumers are getting the best deal that they can. I commend it to the House.





GREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Tonight, there'll be many people sitting at home around New Zealand who will be very worried about getting ripped off. They'll be worried about losing their hard-won money. A lot of their concerns will be focused on what's going on out on the street, what's going on downtown, because that's what they hear and that's what they'll be watching on telly. But, actually, they've got more chance of actually losing their money or being dissuaded or persuaded out of their money by what happens during the day, during their interactions in business, etc.
What sort of things are we talking about? One thing in the debate tonight, I think there's a general agreement that we've got to do something. But these are the type of things that do happen, that do mean that well-meaning people, honest people, hard-working people that we're all trying to define here in the House at the moment, over with various other things, are parted from their money. Things like consumers being sold insurance policies that they are ineligible to claim on. Now, who hasn't been to buy a new product, who hasn't been to a bank, who hasn't been to an institution where the person who they're dealing with is incentivised to actually sell them another product, a value added, where that person's remuneration is quite dependent on them selling? So they sound good, they look good, and it's only later on when they come to claim that they realise they're actually not eligible. Sales incentives leading to customers being sold products they don't need or that don't suit them. Again, quite an advantage on behalf of the seller. Not bad people, not criminals in any way, but just people who, in order to make sure they make a living, have got a highly contestable part of their income in actually ensuring that they can get customers to part with their money for products they clearly don't need.
Or life insurance companies: being churned from one policy or provider to another, which again can result in the loss of cover. The old days of the door-to-door insurance salesmen are relatively a thing of the past. But, of course, with the advent of these machines—to those that are listening at home, I refer to the cellphones and social media—we are metaphorically being door knocked every day for these products.
Also, and this is probably one where I think this will be welcomed by the industry: poor accountability at senior management and governance level for conduct. Anyone who's sat on a board will know that if you're on a board, a commercial board, your job is to look after the share price, your job is to ensure that you give a return to the shareholders. Well, of course, if that's the only thing that was governing you—and we've seen a lot of that; we saw that particularly in 1987, we saw it in 2008, we generally see it whenever there's a downturn. People get away with a lot when the market is climbing upwards; it's only when there's a downturn, if the swamp drains and the stumps are left exposed—or the monsters, some might say, are left exposed—that we actually understand what has happened. So this actually gives a protection. If you are board member—which, of course 95 percent of our people sitting around boards are decent people trying to do the right thing; legislation like this, or guidelines, if you like, ensures that those people are not going to be dragged down by a rapacious adviser, maybe even a CEO, whose own salary might be dependent on taking a certain course of action. So this gives the protection that these organisations need.
New Zealand—it's no accident that we do measure very highly on all international surveys on honesty, on integrity, and on corruption. These things don't come by accident. Actually, I don't always stand and disagree with my colleagues here, but I think we need to be very careful when we do compare ourselves with Australia. They might look like us, they might sound like us, but anyone who's sat on boards or done a lot of business with the Australians would know they're quite different from us. And even though the behaviour that was exposed during the Australian royal commission was at a level that we would like to think we don't see here, there's certainly been hints of it over here. So that's why legislation like this is very good. So I would caution those that would start to compare ourselves too closely with Australia, and just know that they can be quite different people governed by different cultures and different rules, and, of course, they are different states very much.
So this is, I think a very good piece of legislation. I think the people who will welcome this are the very, very large numbers of good, honest people on boards, who are working in the institutions that this will refer to, who now know that they won't be punished, they won't be disadvantaged for keeping to the rules, because those cowboy players out there who may not have been quite as, shall we say, honest as they were or as determined to keep to the rules as they were, won't get the commercial advantage. So I commend this bill to the House.





Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura): Thank you, Madam Speaker. This is legislation that the National Party has decided to support. We decided that proposed new section 36 Misuse of market power was important, in particular, in relation to changing or amending the provisions around taking advantage of that power for an anti-competitive purpose.
Let's be real about this. Supermarkets have been doing this stuff for years, and this Government actually hasn't done anything about it, and nor did ours, but what we didn't do was shut down small businesses during the COVID lockdowns and force everybody to go and use the two big supermarket chains, which is what happened. And so the very people who are now saying, "Oh, we're going to do something about it." I'm sorry, you didn't save the small butchers, you didn't save the small grocers, what you did do is you helped the big supermarkets—
Helen White: You would have left it all open, would you? Is that what would have happened?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: —become even less competitive. And yes we would have fixed it because we're not a bunch of incompetents when it comes to business.
Helen White: And people would have died—a lot more people would have died.
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: When I look at the Commerce Act—I have no idea who that person is speaking through the mask because I can't see who it is. But what I know is that the Commerce Act—I was actually practising law when the Commerce Act was brought in. It's not that old, you see.
Hon Dr David Clark: 1986—not so long ago.
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Exactly, 1986, and I did a paper for my air and space subject for my masters in this, and I did it on what the Commerce Act was going to do to the airline industry, and it was absolutely right, which was it was going to increase competition in a market that had been absolutely devoid of competition. You might have noticed more competition brings prices down, better customer service, brings people to understand that the customer is right, not the business itself. And that is why we do need to change some of this behaviour.
But we also see this behaviour happening in the Resource Management Act in terms of the behaviour of supermarkets and others—the big giants who object to some competition anywhere near them. What other industry gets away with this—what other industry? And the answer is there isn't any. This is a piece of legislation that is needed, but do not think for a moment that it is going to solve all these issues.
We need a competitive nature in this country. We're sitting around as a country competing against ourselves when we should be competing against the world. And there are only a few industries where we really do compete against the world. Even then we become complacent. Even then we think that market's always going to be there. Even then we don't understand that we are paying in New Zealand far more than what people are paying in, for instance, Australia.
I read just recently about a woman who went online and she had Amazon deliver her groceries to her at less than what they are in New Zealand to go down to the supermarket. And that's the next thing that I'm going to try, because, frankly, if that can happen, then it's simply not good enough to continue to rark up the prices. And I understand, the minimum wage has gone up, all of this affects the profitability of the supermarkets. All this affects the profitability of every business, but I'm fully aware too that we shouldn't be taking ourselves as fools on this. It is simply not good enough.
And this Government is now saying, well, they're going to do something about it finally. We started off the process of it; they've finally decided to do something. We're happy to support them to do it, but let's not kid ourselves. This is not going to be the game changer we think it's going to be. The Commerce Commission is under-resourced, it is not high powered enough to take on some of this work, and we do need to actually sit back and say, "Why are we continuously going down this path of enabling big players to take out the smaller players in the market to take away all the competition that there is?" And we turn around and say, "Oh, well, this is going to fix it."
It ain't going to fix it until the Government stops doing things like shutting down small businesses. Treating the local butcher—and I'm thinking about the butcher that we use. Treating that local butcher during that Auckland lockdown as though he is the problem, and yet you can go along to the Australian-owned supermarket and go in and buy their meat. Now, what was wrong? What was going on there? And the answer is big Government thought it knew how to deal with this because it had no wish to deal with small players, it had no wish to treat those people as though they are responsible people. They have to already follow hygiene procedures, they are all licenced, they have to do all these things well, and yet the big Government just like talking to the big business, because they can shut out the little people—didn't have to deal with them, didn't care about them. That's why small businesses are saying they're never going to vote Labour again.





Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to take the last call on the Commerce Amendment Bill. It is a real privilege as the Minister in charge of the bill to have the opportunity to take the final speech in a third reading. It's normally the case that the Minister in charge of the bill takes the first speech in the final reading, and unfortunately, due to IT issues with some of our systems here and some challenges I was experiencing from my home base, I was dependent on the Minister, Andrew Little, reading from the material I had prepared to take that speech. I do want to put on record my thanks to him, and I do also want to also acknowledge that the hybrid House system has worked incredibly well through this challenging time. It's good, though, to be back in the House, as I was discussing with my colleague the Hon Dr Megan Woods just a moment or two earlier. 
I do want to acknowledge around the House the support for this bill and the constructive speeches that have been made through this stage. I know along the way there has been some disagreements about parts of the bill and some Supplementary Order Papers put forward by other parties around the House. But actually, people have swung in behind the bill in the final stage, recognising that it's important to have a consensus around these things, and recognising that ultimately this is good law and good change and important to update our competition law. 
I do feel passionate about competition law. I don't mind admitting that to those assembled here today. I want to acknowledge the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, under Jamie Strange's leadership, that's brought this through. I want to just speak a little about the section 36 change, which is, I think, the big, important change—the most important change—we're making here. Section 1A of the Commerce Act 1986 says that "The purpose of this Act is to promote competition in markets for the long-term benefit of consumers within New Zealand." It's very plain. It's focused on the actual state of competition in the market. It's not a theoretical state; it's the actual state and the actual benefit for consumers. Up until now, unfortunately, although section 36 was intended to strengthen the prohibition against anti-competitive unilateral conduct—as we heard from the Hon Judith Collins, when it was introduced in 1986 it was supposed to prevent firms with substantial market power from harmful competition—it's been clear for a long time that it simply has failed to live up to that. There have been five cases taken by the Commerce Commission since 1986, and only two of them have been successful. I think the very fact that they haven't trusted themselves to take more than five cases since 1986 speaks volumes in and of itself. 
I, in Opposition, actually worked with some competition lawyers to begin the drafting on a member's bill to change section 36 of the Act. It went into one of my colleagues names, ultimately—the Hon Clayton Cosgrove—and became a bill in his name which never, I don't think, got drawn from the biscuit tin, from memory, or if it did, it got voted down at the time. But it's an issue that I have been passionate about for some time because we've seen in other jurisdictions, and particularly across in Australia, stronger tests that have ensured better competition in their markets and therefore better outcomes for consumers. So that is part of the reason why, for me, it's such a pleasure to see this go through the House, to make sure that we are improving and promoting competition in our markets for the long-term benefit of consumers right here in New Zealand. 
I do want to make it clear that the bill doesn't penalise dominant firms for out-competing their rivals through superior practices, better offerings, or efficiency in the market. That is not the intention, and the test will be high here still. But it is a bill designed to improve competition. I don't want to prolong the debate, but I do want to thank members around the House for the vigorous debate through the various stages and the committee stage. It is important to debate these ideas. I want to thank them, though, also for their support as the bill passes through, and celebrate that this important piece of legislation will now pass into law. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a third time.





INCORPORATED SOCIETIES BILL
Third Reading
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): I present a legislative statement on the Incorporated Societies Bill.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found—[Interruption] Order! Order!
Hon Judith Collins: They're very frisky over here, Madam Speaker.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Yeah, if the members could just—while the Speaker is presiding over some procedural stuff, if members could just keep silent. Very excitable tonight.
That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I move, That the Incorporated Societies Bill be now read a third time.
I'd like to start by thanking the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, again. There's much legislation in the House that they have worked on this evening. It's a pleasure to speak to the third bill I'm progressing this evening in the House, but that committee worked on the Incorporated Societies Bill in a really bipartisan way. They worked in a way to develop a collaborative approach to achieve legislation that we will be passing through this House which will be enduring.
I want to thank also the officials who have advised on this work stream since its genesis in around 2010, including the now retired Geoff Connor. I want to thank the public from the outset, who submitted on this work stream, whether it was in a submission to the Law Commission in their 2011 process, to the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment in 2015, when the exposure draft was published, or to the select committee in 2021.
There are around 24,000 incorporated societies in New Zealand, and that number is rising. They do great work. They speak up for workers, they teach our children sports, they raise money for good causes, and, frankly, they deserve a governing statute that is up to date and fit for purpose. 
The current statute that they're operating under is 114 years old, and that is why it is so good to be updating it in a way that I hope will be enduring for perhaps another 114 years. While world leading at the time, the current statute has a real focus on the creation of societies and on their winding up. It has a whole lot less to say about how they operate during their life cycle—how they should conduct themselves in the interim. Really, if we look at the issues that we see as MPs—and electorate MPs up and down the country will be familiar with this—it is really important that this Act is reformed and that it speaks to those issues which come in through our electorate offices, often in the form of conflict, when it comes to unclear guidance as to how those institutions should conduct themselves.
Now, I would like to cover the three main aspects of the bill as I see them. First, the bill lists the matters that must be included in a society's constitution, and that includes procedures for resolving internal disputes. Those are the things, as I've just mentioned, that we see as MPs and electorate MPs up and down the country too often, sadly, where a dispute has emerged in one of those incorporated societies, and too many constitutions don't currently contain dispute resolution rules. That leads to unnecessary and damaging delay and confusion in addressing internal disputes, and this bill provides a remedy by requiring societies to have dispute resolution rules that meet natural justice standards. That change will help societies to focus their efforts on what they're about—on their purpose—rather than on internal disputes, and on serving society on the very purposes they've been set up with, instead of spending their time in the courts.
Secondly, the bill provides a basic set of duties for society officers, similar to company directors' duties. Until now, company directors' duties have been buried, really, in old case law. So they're not apparent to most people who are putting themselves forward to volunteer into a role to offer their services to their community, and setting them out in primary legislation means that people who are taking on roles as officers in incorporated societies will know very well before they take on the role what it is likely to entail. They can make informed decisions before accepting a role as a society officer, and if they do accept a role, it will help ensure that they understand better what conduct in their role is and is not lawful.
I'd like to quote Emeritus Professor John Burrows in this regard. In his 2003 Harkness Henry Lecture, he stated that "It would be good if ordinary members of the community could consult the law that affects them, and understand it, particularly if it imposes duties on them.", and the bill seeks to do exactly that. It provides those people who hold the community together with their volunteering, with accessible legislation that explains their duties in accessible terms.
The third point I'd like to cover off is that the bill requires larger societies to prepare their financial statements in accordance with the accounting standards issued by the External Reporting Board (XRB). That will improve the quality, reliability, and consistency of financial reporting, and, in turn, will help creditors, donors, and ordinary society members to understand the society's financial position and performance, and easily compare it with other similar societies.
Lastly, I need to point out that my own work on the incorporated societies area will not end here today. The bill provides for a period of up to 18 months for the necessary regulations to be prepared and consulted on before the new regime will enter into force. Then, and only then, will the reregistration process begin for our 24,000 incorporated societies. I look forward to cracking on with that work, of course, as we get this long overdue process underway.
So in conclusion, I do think we really are making history here today. I want to thank all of those who do serve on our incorporated societies across New Zealand for the work that they do in our communities. I want to place on record my thanks again to those who served on the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, ably chaired by Jamie Strange, for the way that they worked together to produce enduring legislation that has support across the House. Thank you for that. I certainly hope that I am not around when this law is likely next updated, perhaps in another 114 years. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, the time has come for me to leave the Chair. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow.
Debate interrupted.
The House adjourned at 9.57 p.m.