Hansard (debates)

Draft transcripts

Content provider
House of Representatives
Information
Date:
17 April 2014

Draft transcript - Thursday, 17 April 2014

HAKA KA MATE ATTRIBUTION BILL

Third Readings

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I move, That the Ngati Toa Rangatira Claims Settlement Bill and the Haka Ka Mate Attribution Bill be now read a third time. I begin by offering warm greetings to the people of Ngati Toa Rangatira—to those in the public gallery and those out at Takapūwāhia Marae who have gathered today for the third reading of their settlement legislation. Today, as well as progressing these bills on their way to enactment, we acknowledge those people who strive to make a Ngati Toa Rangatira settlement possible, despite what seemed at times to be very unfavourable odds. It is impossible to name all the individuals who have played a significant role. However, we must mention the negotiating team of Te Kaha, which consisted of Matiu Rei, and I am sure he will not mind my acknowledging him as New Zealand’s best bush lawyer; Iwi Nicholson; Tiratū Williams; Miria Pōmare—I am delighted to see her here this morning with her daughter—Te Ariki Wineera Jr, who in turn was supported by many other individuals, including Jennie Smeaton. There are also the past and present chairs of the rūnanga, Mrs Ruta Rene, Bill Kātene, Robert Solomon, Riki Wineera, and Taku Parai. We cannot go further without acknowledging the many people who championed historical claims filed with the tribunal and the people who gave evidence in the tribunal hearings and the inquiries. I am sure that Ngati Toa Rangatira would want me to mention two very special friends of the iwi over many years: Richard Boast, their historian, and Deborah Edmunds, their lawyer. The third reading of these two bills is the start of a highly significant day for eight iwi—eight iwi with claims against the Crown, who between 2010 and 2013 have all signed deeds of settlement agreeing to settle those claims. Today is the culmination of years and years of work by many individuals to see some justice for their tūpuna and for future generations. In many people’s minds the identity of this great iwi is synonymous with Te Rauparaha, a Ngati Toa Rangaitra leader of the 19th century who has left a deep impression on the New Zealand psyche as one of our truly historical figures. The 19th century was a time of great upheaval for Māori across this land, and a formative time for what is now modern day New Zealand. But Ngati Toa Rangatira were a people before Te Rauparaha, and continue to be a people today, with a history and a future beyond that legacy. This iwi are a people of Tainui waka, who for many generations occupied the coastline around Kāwhia on the west coast of the North Island, and were kaitiaki of the resting place of the Tainui waka. In the early 19th century, due to increasing pressure from Waikato tribes and ongoing conflict, Ngati Toa made the decision to leave Kāwhia permanently and migrate south. They moved south to the Cook Strait region, with allied iwi settling principally around the shores of the Porirua Harbour and on that wonderful island, Kapiti Island. Further heke and taua with allied iwi were then undertaken across the Cook Strait from the Kapiti Coast. Following their migration south, Ngati Toa Rangatira established a very powerful position in the Cook Strait region. Their position was based on military victories, relationships with other tribal groups, and trade with Europeans. The tide significantly changed for Ngati Toa Rangatira with the increasing demand from incoming settlers seeking Māori land.

[Continuation line: This tension reached a climax when in 1843]

This tension reached a climax when, in 1843, Ngati Toa Rangatira asked surveyors for the New Zealand Company to stop surveying their land in the Wairau Valley. Te Rauparaha had already asked Commissioner Spain to intervene and stop the New Zealand Company from undertaking this activity. While awaiting the arrival of Commissioner Spain, Ngati Toa Rangatira told one of the surveyors he had to leave, and then set fire to the hut that the surveyor had built to temporarily live in. The survey party was not harmed. With the arrest warrant for Te Rauparaha and Te Rangihaeata for the crime of arson, a group of people recruited for the purpose arrived from Nelson, and, as many know, the attempt to arrest Ngati Toa Rangatira leaders erupted into gunfire and, ultimately, the deaths of nearly two dozen Europeans and nine Māori. I say all this because it is important to encourage all our fellow countrymen and women to read the historical account in the deed of settlement, as it sets out this detail in the deed of an incident that in the past has often been recounted from only one perspective. The deed contains an agreed account of this clash between the Crown and Ngati Toa Rangatira. The clash in the Wairau, which came out of the competing desires for land, was a turning point for the relationship between the Crown and Ngati Toa and had very long-term consequences for the iwi. An important part of this settlement is the Crown’s acknowledgment that its actions since 1840 have ultimately left Ngati Toa Rangatira virtually landless and without resources in both the North Island and the South Island. As I have just mentioned in relation to the Wairau incident, the mid-1840s was a key period in the relationship between Ngati Toa Rangatira and the Crown. It was during this time that the Crown, through political and military means, sought to establish its authority in the middle of our land and reduce the power and influence of senior Ngati Toa Rangatira leaders. During 1845 Te Rangihaeata and his section of Ngati Toa Rangatira supported the claims of their allies living on disputed land in the Hutt Valley. Te Rauparaha, for his part, took a mostly neutral stance, not opposing the actions of his nephew, but not wanting to see conflict. These tensions led to several violent incidents. In July 1846 the Crown seized Te Raparaha and several other Ngati Toa Rangatira chiefs at Porirua. The Crown detained Te Rauparaha without trial for 18 months. He was never charged or tried for any offence. In 1847, whilst he was in captivity and Te Rangihaeata was in exile, the Crown purchased several extensive Wairau and Porirua districts from several younger Ngati Toa Rangatira chiefs, who hoped to secure Te Rauparaha’s release. These purchases undermined the influence of other senior Ngati Toa Rangatira and left a sense of grievance among the iwi, who feel that the Crown’s actions violated the rights of other leaders of their iwi. So the history is very, very important, and that is why we have this settlement today. I want to conclude by saying something about the Haka Ka Mate Attribution Bill, which is a very important piece of legislation. It provides an attribution right in favour of Ngati Toa Rangatira in relation to the haka. It is novel legislation. It is very, very tentative, and that is why in 5 years’ time there will be a mandatory review of it. Through this settlement the Crown acknowledges the significance of Ka Mate as an integral part of the history and the culture and the identity of Ngati Toa, and, as kaitaiki of the haka, they have sought to protect the haka from culturally inappropriate and offensive use. What we have here is, I believe, exciting legislation. It is the very first tentative step by the Crown towards recognition of traditional cultural expressions, and I hope we have more enlightened commentary on this legislation than we had in the Dominion Post when the agreement in principle was signed, because it had an article that said “All Black haka goes to Māori”. So congratulations to all those who have been involved in this matter. I particularly acknowledge my Crown officials for the work that they have done and my chief negotiators: firstly, Ross Philipson , and that wonderful former Labour MP Paul Swain. Why more of his colleagues are not like him, I do not know.

[Continuation line: This is a very hard-won settlement

This is a very hard-won settlement. It has been hindered for far too long by litigation and, at times, mindless opposition by other parties. I hope that people commemorate this day long into the night at Takapūwāhia. I feel very privileged to have been the Minister over the past 5 years working with this wonderful iwi, and today I can finally breathe a sigh of relief. As I always say about settlements, it is not the end; it is the end of the beginning, but it is the sign of what I hope will be a great relationship, and I am very much looking forward to seeing the development of the Haka Ka Mate legislation that is gong to occur in the next 5 years. I commend these bills to the House.

HAKA KA MATE ATTRIBUTION BILL

Third Readings

Hon SHANE JONES (Labour):

[Authorised te reo text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

It is often said that political parties need to brand themselves to ensure that the voters can distinguish between who stands for what. But I want Ngāti Toa to know in this House today that the Māori members of Labour, and indeed, Labour, stand solidly with the Crown to ensure that this piece of legislation achieves Royal assent without any delay. It is a piece of legislation that is coming to the House prior to Easter, a time where a dwindling number of us contemplate and think about colonial origins, the role of the Church, and in my case, the role of the missionaries in the north. When you think about the history of Ngati Toa, but in particular, Te Rauparaha, it is intertwined with that colonial part of New Zealand’s sad history. That person which our matuas called Wide-Awake, or Wideawake, otherwise known as Wakefield, and Octavius Hadfield , who in some way gifted Hone Harawira his name in a transliteration. After all, before he went down south, the man was at Waimate North. If anyone wants to know how indigenous the name Harawira is, just look at Octavius Hadfield, that well-known missionary. But I digress. This should be a day of some celebration. I want to acknowledge a number of the identities who have come here to support Ngati Toa today, and we will talk of the other iwi as well. We are starting with Ngati Toa this morning.

One of Māoridom’s foremost orators, Mr Nicholson, I had the good fortune to go to university with his son—who has, sadly, passed away—who was a graduate of Te Aute College. I was a graduate of St Steven’s School. Mr Nicholson’s son Huata and I were at Victoria University. He was a fine rugby league player and demonstrated that Te Aute boys drank more beer than St Steven’s boys. But we should remember with some joy those who have passed on. Obviously, I should acknowledge Mr Rei, who is the current leader of Ngati Toa and also the chair of Te Ohu Kaimoana. I think of Mr Metekīngi, who when we were young university students was an identity. I want to recite the names of a famous orator whom I met from this tribe when I was a lad at Tūrangawaewae. I went with my Ngāpuhi Aupōuri elders to Tūrangawaewae in the early 1970s. An old man gave a speech. Although we were very good at Māori, it was well beyond our capacity to understand, as young men going along with our mātuas from the Anglican Church. His name was Rēnē. If I am not mistaken, it was Uenuku Rēnē, but they just called him Rēnē. I recall my grandmother telling me that that man came from the Cook Strait. Being from the far north, it was all a bit sort of blurry, just as the southerners call everyone from North of Auckland Ngāpuhi. I recall her saying that he had just demonstrated in his speech that to be a great navigator for Māoridom you have to see in the night; you have to be able to read the signs and translate in a form that modern people can understand.

[Authorised te reo text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

As a youngster of 11 or 12, I have never forgotten the trip I took with my grandmother, born in 1892. So let us come back to “Ka Mate! Ka Mate!”. I do not think that there is a more valuable contribution that the Pākehā hoi polloi borrow from us on a regular basis when they go to Amsterdam, when they go to London, when they go to wherever. Indeed, on my Tarara side I can assure Ngati Toa my own son has done “Ka Mate! Ka Mate!” in Croatia on many occasions. He went there to play rugby. Unfortunately, I learnt that I do not think that is all he was doing. He did ring and say: “Hey, papa, I did not know the Swedish played rugby.”

[Authorised te reo text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

But this is now a key quality of our modern identity as New Zealanders. This bill ensures that its indigeneity is never stripped away. Who knows what the future holds for such contributions? But let it be known it was Te Rauparaha in his flight in the various battles of the 1820s. The assistance that he took from Te Wharerangi who decided that he would assist him as he was fleeing, probably, some of his own relatives. That is where that haka originated from. The fact that this legislation has been used to provide a level of stewardship over the haka is, I think, reflective of how far we have come in terms of biculturalism, because this would never have happened in the time that I worked for Sir Geoffrey Palmer. I dare say it would have been very difficult to have got through in the time that Don Brash held sway in terms of the bicultural narrative. But those identities have moved out of politics, and today the current identities are here to salute Ngati Toa and to remind ourselves that these settlements will not avenge everything that happened in the past. They are the contribution of this group of parliamentarians and the Crown officials, and society being prepared to back the politicians to take these steps. That is what they are. Now it falls to the iwi to be the kaitiaki. I want to ensure—

[Authorised te reo text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

I want to read into the record the entirety of “Ka Mate! Ka Mate!”. I will not go over my time. Ordinary Kiwis know five or six lines. It is probably the only opportunity that we will have to put this in the record. You never know, some of them might join me. It defies English translation, but there are a couple of rude words that in good time I will explain to you.

[Continuation line: It starts:]

It starts:

[Authorised te reo text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

Let it lie on our record the day we came to salute Ngāti Toa and agree to the legislation, protecting that haka for them in New Zealand. It now lies as a permanent record of this Parliament. Kia ora tatou katoa.

[Continuation line: Dr Pita Sharples]

HAKA KA MATE ATTRIBUTION BILL

Third Readings

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Minister of Māori Affairs): Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker.

[Authorised te reo text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

Today we welcome the sons and daughters of Hoturoa, captain of the great Tainui canoe. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou. Nearly two centuries ago the people of Ngati Toa Rangatira resided at Kāwhia, on Waikato-Tainui’s western coast, from Aotea to Huikomako.

[Authorised te reo text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

Their incredible heke, or great migration south, is stuff that legends are made of. In the early 1800s they faced conquest in their northern lands. The people of Ngati Toa Rangatira turned south. Led by the renowned chief Te Rauparaha, Ngati Toa Rangatira and their allies embraced technology armed with muskets. They waged wars with tribes across the southern North Island and the northern South Island. The Ngati Toa Rangatira heke included their women, children, and kaumātua. They too walked hundreds of kilometres. Many would die along the way from Kāwhia to their new homelands in Kāpiti. By the time the Tiriti o Waitangi was signed, Ngati Toa Rangatira was exercising tino rangatiratanga as mana whenua over the lands they occupied in the south-west coast of Wellington at Ōhāriu, Porirua, and Kāpiti Island and, of course, parts of the Horowhenua coast. In Te Tau Ihu o te Waka a Māui their main areas of occuption were the Wairau Valley, Port Underwood, and Pelorus Sound. By the time the Tiriti o Waitangi was signed, the global whaling industry was burgeoning, with whaling stations established across Ngāti Toa whenua. The flax trade was also booming. Ngati Toa Rangatira were not just part of an emerging economy in this part of the country; they were actually leading this economy and they were the owners of it. But the Tiriti o Waitangi, signed by Te Rauparaha, changed the ground rules for ever. The Crown’s military action, land confiscations, and land purchases were pervasive and unrelenting.

[Continuation line: Ngati Toa Rangatira economic power was ruined]

Ngati Toa Rangatira economic power was ruined. Ngāti Toa Rangatira political power was devastated. Ngati Toa Rangatira people were left virtually landless without reserves or endowments. All those things that the Crown has taken from the people of Ngati Toa Rangatira can never be replaced, and yet they honour the Crown today with their generosity and their willingness to settle their historical grievances. Most people have heard of the former whakatauākī “He aha te mea nui o te ao? He tangata, he tangata, he tangata”—what is the greatest thing of all? It is people, it is people, it is people. New Zealanders often ponder about what things best define us in this country: our mountains, our artists, our rugby. But without someone to climb the mountain, without someone to write the book, without an incredible captain to lead that team, and without people we have nothing to define us. What is the greatest thing of all about New Zealand? It is our people, it is our people, it is our people. They are fearless, ingenious, and straight up. These are some of the words that help explain our No. 8 wire mentality. So it is not surprising that, before anyone else, our ancestors went where no man or woman had gone before, conquering one third of the surface of this planet as we migrated south from island to island, writing a final chapter of human exploration and settlement. It is not surprising that the guy who decided to knock the bugger off and climb the tallest mountain on earth was from Tuakau. It is not surprising that the most successful sports team on the planet wears black jerseys. When it comes to a unique defining cultural symbol that sets New Zealand out from the rest of the world, it is not surprising that the rest of the world thinks of one word “haka”. And it is not surprising that the haka New Zealanders know and are known for above all others is a haka like no other. It is a triumphant defiant celebration of life over death: “Ka mate, ka mate ka ora, ka ora! Ka mate, ka mate ka ora, ka ora! It was composed by the warrier chieftain Te Rauparaha as he cheated death. Years later the words of Te Rauparaha resound through the generations. His words have come to define the human spirit: fearless, ingenious, straight up. The haka “Ka Mate” is our most powerful icon and symbol of New Zealand’s most favourite pastime of punching above our own weight. Nearly 200 years later the words of Te Rauparaha resound through the generations. From this day on the Crown acknowledges and recognises the significance of “Ka Mate” as a taonga, as an integral part of the history, culture, and identity of Ngati Toa Rangatira. I am proud to be part of a Government that honours, respects, and recognises the whakapapa of “Ka Mate”.

[Authorised te reo text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

What pleases me is not just the haka, its significance and the place and the role that it is playing in terms of putting our history back where it should be and inviting something that we have just started to embark on—it is putting our history into schools so the children can learn who we are, what mana whenua is, and the long history that goes back to the settling of islands in the Pacific Ocean right to this day. But as far as the haka is concerned, what pleases me is the impetus in this bill for those who perform “Ka Mate” to do it properly. In the immortal words of the great all Black captain Buck Shelford, who helped resurrect the correct performance of “Ka Mate”: “Do the fucking thing right or don’t do it at all.” I am proud to be part of a Government that today stands alongside the whānau o Ngati Toa Rangatira. Today we resolve historical grievances with honour, with mana, and with the generosity of the sons and daughters of Hoturoa. From the house of Toa Rangatira to the New Zealand House of Representatives, it is a great day. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Continuation line: Rino Tirikatene]

HAKA KA MATE ATTRIBUTION BILL

Third Readings

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker.

[Authorised te reo text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

Let me start with a well-known pepeha of Ngati Toa.

[Authorised te reo text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

This pepeha is to denote the mana of Ngati Toa and their two hapū of Kōata and Rārua . It is a historical link to the way things were in the past, when Ngati Toa had to explain to the Crown their relationship to the land and hapū of Te Tau Ihu. We all know that they have all advanced to be the iwi that they are today, but that is the historical link. With that in mind, let me declare my own personal stake in the history of Ngati Toa. Anyone who knows my family’s history will know me as a Poutini Ngāi Tahu , but not many people know the connection to Ngati Toa through my ancestor Niho , who was a chief of Ngāti Rārua and who, along with the other chiefs of the invading alliance of Ngati Toa, Ngāti Kōata , Ngāti Rārua, Ngāti Tama , and Te Ātiawa , crossed Raukawa Moana and fought with the local Ngāti Kuia , Ngāti Apa , and Rangitāne . From Te Tau Ihu, my ancestor pushed through the West Coast making war and in search of the highly prized pounamu. My Kai Tahu ancestor Tūhuru was a clever man, and in an effort to protect his people he took the prudent step of negotiating a peace deal with the Ngāti Rārua by offering his daughter Nihorere as a wife for Niho. This was accepted, and so Tūhuru and his family spent 5 years at Tai Tapu as guests of Niho and the Ngāti Rārua. The particular branch of the union of Tūhuru’s daughter Nihorere to Niho are known as a takawaenga family, which in times of raru were used to remind the tribes of Poutini Ngāi Tahu and Ngāti Rārua of that shared history. If 6 February 1840 is this nation’s birth date, then the events of 1839 must surely be the conception and gestation period of our country. Before the Treaty and Governor Hobson, New Zealand was a lawless land with no real civil law and definitely no land courts. The country and its tangata whenua were susceptible to unscrupulous land deals. The arrival of the New Zealand Company in 1839 is the crux of the troubles in Te Tau Ihu. In 1839 Ngati Toa were a powerful tribe situated on the northern side of Raukawa Moana and also had interests in Te Tau Ihu as well. Ngati Toa signed the Kāpiti deed, which purportedly gave up their interests in 20 million acres between Taranaki and North Canterbury. The oral translation of the English deed did not convey its meaning and effect. More misunderstandings and shady deals were to occur: 1843 and the Wairau affair; Te Rangihaeta ’s rebellion in the Hutt Valley in 1845 and eventual exile to Poroutawhao ; and Te Rauparaha’s illegal arrest and detainment in 1846.

[Continuation line: The arrest of Te Rauparaha]

The arrest of Te Rauparaha was a master stroke for Governor Grey and the Crown. It was totally illegal and on trumped-up charges. Grey used the detention of Te Rauparaha as leverage to wrest land from the Ngati Toa estate. The remaining chiefs of Ngati Toa had little option but to offer up land at Porirua and Wairau and to have reserves set aside. Ngati Toa had interests at Port Nicholson, Wairau, and Wakatū, but their interests were not acknowledged in the likes of the Wellington and Nelson tents. There were further, more modern-day mamae to add to the list of grievances. In 1948 and 1960 the Public Works Act stole hundreds of acres of land from families to build housing. Some of that land has never been used but is now tied up in the Crown’s hands. In this bill the Crown will apologise to Ngati Toa for its failure to uphold the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, apologise for Te Rauparaha’s illegal detention, and apologise for pressuring other chiefs of Ngati Toa to sign away the land for Te Rauparaha’s release. It will also apologise for failing to ensure that Ngati Toa retained sufficient land for their future needs. There are deeds of recognition and overlay classifications acknowledging areas of significance and association: Kāpiti Island, The Brothers, Thoms Rock, and the Wairau Lagoon, to name a few. There is, of course, the cultural, commercial, and financial redress. There are many people who have helped to advance this claim to where we are today, but I would particularly like to acknowledge Tiratū Williams, who is the last of the original claimants for Ngati Toa and who, I understand, is in the gallery today. I would like to move on to the haka. The Haka Ka Mate Attribution Bill has been put in place so as to acknowledge Te Rauparaha as the composer of the haka, and Ngati Toa’s guardianship, or kaitiakitanga, of this taonga. It sets guidelines on how this haka can and should be used in a commercial and non-commercial world. This haka, Ka Mate, is by default this country’s national haka. It is the first haka to be taught to children of school age. It is the first haka I was taught. I remember, when we first moved up from the South Island to Wellington, my father taking me out to Takapuwahia, where Mark Metekīngi

[Mr Tirikatene, please check name]

taught me as a 5-year-old. It is the haka of our national rugby team and of our Olympic and Commonwealth Games representatives. Other national sporting teams have used it at an international level. The haka has reverberated around the battlefields of the world not just during the Māori, civil, and land wars but also at places like Gallipoli and North Africa during World War I and World War II, and even at more modern theatres such as Iraq and Afghanistan. It has been performed by ordinary Kiwis doings their OEs, sometimes in a drunken manner, and it has even been performed—poorly, I might say—by British pop stars. But when I think of this mighty haka and I think of my whānaunga of Ngati Toa, what I think about is running up and down the basketball court with Taku Parai and Denell Wineera,

[Mr Tirikatene, please check names]

waiting for that pass so I can get the easy layup. I will tell you, it really came. It is hard to get a ball off a Ngati Toa hoopster, even if you are on their team. This haka also reminds me of one of Ngati Toa’s greatest living exponents of the haka, none other than Uncle Nelson Solomon, surely one of this country’s greatest storytellers, truthful or not. Kia ora, Uncle. Uncle Nelson told me one night after a few drinks in Nelson of his exploits on the basketball court and how he and John Arthur

[Mr Tirikatene, please check name]

were the best point and shooting guards combo that Ngāti Toa has ever seen. He then reminded me of it again on the drive over from Wakatū over to Waikawa, just to reinforce the point. When I think of the haka, I am reminded of the basketball mates I ran with back in the day, whether we were on the same team or playing against each other. I think of names such as Parai, Wineera, Hippolite, Solomon, Kimi, and Parata. Let us not forget the Katenes, and I acknowledge Rahui Katene—it is wonderful that you are here—and the Arthurs, the Kohelas, and the Metekīngis.

[Mr Tirikatene, please check names. Thank you]

[Continuation line: I would like to thank the many families of Ngāti Toa that allowed]

I would like to thank the many families of Ngati Toa that allowed Taku and Donelle

Mr Tirikatene, please check name.

and some of the other whānau to join the Rātana Church, even if it was for only one midweek basketball game. When I think of these wonderful people, I think about the everydayness of the haka, how it is performed every day, Ngāti Toa, at births, deaths, marriages, and 21st birthdays. If there is a meeting of Ngāti Toa anywhere in this country or anywhere in the world, you can guarantee there will be a stirring performance of Te Rauparaha’s famous composition at the end of the speeches. Today the descendants of Te Rauparaha and Ngati Toa are here, and once the debate is finished I am sure we will be treated to a very special extended version of their and this country’s most famous haka. I commend these bills to the House. Kia ora anō tātou.

[Continuation line: ROCHE]

HAKA KA MATE ATTRIBUTION BILL

Third Readings

DENISE ROCHE (Green):

[Authorised te reo text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

It is a pleasure to speak on behalf of the Greens on these bills, the Ngati Toa Rangatira Claims Settlement Bill and the Haka Ka Mate Attribution Bill, not just because this is the most positive experience of Parliament that I have ever had, but also because for me personally, as I said in my first speech on the omnibus legislation, I whakapapa to the great warrior Te Rauparaha through his mother Parekōhatu and the Raukawa line. So I am grateful to have the opportunity, in my privileged position as an MP, to read the true histories of Aotearoa through these settlement deeds. The story of Ngati Toa Rangatira is perhaps one that is more widely known than most iwi, due to the famous ancestor Te Rauparaha and his fierce reputation as a warrior, and, of course, in his role as the composer of the haka Ka Mate! I note that as part of the settlement outlined in the claims legislation, the Haka Ka Mate Attribution Bill will also be passed today, to ensure that the intellectual property rights of the iwi are acknowledged and that the haka is recognised as a taonga belonging to Ngati Toa Rangatira and their ancestor Te Rauparaha as the composer whenever their haka is performed. The legislation has taken a long time to get to this House. The deed of settlement was signed in 2012. However, the legal action goes right back to the actions of the New Zealand Company in the 1830s, when the first dodgy dealings with that company resulted in the first large tracts of land in the South Island being alienated. Given their warlike nature, there is no way that Ngati Toa Rangatira was ever going to relinquish their landholdings without a fight. There have been many over the generations who have carried on that fight. The original claims for this settlement were made in 1986, and I want to also acknowledge the kuia Tiratū Williams in the gallery today and also acknowledge those who have passed on—the other 13 claimants. It has taken 28 years to get to this place. The settlement relates to the gradual alienation of nearly all of the original 4 million hectares that were in Ngati Toa Rangatira’s area of interest. That interest includes both the lower part of the North Island and the top of the South Island. It goes from the Rangitīkei in the north and includes the Kāpiti coast, Hutt Valley, and Wellington areas, as well as Kāpiti Island and Mana Island. It includes large areas of the Marlborough Sounds and much of the northern South Island. How Ngāti Toa were alienated from that land is outlined in the legislation, in the deed of settlement. The methods used include the dodgy land sales, war, duress, the Crown awarding land to individual Māori, and exclusion. These tactics were used with many iwi across Aotearoa in the land-grabs of the 1800s. I use the term duress in this case to describe the dubious land sales that occurred while Te Rauparaha was being illegally detained by the Crown for 18 months, and his nephew, the leader Te Rangihaeata, was in exile in the Horowhenua.

[Continuation line: In this settlement, for the first time the Crown]

In this settlement for the first time the Crown apologises for that wrongdoing and I am going quote from the settlement deed the apology, which says: “The Crown unreservedly apologises for the breaches of Te Tiriti o Waitangi … and its principles which have hurt and caused prejudice to Ngati Toa Rangatira. The Crown is deeply sorry for its actions that intentionally undermined the mana and rangatiratanga of leading Ngati Toa Rangatira chiefs. In particular the Crown apologies for its indefinite detention of Te Rauparaha, and deeply regrets that it has failed, until now, to acknowledge this injustice in an appropriate manner.” In light of the huge land losses and the loss of resources that Ngati Toa Rangatira had once utilised, like the whaling industry and the flax trade, the compensation package is modest and that is also acknowledged in the settlement. The financial and commercial redress is about $72 million and some of that is tagged for express purposes and by accepting this Ngati Toa Rangatira are being generous. They are generous with the cultural redress package as well. Ngati Toa Rangatira will have 20 sites vested in them with another three sites that will be jointly vested with other iwi from Te Tau Ihu. That means that public access and conservation values will be maintained. In total the amount of land comes to about 267 hectares and I note that the area of occupation—the area that was originally occupied by Ngati Toa—was estimated at about 2 million hectares. Kāpiti Island will symbolically be vested in the iwi and then they will return it to the Crown after 10 days. They will return it to the people of New Zealand and the iwi will work alongside others to develop the management plans and conservation of that area. This is incredibly generous—to receive their rightful land and then to give it to the people of New Zealand. I am mindful that with many settlements that come before the House there is a lack of public understanding about the history: the history of the iwi and the breaches of Treaty of Waitangi that they have suffered. I am mindful also that this bill attempts to address some of them. Too often we hear, when these settlements are published, the racist comments that this part of a gravy train and whenever I hear that I am enraged. We must do more to educate the people and I support the Hon Pita Sharples in that call. The Greens’ position is—and I must make this point—that this is not a full and final settlement and we will say this on every settlement bill and in every speech. Undoubtedly, the journey to this day has been hard won and it should be celebrated. I want to acknowledge the Treaty negotiation team who must be congratulated on the intricacies of the settlement and how they have maintained a delicate balance between overlapping claims and those different from others. But our stance stems from the fact that this is the best the iwi could possibly get at this time but the compensation, of course, is not full and that is acknowledged. We do not believe it is final, because we do not know yet how these historical claims will impact on the generations of Ngati Toa Rangatira yet to come. One thing is for sure, though. Undoubtedly, Ngati Toa Rangatira will be on a surer economic footing as a result of this settlement and they can chart a future for their rangatahi and whānau. This is a day to celebrate. We offer our congratulations to Ngati Toa Rangatira and every success. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Continuation: Henare]

HAKA KA MATE ATTRIBUTION BILL

Third Readings

Hon TAU HENARE (National):

[Authorised te reo text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

There have been several platitudes offered up to various people. I want to start by saying that my cousin Shane Jones continues to give great speeches, continues to tell a story in his own way and only as he can. I could listen to Shane all day, apart from when he talks politics. But I do want to make particular mention to—

Hon Trevor Mallard: The feeling’s probably mutual.

Hon TAU HENARE: Sorry?

Hon Trevor Mallard: The feeling’s probably mutual.

Hon TAU HENARE: That is most probably right. I want to pay particular respects to a person who is not here now, and that is Pātariki Rei . I do remember when I became a member of Parliament, having a couple of hui with him. I was astounded to find out that he has a Ngāpuhi link, like most of the country, and that is through Matauri Bay and through our tupuna Tametame.

[Authorised te reo text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

If you read various Treaty settlement pieces of legislation, you will find that over a very, very short period, people starting out with thousands upon thousands of acres, a people with their own economy, a people who were highly regarded for their exploits, became landless. In this particular case, over a 20-year period from 1840 to 1860 you have what could only be classed as theft and genocide and all sorts of words that we want to use these days. In a matter of less than 100 years they became as other iwi have become, and that is landless. When you take that land away, you take away a whole part of a people. I want to talk about the attribution of Ka mate! Ka mate! . When the bill was introduced to the House and it was called the Haka Ka Mate Attribution Bill , I did not know what that word “attribution” meant. I am only from Ōtara . I am not a university graduate. So I looked it up. I looked up the word “attribution”. There is a whole whakapapa of this word “attribution”. Back in the day in England there was a kawa , a kaupapa , a way of doing things in the pub. If you did not have any money on you, you could go in and you could get a piece of chalk and put down on a slate what you were drinking. That is where the terms “chalk it up” and “put it on the slate” come from, as some of us have been wont to do over the years.

Hon Trevor Mallard: In the back room here.

Hon TAU HENARE: In the back room here. But that is what attribution means. So we can chalk this haka up to Ngāti Toa and Te Rauparaha . The first time I came across Te Rauparaha was when I was a kid at Hillary College . Bill Tāwhai was our Māori teacher. We got to know about who composed the haka. We got to know about who Ngāti Toa rangatira were and are. I will always doff my cap to Bill Tāwhai for being the sort of teacher whom New Zealand deserved, then and now.

[Continuation line: I do want to say this, though,]

I do want to say this, though, which is that we should not on these occasions miss the opportunity to talk about those sorts of people—you know, Te Rauparaha , Kawiti, Pōtatau; all the big names of our past, all the big players on the stage that was Māoridom—and to take up the challenge that the Minister of Māori Affairs has talked about today about our education system. It is now time, when this country has moved on so much, that we should make it part of the curriculum. I make this plea that the next Government, whoever it may be, seriously investigates and puts into practice what most other countries do anyway—that is, we need to have our own history as a particular subject in our schools, primary, intermediate, and college. We need to call it New Zealand history and talk about it all, not just the nice bits. It is with everything. You know, in war, you cannot have war without another side. In the Wairau affair, you could not have had a Wairau affair with one person. You know, you cannot have an affair with one person, anyway.

Hon Chester Borrows: Oh, you can.

Hon TAU HENARE: Well, you could, I suppose, if you think about it. But with the Wairau affair, when the Māori Affairs Committee went to the South Island to hear submissions, we heard about this, that, and the other thing and about how terrible it was. We heard the Māori history. Let us not forget that there were a couple of dozen European settlers who perished and died in the affray—in the affair. We should not be shy to talk about the whole, rather than the part, of our history. So I so make that plea, that wherever we go, when we are talking about Te Rauparaha, we do not see him as only a composer, because there had to be an affair. There had to be a reason for—and I am not saying that the Wairau affair led up to the haka, but there has to be something that leads a man like that, or any person, to compose a verse that explains their situation. So we should not be scared of, or be shy about, talking about the whole, rather than just the part. In this House, Thursdays are becoming the day when we talk about New Zealand’s history. Like I said before, I make passionate plea for the next Minister of Education, whoever they may be—Chester? That is one the first things that we do.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Hey, Tau.

Hon TAU HENARE: Hi, Trevor. That is one of the first things that they do, because, I tell you what—

Hon Christopher Finlayson: It won’t be him. Hutt South’s now a National seat.

Hon TAU HENARE: —ha, ha—it will bring our nation closer together, just as the passage of these bills brings the nation closer together.

[Authorised te reo text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

Tēnā koe katoa.

[Continuation line: Hon Nanaia Mahuta]

HAKA KA MATE ATTRIBUTION BILL

Third Readings

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): Tuatahi,

[Authorised te reo text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

It gives me great pleasure to be able to support the third and final reading of the Ngati Toa Rangatira Claims Settlement Bill. With that, as members in the House have reflected on history, it is an opportunity for each member who has participated in the Māori Affairs Committee to reflect on their connection in some way to what has been considered at the select committee with the passage and consideration of each Treaty settlement.

[Continuation line: In this particular regard, I reflect on my own history and connection]

In this particular regard, I reflect on my own history and connection. In some humble way I consider that as I have grown up as a child and tried to pursue and find out more and more about who I am, I cannot get away from the matrix of histories of our people within the Tainui waka region. With that said, there are stories that you grow up with that are a part, I guess, of your identity and how you relate to people and places and events. You cannot grow up within Tainui waka without hearing about Te Rauparaha, whether it is his exploits as a mature man and his fighting prowess, or the nature of his departure from Kāwhia, or his illustrious birth and the significance of what the old people at that time had seen in the marriage that took place between Te Rauparaha’s parents, but more important, the intent with which Te Rauparaha was raised and things that were foretold of his lifetime. I reflect on my Maniapoto connection. Again, as I grew up, I heard about this man Te Rauparaha, who was strong, and when he departed from Kāwhia all through Ngāti Māhuta, Maniapoto, Ngati Tuwharetoa, Ngāti Raukawa, and right down to Ngāti Kauwhata, Ngāti Raukawa ki Te Tonga—all the way down to the top of the south—you will hear a number of stories from families who recount how their tupuna joined the heke, then connecting them to the exploits, the rampage, or however you would like to refer to it, but they were significant, from Kāwhia all the way down the North Island into the South Island. With some pride and trepidation I think to myself that Te Rauparaha has left more than a footprint, but a legacy, and it goes beyond ka mate! ka mate! But the fact that ka mate! ka mate! is now reflected on by Māori and Pākehā alike, within New Zealand and outside of New Zealand, in our kōhanga reo, in our schools and in our universities certainly strengthens the way in which our stories and our connections can be told and retold. Many members have made the point better than I can, but I certainly want to recognise that. For the purposes of this third reading debate, I want to set on record the apology of the Crown to Ngati Toa Rangatira, so that when their children come back to reflect on what their parents and grandparents did to settle, they see why it was so important. Clause 426 of the Ngati Toa Rangatira Claims Settlement Bill reads: “The text of the apology set out in the deed of settlement is as follows: (1) The Crown recognises that a number of Ngati Toa Rangatira, including Te Rauparaha and Te Rangihaeata, signed Te Tiriti o Waitangi/the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840. The Crown profoundly regrets that it has not always lived up to its obligations to Ngati Toa Rangatira under Te Tiriti o Waitangi … Accordingly, the Crown makes this apology to Ngati Toa Rangatira, to their ancestors, and to their descendants. (2) The Crown unreservedly apologises for the breaches of Te Tiriti o Waitangi … and its principles which have hurt and caused prejudice to Ngati Toa Rangatira. The Crown is deeply sorry for its actions that intentionally undermined the mana and rangatiratanga of leading Ngati Toa Rangatira chiefs. In particular the Crown apologises for its indefinite detention of Te Rauparaha, and deeply regrets that it has failed, until now, to acknowledge this injustice in an appropriate manner. (3) The Crown profoundly regrets and apologises for its actions that left Ngati Toa Rangatira with few landholdings by 1865, and its ongoing failure to protect their remaining landholdings, which has left Ngati Toa Rangatira virtually landless and unable to access customary resources and significant sites. (4) The Crown deeply regrets the cumulative effect of its actions and omissions which severely damaged Ngati Toa Rangatira social and traditional tribal structures, their autonomy and ability to exercise customary rights and responsibilities, their capacity for economic and social development, and physical, cultural, and spiritual well-being. (5) With this apology and settlement the Crown seeks to atone for these wrongs, restore its tarnished honour and begin the process of healing. The Crown hopes that this apology and settlement will mark the beginning of a new, positive, and enduring relationship with Ngati Toa Rangatira founded on mutual trust and co-operation and respect for Te Tiriti o Waitangi … and its principles.” I set this on the record for the future generations of Ngati Toa Rangatira to ensure that a Treaty settlement can be durable to the aspirations of their grandparents, parents, and tupuna, in coming to this day. I also set this on record as an opportunity for those members of Parliament who will often listen to these debates but not really grab the full intent of them, to know that the significance of a Crown apology can be huge—both reflective but prospective, when we think about how to make the settlement work and evolve in the way that it was intended to. Coming to the substance of the bill, I had a look at the statutory areas that are included. It should be noted that there are a significant number of areas where statutory acknowledgments are made but more important, where they intersect with local Government, with the Resource Management Act, and with the Conservation Act. This is a real opportunity to evolve the settlement into a different working relationship. Some of that has already taken place. It has not needed to wait until the settlement to secure that. However, with statutory acknowledgments, the ongoing commitment of various local councils to improve their relationships with Ngati Toa Rangatira in relation to these sites will be greatly enhanced. I need only look at the Pāuatahanui Wildlife Reserve, Lake Rotoiti , Lake Rotorua in the Nelson Lakes, the Wairau Pā—these are just but some of those particular areas. The other unique part of the settlement is the ngā paihau sites, and there are three of them—Kāpiti Island, The Brothers, and Wairau Lagoons. Importantly, it ensures that there is an opportunity in the ongoing management and setting of plans for these areas. I have come to the end of my contribution, and I would really like to say at this point that if children in kōhanga reo today grow up learning ka mate! ka mate! and stand with pride in knowing who they are and where they come from, and can share a little bit of the history of what connects them to the leadership attributes of Te Rauparaha, or the places he has been or the exploits he has undertaken, then New Zealand is in good stead. Tēnā koutou katoa.

HAKA KA MATE ATTRIBUTION BILL

Third Readings

CLAUDETTE HAUITI (National): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker.

[Authorised te reo text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

On the Ngati Toa Rangatira Claims Settlement Bill and the Haka Ka Mate Attribution Bill, I want to talk a little bit about the Māori Affairs Committee, which examined the bills and recommended that it be passed with amendments. The intent of the Haka Ka Mate Attribution Bill is that Te Rauparaha must be identified as both the composer of the haka “Ka Mate! Ka Mate!” and a chief of Ngati Toa Rangatira and that this obligation should apply whenever the haka is published commercially, communicated to the public, or features in a film that is shown in public or made available to the public. The committee recommended amending that clause to clarify exemptions to this obligation for educational purposes. The Ngati Toa Rangatira Claims Settlement Bill includes a summary of the agreed historical account, the Crown’s acknowledgments and apology, and the vesting of part of Mana Island and Kāpiti Island in Ngati Toa Rangatira, which will be gifted back to the people of Aotearoa New Zealand. It includes a poutiaki package over the Cook Strait, comprising a Crown acknowledgment of Ngati Toa’s role as kaitiaki of the coastal marine areas of the Cook Strait, Porirua Harbour, Port Underwood, and the Pelorus Sound. It includes the establishment of and participation of Ngati Toa Rangitira in a strategic advisory committee. This will be involved in the preparation of a conservation management plan for the management of Kāpiti Island Nature Reserve, controlling and managing the Queen Elizabeth Park campground site, and managing Whitireia Park. In the commercial redress, there is the right to purchase Crown-owned properties on the settlement date, some for lease back to Crown agencies; the right of deferred selection to purchase specified Crown-owned properties for a 2-year period from the settlement date; and the right to purchase some Ministry of Education properties for a period of 10 years from the settlement date. The Haka Ka Mate Attribution Bill is a separate bill being read as a cognate bill with the Ngati Toa Rangatira Claims Settlement Bill. The bill provides an acknowledgment of the significance of the famous “Ka Mate! Ka Mate!” haka as a taonga of Ngati Toa Rangatira and as an integral part of the history, culture, and identity of Ngati Toa Rangatira. The values that Ngati Toa Rangatira seek to uphold are ihi, wehi, and wana, the ihi being the spiritual force and the wehi and wana being the emotions that emanate from a performance and understanding of this haka. It provides Ngati Toa Rangatira with a right of attribution. This is a moral right rather than a commercial right. The legislation will require the composer of the haka, Ngati Toa Rangatira chief Te Rauparaha, to be attributed in certain circumstances. What this means is that the Haka Ka Mate Attribution Bill will require people who use the haka in a commercial context—for example, on commercial products or in films for distribution—to acknowledge Te Rauparaha as the author. The requirement of the attribution does not apply to public performances—for example, by the All Blacks—or educational purposes. I commend these bills to the House.

[Continuation line: Louisa Wall]

HAKA KA MATE ATTRIBUTION BILL

Third Readings

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. E ngā mana, e ngā reo, e ngā whānau o Ngati Toa. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa. I am also aware that at Takapūwāhia Marae in Porirua many of the whānau have gathered to watch the proceedings the House today. To all the whānau of Ngati Toa, I say congratulations. Congratulations on this third reading of your bills, the Ngati Toa Rangatira Claims Settlement Bill and Haka Ka Mate Attribution Bill, which will provide, I guess, more assets for you to build on in terms of Ngati Toa moving into the future with confidence. So I congratulate you. I also want to thank you, particularly for the leadership of your tūpuna Te Rauparaha and Te Rangihaeata. Because when I look at your history, like all histories your journey began in 1839 when you signed the Kapiti deed. By 1843 your rangatira were fighting for the rights of Ngati Toa. I think that warrior spirit has to be acknowledged because it is that fighting spirit that endures today when we look at the performance of our haka that our All Blacks, who define us internationally within a sporting context, perform. So I hope when you see that haka, when you look at the All Blacks, for you now and into the future it is about your rangatira, Te Rauparaha, who has created that platform for us. I note, however, that in the Haka Ka Mate Attribution Bill there is no copyright to the haka “Ka Mate! Ka Mate!”. This is a very unique part of this legislation, because you do have formal acknowledgment. But because it is not contained within the Copyright Act, there are no royalties. So I say thank you very much to the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations for that 5-year review, because that 5-year review enables Ngati Toa to actually look at how the haka is used and whether or not formal acknowledgment is sufficient into the future in terms of how the haka “Ka Mate! Ka Mate!” is used. In fact, it clarifies and confirms the Wai 262 report that said there should be controls on the use of the haka. So I think the position of Ngati Toa going forward in terms of the control of the haka “Ka Mate! Ka Mate!” is something that ultimately should be in your hands. So I acknowledge the very special and significant attribution of the haka to Te Rauparaha and to Ngati Toa, and I look forward, as we move into the future, to the safeguarding of the haka in terms of Ngati Toatanga.

[Continuation line: What I want to focus on]

What I want to focus on—and I want to acknowledge, Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson, that you went to Ngati Toa Primary School in Tītahi Bay—is that I think it is special to acknowledge all the connections that we have. My role here today is to add support to our Labour voice. Our kaumātua, as I will call him, Shane Jones, kicked the proceedings off this morning. He and my colleagues Rino Tirikatene and Nanaia Mahuta sit on the Māori Affairs Committee. I was previously a member of the Māori Affairs Committee. I am no longer, but as a proud member of this House and of Māori whakapapa— Ngāti Tūwharetoa in Waikato—it is always a pleasure to participate in these Treaty settlement debates. For all of us I think the resolution of our colonial history, the resolution of our truth and reconciliation process, as I call it, is incredibly significant. Always we pay tribute to the people who have gone before—our tūpuna who are not with us any more—and our tūpuna and our rangatira here today, who will ensure that as we move into the future we do so always with our heads held high. So I want to acknowledge all Ngati Toa who have been involved in getting you to where we are today, because, yes, the Crown is the partner that you have negotiated with to get to where we are today, but we have a lot of resources on our side. Always it is the fortitude and persistence and steadfast commitment to making sure that we as tangata whenua in Aotearoa New Zealand are for ever acknowledged as mana whenua, as tangata whenua. So these settlement bills are incredibly important in terms of moving forward as a nation. I always like to look at either the statutory acknowledgments or the place names, and I see that within your legislation this settlement has provided for place name changes to 12 North Island sites and nine South Island sites. For me it is those names that actually mean a lot because they honour our tūpuna, they honour our specific relationships, so Ngāti Toa’s relationship, to these geographical sites here in Aotearoa. For ever Ngati Toa’s footprint will be recorded formally within our country. The new geographic names are, for example, Taupo Point, Kapukapuariki Rocks, Mount Porirua, Haukopua Point, Motuhara Point, Te Ana-o-Hau, and Toka Potaka Rock. And there are altered names for Colonial Knob, which will be called Rangituhi; Goat Point, which will be called Tawhitikuri; Te Awarua-o-Porirua Harbour; Toka-a-Papa Reef; Te Rewarewa Point; Te Whanganui—with an “h”—which is to sit alongside Port Underwood; Te Hoiere, which is the Pelorus Sound and Pelorus River; Te Koko-o-Kupe, which is Cloudy Bay; Oraumoa, which is Fighting Bay; Pukatea, which is Whites Bay; Tokomaru, which is Mount Robertson; Waikutakuta, which is Robin Hood Bay; and Totaranui, which is Queen Charlotte Sound. The significance of these renamings for Ngati Toa is incredibly important. It is incredibly important for us as a country as well. I will not contribute any more other than to again congratulate you on your Treaty settlement. I hope that in this process you have felt that there is a momentum within this House to settle these Treaty claims, and we move forward constructively in partnership with you. The statutory acknowledgments and the fact that you will have, for example, resource management governance authority over eight coastal sites and over 23 other sites means that for ever Ngati Toa will formally be part of the management and be the kaitiaki that you are of these sites. For me that is the significance in terms of our acknowledgment of you as mana whenua, as first Sovereigns, and the partnership opportunity that we have as a country going forward. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Continuation line: Hekia Parata]

HAKA KA MATE ATTRIBUTION BILL

Third Readings

Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education):

[Authorised te reo text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

Good morning. It is wonderful to be able to have the opportunity to take a call to recognise the stage at which this long kaupapa has finally arrived, and to be able to see this part of the process of redress and of settlement imminently reaching this final stage, so that you might be able to move forward into the future of your making, having had recognised the historical breaches and grievances and the effect they have had on Ngati Toa Rangatira, and with the opportunity to reshape the future in the way that you wish to you for your people, for your uri whakaheke, and for the generations that are to come.

[Continuation line: It is always a delight to be in the House]

It is always a delight to be in the House when these Treaty settlement bills are being debated. For a start, they are debated as a Parliament because these are settlements between the Crown and iwi, not the Government of the day and iwi. They are intended to be enduring, to be sustainable over time, and it is wonderful to be able to share in this unusual experience, as a Parliament, of celebrating as one the work that has been done and the opportunity to see a strengthened New Zealand as a result of the particular parts that you will choose to play abased on the settlement of your claim. Can I acknowledge, therefore, you and your negotiators. We are very much aware from our experience of other Treaty settlements that have gone on for quite some time how much of a toll they take on the people, how much times passes, how many of your kaumātua, kuia, and pakeke pass away during the course of these negotiations, and how taumaha this can be as well as being able to see the light when it lifts. So we recognise that. Certainly our Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, the Hon Christopher Finlayson, has since he became that Minister—and he may well have told you, and it is true because I can attest to it from before we even came into Parliament. This has been an absolute mission for him as Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations to ensure that these are approached with the respect and seriousness, and comprehensiveness but also approached as quickly as possible to settle these claims so that you and the Crown might move on from a particular time in our history to a better place in our future. So having acknowledged all of you, can I acknowledge the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations. He has worked hard not only on this settlement but I think has close to 50 settlements in the time that he been the Minister. He approaches this with seriousness, with commitment to all of the work and to that principle and practice of all iwi: kanohi kitea. He is one Minister who travels to know who it is whom he is dealing with, to understand face to face what their concerns are, what the issues are, and how important the relationship is. So he has been very involved in ensuring that the appointment of the Crown negotiators—and I notice that we have the Hon Paul Swain and others in the House today—to ensure that that relationship can be conducted with dispatch but also with respect. He has been a tireless and committed Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations and I acknowledge him for that work. Can I also acknowledge our Māori Affairs Committee for the work that it does. It is often unsung and unseen, but it is the absolute glue that makes these settlements possible. So my friend and colleague Tau Henare, who has chaired that committee and got through a huge amount of work—not only the paperwork but the hearings, the travelling around the country, going to the places that settlements require and, in your case, to the top of the South as well as just out here at Mana. The Hon Tau Henare chairs that committee in his own inimitable fashion, as he does everything else in this Hosue. He brings both fire and humour, and passion to all that he undertakes, and I think that it is important in that role as chair of the Māori Affairs Committee that that be the case—that the full emotional range can be expressed and experienced by all of us—and he chairs and leads that work, I think, with great style, commitment, and passion. He also oversees a group of members of Parliament who are equally committed to getting this right, to getting your settlement to the place that you are comfortable with, and that is why we have seen some changes and refinements both in the name of the bill but also in the substance of the bill. The point of the select committee process is to put in front of you what it is that we think we have reached agreement on, and also to take that process to refine the detail, and that detail has been refined. One of the things that I have grown up, in Ngati Porou, being very conscious about is haka taparahi. Therefore I am absolutely delighted that your haka, which you have allowed to become part of our haka not just here in New Zealand but overseas, is being legislated to reflect its composer, Te Rauparaha. It reflects that time in history and its continuing significance not only to you as the direct descendants and how you carry that on into the future but to all of us who have had the privilege and the ihi and the wehi of experiencing and participating in Ka Mate, whether as we go through our primary schools into our secondary school days and indeed into our history. It is the experience of what it means both here and in reflection of your ancestor—and, may I say, it is a very striking figure of all Māori and New Zealand history of the kinds of events and activities that Te Rauparaha led. In more modern times the reflection of that in Porirua is with that great Te Rauparaha Arena, which continues to draw people not only from the local community but from all over the country. Can I acknowledge Ngati Toa not only for this particular process but for the leadership that you show through Porirua and up into the Kāpiti Coast and up into Paraparaumu. You have been an iwi that have seen early the opportunity, the potential, and actually the responsibility of working with your local government as well as with central government. You have understood and carry out the responsibilities of governance beyond your iwi, about how we make the places that we live in and the everyday operations, together with the mayor and council of Porirua, a better place for all citizens of that area. My colleague Kris Faafoi and I together benefit from that participation by Ngati Toa not only in the governance but actually in the cultural authenticity that you bring to every event that occurs in Porirua and in the Kāpiti Coast. That itself sits as model to the rest of New Zealand. Where the debate goes on as to whether Māori representation should be legislated for or not, you just get on and participate in that representation, and the greater Porirua area is all the better for it. As my colleague Louisa Wall has already indicated—I am afraid I have not heard all the other previous speeches—the fact that the cultural names of the places that are important and of significance and tell a story for the community will be restored to that community is also a gift, a contribution, and a cultural enrichment that you make to our places.

[Continuation line Your ability to commercially]

Your ability to commercially participate in and grow the local, regional, and national economy is another contribution for which we thank you. We look forward to its growth not only for the local people of the rohe of Ngati Toa but for all New Zealanders.

[Authorised te reo text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

Bills read a third time.

HAKA KA MATE ATTRIBUTION BILL

Third Readings

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I understand, honourable members, that permission has been given to Ngati Toa for a haka. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koe e te Whare. E ngā iwi, e ngā reo, e ngā hau e whā . Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. Ngati Toa, the floor is yours.

Haka

[Continuation line: Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō, Ngāti Kuia, and Rangitāne o Wairau Claims Settlement Bill]

NGATI APA KI TE RA TO, NGATI KUIA, AND RANGITANE O WAIRAU CLAIMS SETTLEMENT BILL

Third Reading

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Minister of Māori Affairs) on behalf of the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations: I move, That the Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō, Ngāti Kuia, and Rangitāne o Wairau Claims Settlement Bill be now read a third time.

[Authorised te reo text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

Today we turn south across Raukawa Moana , past the resting place of Muturangi , to Te Tau Ihu o Te Waka-a-Māui, and we welcome the sons and daughters of the great Kurahaupō waka: Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō, Ngāti Kuia, and Rangitāne o Wairau. Nā reira, tēnā koutou. Kurahaupō whānau have resided in Te Tau Ihu o Te Waka-a-Māui mai rānō . Their tīpuna stories and whakapapa can be found in the maunga and in the awa , in the waters, of Te Tau Ihu.

[Authorised te reo text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

Few New Zealanders know that the famous Heaphy Track should really be called Kehu’s Track. Kehu was a tohunga, kaitiaki, and knowledge keeper of the inland trails and lands of this rohe. It was Kehu who guided Heaphy along that trail—not the other way round, as history sometimes recounts.

[Authorised te reo text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

It is ironic that by 1900 a people known for their knowledge of their lands were left landless. Reserves were not set aside. Specific rights were not negotiated. Generations of Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō have stood before royal commissions, land commissioners, Māori Land Court hearings, High Court hearings, Appeal Courts, and even London’s Privy Council. Generations of people have fought for this day of recognition—their children and mokopuna are here with us today in the Whare. I am proud to be part of a Government that has worked alongside them as we settle these things. I am proud that from this day on the mana whenua and mana moana of Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō will be recognised in the laws of this nation.

[Authorised te reo text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Continuation line: There is an unforgettable image]

There is an unforgettable image on the Ngāti Kuia website taken when iwi leaders signed their deed of settlement with the Crown at Te Hora Marae in October 2010. The photograph is of the chairman of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Kuia Charitable Trust close to tears. His face creased with pain, he stares at the ground. Behind him is a negotiator for Ngāti Kuia with tears in his eyes. The chairman’s son stands with his hand pressed into his father’s shoulder. In this single iconic image we get just a small bit of the understanding of what Ngāti Kuia families have gone through and have overcome just to get to this day. People forget it is a traumatic, difficult process settling these historical events to your satisfaction in order that the Crown can at least acknowledge, and apologise for, what has gone before. The sons and daughters of Māui, Kupe, and Matua Hōtere, Ngāti Kuia families, have been standing on their lands at Te Tau Ihu mai rā nō. After generations of settlement, Ngāti Kuia survived musket raids as well as the arrival of tauiwi, or foreigners, to their land. By the mid-1800s the Crown was moving swiftly across the top of the south, and a deal guaranteeing Ngāti Kuia schools, hospitals, and lands was dishonoured. Colonisation and amalgamation—these policies saw the iwi left on small, uneconomic land parcels. The draining of wetlands for dairy farms also drained the economic lifeblood from the families of Ngāti Kuia. Their journey is etched in the faces of that koroua and his mokopuna in that photo. Behind that koroua stands future generation upon future generation of Ngāti Kuia mokopuna, whose mana whenua and mana moana are from this day guaranteed by the laws of our nation. In front of that elder stands generation upon generation of his tīpuna, whose battle for their mana and for mana whenua and mana moana has been one of sacrifice, determination, and, finally, triumph today.

[Authorised te reo text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

I pay tribute now to the families of Rangitāne o Wairau, the people of the 100 waters of Ruatere—ngā wai rau o Ruatere. Withstanding warfare, colonisation, and the alienation of nearly every acre of their whenua, Rangitāne families have retained their identity and their heritage and have secured their future in a rohe they settled generations before others arrived at the lands of Te Tau Ihu o Te Waka a Māui. Rangitāne families link us directly to Kupe. When ancient tīpuna remains were finally put to rest at Wairau recently, the media asked a Rangitāne leader for comment, and she replied with these words: “No matter what race or creed or colour you are, you don’t know where you are going until you know where you have come from. Today is a celebration for us all to live together.” Her kōrero captures the leadership, the humility, and the generosity of the families of Rangitāne o Wairau, whose mana whenua and mana moana from today will finally be recognised in the laws of New Zealand. Te Rūnanga o Rangitāne o Wairau was set up in 1861 by rangatira concerned by the growing landlessness facing tangata whenua across the rohe. For 153 years, then, this runanga has continued to represent Rangitāne on social and political issues.

[Authorised te reo text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

The footprints of Rangitāne families have fallen on the sands of Wairau. Their ahi kā occupation is ancient, unbroken, and hard fought for.

[Authorised te reo text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

As numerous as the stars in the sky are the people of great Rangitāne upon the land. So today the Crown stands alongside Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō, Ngāti Kuia, and Rangitāne o Wairau and acknowledges the social, economic, and cultural devastation caused by the Crown and endured by generations. In the face of incredible injustice, today we witness incredible generosity as these iwi honour every New Zealander by coming here today, by accepting our Crown apology, and by settling their historical Treaty of Waitangi grievances. All those things lost due to the actions of the Crown can never be totally replaced, and yet the people of Tau Ihu wish to settle their grievances with mana. Tēnā koutou. We remember those who have passed on but whose determination has led to the legislation this House will now consider. So today we witness a milestone in a journey that is not just about the wonderful idea of Māori working together. Today we introduce legislation to resolve the historic grievances of eight tribes of Te Tau Ihu, legislation that strengthen the ability of future generations to carry on a proud legacy of economic and cultural rangatiratanga. So, in closing, I would just like to refer to what we talked about with the haka Ka Mate and how it should be taught in all our schools, and all the history relating to it. I am really proud to say that we are producing a sort of framework whereby the history of every school area can be introduced into the school using the local mana whenua. We are bringing in the framework so that the children of those districts can feel proud and so that the people of the district can learn

[Authorised te reo text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

At the helm of the great voyaging canoe of Māui, at the helm of their own destinies and futures. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou. I commend this bill to the House.

[Continuation line: Rino Tirikatene]

NGATI APA KI TE RA TO, NGATI KUIA, AND RANGITANE O WAIRAU CLAIMS SETTLEMENT BILL

Third Reading

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga):

[Authorised te reo text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

I am delighted to be able to speak about these three iwi, as part of this final debate today. Rangitāne, Ngāti Kuia, and Ngāti Apa ki te Ra Tō are part of the wider collective of the iwi that we have all seen, and will be seeing, throughout the day today. In particular, they are all commonly descended from their waka, the Kurahaupō. I first want to acknowledge that in this legislation the Crown will make full apology to all of these three iwi for their past dealings and the breaches of the Crown’s obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi, and all of the three iwi will receive forms of cultural, commercial, and financial redress that are consistent across the board with Treaty settlements. But I want to focus firstly on Ngāti Kuia. Ngāti Kuia has occupied Te Tau Ihu of the South Island for many, many, many generations, primarily at Kaituna, Te Hora, Te Hoiere, Whangarae, Whakapuaka, Rangitoto, and Whakatū. In the 1820s and 1830s Ngāti Kuia were invaded by tribes from the northern side of Cook Strait. Despite being defeated in battle, Ngāti Kuia still managed to hold on to portions of their tribal estates and, more important, managed to maintain their chiefly identity, whakapapa, and genealogical lines. More trouble was to arrive in the form of the New Zealand Company—an early colonial company, as we have heard in previous speeches, in the business of ripping off Māori from their land. Long story short—the New Zealand Company claimed to have purchased the top half of the South Island in 1839, but Ngāti Kuia were not consulted on that purchase, rather the invading tribes of Ngāti Toa and their allies, who held sway with the company and Crown representatives. Ngāti Kuia suffered because of this. Even a commission of inquiry failed to recognise Ngāti Kuia’s mana over certain areas, and they were not allocated any shares in the Nelson Tenths. The 790 acres reserve at Te Hoiere was insufficient for the tribe’s needs, and they received a paltry ₤100 for their whole interest in the South Island—₤100, and no share in the Nelson Tenths; hardly a great deal. By 1900 Ngāti Kuia were virtually landless. They petitioned the Crown for more land, claiming they were the poorest tribe under the heavens. The Crown tried to alleviate the problem, with the South Island Landless Maoris Act. The tribe shared in a share of lands, along with other iwi and whanaunga in the South Island, to lands on Stewart Island. But not only that, at the bottom of Stewart Island. But no land titles were ever issued. The South Island Landless Maoris Act caused more trouble than good. All this mamae, and more, the Crown will apologise for. The financial and commercial redress packages total $24 million and include a $12 million redress in lieu of Crown licensed forests and interest that has been accruing. Ngāti Kuia will be statutorily acknowledged as having mana over certain areas of Te Tau Ihu. They will also have the right of first refusal over Crown lands that may come up on offer. I would like to turn to Rangitāne. Once again, the transactions of the New Zealand Company and its purported purchase of the top half of the South Island caused Rangitāne much mamae. Like Ngāti Kuia, Rangitāne maintained their associations with the land and held mana in certain areas. Their chief, Ihaia Kaikoura, signed the Treaty at Port Underwood and this underlies the fact that Rangitāne had their own autonomy. Rangitāne also suffered the ignominy of not being recognised in the Te Tai Tapu and Nelson Tenths. The commission set up to investigate the South Island purchase offered Rangitāne ₤100 to pay off their grievance. Rangitāne also complained to the Crown that the land reserves set aside were insufficient for them to make any sort of economic living off them. The Crown’s reaction action was the South Island Landless Maoris Act—a law that caused more problems than it solved. The financial redress here recognises the economic losses suffered by Rangitāne, arising from the breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi by the Crown. The financial and commercial redress package totals $25 million, including $12 million redress in lieu of the Crown forest lands and interest that has been accruing. The commercial redress will allow Rangitāne to have the right of first refusal for 169 years to Crown land that may become available. It will also have the right to buy and lease back Crown certain properties.

[Continuation line: Finally, I want to talk to Ngāti Apa.]

Finally, I want to talk to Ngāti Apa. Once again the Crown will be apologising to Ngāti Apa for breaching its obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi. The Crown failed to recognise the rights of Ngāti Apa in its resolution of New Zealand Company transactions and it pre-1865 purchase of lands: the exclusion of Ngāti Apa from the Nelson and Motueka tenths and for failing to put aside enough reserve lands for Ngāti Apa. An overlay classification called a taupuni acknowledges the spiritual, cultural, historical, and traditional association of Ngāti Apa with certain sites of significance such as the alpine tarns in the Nelson Lakes National Park. An interesting feature of the settlement is the ability to reconnect with their traditional eel fisheries at the Nelson Lakes. Also, Ngāti Apa will have a right to access conservation land to fossick and take off by hand any sand, shingle, or natural material from a river bed. The financial and commercial redress is $28 million including $12 million from the Crown forest lands. The iwi of Ngāti Kuia, Rangitāne, and Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō suffered through the ignorance of colonial settlers and administrators who did not give a jot of interest in these three tribes. They assumed that the mana for the top half of Te Wai Pounamu lay offshore at Porirua and Kāpiti Island and Ōtaki. To a certain extent that is true but it is also true that these tribes still had their own autonomy by the time the New Zealand Company turned up in 1839. Some chiefs from these tribes even signed the Treaty of Waitangi. The taniwha amongst these tribes are the transactions of the New Zealand Company, which pitted Pākehā law against Māori tikanga. It has been a generation and a half for these claims to finally come to fruition and it is fair to say that the delay in settlement has cost lives. Some kaumātua and kuia who started this process back in the 1980s and 1990s are no longer with us. I know from the Rangitāne claim from the 1980s that only Richard Bradley and Judith MacDonald are still with us—and it is lovely to see Richard in full health here in the House today. The same mamae applies to the original claimants of Ngāti Kuia and Ngāti Apa as well. I particularly make mention of the late Auntie Kath Hēmi who played such a monumental role with Ngāti Apa and I acknowledge her whānau. As we acknowledge the history and the mamae of Rangitāne, Ngāti Kuia, and Ngāti Apa it is time for these iwi now to strike out on their own or in alliance and forge a path that will lead to a more economic and prosperous future for themselves. I am pleased to acknowledge my own whanaunga here from Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu here. We have got so many connections across all of the South Island and I know that collectively working together all the iwi in Te Wai Pounamu will take over the country. With those parting comments I mihi to the three iwi and I wish them all the very best for the future. Kia ora anō tātou katoa.

[Continuation: Finlayson]

NGATI APA KI TE RA TO, NGATI KUIA, AND RANGITANE O WAIRAU CLAIMS SETTLEMENT BILL

Third Reading

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. I acknowledge the people of Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō, Ngāti Kuia, and Rangitāne o Wairau, especially those who have travelled here today from Te Tau Ihu and are here in Parliament to witness the third reading of their settlement legislation. These are iwi who share common descent from the Kurahaupō waka. They have lived across the top of the South Island for many, many generations. They have preserved their identities despite the odds, despite the actions of the Crown, and despite external forces. My good friend Mr Henare mentioned in the previous debate the importance of New Zealand history. People need to know what happened. As sure as anything, I am going to receive some sour emails today from various lovely people after the conclusion of these debates. I will go back to them politely—because that is my style—but in a very determined way to tell them to read the history, because there is nothing like knowing the facts. The facts are that in the 1820s and 1830s iwi from the North Island invaded and settled in the northern South Island. Although Ngāti Apa, Ngāti Kuia, and Rangitāne no longer had exclusive possession of all their territory they retained their tribal structures, their chiefly lines, and ancestral connections to the land. In 1840 the great Rangitāne chief Ihaia Kaikoura signed the Treaty of Waitangi near Port Underwood. But the history of the Crown’s relationship with these iwi since 1840 is one of consistent failure adequately to investigate and appropriately recognise the rights of these iwi at relevant times. I too was going to give what could have been only a potted summary of the history but I think Mr Tirikatene has done a very good job in that regard and so I am not going to repeat what he said here, simply endorse it. But one thing I do want to say something about is the South Island Landless Natives Reserves Act, because after all this history of wrongdoing, after all this unfairness, the Crown attempted to alleviate the position of these iwi through the provision of landless native reserves. The reserves were, however, in isolated locations, they were of poor quality, and were generally unable to be developed for effective economic use. So Ngāti Apa were allocated land on the West Coast. Rangitāne and Ngāti Kuia were allocated land on Stewart Island/Rakiura —a great distance away from their traditional rohe and it was all landlocked. The Crown never granted members of those iwi titles to the land. The tribunal has described the failure to provide land to landless Māori as a cruel hoax. Well, I agree with the tribunal and I say that the ________

[Mr Finlayson, please supply missing word. Thank you

lands were, in fact, and are, a sick joke, and they need to be resolved—I might add, not for want of trying on my part. But as long as I hold a warrant in this portfolio, I will continue to push for resolution of this issue. Mr Bradley knows that it is long overdue and it is time that the matter was resolved.

[Continuation: so I give you on behalf of the Crown that undertaking]

So I give you, on behalf of the Crown, the undertaking that I am going to continue to work on that matter, because it is long past time that this blot on the South Island history was resolved. The Ngāti Apa settlement would not have been possible without the perseverance of Ngāti Apa ki Te Rā Tō ki te Waipounamu Trust. They spearheaded negotiations on behalf of their iwi. I acknowledge, in particular, Peter Mason , the principal negotiator, Brendon Wilson , who was the chair for many, many years, and Paia Rīwaka-Herbert . These are just a few of the people who represented this great iwi during this process and they deserve public recognition for their hard work. I particularly want to mention this morning a wonderful, wonderful woman. Her name was Kath Hemi. She led the charge in the tribunal. It is very sad that she did not get to see this day. She was not, in fact, at the Ngāti Apa signing, but I was really pleased to be able to take her the deed of settlement for her signature when she was in Wairau Hospital, and I am sure that she and her family were very pleased that that was able to happen. She now rests near Ōmaka Marae . She may be gone from this world but she will always be remembered for her courage and her tenacity. I want to say something about Ngāti Kuia . Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Kuia charitable trust, through its hard work and perseverence, made this settlement possible, and we signed the deed of settlement on Labour weekend 2010. That was a great day. I acknowledge Mark Moses , Raymond Smith , and Waihaere Joe Mason. They represented Ngāti Kuia in the settlement process and I really do praise their commitment and their dedication to Ngāti Kuia, which warrants mention today. I believe that their trust will lead this iwi into a very positive post-settlement era. Let me say something about Rangitāne . The Wairau bar and the boulder bank within the Rangitāne rohe is considered by archaeologists to be one of the most important archaeological sites in the country. Exercising a kaitiaki role, Rangitāne o Wairau stopped the destruction of this site, which continues to unearth, to reveal, important information about our past. Through Rangitāne o Wairau’s collaboration with archaeologists, we are learning more and more about a place that may have been the first landing site of Pacific peoples on these shores. Through this settlement the Crown aims to recognise the cultural association that Rangitāne has in Te Tau Ihu. I want to say how much I appreciated being invited down to the bar some years ago, when some of the co-iwi were reinterned. I will always remember that there is no such thing as a free lunch because Mr Bradley gave me a shovel and told me that I should do some work as well. I want to recognise those who have championed the work of this great iwi, leading up to the time when we signed the deed of settlement in Blenheim on 4 December 2010. Joe Tukapua, Frank MacDonald, Ruanui MacDonald, and _____ , Joe _____, Mervin Sadd, John Bradley, Gary _____—these people have worked so very long and hard on behalf of their iwi and I acknowledge them. I acknowledge, in particular, the efforts of that wonderful, optimistic, and warm human-being Richard Bradley—he wanted me to say that—and Judith MacDonald and Jeffrey Hines.

[Mr Finlayson, can you please check and provide missing names. Thank you.]

I commend the trust as it champions Rangitāne’s interests into the future. These are three very important settlements, and it is a sign of the generosity of these people that they were prepared, in the interests of getting to the third reading and to have the three settlements read together, and I, once again, thank you for that. Congratulations on reaching this significant milestone. It has been a long haul, but I am very relieved that we have now reached the stage of a third reading. Finally, I want to pick up on something that Mr Tirikatene said in closing and utterly endorse it. I acknowledge the presence in the gallery of Sir Mark Solomon of Ngāi Tahu . I very much look forward to working with all of the iwi of the South Island as they promote their interests into the future. It is great that he is here. I recall his words when Rangitāne signed their deed of settlement with the Crown: “Together we can do so much.” I heartily endorse that. Whether in fact you will take over the world, well, as Mr Tirikatene said, a little bit of hyperbole is permitted. But you are certainly going to be a fantastic force for good, for economic strength, in the South Island and I endorse what Sir Mark has said. With those few words, one can never say enough in a third reading speech, I thank the representatives of the three iwi and wish them all the very best for the future.

[Continuation line: Hon Nanaia Mahuta]

NGATI APA KI TE RA TO, NGATI KUIA, AND RANGITANE O WAIRAU CLAIMS SETTLEMENT BILL

Third Reading

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato):

[Authorised te reo text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

I am sure that the comments that the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations has made in relation to Silma lands are well supported by those who have come to listen to the Treaty settlement legislation today. It got me thinking about the fact that, I think, it was I and the chairperson who was Minister at the time who are the members who were here when the Ngāi Tahu Claims Settlement Bill was heard before the select committee. I am reminded of that time. It is significant that you, Sir Mark, and members of Ngāi Tahu are here to witness the passing of the Te Tau Ihu legislation. I know that as a new member coming to the House at the time, when we were looking at the boundary of Te Tau Ihu and trying to wrestle the infinite knowledge of Sir Tīpene about what was happening in the Te Tau Ihu, and getting a very long education on the relationships and how the boundaries came about. It got me thinking, now that some years have passed, about how Ngāi Tahu has matured in its settlement, post-settlement, and development opportunities.

[Continuation line: In terms of the relationship, I think that no boundary]

In terms of the relationship, I think that no boundary can stop opportunity, and that is the point that Minister Finlayson has made that I too endorse. Now that Te Tau Ihu iwi have settled, boundaries mean very little if relationships mean more. Those relationships can ensure that the opportunities that emerge out of Treaty settlements can be stitched together—weaved together to the power of 10, if you like—and create all sorts of unique and important commercial and cultural opportunities that will grow the full potential of what can happen in this House. So to those of Ngāi Tahu to the Te Tau Ihu people, I want to recognise that today because I think it is very significant. Comments have been made in the House that it has taken a long time to get to this point. One need only look at Part 1 of the bill to see the number of Wai claims that are included within these Treaty settlements to know that a lot of internal discussions and negotiations and sacrifice have got you all to this point. I look at Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō and the Wai claims that sit within it—Wai 102, Wai 785, Wai 1987—and can only reflect that the inclusion of those claims within the context of your settlement will mean so much more to those claimant groups. For Ngāti Kuia, Wai 561, Wai 829, and Wai 2092 include a range of claims that relate intrinsically to the Ngāti Kuia interests and your respective claims, as do, similarly, the claims of Wai 102 and Wai 785. for Rangitane o Wairau, there are three Wai claims: Wai 44, Wai 102, and Wai 785. When people are taken into the settlement legislation, and they look at what those claims relate to and who were the claimants and how that is then included within the context of the intention of these claims, we need to satisfy ourselves as members of this House that so much more negotiation has taken place to get to this point. I want to acknowledge all of that hard work today. There are some unique aspects of all the claims, and to go through them individually I do not think would do them justice, and I do want to endorse the local member, Rino Tirikatene, and his recollection of each unique aspect of the claims. But can I say that when we, as members of Parliament, are newly coming to Treaty settlements and we are trying to understand how things are fitting together, we look to the various instruments within the settlement legislation. It is encouraging to see that in the context of statutory acknowledgments, the relevant consent authorities have to have regard to the various statutory acknowledgments that each of you, as iwi, have in relation to your special areas—like having the Environment Court and the Historic Places Trust having regard to your connection and association. That is really important because, as many of us know, when the rubber hits the road, it is at that level of local government and of what is happening in terms of resource management that we become intrinsically connected to the everyday decision-making that happens in our rohe . Those are really important, I guess, additions to the authority and voice that you have now as a result of this settlement. In the schedules there is a range of sites where both the statutory acknowledgments and the overlay sites are identified. Not being that familiar with the region, to me, many of them sound significant and beautiful: Pelorus Sound/Te Hoiere, Maungatapu, Kaiteriteri Scenic Reserve, Te Ope-a-Kupe, Lake Rotoiti, Lake Rotoroa. Then we have got the Maitai River, the Wairau, Omaka, and Ōpaoa Rivers, Waimea, Wai-iti, and Wairoa Rivers. They are all very significant parts of your rohe; all recognising the unique relationships that each of the three have with their particular areas. I have often made my contribution in relation to Treaty settlements in the post-settlement space. It seems to me that the reason why people have taken a very brave step, and made compromises along the way and carried a lot of injustice to get to this point, and is to enable others to look forward—those children whom you have, your mokopuna—so that they can tell their history with pride, share it with the people in their particular rohe and their community, but, more important , forge an intrinsic sense of self-determination about how they want to be going forward into the future, which is why the relationships matter so much. In the post-settlement space the durability of a Treaty settlement does require an ongoing relationship check between yourselves as claimant groups—as iwi who have settled—and the Crown. So it will not matter who is sitting on that side of the House. The health check of a Treaty settlement requires that every member of Parliament who in this day and age has, by and large, agreed unanimously to the passage of Treaty settlement bills remains fully accountable to the intent of its purpose that is captured in the legislation. I stand here as a member of Labour in Opposition to support Treaty settlements on that basis. Whether it is National in Government or Labour in Government, the responsibility of the Crown is to ensure that the five simple words: “This Act binds the Crown.”, which are captured in the legislation, become durable and that people act with honour to ensure that these Treaty settlements are all that they are meant to be—something that the next generation can hold on to with pride and move forward on with confidence. Tēnā tātou katoa.

[Continuation line: Denise Roche]

NGATI APA KI TE RA TO, NGATI KUIA, AND RANGITANE O WAIRAU CLAIMS SETTLEMENT BILL

Third Reading

DENISE ROCHE (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. E ngā mana, e ngā reo, e ngā rangatira mā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. It is my pleasure to take a call for the Greens, on this the final reading of the Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō, Ngāti Kuia, and Rangitāne o Wairau Claims Settlement Bill. I am mindful that this is a historic day, and I feel absolutely privileged to be speaking on this occasion on the bill, while the people whom this affects are in the gallery. Before I start, I also want to acknowledge the very many people who have worked on these claims over generations. I salute their tenacity and strength in persisting in bringing these injustices to light. Many who have started this journey have not lived to see the day, and I am mindful that they are not with us, and we should be acknowledging them too. I recognise that these settlements are part of a healing for the past for the iwi, and that they are also proposed in order for iwi to create a better future. So for those who started this process, I acknowledge their faith and their foresight. There have been many attempts by the three iwi in this bill to seek reparation. That goes as far back as straight after the Treaty of Waitangi was signed, but it is only now that they have some acknowledgment. It is difficult to do justice to each iwi named in the legislation. Each has a distinct, unique history, although they are linked by whakapapa. I am pleased that in the deeds of settlement for each of these iwi those histories are told, so that their uniqueness cannot be overlooked. Ngāti Kuia signed their deed of settlement on 23 October 2010, Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō signed theirs on 20 October 2010, and Rangitāne o Wairau signed theirs on 4 December 2010. So it has taken a few years to get to this final part. Having looked at the deeds of settlement and the historical accounts, it is clear that these iwi are not grouped just because of their whakapapa but also because of the common injustices that they endured. Essentially, the alienation of these three iwi from their land and resources started when they were caught up in the dodgy land acquisition conducted by the New Zealand Company in 1839, when the company purported to have bought the entire top of the South Island with little or no regard to the iwi residing there. When the Treaty of Waitangi was signed a year later land sales that pre-dated the Treaty were deemed to be unlawful and the Crown set up the Land Claims Commission to investigate the purchases. However, as we have heard, and as we have read in the historical accounts, only one Māori person was ever interviewed by the commissioner. He did not consult iwi, and after only 2 days, the commissioner suspended the proceedings when the company asked for an arbitration process that had been used in other areas. As a result of that arbitration an additional payment was made by the company to different iwi and the commissioner subsequently recommended an award to the company of 151,000 acres. This was the start of the alienation. That alienation was continued by both the New Zealand Company and subsequently the Crown. Their tactics for alienating iwi from the land included pitting Māori against Māori, so as to break the collective ownership of the land. By the early 1900s, iwi resources in that area had dwindled to almost nothing. That was from the Ngāti Kuia deed of settlement—the acknowledged history. By 1900 Ngāti Kuia were landless. Ngāti Kuia petitioned the Government for additional land and described themselves as the poorest tribe under the heavens. The Crown attempted to alleviate their position through the provision of Landless Natives Reserves, and we have heard how little that meant as well. But to continue—the reserves, however, were in isolated locations of poor quality, and generally unable to be developed for effective economic use. Ngāti Kuia were also allocated land on Stewart Island but the Crown never granted them title to the land. Ultimately these reserves did little to alleviate the landless position of Ngāti Kuia in Te Tau Ihu. It was a similar situation for Rangitāne o Wairau and Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō. With few resources, the people suffered and the iwi have been carrying this hurt for generations. The deed of settlement also contains the apologies that the Crown has offered to the iwi and that have been accepted. That is now in the legislation as well. It is obvious, with the acknowledgments by the Crown and the apologies for its actions and omissions, where the Crown breached the Treaty of Waitangi, that it is obviously sincere. But it is an act of generosity by iwi to accept that. Here is an example of one of the apologies: “The Crown profoundly regrets its long-standing failure to appropriately acknowledge the mana and rangatiratanga of Rangitane. The Crown did not recognise Rangitane when it purchased the Wairau district in 1847 and recognition of Rangitane mana in the Te Waipounamu purchase was belated. The Crown is deeply sorry that its acts and omissions quickly left Rangitane landless and this has had a devastating impact on the economic, social, and cultural well-being and development of Rangitane.” I think it is important that these words are on the record. In the context of the losses, the compensation packages are quite small. In financial redress, Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō has a package that totals $28.3 million, Ngāti Kuia’s financial and commercial redress package comes to $24.8 million, and for Rangitāne o Wairau, the financial redress package is $24.3 million. I make the point here that even when you add that it up, it is only a fraction of what a southern finance company got quite recently—and it did not lose its land. Cultural redress includes small parcels of land and includes some symbolic vesting of significant land to iwi. Then, continuing that generosity, the iwi gift them back to the people of New Zealand.

The Alpine tarns and lakes Rotoiti and Rotoroa and the Nelson Lakes National Park will be vested in Ngāti Apa and then gifted back to the Crown. The cultural redress also includes enshrining the rights of iwi to some of their food resources. I had not seen this before, so I thought it was really interesting. So, for example, Ngāti Apa can apply to the Minister of Conservation to take eels from the Nelson Lakes National Park and Rangitāne for judicious hunting of tītī. These are the cultural redress as well. The purpose of it is to enshrine the status of iwi as kaitiaki in their rohe. No Treaty settlement is without controversy, but I have not dwelt on that here. However, I do wish to state that the Greens do not ever, ever see these settlements as full and final—not while the Crown determines who is in and who is out and when we cannot know the impact that these sad histories may have on those not yet born. Of course, it is not full compensation anyway. But having said that, I recognise that there is a delicacy and a balance that these settlements represent and the Treaty settlement negotiators from the iwi should really be acknowledged and recognised for that. I also recognise that this is a day to celebrate for the iwi that are here. Without a doubt, you will be on a better economic footing than you have been for 106 years. Your future is far more secure than your past has ever been, so we wish you well. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Continuation line: Joanne Hayes]

NGATI APA KI TE RA TO, NGATI KUIA, AND RANGITANE O WAIRAU CLAIMS SETTLEMENT BILL

Third Reading

JOANNE HAYES (National):

[Authorised te reo text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

I am humbled to stand and support the third reading of the Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō, Ngāti Kuia, and Rangitāne o Wairau Claims Settlement Bill. I extend my congratulations to the hard-working iwi negotiations team and the whānau tautoko for the many hours, the many days, and the many years that have resulted in today’s commendation of your bill. The bill provides for “ (i) the effect of the settlement on the jurisdiction of a court, tribunal, or other judicial body in respect of the historical claims; and (ii) a consequential amendment to the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975; and (iii) the effect of the settlement on certain memorials; and (iv) the exclusion of the law against perpetuities; and (v) access to the deeds of settlement.” The bill also provides cultural redress in Part 2 and commercial redress in Part 3. This is a very good settlement bill. I commend it to the House.

[Continuation line: Louisa Wall]

NGATI APA KI TE RA TO, NGATI KUIA, AND RANGITANE O WAIRAU CLAIMS SETTLEMENT BILL

Third Reading

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa):

[Authorised te reo text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

I too stand to support today’s kaupapa, the third reading of the Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō, Ngāti Kuia, and Rangitāne o Wairau Claims Settlement Bill. I congratulate you on getting to this point in time where we as the Crown can formally say sorry, give you redress that you rightfully deserve—the economic packages that have been outlined, the cultural packages. As a House of Representatives, I think what we bring to today is a unified approach to Treaty settlements. Actually, that is really symbolic, because this place is a battleground sometimes. What you see on occasions like this is the coming together of not only us as members of Parliament across this House but us as a nation. I always thank our mana whenua, our iwi groups, for the manner in which you have conducted yourselves to get us to this point of truth and reconciliation. This part of our country’s history forms the basis and heart of who we are. So when I stand to support a bill it is always through a sense of pride—a sense of pride in being Māori but also a sense of pride in the fact that we were never erased. If we look at what happened to us historically, our lands were taken but because we had not lands it did not mean that our identity, our whakapapa, was ever eroded. In fact, through these settlements our identity now is stronger than ever because of the place name changes—and there will be 65 across these three iwi groups—that will forever imprint us into our country. So I thank you for the manner in which you have conducted yourselves, because if it was not for your fight, we would never have got to where we are. So what I want to acknowledge are the people who have represented you through this process. So for Ngāti Apa, it was the Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō Trust, which was chaired by Brendon Wilson. The day-to-day negotiations were led by Peter Mason. I want to acknowledge that the negotiations have meant that you have statutory acknowledgments over sites that are specifically relevant to you. It actually is the opportunity that those statutory acknowledgments provide that will provide the partnership that was always envisaged, I believe, within the Treaty. And so it is very interesting for me that you will create and publicise a set of principles with the Minister of Conservation. I know that the Hon Nanaia Mahuta has made reference to the phrase “having regard to”, but I actually hope that the Department of Conservation, the New Zealand Conservation Authority, and the relevant conservation boards will actually give effect to those principles—not have regard but give effect, which means that you will sit around those tables as decision makers, as governors of those sites that are particularly relevant to you.

[Continuation line: Again, I want to talk about the 65 geographic name changes]

Again, I want to talk about the 65 geographic name changes. What is in a name? I guess, in the future, it is about Te Tau Ihu’s identity. Some of the work that needs to happen after the settlement is making sure that the dissemination of those names happens right throughout the Te Tau Ihu rohe and that everybody should be aware of the name changes and why. I think that really provides the platform for mana whenua to start having constructive relationships with our kura and with our schools and high schools to enable our young people and all New Zealanders to understand the history of our country. With regard to Ngāti Kuia, they were represented in their negotiations by the Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Kuia Trust, chaired by Waihaere Mason, and the day-to-day negotiations were led by Mark Moses. I want to acknowledge you. Again, we will have that set of principles that you will jointly develop with the Minister of Conservation, but you also have a kaitiaki instrument that I wanted to highlight. This right to provide advice on key cultural issues relating to the management of specific flora and fauna, again leading into the future, means that you will have a day-to-day say in how those taonga are managed. Again, I think that is incredibly significant. With regard to Rangitāne o Wairau, you were represented in your negotiations by the Rangitāne o Wairau Settlement Trust, chaired by Judith MacDonald, and the day-to-day negotiations were led by Richard Bradley. I congratulate you on, again, negotiating that the Minister of Conservation will develop and publicise a set of principles, but in addition you have a deed of recognition over Lake Rotoiti and Lake Rotorua in the Nelson Lakes National Park. These taonga I know will be looked after, because as kaitiaki you will ensure that those waterways remain healthy and that they will for ever be available to our mokopuna and our tamariki. When I look at our settlements and the role that all of you will play in the future within the context of the rohe of Te Tau Ihu I feel reassured, actually, that our taonga will be for ever protected, and it is because we are always looking to the future. So when I look at the settlement and the opportunities that you now have, they add value to what you have already had and what you have created for yourselves. I wish you all the best in the future. I am not going to delay the passage of this bill any further, because I am aware that there is another Treaty settlement bill. So to all those involved in getting us to the point where we are today I say congratulations to you. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Continuation line: Claudette Hauiti]

NGATI APA KI TE RA TO, NGATI KUIA, AND RANGITANE O WAIRAU CLAIMS SETTLEMENT BILL

Third Reading

CLAUDETTE HAUITI (National):

[Authorised te reo text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

The vision for Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō is for a strong, vibrant, proud iwi that exercises and realises its rangatiratanga. Its vision is for effective, responsible utilisation of its resources to meet the needs and aspirations of the iwi while providing for future generations. Treaty settlements are about rangatiratanga.

[Authorised te reo text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

is about improving the quality of lives by enabling Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō to create and take advantage of opportunities to better themselves.

[Authorised te reo text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

Ngāti Kuia and the Crown have made an agreement to settle, and in acknowledgment of the settlement, Ngāti Kuia have chosen to name it te whakatau. The iwi, from tipuna and down through to today’s generations, have carried the burden of grievances causes by Crown action and inaction for over 170 years. Today Ngāti Kuia and the Crown will settle. Rangitāne’s vision for the future is to be a dynamic, effective, successful, profitable organisation working proactively and collegially with the Government, the community, and other iwi across the region and Te Wai Pounamu. Rangitāne will be committed to the development and promotion of honesty and integrity within its Māori context. Their ability to endure all manner of deprivation over the last century has been due to a strong belief in their ability as Rangitāne. The most precious asset that will require nurturing and developing in the future is that of its people. Treaty settlements settle historical grievances, but today the Treaty settlements create a modern contextual framework for future development. I commend this bill to the House.

[Continuation line: Hon Damien O’Connor]

NGATI APA KI TE RA TO, NGATI KUIA, AND RANGITANE O WAIRAU CLAIMS SETTLEMENT BILL

Third Reading

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman): Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker. It is indeed a great honour to be able to stand up and speak to a Māori settlement bill, the Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō, Ngāti Kuia, and Rangitāne o Wairau Claims Settlement Bill. I guess there might be many in the gallery asking what this white Pākehā boy from the West Coast is doing. I am the proud representative of the top of the south, West Coast - Tasman, and have been for some time, and I have had many dealings with Ngāti Apa and the other iwi groups over many issues for many years. I want to acknowledge and applaud the efforts to get to where we are today. I would like to go back and acknowledge that perhaps it was these three iwi groups who, in fact, sparked the movement that led to, I guess, the existence of the Māori Party, and that was the seabed and foreshore. It was a difficult time, particularly for Labour, but the fact that this iwi group had nowhere else to go that they then lay claim to the seabed and foreshore is something that was unfortunate. It is no good crying over spilt milk, but it has meant that we have moved on, the Māori Party is in Parliament, and we now have a settlement bill before us that is a just and fair settlement, although I am sure there will be people who perhaps could have been greater on behalf of the Crown. Can I just acknowledge as a farmer who grew up on the banks of the Kawatiri River, the Buller River—the third largest in this country—that Lake Rotoiti and Lake Rotorua are the source of that great river. It flows through my veins, and the way that Māori speak of it I can understand.

[Continuation line: I have lived on that river]

I have lived on that river, had a business on that river, farmed on the river, and can appreciate the need to protect it and protect the source of it. It is fair and just that the national park be handed back to Ngāti Apa and Ngāti Kuia along with, I think, some name changes. The good thing now that might occur for people like me is that we may be able to better pronounce the new names that may be put on geographical places in the top of the South. But I know—and my colleagues have spoken of Labour’s support for the process—that it has been a long and a difficult one. I would like to acknowledge many of my constituents, I guess, from the top of the South have been on and off planes for a number of years now, coming to Wellington to negotiate on behalf of their people. You have done a great job, and I hope that this settlement will enable the iwi organisations and the use of this money to grow opportunities for your people from now and into the future. It is very, very important. Can I acknowledge that from a commercial perspective this will allow a new partnership going forward. The fact that now there will be an obligation for proper consultation with iwi is fair and just. There will be issues of aquaculture development, of water management, and of general development because it is one of the most highly desirable places in the country to live. I accept that. People are drawn to the sun. They are drawn to the top of the South, but with that growth come dilemmas of water quality, dilemmas of land use, and iwi now will be rightfully consulted at every stage of that growth and development. So it is indeed a great honour to speak, to say a few words and acknowledge the efforts of iwi getting here, and to acknowledge the difficult early process for Ngāti Apa and Ngāti Kuia, in particular. As I say, the seabed and foreshore issue, which in hindsight will be recognised as a significant issue that brought Māori together, I guess has led to diversity in this Parliament and, regardless of our political views on issues, has brought Māori to be truly represented in this House. Kia ora.

[Continuation line: Hon Tau Henare]

NGATI APA KI TE RA TO, NGATI KUIA, AND RANGITANE O WAIRAU CLAIMS SETTLEMENT BILL

Third Reading

Hon TAU HENARE (National): Just on that, when the history books are written, it will not be Ngāti Apa’s fault. The foreshore and seabed issue was a direct responsibility of the Marlborough District Council, and it got it wrong—it got it wrong. It did not trust or work with the local people. So let us get something straight right here. Enough of blaming Māoris for this, that, and the other thing. Anyway, now I have had my rant.

[Authorised te reo text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

This is a very, very short contribution. I wish to confine myself to the Wairau affray, again, and mention and put into the record the names of those who lost their lives, because I think they deserve it. I have to start with Rongo the wife of Te Rangihaeata, again because of somebody’s short wick. That is where—[Interruption] Yes, itchy trigger finger. So I pay my respects to Rongo. To the other Māori whānau who lost their lives in the affray, I am embarrassed to say that I do not know their names. The European settlers were: Augustus Thompson, Captain Arthur Wakefield, Captain Richard England, George Rycroft Richardson, W. B. Patchett, James Howard, John Sylvanus Cotterell, Christopher Maling, James Coster, William Gardiner, Edward Stokes, Eli Cropper, William Northam, Henry Bomforth, Thomas Tyrrell, Isaac Smith, Thomas Pay, William Clanzey, James McGregor, John Brooks, John Burton, and Thomas Radcliffe. That is that.

Bill read a third time.

Haka

Karanga

[Continuation line: Ngāti Kōata Ngāti Rārua … 3R]

NGATI KOATA, NGATI RARUA, NGATI TAMA KI TE TAU IHU, AND TE ATIAWA O TE WAKA-A-MAUI CLAIMS SETTLEMENT BILL

Third Reading

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Minister of Māori Affairs) on behalf of the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations: I move, That the Ngāti Kōata, Ngāti Rārua, Ngāti Tama ki Te Tau Ihu, and Te Ātiawa o Te Waka-a-Māui Claims Settlement Bill be now read a third time.

[Authorised te reo text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

Whakapapa connections developed over many generations and hundreds of years bring together the families and tīpuna of Ngāti Kōata, Ngāti Rārua, Ngāti Tama, and Te Ātiawa o Te Waka-a-Māui. Tēnā koutou katoa koutou. I stand to acknowledge the families and tīpuna of Tainui Taranaki ki te Tonga , four distinct iwi linked by whakapapa, by history, and by determination.

[Authorised te reo text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

Nearly two centuries ago the peoples of Tainui and Taranaki ki te Tonga resided in Tainui, Kāwhia , and Taranaki lands on Te Ika-a-Māui. Facing hardship from the 1820s onwards, Tainui and Taranaki ki te Tonga tīpuna headed south. Wars were waged with the tribes throughout the bottom of the North Island and eventually across the top of the South Island. Those Tainui and Taranaki alliances and bonds remain strong to this day, as tīpuna established permanent communities across Te Tau Ihu o Te Waka-a-Māui. By the time the Treaty of Waitangi was signed, Ngāti Kōata, Ngāti Rārua, Ngāti Tama, and Te Ātiawa o Te Waka-a-Māui—their families exercised tino rangatiratanga over lands and resources in Te Tau Ihu o Te Waka-a-Māui. However, we stand here today because the Crown consistently failed to protect, failed to honour, and failed to guarantee the legal rights of Tainui Taranaki ki te Tonga families. For Tainui Taranaki ki te Tonga families back in 1840, the world was a different place to what we live in today. Te Tau Ihu whānau were a major part of a booming economy. They helped create it, and they owned much of it. Flax, wheat, potatoes, timber, and maize were grown, harvested, and processed on Te Tau Ihu lands by Te Tau Ihu families. They were then moved across New Zealand and shipped to Australia. The vessels that shifted them across were owned or leased by Te Tau Ihu families. This is what economic, political, and cultural rangatiratanga looks like. But when you take millions of acres off a people who have only ever known a life of enterprise and self-determination, you take more than land away; you remove a way of life, a culture, and an identity. The Crown’s governors and officials acted ruthlessly, sidelining the Treaty of Waitangi and deliberately giving new settlers advantage over Māori. As a result, the Crown’s purchases left Te Tau Ihu Māori in dire poverty. Much of this has been said leading up to the other settlements, but clearly it happened, and clearly it happened in Te Tau Ihu o Te Waka. Today the Crown stands alongside those families of Tainui Taranaki ki te Tonga and acknowledges the social, economic, and cultural devastation carried by generations of families. But through it all, the peoples of Tainui and Taranaki ki te Tonga remained steadfast. They remained at the helm of the waka of Māui, and they did not leave. Their identity was attacked but never destroyed. They lived in poverty but they stayed. Their way of life was devastated but never wiped out. All those things were lost due to the actions of the Crown. They can never be totally replaced. And yet the peoples of Tainui Taranaki ki te Tonga are here today. They wish to settle their grievances with honour and mana with the Crown. The journey to get to this day has not been easy or brief. We remember those who have passed on but whose determination has led to the legislation that this House is considering right now. Today we witness a milestone in a journey that is taking place right before our eyes. We introduced legislation to resolve the historic grievances of eight tribes of Te Tau Ihu, legislation that will strengthen the ability of future generations to carry on a proud legacy of economic and cultural rangatiratanga.

[Continuation line: This is what has been the marvellous thing about]

This is what has been the marvellous thing about settlements: despite the fact that they are a mere pittance for what was taken away, and stuff can never be made up for, and opportunities have been lost, our people have taken them with two hands and made something of them going forward. There are many instances of tribal success after settlements that we can look upon. I wish the eight tribes of Te Tau Ihu the same success as they move forward now, taking their lives into their own hands and remembering that once they ruled the area and its economy and owned ships that took produce across. It is a long cry from when I went to school and they called us “dumb Māoris”. Prior to that, we were not so dumb. We grew the crops and we sold them, and we owned the transport and everything. Now the tribes will move into that area again. So it is an honour for me to stand here and open up this discussion. I would just like to acknowledge the iwi who have come here today.

[Authorised te reo text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

So it is legislation that will strengthen the ability of future generations to carry on a proud legacy of economic and cultural rangatiratanga. Ngā iwi o Te Tau Ihu o te waka a Māui, at the helm of the great voyaging canoe of Māui, are at the helm of their own destinies and future. I commend this bill to the House.

[Continuation line: Rino Tirikatene]

NGATI KOATA, NGATI RARUA, NGATI TAMA KI TE TAU IHU, AND TE ATIAWA O TE WAKA-A-MAUI CLAIMS SETTLEMENT BILL

Third Reading

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga):

[Authorised te reo text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

Now this House turns to acknowledge the other parties involved in the story of the settlement of Te Tau Ihu: the four iwi of Ngāti Tama, Ngāti Rārua, Te Ātiawa, and Ngāti Kōata. These four iwi were part of an invading force led by Ngāti Toa that swept through Te Tau Ihu and further south. I stated earlier, in my speech regarding Ngāti Toa, my whakapapa interest to the people of Ngāti Rārua, which, in the time of Niho, Pikiwhare, Tākere, and Horomona were part of a close but also distant collective of whānau and hapū that had struck out from the far northern reaches of Te Tai Hauāuru along that stretch of Māori highway between Kāwhia and the Poutama region of northern Taranaki as Te Wherowhero and his forces settled age-old enmities with Ngāti Toa. The Ngāti Kōata at Pouwewe; the Ngāti Toa at Taharoa, Te Maika, and Rakaunui; the Ngāti Rārua at Waikawa; the Ngāti Tama at Poutama; and the Ngāti Mutunga te Ātiawa of Urenui, Manukorehi, and Ngā Motu were all tribes drawn into the conflict with Waikato Tainui either by choice or otherwise. The fear of reprisals from Te Wherowhero was reason enough to vacate virtually all of what we now know as the Taranaki province. My ancestors had no real choice but to throw their lot in with the heke of Ngāti Toa and head to the Kāpiti region. There were many reasons for this northern alliance’s raid down south. Insults were always guaranteed to get a chief’s hackles raised, and the chance to raid further south for the prized pounamu fuelled desire, but it was also a time for Ngāti Kōata, Ngāti Rārua, Ngāti Tama, and Ātiawa to strike out for new lands and build new homes. For Rārua and Kōata, there was no returning to their ancestral lands. They were now in the possession of a new iwi. Ngāti Tama and Ātiawa held on to their ancestral lands with the might of the musket behind them. They crossed the strait, fought their battles, won most of them, and managed to hold their man in the areas this bill now covers: Te Tau Ihu o te Waka a Māui. From Whanganui Inlet right across to Wairau, up through Tōtaranui and on to D’Urville and Wakapuaka, these four tribes managed to achieve what they had started 10 years earlier. Then, as we mentioned earlier today, that taniwha the New Zealand Company turned up flashing its trinkets, blankets, and bank drafts, and ended up buying the whole top half of the South Island in what has now become the Tau Ihu, which is part of the Ngāti Kōata, Ngāti Rārua, Ngāti Tama ki Te Tau Ihu, and Te Ātiawa o Te Waka-a-Māui Claims Settlement Bill. We must realise these land transactions occurred at a time before the Treaty, Governors, and Native Land Courts. They occurred during a time when two races were still sounding out each other’s cultures. It is fair to say, though, that Māori were diddled out of a lot of estate by dubious land grabbers such as the New Zealand Company. To be fair, the Māori chiefs of old were not fools, and when it came to the ways of trade and barter they knew what they were doing. Indeed, it was a way of life for the Māori. They also had their own ways of dealing with the tribal estate and how individuals could use that piece of land, and that concept was something of a lease arrangement. But with the clash of cultures, there were to be inevitable differences, and conflicts soon arose. Some of these iwi at the top of the south were granted reserves and tenths trusts and others were not, but Kōata, Rārua, Tama, and Ātiawa largely missed out on a share of tribal estate. The commission into the Waipounamu deed did little to alleviate the problem of the fractured and uneconomic land base culture for the four tribes. It is clear to me that the mamae caused by the New Zealand Company, as I said, is the taniwha in the story of Te Tau Ihu. If not for those dubious land practices, this whole sorry saga of Te Tau Ihu might never have happened. It may not have happened there, but it may have happened somewhere else. Ngāti Kōata, Ngāti Rārua, Ngāti Tama, and Te Ātiawa will all receive apologies from the Crown, which acknowledges its part, its acts, and its omissions that breached the Treaty of Waitangi.

[Continuation line: The Crown will apologise for its failure to adequately protect]

The Crown will apologise for its failure to adequately protect the interests of the four tribes during the process by which land was granted, for failing to provide adequate reserves and tenths reserves, and for the four tribes not being able to have control over the trusts and reserves. The Crown will also apologise for its failure to provide sufficient land for the future needs of the tribes. What this bill does is it finally acknowledges every member of the aforementioned tribes, not just some. This rectifies some long-held grievances of those whānau who had a right to share in tribal estates, but were left off the list of beneficiaries. It gives those families who are left out of reserves, tenths, and iwi trusts an opportunity to have mana, for them to be included in the administering of their tribal estate. It has been a long wait for these tribes. Throughout the history of these inquiries there have been many, many people who have helped progress these claims to this point. Mentioning names is always a tricky slope to negotiate, but we have come to the grand finale, encompassing all of the iwi of Te Tau Ihu . So what I would like to do is I want to mention the surnames of whānau, in the hope that the whakapapa will bind all together. So today I mihi to these whānau and all of their uri whakatupu who are here today:

Mr Tirikatene, please check all names.

Stafford, Luke, Joseph, McDonald, Hemi, Wehepeihana, Bradley, Ruruku, Renae, Hippolite, Elkington, Tu Paea, Mason, Stevens, Te Miha, Ward Holmes, Ropata, and many, many, many more whānau. It is a very proud day for me, for Te Wai Pounamu, for Te Tau Ihu o Te Waka, and especially for me as I am very privileged to hold the tūranga of the seat of Te Tai Tonga. Today we celebrate the final chapter in the historical land claims for all of Te Wai Pounamu, the South Island. My grandfather, Sir Eruera Tirikatene, who was the MP for Southern Māori from 1932 to 1967, was no stranger to land claims. Right from his maiden speech in Parliament, he was advocating for the injustices and the grievances across iwi throughout the country. My late aunt, the Hon Whetu Tirikatene-Sullivan, continued that legacy. She gave her full support to every claim that was going on throughout Te Wai Pounamu. But let me mention those MPs who felt the force, the pressure, from their own people to settle their grievances, and there are many. Our matua tūpuna Hōri Kerei Taiaroa; Ihaia Tainui; Tame Pārata and Taare Pārata—Hekia’s whānau; Tuiti Makitanara—McDonald’s tupuna; Tā Eruera and Whetu—my whānau; and then Tūtekawa Wyllie, Maharoa Okeroa, and Rahui Katene. They are all proud members of Te Tai Tonga, formerly known as Southern Māori and have been privileged to represent our whānau. On behalf of those tūpuna I salute the iwi of Toa Rangatira, Te Ātiawa, Ngāti Rārua, Ngāti Tama, Ngāti Kōata, Ngāti Aapa ki Te Rā Tō, Ngāti Kuia, and Rangitāne. It is a pleasure for me to salute them all today, and I wish them all the very best. Nō reira, e rau rangatira mā. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Continuation line: SMITH]

NGATI KOATA, NGATI RARUA, NGATI TAMA KI TE TAU IHU, AND TE ATIAWA O TE WAKA-A-MAUI CLAIMS SETTLEMENT BILL

Third Reading

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister of Conservation): I welcome this opportunity to join with others in supporting the third reading of the Te Tau Ihu settlement bills that we are doing this morning. I want to acknowledge the presence of so many kaumātua and kuia here to note this historic day, and particularly some of the people whom I have been privileged to know over the long journey— Roma Hippolite, Priscilla Paul, Barry Mason, Janice Mason, Fred Te Miha, Reverend Harvey Ruru, and people like Glenis Payne. But I also want to acknowledge the research work that was done a long time ago that is founding this settlement from John and Hilary Mitchell in my own Nelson community. I want to thank my colleagues, particularly Chris Finlayson and Pita Sharples, and their predecessors, and the officials who have helped us to get to this final leg of what has been a long journey. These settlements arise from grievances that are over 100 years old, and it is an important day, I acknowledge, for my colleague across the House but also for all the people living in Nelson-Marlborough or Te Tau Ihu, the barrow of the waka, that these are being resolved with these complex bills. I want to pay tribute to all of those who have laboured to bring us to this resolution. This bill strikes at the core of who we are as New Zealanders. Most nations were born in a sea of blood. I am proud of our Māori and European ancestors who founded this nation on a Treaty and, more important, on the notion that we can resolve our differences by discussion, with respect, and not by brute force and by violence. In a Nelson context our history is clear that our early colonial settlers were welcomed and were treated generously by local iwi. But it is also true that those settlers became arrogant, dominant, and disrespectful of Māori rights, of their culture and customs. Land agreements were not honoured, and this, combined, with the effects of disease and economic dislocation, saw our local Māori left, by the end of the 19th century, in an impoverished state.

[Continuation line: These Treaty settlements across Te Tau Ihu]

These Treaty settlements across Te Tau Ihu will be good for our region and good for our nation. They will be beneficial economically. Our eight iwi are more parochial than any of us Nelsonians and have a huge stake in our region’s future prosperity. The investment of the settlement funds into the regional economy will help jobs and growth in our community. There is a second benefit I also want to acknowledge. This Treaty settlement process has helped bring local iwi together and that is a good thing. We are a small population in total across the top of the south and Māori are a small proportion relative to many other parts of New Zealand. I recognise that each of our eight iwi has different whakapapa and histories and that needs to be respected. But equally as we look to the future it makes sense as we face the challenges of education, of health, of economic development, and of natural resource management that our iwi work more closely together. I have seen this cooperation build up through the settlement process and I hope this momentum can be maintained. I also want to acknowledge the huge improvement in relations with Ngāi Tahu to the south and see that also as a positive development. I also want to acknowledge the important new role iwi will have in so many of the special places across Nelson and Marlborough and with me and the Department of Conservation. We have a treasured environment of stunning snow-capped mountains, golden beaches, pristine lakes, island treasures, rich estuaries, and beautiful sounds. The Department of Conservation was founded 25 years ago to play an important role in protecting those areas, but it has not been as engaging and as inclusive as it could be. The reforms that we have made to the Department of Conservation are about it being more able to partner with others and are part of this journey of Treaty settlements that we also celebrate today. In conclusion, yes, these settlements are good for our local economy, yes, they are good for the management of our local environment, and, yes, they are good in bringing more closely together our local iwi, but the real reason we should celebrate today is the values that we recommit to: those values of justice, of mutual respect, and of the resolution of difficult issues—old issues—by negotiation and by good will. Having the courage in these bills to say sorry, the courage to put what was wrong right, and the courage to put that behind us and face the future together—that is what I really acknowledge and celebrate today. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Continuation: Mahuta

NGATI KOATA, NGATI RARUA, NGATI TAMA KI TE TAU IHU, AND TE ATIAWA O TE WAKA-A-MAUI CLAIMS SETTLEMENT BILL

Third Reading

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato):

[Authorised te reo text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

It gives me great pleasure to be able to make a contribution on this third and final reading and again endorse the comments of Rino Tirikatene, the local member for Te Tai Tonga, on these particular bills. It does take a lot of courage to apologise and I want to acknowledge the contribution of the Hon Nick Smith. It is for that reason that I want to take the unusual step—if people look at my Treaty settlement contributions—of recording in Hansard the germane causes of each apology and then I will make clear how that relates to, I think, looking forward. Clause 199(3), the apology to Ngāti Kōata, states: “The Crown regrets and apologies for its failure to properly respect the rangatiratanga of Ngāti Kōata. Crown actions, moreover, left Ngāti Kōata virtually landless in Te Tau Ihu and alienated them from many of their most sacred sites. For this too the Crown apologises. Their disconnection from their lands marginalised Ngāti Kōata in the economic development of Te Tau Ihu, and had devastating consequences for the social, cultural, and spiritual well-being of Ngāti Kōata. Those consequences continue to be felt today.” Clause 202 of the apology to Ngāti Rārua states: (4) “The Crown admits it did not include Ngāti Rārua in its purchase of the Wairau district in 1847, and only belatedly recognised Ngāti Rārua interests in its Te Waipounamou purchase. The Crown apologises for these failures to recognise the rangatiratanga of Ngāti Rārua and protect their interests. (5) The Crown is sorry that its actions rendered Ngāti Rārua virtually landless in their rohe. This has had a devastating impact on the social and cultural well-being of the people of Ngāti Rārua that continues to be seen today. The Crown also accepts that the loss of their land and their restriction to inadequate reserves has significantly marginalised Ngāti Rārua from the benefits of economic development, and limited the autonomy of the iwi to exercise customary rights and responsibilities through the Ngāti Rārua rohe.” Clause 205, the apology to Ngāti Tama ki Te Tau Ihu, reads: “(3) The Crown profoundly regrets and apologies for its cumulative acts and omissions which left Ngāti Tama virtually landless in Te Tau Ihu. The Crown deeply regrets and sincerely apologises that it did not adequately protect the interests of Ngāti Tama and appropriately respect Ngāti Tama rangatiratanga when purchasing their land. (4) The Crown is deeply remorseful for the significant damage that the alienation of Ngāti Tama from their whenua and customary resources in Golden and Tasman Bays has caused over many generations to the traditional social and cultural structures, mana, and well-being of Ngāti Tama.” Clause 208, the apology to Te Ātiawa o Te Waka-a-Maui, states: (2) The Crown is deeply sorry that it has failed to live up the obligations it accepted when more than twenty Te Ātiawa rangatira signed the Treaty of Waitangi at Totaranui (Queen Charlotte Sound) in May 1840. (3) The Crown profoundly regrets and apologises for its actions, which left Te Ātiawa virtually landless in Te Tau Ihu. The Crown recognise that by 1860 Crown land purchases in Te Tau Ihu had largely restricted Te Ātiawa to isolated reserves and marginalised iwi from the new emerging economy.

[Continuation: In particular, the Crown regrets that when it arranged the purchase]

In particular, the Crown regrets that when it arranged the purchase of Waitohi as a site for a town for settlers, this meant that Te Ātiawa had to forsake their principal settlement of Totaranui. The Crown acknowledges that it has failed to appropriately respect Te Ātiawa rangatiratanga . It is greatly remorseful that over the generations to the present day, Crown actions have undermined your social and traditional structures, and your autonomy and ability to exercise your customary rights and responsibilities. I too believe it takes great courage to apologise. I too believe that the effort with which Ngāti Koata, Ngāti Rārua, Ngāti Tama ki Te Tau Ihu, and Te Ātiawa o Te Waka-a-Māui have come towards the negotiations in a way that they have given much already and compromised much but that they are wanting to go forward, as captured in the nature of these apologies. The text of the apologies is a clear statement of the Crown’s admission of its wrongs. But the apology in itself becomes a reference point for future interactions between each of your respective iwi with the Crown, as it points to the original intent of the legislation in your settlement but also to the post-settlement expectation of how the Crown can act honourably to uphold its part of the settlement. This really becomes important at this point, after we have heard eight of the Te Tau Ihu claims be resolved through today’s presentations in the House and in the passing of your legislation. I reflect again on the relationship comment that I made in an earlier contribution. Ngāi Tahu is here as well. It is probably by no small and insignificant chance that the relationships that can now be forged will hold future Governments and certainly the Crown to account for how they deal with you in the South Island. I am reminded by the former honourable member for Te Tai Tonga Rahui Katene that it is significant also that the Whānau Ora commissioning agency comprises of each of the eight Te Tau Ihu iwi as well as Ngāi Tahu. This, again, bears well for how a post-settlement environment can uphold the recognition of what you have each respectively achieved in your Treaty settlements but also what you would like to achieve going forward in a range of interactions, whether it be health, education, housing, employment, economic development. They are the whole raft of opportunities that now exist. In part, you have your Treaty settlement that recognises the extent of the historical injustice and the redress that has been reached, but also the opportunity of a post-settlement landscape that now forges a new normal for the way in which a Government must extend its relationship in a more purposeful way with each and every one of you. It gives me great pride and pleasure to be able to be here today and witness I think a very significant step, not just for Te Tau Ihu iwi but for New Zealand and for the opportunities that can be provided to ensure that this range of Treaty settlements that we have debated through select committee to today will remain durable and will uphold the intent of what was identified in the apologies, in terms of what the expectation is in the future. Tēnā tātou katoa.

[Continuation line: Denise Roche]

NGATI KOATA, NGATI RARUA, NGATI TAMA KI TE TAU IHU, AND TE ATIAWA O TE WAKA-A-MAUI CLAIMS SETTLEMENT BILL

Third Reading

DENISE ROCHE (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. E ngā mana, e ngā reo, e ngā rangatira mā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. It is a pleasure to speak on behalf of the Greens on the Ngāti Kōata, Ngāti Rārua, Ngāti Tama ki Te Tau Ihu, and Te Ātiawa o Te Waka-a-Māui Claims Settlement Bill . I maintain that it is a privilege to speak on these Treaty settlement bills. I want to thank the iwi who are here today, because this was the first settlement bill that I have been involved with, where I have travelled to the actual area where the land claims are from. I did that with the Māori Affairs Committee and it was the first time that I had actually heard in the rohe from the people who lived there, while we were surrounded by the beautiful lands, while we were surrounded by the losses that these people had endured. That was the first time that it happened for me. So the weight of those submissions actually carried much more for me because I was there and because it was kanohi ki te kanohi. So thank you for that. There are many people over the very many generations who have worked to bring these Treaty settlements to legislation today. I want particularly to acknowledge those who have passed away on the journey to here. I want to acknowledge their foresightedness and their tenacity to bring justice to their people. This bill puts into legislation the settlements that were signed with each of the four iwi. Ngāti Kōata signed on 21 December 2012. Te Ātiawa o Te Waka-a-Māui signed the deed of settlement on 21 December as well. Ngāti Rārua signed theirs on 13 April 2013. Ngāti Tama ki Te Tau Ihu signed theirs on April 2013 as well. Each of these iwi has separate and specific histories. However, they share a similar fate, and that is why they are here today. Ngāti Kōata, Ngāti Rārua, Ngāti Tama, Te Ātiawa, and Te Tau Ihu o Te Waka-a-Māui have areas of occupation and areas of interest that overlap, but they are distinct for each. In 1839, and this is the common history, they were all caught up in the dodgy deal that was done by the New Zealand Company when the New Zealand Company purported to have bought the entire top of the South Island. After the Treaty was signed a year later, and leaders from these iwi did sign the Treaty, the Crown appointed a commissioner to investigate the company’s purchases.

[Continuation line: In Ngāti Rārua’s settlement it says that in Nelson]

In Ngāti Rārua’s settlement it says that in Nelson the commissioner heard from only one Māori, and that person was Ngāti Rārua, before suspending the entire inquiry to enable the New Zealand Company to attempt to negotiate a settlement. Local Māori signed the deeds of settlement in return for accepting payments that were described as gifts, rather than as payments for the land. It is fair to say that the New Zealand Company in its attempts to wrest land from iwi negotiated with individual Māori for land ownership when, in fact, land was owned collectively. Breaking that collective ownership is basically how the land was alienated from iwi by both the New Zealand Company and also, subsequently, by the Crown. The Crown continued to do that. It used a variety of mechanisms, which are outlined fully in each of the deeds of settlement in each of the acknowledged histories that are contained in the legislation. To read those accounts, and to understand the huge injustices that occurred when iwi were forced out of ownership of their resources, their economic base, is so incredibly sad. I just want to give an example of those acknowledgments from the conclusion of the Te Ātiawa o Te Waka-a-Māui deed of settlement. It says: “Within three decades of Te Ātiawa signing the Treaty of Waitangi at Tōtoranui (Queen Charlotte Sound), extensive Crown purchases in Te Tau Ihu had left Te Ātiawa o Te Waka-a-Māui virtually landless. The small areas of reserve land left to Te Ātiawa were insufficient for Te Ātiawa to participate in the new economy, and were subject to further alienation over the twentieth century. The loss of land has impacted on Te Ātiawa’s connection and access to many of their significant sites and resources. This has had a detrimental effect on the spiritual, economic, and cultural well-being of Te Ātiawa as an iwi.” Iwi have carried these injustices and been hurt by them for generations, so I am aware that the apologies from the Crown are really important, and I acknowledge what the previous speaker, Nanaia Mahuta, said there. The apologies are crucial to healing those hurts. When I read the apologies that are in the legislation, I can see that care has been taken. Maybe the words were crafted and debated by the negotiation team, but they have been crafted to ensure that the Crown’s apology is sincere and unflinching in accepting responsibility for its actions and its omissions that disadvantaged the iwi. I am going to quote from the Ngāti Rārua apology, which I think the previous speaker may have already done, but I think that it is worth repeating as an example of that unflinching-ness: “The Crown is sorry that its actions rendered Ngāti Rārua virtually landless in their rohe. This had a devastating impact on the social and cultural well-being of the people of Ngāti Rārua that continues to be seen today. The Crown also accepts that the loss of their land and their restriction to inadequate reserves has significantly marginalised Ngāti Rārua from the benefits of economic development, and limited the autonomy and ability of the iwi to exercise customary rights and responsibilities throughout the Ngāti Rārua rohe.” I maintain that to accept the apology is an act of huge generosity from these people. To be sure, the redress has been outlined in the legislation, as well, and iwi have managed to secure from the Crown some financial, cultural, and commercial redress, but in no way are the losses that have been suffered covered by what is in the legislation by what has been negotiated. Ngāti Kōata will get financial redress of $11.6 million and the opportunity to purchase Waimea and Hira forestry land near Nelson, Ngāti Tama ki Te Tau Ihu receives financial redress of $12.06 million, for Te Ātiawa the financial redress of $11.7 million, and for Ngāti Rārua the financial redress is $11.7 million. As I pointed out in a previous speech, this is a drop in the bucket compared with what this Government sometimes spends its money on, and I refer to South Canterbury Finance. All the iwi get small parcels of land back, but they get nowhere near what was lost, and they symbolically give some of that land back to the people of New Zealand. For example, Te Tai Tapu and Kākā Point will be given to iwi, but will be gifted back to the people of New Zealand 7 days later. The Greens do not agree that these are full and final settlements, and that is a political point that I need to make in every speech on every settlement. It is not full because the compensation is obviously not full, and it is not final because how can we know now how the histories of these iwi will impact on their people in the future? Without a doubt someone out there in the public will say that this is a gravy train and that Māori are privileged. It is my incredible wish that those people will receive the true histories of the tangata whenua of Aotearoa New Zealand, and that is the only way we will break down racism. Today is the day to celebrate. I join with the rest of the House in congratulating the people whose legislation will pass through finally. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Continuation line: Claudette Hauiti]

NGATI KOATA, NGATI RARUA, NGATI TAMA KI TE TAU IHU, AND TE ATIAWA O TE WAKA-A-MAUI CLAIMS SETTLEMENT BILL

Third Reading

CLAUDETTE HAUITI (National):

[Authorised te reo text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

the non-negotiable values of Ngāti Kōata

[Authorised te reo text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

They underline their guiding principles to protect rangatiratanga of Ngāti Kōata; protect, preserve taonga; identify and protect wāhi tapu; promote, enhance Ngāti Kōata and its terms under the Treaty ; and support the social, economic, and cultural needs of its iwi.

[Continuation line: (Te Reo) Ngāti Tama ki Te Tau Ihu will determine]

[Authorised te reo text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

Ngāti Tama ki Te Tau Ihu will determine its own rangatiratanga through education, skills training, and te reo me ōna tikanga. They will succeed in Te Ao Pākehā, me Te Ao Ngāti Tama, me Te Ao Māori. Courage, determination, perseverance to withstand all the injustices, discrimination, losses, sadness, mamae, pouritanga, and Ngāti Tama endures. Ngāti Tama ki Te Tau Ihu—this is a day of celebration. Te Ātiawa o Te Waka-a-Māui are the people of Te Ātiawa descent who whakapapa to Te Tau Ihu or to Te Waka-a-Māui. In 1840 when Te Ātiawa o Te Waka-a-Māui signed Te Tiriti o Waitangi at Tōtaranui, they were a dynamic, robust society with their own lands and cultural customs that regulated both their life on land and at sea. Today, Te Ātiawa o Te Waka-a-Māui are dynamic, robust, innovative, generous enduring people. I commend this bill to the House.

NGATI KOATA, NGATI RARUA, NGATI TAMA KI TE TAU IHU, AND TE ATIAWA O TE WAKA-A-MAUI CLAIMS SETTLEMENT BILL

Third Reading

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Kia ora, Mr Deputy Speaker.

[Authorised te reo text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. It has bene a pretty special morning being part of this entire third reading of the Ngāti Kōata, Ngāti Rārua, Ngāti Tama ki Te Tau Ihu, and Te Ātiawa o Te Waka-a-Māui Claims Settlement Bill. I have decided to pick up on a theme that we seem to have started within this particular reading about saying sorry. So for me, when I look at our Treaty settlement legislation, I think of it as New Zealand’s truth and reconciliation process. When I look at the bills that have been before us, what it speaks about to me is truth. The definition of truth is the real facts about New Zealand’s history. So when I look at this settlement legislation that we have in the House it is the truth from the iwi that have been involved this morning in the Te Tau Ihu settlement process—it is your truth. I hope that what you have recorded within your specific piece of legislation is a truth that you are satisfied with. The other part of the process is reconciliation. Reconciliation is about a restoration of relations. It is about a shared view and it is also about the Crown’s role. We have talked a bit in this particular settlement kōrero about the Crown saying sorry and the meaning of an apology. I think what I really want to have recorded is that the Crown was not passive in what happened to Māori and to mana whenua and tangata whenua. The Crown actually colluded with the settlement companies that came here to colonise our country. So the Crown was not passive; it was active. So for the Crown to acknowledge its deeds in our history is significant, but for me it is significant because of the relations that happen after a reconciliation process. Those relations are actually about the geographic name changes, the statutory acknowledgments and the deeds of recognition. It is now about how the Crown and Māori, and the Crown and tangata whenua and mana whenua work together as we move into the future. When I look at the opportunity that the settlement legislation provides, it means that we will develop memoranda of understanding. It means we will develop principles about how we will work together. It is about how mana whenua and tangata whenua will take their rightful place in the administration of all the taonga that have been identified in the Treaty legislation. The challenge going forward is going to be about the reality of those relationships going forward, the reality of the memoranda of understanding and the principles, and everything that this piece of legislation now empowers.

It is going to be incumbent on us as members of Parliament now and us as MPs in the future to be accountable for these pieces of legislation. I want to pick up on something that Denise Roche has said about the Greens not accepting that this is full and final. In fact, in a way she is right, because if things do not work practically in terms of the relationship, we can make amendments to pieces of legislation. So if you become dissatisfied in the future about how the Government is working with you—whether it be the Department of Conservation or whatever; it could be the Ministry of Education—actually you can come back to this House and say you are not satisfied with the relations that this piece of legislation has created for your working relationship in the future. So in some regards Denise Roche is absolutely right. I think what I want to put on record is that as members of Parliament here today and members of Parliament going forward the challenge is actually on us to make this legislation work. My commitment to you—and I know this commitment is across the House—is that if this legislation does not work, then we need to keep working at it. There are mechanisms within the House of Parliament to ensure it does. As far as I am concerned as a member of Parliament, this is the beginning of a formal relationship and there is always an opportunity for you to come back to us and say it is not working, it needs to be clearer, you need more mandate to actually give effect to the whole reconciliation and apology part of these settlements. Otherwise, they are not real, and they will not create real transformative change that we need in our society. So I will not speak any more, other than to again congratulate everybody who has been involved in getting us to this point in time. I wish you wonderful celebrations, not only here but actually at home on the marae, where most of the whānau will be. So I hope that over this Easter period you will have gatherings and people will celebrate and be satisfied with this process. I again want to reiterate how privileged we all are to be part of this truth and reconciliation process for our country. I wish you all the best going into the future. I do hope that you disseminate this history within your rohe so that all of our tamariki and mokopuna understand for ever our place, the place of tangata whenua, in Aotearoa New Zealand. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Continuation line: Joanne Hayes]

NGATI KOATA, NGATI RARUA, NGATI TAMA KI TE TAU IHU, AND TE ATIAWA O TE WAKA-A-MAUI CLAIMS SETTLEMENT BILL

Third Reading

JOANNE HAYES (National):

[Authorised te reo text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

I am very privileged to be standing here to take a final call on the third reading of the Ngāti Kōata, Ngāti Rārua, Ngāti Tama ki Te Tau Ihu, and Te Atiawa o Te Waka-a-Māui Claims Settlement Bill. I have heard the many speeches that have been passed on today. I along with the other speakers want to congratulate you on all the hard work that you have done in getting your bill here in the negotiations’ final phase. It is a short call. I know that previous speakers have talked about a drop in the bucket when it comes to commercial redress around finances, but I also stand here because I have seen many iwi that have gone before you that have received their settlements and have turned their small drop in the bucket into a great big ocean—a great big ocean. Ngāi Tahu is a very good example of this big ocean that they have produced for the whole of Te Wai Pounamu. I take my hat off to you. I take my hat off to the iwi of Tainui who have done the same. They have taken a small amount and they have grown it. They have grown it for the benefit of our mokopuna—of our mokopuna, who will receive everything that is due to them. We must celebrate that as Māori. The Crown has apologised. We have apologised. I know that when a door opens everything can happen to us. We are an innovative and beautiful people. We need to keep on celebrating that and take this process all the way through. I know that the Crown will do that. So without any further ado, congratulations thrice, congratulations to you all, to the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, to the Māori Affairs Committee. Kia ora. Tēnei rā koutou katoa.

[Continuation line: Christopher Finlayson]

NGATI KOATA, NGATI RARUA, NGATI TAMA KI TE TAU IHU, AND TE ATIAWA O TE WAKA-A-MAUI CLAIMS SETTLEMENT BILL

Third Reading

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): Although this bill, the Ngāti Kōata, Ngāti Rārua, Ngāti Tama ki Te Tau Ihu, and Te Ātiawa o Te Waka-a-Māui Claims Settlement Bill, may be the last to receive a third reading today, it is not the least. It provides for four settlements for iwi who have historical Treaty claims in Te Tau Ihu at the top of the south. Many people have sacrificed their time and well-being to achieve these settlements, but it is very, very sad indeed that Chris Atutahi, who worked for the Tainui Taranaki ki te Tonga collective, is not here to see this day. We attribute his work at the commencement of negotiations as getting us here today. The bill contains Crown acknowledgments and apologies made to each of these four iwi, and provides for specific redress. Understanding the history is critical, and I endorse what Mr Henare and others have said about the importance of history. I do not intend to repeat what he and Mr Tirikatene and others have so eloquently said about the history of these settlements. Mr Tirikatene, in particular, has spoken very well in this debate about these four iwi. I acknowledge their contribution. I endorse what they have said. But rather I want to make a few comments about each of the iwi represented here this morning. Ngāti Kōata—Ngāti Kōata descended from Kōata of the Tanui waka, and for many years were a coastal iwi residing in Kāwhia. They came first to Te Tau Ihu through a tuku, or grant of land, from a kurahaupō chief and then went through the subsequent invasion. They principally established themselves on Rangitoto Island, Croisilles, Wakatū, and Whakapuaka. They were a people with a close association to the coast, in terms of both navigation and fishing. In recognition of the importance of certain sites to Ngāti Kōata, including part of Rangitoto, or D’Urville Island, this bill requires the New Zealand Conservation Authority to have particular regard to Ngāti Kōata’s values when considering management plans for these sites. Through the bill, Ngāti Kōata will be appointed as a conservation statutory adviser over Takapourewa, or Stephens Island. This island was traditionally used as a kohanga, training ground, as well as being a valuable source of natural resources. Being appointed as a conservation statutory adviser provides Ngāti Kōata with the ability to give advice to the Minister of Conservation in relation to the restoration of native flora and the management of native fauna. This settlement would not be happening today without the dedication of Roma Hippolite, who led negotiations with the support of Allen Hippolite. Api Hemi united Ngāti Kōata, and previous chairs and original claimants Jim Elkington and Pricilla Paul guided Ngāti Kōata through the hearings, along with Pene Ruruku, Pūhanga Tūpaea, Ngarau Tūpaea, and the late Martin Dawson. Let me say something about the late Martin Dawson. I am sure Shane Jones would endorse this. Martin Dawson was a lawyer in Wellington for many years. He acted for iwi long before it became the fashionable or popular thing to do. He was interested in these issues because he was a caring lawyer dedicated to justice, not because he was interested in the 6-minute units or fees. Without, of course, descending into personalities—that would be inappropriate—I simply say that he could teach some lawyers a thing or two about professionalism. We greatly miss him for the work he did on this and other settlements. May he rest in peace. I want to say something about Ngāti Rārua. They originated from the western coast of the King Country region and descend from those tūpuna who migrated to New Zealand aboard the Tainui waka. The lands at Motueka, Rīwaka, and Marahau became a significant area of occupation for Ngāti Rārua in Te Tau Ihu, as did the Wairau district on the east coast and areas of Golden Bay and the upper West Coast. Despite being settled in Wairau, Ngāti Rārua were not party to the negotiations that led to the Wairau purchase. The reserves provided for Ngāti Rārua under the Te Wai Pounamu purchase had only a very small area of cultivatable land.

[Continuation line: They were isolated]

They were isolated. They were of poor quality. In recognition of the significance of certain sites to Ngāti Rārua, this bill requires the New Zealand Conservation Authority to have particular regard to Ngāti Rārua’s values when considering management plans in relation to these sites. I particularly want to acknowledge Barry Mason. He was the inaugural trust chair and a founding member of the committee that filed the Ngāti Rārua claim, along with Molly Luke, who has been a complete stalwart at the helm as chair until very recently. I also acknowledge Lee Luke and also my old sparring partner Tim Castle, who were the principal negotiators for Ngāti Rārua. I am very kind to the lawyers today. Then there is Ngāti Tama ki Te Tau Ihu. They trace their roots to the Tokomaru waka from Hawaiki. They take their name from Tamariki who came aboard that vessel. The Ngāti Tama ki Te Tau Ihu rangatira Te Puoho led their migration. He also led the last known taua by northern iwi into the Ngāi Tahu territory in 1836 and was killed doing so. Ngāti Tama established themselves as tangata whenua in Te Tau Ihu with pā at numerous locations, including Te Tai Tapu, Wainui, Tākaka, and Parapara in Golden Bay, and also at various places like Wakapuaka in Tasman Bay. I think, without casting aspersions at all on other iwi, that they do have the best sites in the land. Ngāti Tama ki Te Tau Ihu negotiators have consistently tried to re-establish their connections with their traditional sites. So one aspect of their settlement that is very important is Te Korowai Mana, which acknowledges the traditional cultural, spiritual, and historical association of Ngāti Tama ki Te Tau Ihu with certain sites of significance. Can I acknowledge Janice Manson, the inaugural chair, and Keri Stephens another previous chair for Ngāti Tama. I particularly pay tribute today to that great warrior Fred Te Miha. I am so very fond of Fred. He says what he thinks and he thinks a lot. He is going to be a force for this great iwi in the future. I also acknowledge Rob McKewen and Jo Westrupp, and John Ward-Holmes. Then there is Te Ātiawa o Te Waka-a-Māui, and I do want to say some things about that great iwi situated near Anakiwa. By the 1830s Te Ātiawa were settled through Tōtaranui, Queen Charlotte Sound. They also established themselves in Tasman Bay, Golden Bay, and Te Tai Tapu. The Tasman Sea, Pacific Ocean, and the Cook Strait were great highways for them. By geographical choice and necessity they were coastal dwellers and they continue to place high cultural and historical values on the foreshore, the seabed, and the coastal and maritime waterways. Through this bill they are appointed as statutory kaitiaki over five islands in Queen Charlotte Sound and this will provide them with the opportunity to provide advice in relation to the restoration of native flora and management of native fauna.

[Continuation line: There are so many people who have led the charge

There are so many people who have led the charge for Te Ātiawa. The Rev. Harvey Ruru and Sharon Gemmell particularly deserve a special mention. I wish Glenis Payne and the trust all the best as it leads this wonderful iwi into a post-settlement era. Let me just simply say one thing about the post-settlement era. We have heard this morning, as we hear with all third readings, some wonderful sentiments being expressed, but the bipartisan view that comes from the Labour Party and the National Party needs to be emphasised—that is, for all the great phrases, what will make these settlements succeed in the future will be the Crown living up to its obligations. I am acutely conscious of that, and that is why we have set up a post-settlement commitments unit to make sure that the Crown holds fast to its promises not just tomorrow, not just in 25 years, but forever after. So I congratulate these iwi for achieving this moment. I thank you for the work that you have done over so many years. With good will on both sides and with the Crown doing its bit, I believe it is the start of a renewed relationship with the Crown, one that will be based on trust, cooperation, and respect for the Treaty. The third reading of the Ngāti Kōata, Ngāti Rārua, Ngāti Tama ki Te Tau Ihu, and Te Ātiawa o Te Waka-a-Maui Claims Settlement Bill marks the end for Parliament of what is a momentous day—a momentous day, of course, not just for Parliament but for the iwi. I commend this bill to the House.

BUSINESS STATEMENT

14:01:12~Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Deputy Leader of the House)

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Deputy Leader of the House): Next week the House is in the first week of a 2-week adjournment. When the House resumes on Tuesday, 6 May the Government will look to progress a number of bills on the Order Paper, including the Veterans’ Support Bill, the Vulnerable Children Bill, and the Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders Bill. On Wednesday, 7 May, effective on the morning of Thursday, 8 May and with the agreement of the Business Committee, the House will sit in extended hours to progress some Treaty of Waitangi settlement legislation. Wednesday is a members’ day.

BUSINESS STATEMENT

14:01:51~GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central)

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): Can I just ask the acting Leader of the House if it is in the intention of the Government to pass the Animal Welfare Bill before the House rises in July?

BUSINESS STATEMENT

14:02:01~Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Deputy Leader of the House)

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Deputy Leader of the House): July is such a long way away.

[Continuation line: Judith Collins Amended Answer]

AMENDED ANSWERS TO ORAL QUESTIONS

Question No. 10 to Minister, 16 April

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice): I seek leave to make a personal explanation under Standing Order 354 to correct an answer to question No. 10 yesterday.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is none.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: In answering question No. 10 yesterday, I said that I had been advised by ACC that form 167 had been approved by the Human Rights Commission. ACC has now advised me that the information provided to me by ACC is incorrect. It has now advised me that form 167 has not been approved by the Human Rights Commission. I am drawing this to the notice of the House at the earliest opportunity available to me.

[Continuation line: QOA]

SOCIAL SECURITY (FRAUD MEASURES AND DEBT RECOVERY) AMENDMENT BILL

Third Reading

Hon CHESTER BORROWS (Associate Minister for Social Development): I move, That the Social Security (Fraud Measures and Debt Recovery) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. As the House considers our final vote on this bill, I would like to ask members to turn their minds to the principles at the heart of this particular bill and to think for a moment about what it is that this bill is trying to achieve. To my mind, it can be summed up in one word. It is about fairness. Welfare fraud is inherently unfair. Once someone takes money from the welfare system that they are not entitled to, no one really wins. It is not fair on the taxpayer, who funds the system. They give from their pay cheque money they have earned in order to allow our Government and society to function. Often I have found those most vocal and most angry about welfare fraud to be people on lower wages, people who—[Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. I am sure members know why I am standing. Would you please show some courtesy to the Minister trying to address the business of the House.

Hon CHESTER BORROWS: Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Often I have found those most vocal and most angry about welfare fraud to be people on lower wages, people who themselves have to work hard to make ends meet but do so without resorting to ripping off the State. It is not fair on them to have the funds they have provided taken by fraud, and it is not fair on other beneficiaries. Over the last couple of years we have had just above 300,000 people on a benefit at any given time. In the year ended June 2013 only 906 were convicted of welfare fraud.

[Continuation line: We are talking about only a small minority who seem]

We are talking about only a small minority who seem to think that they can rip off the welfare system, yet those few allow some people to cast aspersions over all beneficiaries—an opportunity some people are unfortunately all too eager to take, and that is not fair. At an individual level, relationship welfare fraud, the type of fraud this bill’s main measure is aimed at, is rife with unfairness. The irrefutable fact of this type of welfare fraud, unlike other kinds of fraud I can think of, is that it can occur only with two people as the perpetrators. The essence of the fraud is the beneficiary receiving a benefit that depends on them being single when they are actually in a relationship. If that partner was not there, the fraud could not occur. Let us step through a hypothetical example of how this happens. Most commonly we are dealing with a woman on a sole parent support benefit, the new DPB. She has entered a relationship, which is absolutely fine. You do not give up your right to a love life when you come on to a benefit. Communities are founded on strong relationships. Individuals and families prosper in good relationships, and so we should encourage them. Later, that relationship turns more serious. It moves from something casual into something that, for all intents and purposes, looks like a marriage. They become emotionally and financially interdependent. It is at this point, whether they sign on the dotted line or not, that her circumstances have changed. She is receiving money based on the fact that she is a single mother, but she is no longer single. Again, for the vast majority of beneficiaries, at this point they have a conversation with their case worker at the Ministry of Social Development and their entitlement can be changed, yet some choose not to. Time passes, the relationship continues, and then 5 years later it comes to our attention that she has been receiving money she was not entitled to. An investigation is carried out. The ministry establishes that she has received $100,000 she was not entitled to, and she has repeatedly signed forms reasserting that she is single, despite that being untrue. A prosecution is commenced. It is here that our bill will make a difference. Under the law as it stands, the beneficiary faces the law alone. She is liable for the entire $100,000 of debt. She alone faces criminal sanctions in the worst cases, including jail, and he walks away. That is the nub of the unfairness that this bill will address. He has spent 5 years living alongside her, participating in her fraud—a fraud that could not have occurred but for him—and he gets away scot-free. That is unfair—pure and simple. Unlike other examples of fraud that may be quoted, he has not simply benefited from the fraud; he has been inextricably a part of it. Under this bill he will be held liable for his part in the fraud, because that is fair. It is fair on the beneficiary, who will not have to take the blame herself for the actions of two, and it is fair on the taxpayer, who has been defrauded and will now see their money recovered faster. To turn to another part of the bill, it is also worth remembering that welfare fraud is not fair on those who depend financially on the fraudster. That fraud forces us to make a choice—to require the repayment of that money, even if it will disadvantage those who are financially dependent on the beneficiary, or to let them get away with their fraud. This bill reaffirms and clarifies the position that all money taken from the taxpayer should be recovered. That recovery should be done sensitively and carefully, to ensure no one is placed in undue hardship, but it should occur. Through the debate on these measures, both in this House and publicly, some have said or inferred that we should not recover debt at all, in a multitude of situations. They would see fraudsters escape unpunished, and the taxpayers’ loss remain, by adopting the most cautious and precautionary approaches. Although I recognise that it is an opinion that they hold sincerely, it is not one this Government subscribes to. Instead, we place our faith in the skill and professionalism of our welfare fraud investigators to work with those who owe money, to recover it quickly and appropriately. It is a stance that I believe is right, and I will quite happily and confidently place it before the people of New Zealand. That is the essence of this bill—fairness. I invite those parties that intend to vote against the bill to consider that before casting their votes. Whatever they think of this Government’s policies around other types of fraud or other issues of social welfare, are they willing to record their vote against such a simple and such a fair change? Before I finish I would like to acknowledge those who have contributed to this bill. I would like to acknowledge members across the House who have engaged with me on this subject. It has been a robust debate. There are areas where we disagree. But I appreciate the generally constructive and open way members from all parties have engaged on this bill. I want to acknowledge officials from the Ministry of Social Development who have assisted me to develop, and will go on to implement, this bill. It has been my pleasure to work with them on this, and on this Government’s wider fraud reform package. I have found them, without fail, to be a group who exemplify the highest standards of professionalism in the public service. I want to record my thanks for their past and ongoing service. This bill will put right a wrong, and make our system a little bit fairer. I commend it to the House.

[Continuation line: MORONEY]

SOCIAL SECURITY (FRAUD MEASURES AND DEBT RECOVERY) AMENDMENT BILL

Third Reading

SUE MORONEY (Labour): If this bill, the Social Security (Fraud Measures and Debt Recovery) Amendment Bill, was all about fairness then we would be talking about addressing tax fraud at the same level as this Government is prepared to deal with some of the most vulnerable people in our society by taking these measures against benefit fraud. But I want to say at the outset that the Labour Party is supporting this bill because there is one small element of fairness, and I am going to come to that in a minute. But in the context of this Government’s relentless beating up on people who do not have paid employment at the moment, at the very time that this Government is doing nothing to ensure that there are jobs for people to have, here we are, sitting in a period of time where in New Zealand we have hit high levels of unemployment—high levels of unemployment. The Government has sat on its hands and done nothing. We heard at question time today that Christchurch has been rebuilt primarily by immigrant labour, by people from overseas, while New Zealanders sit in the dole queue because that Government did nothing in the 3 years that it had to plan to train people to be New Zealanders who rebuilt Christchurch.

[Continuation line: That is an indictment on this Government.]

That is an indictment on this Government. What has it been doing? Instead of actually doing the sensible things, as Labour asked it to do within months of the earthquakes striking Christchurch, like training people as builders, training people in the construction industry, and putting their energy where a good Government would if it was thinking about the plight of the people, instead of doing that, it has been tinkering around with bills like this. It has been tinkering around with trying to get the New Zealand public to think that every beneficiary is committing welfare fraud. This is what it has been spending its time and energy on: whipping the people who actually have lost jobs—and that Government has done nothing to help them to get other jobs. The Government has done nothing. It thinks the market is just going to deliver. It is a hands-off Government that says “Too bad.” Yes, we have struck hard economic times. People are losing their jobs, and this is the Government’s answer to it: working on bills like this that are designed to have fair-minded New Zealanders think that beneficiaries do this deliberately—lose their jobs in order to rip the system off somehow. I want to make it absolutely clear that in the minority of situations where people do set out to rip off the New Zealand taxpayer and commit welfare fraud, and they do that deliberately, the Labour Party has no truck with that—absolutely no truck with that. We will stand and vote for bills like this where they actually address those issues. But we would much rather—and a Labour Government would—put energy into ensuring that people were trained to do the jobs that are available. That is the crime that this Government has committed, because it has completely washed its hands of that. We are going to be facing the remarkable situation in New Zealand of actually having skill shortages—skill shortages in quite a number of areas—along with high unemployment. That is an absolute indictment on this Government not doing its job. It has failed those thousands of New Zealanders who have ended up on the scrapheap while this Government has been in place. It is not all its fault. I am going to recognise that there has been a global financial crisis, but the job of a Government during a global financial crisis is to do everything it can to help the people who are going to be most hurt in our country by that global financial crisis. So what did Government members do? They said: “Let’s deal to them about welfare fraud.” That is their big answer and it works for them. Did you notice that the Minister for Social Development, Paula Bennett, decided last week or 2 weeks ago that she would try to get New Zealanders to think that beneficiaries by and large spend their time living the Club Med life overseas—

Hon Chester Borrows: No, only 21,000 of them.

SUE MORONEY: Well, Chester Borrows says “only 21,000 of them.” Mr Borrows, how many of those 21,000 took international travel because they had given up hope of trying to find a job in New Zealand? How many of them, Minister?

Hon Paula Bennett: 4,800.

SUE MORONEY: No, no, that is not right. Can the Minister tell the House how many people of those 21,000 left these shores and have not returned?

Hon Paula Bennett: 4,880.

SUE MORONEY: No, that is not the figure. I have seen the Minister use that figure and it is not correct. It is not correct. So why is the Government trying to whip up this idea of people committing benefit fraud, and, if they are not doing that, they are living the Club Med life—they are living the Club Med life overseas? It is completely irrelevant and it shows how out of touch it is with the situation that many New Zealanders find themselves in through no fault of their own—through no fault of their own. And no thanks from that Government’s members either, because they have sat on they hands. They have sat on their hands and said: “Well, look, the market’s just going to deliver, so the Government doesn’t need to do anything.” Well, guess what? It is not working, and in the region that I come from, the Waikato region, unemployment is going up. In the last quarter unemployment in the Waikato went up from 6.1 percent to 6.8 percent. It is heading in the wrong direction, Ministers. It is heading in the wrong direction and that is supposed to be the rock star economy. That is the Government’s rock star economy. Well, I can tell you that ordinary New Zealanders will tell you how rock star it feels—and it don’t feel too rock star at all for many of them. The people who are being subjected to this bill are the people at the bottom of the heap. They are at the bottom of the heap and often through no fault of their own. I will, though, just say in context that the reason why the Labour members became convinced during the select committee hearing to support this bill is that we did have representations from many women’s organisations when they came before the select committee. They told us that they had witnessed and were concerned about situations in which women—mainly—who were sole parents were put in a position by their partner of committing welfare fraud and they felt it was unfair that it was the woman alone, when the partner was complicit in it as well, who actually suffered the consequences of being discovered as being fraudulent in that way. Relationship fraud actually accounts for $20 million a year—$20 million a year. It is not great, but it pales in comparison with Inland Revenue Department estimates that tax discrepancies amount to over $1.2 billion a year. It is $1.2 billion versus $20 million. But this is where the Government is spending its time. However, we did say and we have said in the Labour Party, that in this situation we do not want to see the women bearing the brunt of something that actually two people have been complicit in. So we do accept that this sliver of a bill may help to address that issue and we sincerely hope it does, so we are prepared to support it. But we want to see the Government be fair and deal with the big fraud issues in this country and they are clearly to do with tax discrepancies and tax fraud.

[Continuation line: This is small fish. It is small fish but the Government]

This is small fish. It is small fish, but the Government has put its emphasis here because it wants to distract from its appalling record of not actually creating jobs, creating training opportunities, and doing the things that a good Government would do to ensure that we do not end up, as we are now, in the ridiculous situation of having a skills gap in New Zealand while thousands sit on the scrap heap, on the dole queue—because that Government has not seen fit to help them seek the right training for the right skills. The Government actually has not even had a training and skills strategy in place. Christchurch is the absolute epitome of that. That absolutely shows a Government that has been looking the other way, trying to create all sorts of smokescreens and distractions to distract from its very poor performance in this area. I think New Zealanders are appalled when they learn that Christchurch is largely being rebuilt by overseas labour. It is not because they are higher technicians who we could not possibly train here in New Zealand; they are labourers, they are truckies, they are people who are doing jobs that New Zealanders could be doing if the Government had got off its collective butt and trained people in the construction industry. The construction industry, the building industry, tells us that right now, while thousands sit on the scrap heap, on the dole queue, it is short of 5,000 apprentices. That is right now. If that Government had been doing its job, 5,000 people could have been in apprenticeships right now. I tell you, under a Labour Government they would have been in those apprenticeships. Labour was prepared to invest money in actually increasing opportunities for apprentices to be taken on. Labour supports this bill, but it is a sad indictment on the performance of that Government when it comes to dealing with unemployment.

[Continuation line: Melissa Lee]

SOCIAL SECURITY (FRAUD MEASURES AND DEBT RECOVERY) AMENDMENT BILL

Third Reading

MELISSA LEE (National): Ahn nyung ha se yo , Mr Assistant Speaker. I would like to start off my third reading contribution on the Social Security (Fraud Measures and Debt Recovery) Amendment Bill by saying that if the sad record that Ms Moroney talks about, in terms of records, is, in fact, the reduction in percentage of—15,000—people going off the welfare benefit because they have possibly found jobs and they no longer depend on benefits, I would actually like to take that on as a compliment. If she thinks that 15,000 people last year going off welfare is a terrible record, I do not know, actually, what she would call a good record. On that score, I would like to congratulate the Minister for Social Development because that is a fantastic record. Fifteen thousand people going off welfare means that 17,000 children are no longer living in a welfare-dependent home in that last year, and that is a fantastic record. If you listen to Sue Moroney, you would think that this Government is not doing anything about tax fraud. Well, that is untrue, because the Inland Revenue Department equivalent budget, which it is spending to tackle tax fraud, is $138 million. That is about five times the amount that the Ministry of Social Development is spending on welfare fraud. So it is doing something about it. This bill is about relationship fraud. Relationship fraud last year cost this country $26 million. As Sue Moroney also agreed, two people were composite in the fraud’s creation and they should both be responsible. This is about being fair. If two people are living together in a marriage-like arrangement, and one is collecting a sole parent support benefit, then there is clearly a fraud being committed, and this bill makes spouses and partners jointly liable for debt, where they knowingly benefit or where they should have known they were benefiting from the benefits. This is a simple bill. It is about making things fair and I think all New Zealanders will say that this is a fair bill and everyone will support it. I commend it to the House.

[Continuation line: Su’a William Sio]

SOCIAL SECURITY (FRAUD MEASURES AND DEBT RECOVERY) AMENDMENT BILL

Third Reading

Su’a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere): Talofa lava, Mr Assistant Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity. I listened to the Associate Minister for Social Development , the Hon Chester Borrows , in his opening statements to this particular debate on the Social Security (Fraud Measures and Debt Recovery) Amendment Bill . I like the Minister. I appreciate the fact that we did have an opportunity to sit down and listen to his views on why he is driving this particular bill. Sadly, I think he is being deceived by his Government. He has made statements in this House that I do not believe and do not accept. You see, when National first came into power, New Zealanders will recollect some of the many promises that this Government made—many promises that we now know have not been kept. People may remember, for example, the promise not to raise GST and the promise to create 170,000 jobs, which were not kept. There are a couple of statements that refer to this bill that I want the House to ponder on. They are the two particular statements made by the Prime Minister in his prime ministerial statement when he first came into Government in 2008. The first statement was the promise that he would behave in a mana-enhancing manner. The second statement was the promise to protect New Zealand’s most vulnerable communities. Both of those promises have not been kept. Evidence of that is this bill here before the House. This is one bill amongst many, many others that contradict those very statements that the Prime Minister made when he first set foot in this House as the Prime Minister of New Zealand. In fact, this bill, along with many other bills before it, actually compounds the suffering and worsens the situation for the very vulnerable communities that the Prime Minister promised he would protect. In fact, if we go back a way and reflect on our welfare system, our welfare system was to provide a safety net for the very vulnerable communities that the Prime Minister, in 2008, said he was going to protect.

[Continuation line: Our welfare system was to provide a safety net for the]

Our welfare system was intended to provide a safety net for the majority of New Zealanders who were not born into wealth or who were not fortunate enough to have $50 million in their bank account because they were able to win that through betting on the international foreign exchange markets. Our welfare system was intended to protect people and to give effect to some of the very basic human rights enshrined in international covenants—rights such as a job, rights such as to fair, decent wages to support workers and their families, and the right to be protected from unemployment. That is what our welfare system is all about. This bill is deliberately aimed at driving fear into the hearts and minds of the most vulnerable in our communities. It is designed to drive fear into the hearts and minds of the most vulnerable people in our communities, the people who rely on our welfare system because of unemployment, because of sickness, or because a spouse left another spouse with children. For various reasons, that is what the welfare system was about, and this Government, since it has been in power—since 2008—has deliberately and determinedly tried to remove that welfare system, and slowly, step by step and a bit at a time, that is what it has done. We heard earlier today in question time that the Minister for Social Development prided herself on the fact that fewer and fewer people are now in our welfare system. Sure, it is a good thing, but here is another fact: less than 50 percent of those people are in jobs—less than 50 percent of those people coming out of the welfare system are in jobs. What is their situation, Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson? I can tell you. I know many of these families in our neck of the woods—and no doubt my colleagues and other MPs in this House will also know these families—who are doing it tough because they are not in jobs and they fear going into that welfare office to try to get some support from our State . What is happening? They are reliant on church and community organisations providing them with food parcels. They are reliant on young sons and daughters who have been forced to go to Australia, earn a bit of money there through the jobs that are available there, and send it back here. They are putting pressure on their own relatives by sharing homes. Have you ever seen, Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson, and you know what I am talking about when I ask whether any of our members have seen, four or five families sharing a three-bedroom house? I doubt very much whether any of the MPs on that side of the House understand the plight that many ordinary New Zealanders are experiencing today. So this bill is not about fairness, as the Minister attempted to try to persuade us earlier. This is not about fairness. As my colleague Sue Moroney rightly said, if this was about fairness, the Government would spend the same amount of energy and time trying to track down tax fraud—the $6 billion amount of money that the Inland Revenue Department has reported goes missing as a result of tax fraud. Here it is, leaving that $6 billion ticket alone. It is owed by people, no doubt, who are close to this Government, as we have seen in the last few weeks. But it is putting the full force of this Government on to a group of people—the Associate Minister for Social Development Chester Borrows himself even admitted that it was a small number of people whom we are talking about. Yet, it is putting the full force, the full weight, of this Government to go after this small group of people whom we are talking about. That is not about fairness; that is about driving fear into the hearts and minds of the most vulnerable in our communities so that they stay away from the welfare system. The fundamental reason why the Government would do that is that this Government, through and through, does not believe in a welfare State . It does not believe in the role of the State—period. So I get quite upset when it talks about fairness, because that does not translate in so far as the communities that I represent; that you represent, Mr Assistant Speaker; and that many of our people here represent to what our communities are wanting to hear from this Government. It does not translate to the many promises that this Government has made. Only in 2011 it promised a brighter future. This kind of legislation does not provide the brighter future that our communities want from the Government. This is a bad Government. This is the worst Government that I have ever seen or experienced. It makes promises like it is giving candy away to kids. In 2008 it promised my community, using some of our sports icons, that it would invest $6 million into one of our local schools. In 2008 it made that promise. Today we are still waiting for it to keep that promise. This is the worst Government, and I know that working-class communities the length and breadth of New Zealand cannot wait to see the back end of this Government because it is taking New Zealand in a direction where only its friends benefit, but the rest of New Zealand does not. Last night I was at Malaeola hall, and we had a performance by the Ta’imua Malaeola Youth group—young people, young Catholics, from all over the Auckland region. About 600 were in attendance. They put on a performance, and it was an Easter performance, based on the story of Easter. They will contribute the earnings from that performance to the Auckland City Mission. Why? Because those young Catholics, who vote, know that this Government is making things worse for not just Pacific communities and not just Māori communities but the bulk of working-class communities throughout New Zealand. That is why our communities have looked upon this Government and the promises it made in 2008, and I can tell you that this bill is a terrible piece of legislation, which is added on to the many other pieces of legislation that are designed to drive fear and to worsen the struggles of ordinary working New Zealanders. I hope, come 20 September, that our communities turn out in full force and kick those members out of Government.

[Continuation line: Jan Logie]

SOCIAL SECURITY (FRAUD MEASURES AND DEBT RECOVERY) AMENDMENT BILL

Third Reading

JAN LOGIE (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. It is with sadness that I rise again to oppose another ill-conceived piece of welfare legislation that is passing through this House. The Greens oppose the Social Security (Fraud Measures and Debt Recovery) Amendment Bill without apology or prevarication. This bill essentially does three things: it creates new fraud offences, it makes the partner liable for fraud debt, and it requires the Crown to recover debt and reduces its discretion on how—this is the point that we find most offensive. Before anyone on that side of the House starts to yell that the Greens are soft on fraud or crime, or any other rubbish like that, I would like to remind the House that we already have a rigorous fraud detection and prosecution system in this country. This bill is just adding extra offences and penalties that are even tougher than in other related laws, with no evidence that it will have any deterrent effect on fraud because that does not necessarily have anything to do with the drivers of welfare fraud. The Greens take stewardship of our collective resources very seriously. That is why we want to use our resources in the way that will most effectively deliver our goal of a New Zealand where everyone has the essentials so that we can guarantee the opportunities. We are working for a social security system that provides everyone with enough income to fully participate in their communities and to live safe, healthy lives. This would be what a real investment approach would look like, and it would save us money in the long run. We support policies that are sufficient to ensure this, simple to understand and access, universal in their application, and equitable within a wider social context. We oppose this bill as it is not consistent with these values or this vision. We believe this bill will further stigmatise the most marginalised people in this country and put more barriers in the way of people trying to get out of poverty, without making any tangible difference in relation to serious, intentional fraud. However, there is an aspect of this bill where I believe the intention is positive, and where we share the concern of submitters and others in this House. We do acknowledge that the current system of reclaiming the entire debt from the beneficiary—usually the woman—when the partner has also benefited from that money directly or indirectly is unjust. We are also concerned that currently violent partners are regularly using the threat of informing on a woman as a tool of abuse. This is easy for them because the consequences currently fall entirely on the woman holding the benefit. However, we would like to see a policy or legislative response to this problem developed that is based on the experiences of those women and those beneficiaries who have been affected and that also involves Women’s Refuge , to ensure that we have an approach that is fair and safe. This law has not been developed on that basis, and there is concern that it may actually have the reverse effect. I would really like to mention that in his opening speech the Associate Minister for Social Development spoke about the point where somebody goes from being able to be a relationship with somebody and receive a benefit like the DPB , to the point where it moves over into being a relationship that they need to report. I would like to ask anyone in this House how they know when it has reached that point. The law defines the point where you no longer can be on the DPB as when you are in a relationship in the nature of marriage. That is defined quite specifically by our courts as a relationship—let me just find that in my notes—where there is financial and emotional commitment, and where you are willing to pay the other person’s bills. I have never been in a relationship where that relationship has got up to a point where I have gone: “Now, has my commitment reached a level where I am willing to pay their bills?”. That has never happened to me, and yet we are talking about giving people criminal convictions for not identifying that point and reporting it to an agency. The supposed point of fairness in this bill is based around that expectation. It is unrealistic. That has very, very real life consequences for people in our communities. I just do not think that is good law. I do not think it is fair. The Greens also share the New Zealand Law Society’s concern regarding joint and several liability, which means that both parties will be liable for the whole debt should both parties be accountable for the debt arising from the fraud. The New Zealand Law Society believes this may lead to unfair or disproportionate outcomes. In its view, liability should be shared on the basis on attribution of benefits as per the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 . This has been dismissed as a policy, in part due to the cost or potential increase in reviews and appeals. The Greens believe is it essential that our laws are fair, proportionate, and open to appeal. To decide on a legislative pathway to reduce the possibility of people appealing is not founded on a strong concept of justice. This bill also creates an offence for partners knowingly or recklessly benefiting from fraud committed by their partner, which is punishable by a fine of up to $5,000 or a 12-month imprisonment. The Greens do not believe this is necessary and that—as I have already outlined—attributing criminal liability on the basis of determinations of relationship status are incredibly problematic and may well create perverse results, and that is being kind.

[Continuation line: The two aspects of the bill]

The two aspects of the bill that we find the most difficult, actually, is the change in this bill that requires Ministry of Social Development to recover debt. I need to make sure that this House and New Zealand is aware that we are not talking about fraud here. We are talking about advances that people have had to get because the benefit levels were consciously set below the poverty line and that they are not enough for people to survive on. We know that people on basic benefits cannot afford well-balanced diets, and that they cannot afford to heat their houses or to stop themselves or their children getting sick. Most of them cannot afford new clothing for their children, cannot afford to replace shoes when they get holes in them, they cannot afford to repair their bikes or cars if they break down, and they cannot even, where I live in Porirua, afford the bus or the train from Porirua into Wellington. They certainly cannot afford sports fees or club fees or being able to get admissions into places of education within our city—

Mike Sabin: So that justifies fraud, does it?

JAN LOGIE: We are not talking about fraud, Mr Sabin. This is debt, where benefits are set so low that people have to get advances that they have to pay back to be able to put food on the table, and to be able to put their power on through winter. I have even heard of people being refused advances to buy blankets to try to have a cheaper option to keep themselves and their children warm. The heart of the problem with this bill is that it does not acknowledge the fact that we are putting people into poverty, which is harming them and their children. This bill is seeking to take money out of the pockets of those very people who are just trying to provide the very essentials and life, and that is unconscionable.

SOCIAL SECURITY (FRAUD MEASURES AND DEBT RECOVERY) AMENDMENT BILL

Third Reading

Hon PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei): I rise in support of this bill, the Social Security (Fraud Measures and Debt Recovery) Amendment Bill, having considered it with colleagues at the Social Services Committee for a considerable period. Welfare will be always be there to support people in our community who need it and we have made the assurance during the global recession that under this National Party, in Government, along with our partners, there would not be cuts to benefits and widespread cuts to superannuation, as the Labour Party is proposing now in their policy leading up to the election. We made sure that the most vulnerable were looked after. But part of our comprehensive reform of the welfare system is clamping down on welfare fraud. I thank Su’a William Sio for acknowledging that the Minister for Social Development offered that briefing to him and Sue Moroney. William Sio attended that briefing with the Minister. The Minister acknowledges that Sue Moroney did put her apologies in because she wanted or needed to go and watch the Melbourne Cup, so did not come to that briefing. But William Sio went in her stead while she was at the Melbourne Cup and he listened to the Minister. Those two had a conversation and they agreed on many points, as he acknowledges; they disagreed on some. The reality is that while we provide welfare in this country for the vast majority who do need it, we do not accept that welfare fraud should occur. That is a message that Sue Moroney would have got had she attended that meeting. She too would be supporting this bill—had she attended that meeting—as I am.

SOCIAL SECURITY (FRAUD MEASURES AND DEBT RECOVERY) AMENDMENT BILL

Third Reading

Le’aufa’amulia ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR (NZ First): Talofa lava. Malo le soifua. I rise on behalf of the New Zealand First party, our wonderful party, to speak to this bill, the Social Security (Fraud Measures and Debt Recovery) Amendment Bill. This bill seeks to amend the Social Security Act 1964. The aim is to strengthen measures to combat relationship fraud, which is a very specific kind of benefit fraud. The bill considers relationship fraud to have occurred when a person who is living in a de facto, marital, or civil union relationship claims a single or sole parent rate of benefit to which they are not entitled. The Government’s proposals in the bill are designed to strengthen the approach to relationship fraud; in particular, by ensuring that both parties in a relationship are appropriately held to account. The Ministry of Social Development’s chief executive would be empowered and required to recover debt from partners and spouses of beneficiaries who obtain welfare payments fraudulently. It will make them jointly accountable for repaying the debt in certain circumstances. Criminal liability will also be extended to the partners of beneficiaries who commit relationship fraud. The interesting situation right now in our country is that there are so many different kinds of relationships. In addition to the traditional married couple we now have de facto relationships, single parent relationships, and same-sex or civil union relationships. There are also family relationships through guardians and more. I am sure that those who are now watching these speeches in the House would know which category they come under. The Social Services Committee examined this bill and recommended that it be passed with some amendments. The intention of the bill will be achieved if the amendments are given serious consideration. The Social Services Committee wanted the bill to be clearer about the criteria for liability on the part of a beneficiary’s spouse or partner who, knowingly or otherwise, benefits from an amount obtained by fraud. It is funny that I have always wondered how some single parents can travel to various places for nice holidays with their families. They drive some fancy, flash cars, and wear some very nice clothes.

They also wear some expensive shoes and dine in some pretty good restaurants. Yet they do not work full time and are single parents. I have worked all my life, ever since I left school—at a car assembly factory making car harnesses and in Warehouse stores packing electronic goods for despatch. I have worked at a merchandising warehouse and retail shop selling clothes for men—that includes ties, jumpers, shirts, and more. I have also worked in a prison site, operating its Wanganui computers—for those who remember them from back in the mid-1980s. I have also worked in the Ministry of Justice through its public registries—for example, the Registrar-General of Births, Deaths and Marriages and more. I have worked in alcohol and drug services, the University of Auckland School of Medicine, the National Heart Foundation, Auckland City Council, and later the Department of Corrections. And I must say, I was still broke and unable to drive a reasonable car like theirs—clean, reliable vehicles—until many years later. Yet the single parents were having better access to better resources than I was. I do not smoke, nor am I able to operate many pokie machines. Melissa Lee earlier on today made a mockery of the National Government’s poor efforts to recover the $6 billion of tax evasion—a pathetic attempt. It would be better if she did not even go there. This legislation attempts to make accountable those who have been able to access benefits that they are not entitled to. To be liable, the spouse or partner must know or have been reckless as to whether the amount obtained is in excess of what the beneficiary is entitled to, and that it has been fraudulently obtained. The initial bill was not clear on whether the spouse or partner would also have to know the exact amount involved or the precise way in which it was obtained. In terms of debt recovery, it was recommended that the Ministry of Social Development’s chief executive should have more scope when determining the rate and method of debt recovery. It was not enough that the chief executive’s role would, rather, be limited to considering only factors set out in the ministerial direction. That was not enough. This recommendation was based on the general public law principle that decision makers must take all relevant considerations into account. Among other proposed amendments to the debt recovery aspect of the bill, the Social Services Committee has sought to ensure that it more accurately reflects the policy intent to collect fraudulent accrued debt, at the same time also ensuring that the circumstances of the person owing money have been fully considered. It is expected that these measures will address concerns about the impact of debt recovery on individuals and their families. This is very important because we must acknowledge the risk of making families worse off by using unreasonable force. In making them pay back debts they have accrued, it is absolutely critical that we take the right approach. The provisions of this legislation must be enforced responsibly—responsibly. We must also remember that the vast majority of beneficiaries are honest people who do the right thing. Relationships are never simple or straightforward, especially nowadays. According to Statistics New Zealand there is a growing proportion of New Zealanders living together without legalising or formalising their union. Reports from 2009 show that one-third of New Zealand marriages ended in divorce, which is a very sad affair. Māori women have been shown to be more likely to be part of de facto relationships than non-Māori women. It is crucial to be mindful of the possible circumstances that beneficiaries may be in when they are caught in fraudulent situations. I was reading a nice message from a friend who has having some issues with his colleague—a work colleague. He said: “To be extremely happy but extremely intelligent is a task of being optimistic without being cheesy.” This legislation must avoid any attempt to encourage fraud. We all know that fraud is the daughter of greed. Let us hope that this Social Security (Fraud Measures and Debt Recovery) Amendment Bill will bring justice to the way we live. Thank you.

[Continuation line: Tremain]

SOCIAL SECURITY (FRAUD MEASURES AND DEBT RECOVERY) AMENDMENT BILL

Third Reading

Hon CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier): The Hon Paula Bennett has just tweeted that there are nearly 60,000 fewer people on a benefit than there were in December of 2010—60,000 fewer people on a benefit since December 2010. The National Party’s policy on welfare is working. At the same time, the unemployment rate has fallen in this country. It is down to 6 percent now, and I would have a pretty damn good bet that it will be down into the 5 percent range at the next announcement. I am proud of that reform package. Once again, today, with the Social Security (Fraud Measures and Debt Recovery) Amendment Bill, we deliver on another commitment that we made at the last election, where we committed to clamp down on welfare fraud. We are delivering on an election promise. Can I acknowledge and congratulate Minister Chester Borrows, his outstanding officials, and the Social Services Committee for their hard work in this process. Once again, it is excellent to be delivering on an election promise. Thank you.

[Continuation line: Dr Rajen Prasad]

SOCIAL SECURITY (FRAUD MEASURES AND DEBT RECOVERY) AMENDMENT BILL

Third Reading

Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour): I am pleased to take my final call on this bill, the Social Security (Fraud Measures and Debt Recovery) Amendment Bill, which started some time ago. Certainly, the debate that we have had over the various stages of this bill, and even today, does get one to think about a whole series of things related to the subject of this bill, which really is, as the Government likes to call it, welfare fraud.

[Continuation line: What it gets me to do is to ask a number of questions]

What it gets me to do is to ask a number of questions, the first being: which is most important, solving the real problems facing New Zealand today—and we could identify those problems we hear every day in this House about the housing shortages and the difficulties of housing—or creating well-paying jobs? Is that another issue that we ought to be focusing on? Or is it more important to be talking about how we might increase the size of manufacturing in the primary sector? Or is it more important to talk about the effects of climate change on New Zealand, and the changes that are already occurring? Perhaps talking about a better start for our young children and our parents—is it more important to talk about that? Another one could be developing a better educated workforce. Is it more important to take those series of issues, talk about them, and put some real effort into making those kinds of changes, or is it more important to be devising a scheme, as this bill does, to go after those who are—in the words of this bill and in the words of Government members—defrauding the State of $20 million through a set of prescriptions that this bill provides that, in the end, may or may not be successful, and are more than likely to produce unintended consequences for the lives of those affected? Which is more important? To go after this relatively small amount of money or to address those other major factors, which are what this House should be debating? But no, what this Government has been doing over the last 5½ years is to devise, from time to time, a whole series of programmes to really vilify particular sets of groups in our society. I would even go further. For me, doing the former is much more important, and doing less of what we are doing now would be important. I say that because there are as many steps as we care to take within the present system that could work as effectively without this bill at all. This bill is not necessary. Work and Income could work far more effectively with these families to ensure that fraud does not take place, and where it does, that the money is recouped by its everyday interactions with these families, because it does that regularly and it does that in many different ways. But no, the Government chooses this particular approach, because somehow it taps into a vein that runs through New Zealand society. There is no leadership in tapping into that vein. I think the Minister Chester Borrows himself actually gave a very good answer when, in the second reading of this particular bill, he tried to debunk the figures that this side has been talking about in terms of the size of the fraud that this group is alleged to have perpetrated and the size of the amount of money that has been recovered from this particular group compared to the dollar value of fraud that takes place in the taxation system. Our argument has always been: where is the fairness? Where is the equality? How can we compare these two particular areas? One is a powerful group; one is a vulnerable group. What he began to say is no, in fact, we do quite a bit to actually go and recoup money from those who are tax dodgers or those who have tax debt. He says we do that and we are very, very successful. He says—obviously, as listeners would have heard—the assertion has been made from time to time that the Government is more interested in chasing after welfare debt than tax debt. Then he went on to say the energy put into recovering tax debt and the money put into covering tax debt is well in excess—in fact, it is nearly five times as much as what we are spending on welfare fraud. So what the Minister was saying to us and what I read in his comments is that the Government and the Inland Revenue Department have been successful in quietly working through the tax system to recover debt. And have we seen, in the time of this Government, a sustained attack on tax debt or tax fraud? Have we seen that? No, we have not. There has not been one. Have we seen as much as we have heard from them about welfare fraud about those who are alleged to have engaged in tax fraud? We have not. No new legislation has been proposed by this Government to reduce the number of tax dodgers or tax fraud. There has been no campaign against those who are in that particular sector. If the Minister is to be believed, the Inland Revenue Department is quietly going about its business, identifying who these people are, and, in fact, prosecuting some of them as well. The prosecution also is very interesting, because in the tax area jail sentences have been given to those who have defrauded $800,000 plus. In the welfare fraud area, it is $67,000. So there is another set of standards being applied by this Government to really tap into that vein that runs through New Zealand society against welfare fraud, or welfare in itself. There is something disingenuous about this Government’s approach to welfare. Ever since it has come into power, it has produced a whole series of terms, a whole series of language, and a whole series of legislation which, in fact, in the end, will produce nothing. But I want to talk about another aspect of this bill that is as worrying, and that is to do with relationships. Here we have people—men and women—who for whatever reason have found themselves on their own with children. Because they have to provide for those children, they have called on our State welfare to provide them with support, and we as taxpayers do that quite gladly, because you never know whose turn it is next or who might need the kind of support and the kind of safety net we provide. The belief there is that here is a group of people living in luxury and just simply taking from the State without giving anything back. The work they do bringing up children and bringing up the workers of tomorrow is never factored in. Much more seriously, here are individuals who are bringing up children, and they will, from time to time, form an attraction to somebody. Some kind of relationship develops. The way this bill is crafted, it appears as if it provides for anybody who sees a beneficiary and a sole parent in particular form a relationship, no matter what type it is—all the chattering classes will begin talking.

[Continuation line: This will be seen as an opportunity to report and complain even more to]

This will be seen as an opportunity to report and complain even more to Work and Income to say that fraud is taking place. So for a relatively small amount of money, we begin to affect the everyday lives of a very vulnerable group of people. The Government members do not care about that, but, in fact, this is quite serious. Even those people who are bringing up children on the parental benefit—how do they feel about forming relationships with others, not knowing at what point it turns into anything serious but knowing that at any time it could be seen as fraud and then prosecution will start? That begins to develop a nasty approach by the State to them and allows others to malign this group even further. We have seen the National Party do that in the past. I remember Ōrewa too and those speeches that were given at the time, because there is something that this Government does not like about those who are dependent on the State. But if somebody from business demands from the State, it is fine—it is OK, and they do that. I think that is rather unfair and something that this side of the House will want to address. On this particular occasion we are supporting the bill because we do not want to be seen to be in any way supporting fraud of any kind, but there is an inherent weakness and flaw in this bill. Thank you.

[Continuation line: Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi]

SOCIAL SECURITY (FRAUD MEASURES AND DEBT RECOVERY) AMENDMENT BILL

Third Reading

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, for the opportunity to stand and support the third reading of the Social Security (Fraud Measures and Debt Recovery) Amendment Bill . My belief is that we should have a welfare system for the people who need it. The welfare system is supported by the hard-working people who pay tax, and we should not allow people to abuse this system. This bill tries to address this issue. I think the Government has been working hard to provide for people who are not in the workforce—to help them to go into the workforce, but they should not be fraudulently abusing the system. I think this bill addresses that issue, and I commend this bill to the House.

[Continuation line: Assistant Speaker: I understand the next call is a split call.]

SOCIAL SECURITY (FRAUD MEASURES AND DEBT RECOVERY) AMENDMENT BILL

Third Reading

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I understand the next call is a split call.

SOCIAL SECURITY (FRAUD MEASURES AND DEBT RECOVERY) AMENDMENT BILL

Third Reading

POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): It is my pleasure to stand and speak on this bill, the Social Security (Fraud Measures and Debt Recovery) Amendment Bill. I have had the opportunity to speak previously, and I thank you for that. I would like to wish you a joyous and happy Easter celebration too, Mr Assistant Speaker. Firstly, I want to say that Labour supports this bill. I just want to refer to what my colleague Dr Prasad has said. We support it. We have huge reservations, but we support it because we believe—and we have reiterated this many times—that people who commit fraud and commit crime should actually receive the full weight of the law and be punished for it. So we expect people who commit crimes to also do the time as appropriate, and that is why we support it. However, beneficiaries, it seems, are easy targets. There is a populist belief that by virtue of being a beneficiary, you must actually be without merit. When there are people who are down on their luck and who no matter how hard they try cannot get paid work, we actually tend to kick them in the guts. I do not think that is particularly fair. All the effort and work that we put into chasing welfare fraud when there are billions—yes, billions not collected by the tax system; billions of dollars that could be put back in to support those most vulnerable by building our economy, increasing jobs, and paying people what they are worth. Because let us face it: if you have enough money and resources to support your family, that is what you do. But, no, this Government chooses to distract the New Zealand public with bills like this to convince them that it is actually doing some work, so that, hopefully, the stories about the ineptitude of its Ministers slide under the carpet. I bet this Government is happy that we are coming into a recess period. Relationship fraud costs us $20 million—criminalising people acting under duress or under the direction of others. Victoria University, a very credible university, is it not, says that tax evasion is 150 times more likely than benefit fraud—150 times more likely than benefit fraud. That is because in this country we have a really lax attitude to paying our fair share. When we are earning the big bucks, we would rather keep that money than pay our fair share. We want to hang on to it all. For some people it is a game; it is a joke. I say that is disgraceful. This Government wants to squeeze money from the already disadvantaged people. There is a part of this bill that talks about collecting from partners who have benefited, or may reasonably have known they have benefited, from the proceeds. I have spoken at length about the impact of family violence on our communities. Here I say that there is a very real danger that we will try to extract money from people who are already in extraordinarily unsafe situations by the very nature of their relationships and that they will find themselves experiencing the full weight of the law. I also just want to refer back to the member from across the House who talked about the 60,000 people who have come off benefits. Well, I want to give you another figure: 285,000 children living in poverty. It is shameful that we cannot do more to address that problem while chasing $20 million, and while there are billions of dollars in tax fraud waiting to be collected. I just want to summarise by saying that my views have always been clear on this bill. It is not a great piece of legislation. Rather than providing fairness, it is basically unfair and overextends the Government’s reach into the complex lives of our families. Thank you.

[Continuation line: Catherine Delahunty]

SOCIAL SECURITY (FRAUD MEASURES AND DEBT RECOVERY) AMENDMENT BILL

Third Reading

CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. I am very glad to have a chance to oppose the Social Security (Fraud Measures and Debt Recovery) Amendment Bill. It is a proud moment because the Green Party will not support bad law. No matter how much we do not like fraud by anybody, we are not prepared to put our name against a bill that we know has got some incredibly bad provisions in it, particularly around debt recovery. I would like to start with a little saying that occurred to my colleagues: not all taxpayers are hard-working, but all beneficiaries pay tax. So let us lay the demon to rest about the bludgers and recognise that, actually, people at all levels of life can commit fraud and that other people at all levels of life can do good things. The majority of people are morally interested in being part of society. The hardest thing about being a beneficiary is the moral exclusion of, and judgment against, people on benefits—which I have heard much of in the House already today—and the assumption that they are probably fraudsters and that they are probably ripping us off. The powers under the Social Security Act were already extensive, and there has always been a benefit fraud unit. I have had the dubious pleasure of being exposed to their practices, not all of them accurate. I would like to talk about some of them because the provisions of this bill are quite disturbing. As a beneficiary advocate, I had firsthand experience of just how many people, some of whom could not read or write, were very confused by Work and Income. If you ring up the Work and Income hotline and ask if you are in debt, the people cannot tell you, or they will say “You owe us $1,000.” Then one rings them the next day and they say “Oh, no, we owe you $400.” This happens to people in my family on a regular basis. The Work and Income people cannot with any reliable accuracy tell people whether they have committed fraud or not. So how is it that we are creating a bill that will make people fraudsters, when the department does not know on a daily basis whether they are or not, because of policy changes, because of staff changes, and because of an inability to give clear information to beneficiaries? Who is going to suffer from that confusion? Beneficiaries are. So one day they are a fraudster; the next day the department is in debt to them and they are trying to figure out what to do. It is very interesting. Then some cases get chosen to be carried through as fraud. Certainly some of those processes have proven to be ugly and badly done. The Green Party does acknowledge that the Associate Minister for Social Development had good intent in trying to hold the partners of beneficiaries, when fraud has been committed, to shared account. We understand his intent, but, unfortunately, it is a lot more complicated and nuanced than this bill makes it out to be. The definition of being in a relationship, as Jan Logie so eloquently described, is a lot more complicated. So we do not have the luxury of saying that it is a simple matter of just making everybody accountable. We cannot even get the accounts from the department. Let us get real about that. The clause that we are really appalled by is clause 9, which is allowing this bill to impose a new obligation on the Ministry of Social Development to take “all reasonably practicable steps to recover a debt”. I thought that that was just for fraud debt, but Jan has explained, from the Social Services Committee’s perspective, that it is not; it is for all debt. If you talk to most people on benefits, at some time they have at some level been in debt to the department because they have run out of food or money. That is not happening because they are bad, lazy bludgers on the State but because they cannot live on the amount of money they get. Christchurch is a classic case, where rents have gone up or doubled. People cannot pay for food and power as well as rent. They have to make choices, so they go along to Work and Income and say “Can I have an advance for food.” They are allowed only a certain number, and then they are in debt to the department. What does this mean? What will happen? It says “all reasonably practicable steps to recover a debt”. My other favourite—I have not got much time to speak on this; I wish I had a long time because it is important—which no one else has mentioned, is that this bill will introduce a new system for working with people who have been dishonest with the Ministry of Social Development in the past. I am really keen on a new system that will do something more important. What about people to whom Work and Income has been dishonest in the past? As somebody on the East Coast who had to force the department to tell people their full entitlement—and it took 5 years to actually change the statistics on that—I know that the department is not always honest with people and does not give them full recognition of their entitlement. So I think there is a real need for this bill to be holistic instead of targeting the people who are the most vulnerable. There are many other issues that are dubious about this bill. I think it was really interesting to see the Law Society and the Women’s Refuge having real concerns about it. The Women’s Refuge noted in its opposition that the bill does not include protections for women who are victims of domestic violence. So for all the talk on the one hand about violence, we are not addressing it in this bill. Thank you.

[Continuation line: Mike Sabin]

SOCIAL SECURITY (FRAUD MEASURES AND DEBT RECOVERY) AMENDMENT BILL

Third Reading

MIKE SABIN (National—Northland): I am very happy to take the last call on the Social Security (Fraud Measures and Debt Recovery) Amendment Bill and to commend the Associate Minister for Social Development, Chester Borrows, for it. Some of our friends on the Labour and Green benches would have us think that we have introduced a new class of criminal—that there is now some sort of criminal inequality because it is not actually the offence that matters; it is how much money is defrauded at the time of the offence. So if it is a small fraud committed by someone who is supported by the State, then that is OK, but if it is a tax fraud, then they say “Oh, this Government should do something about that.” What absolute nonsense. What an absolute load of rubbish, and nothing—

Iain Lees-Galloway: You are talking nonsense; that’s right.

MIKE SABIN: Well, if that member wants to worry as to why Labour’s polls were down around 26 percent last week, then the sorts of comments that have been coming from his colleagues during this third reading are a pretty good example of why. The reality is that the big difference here is that it is not an either/or situation. This Government takes both responsibilities equally seriously, and so the taxpayer should expect of us. If someone is supported by the State, the taxpayer should rightly expect that the State put obligations on that person not to defraud their fellow taxpayers, and that is what this bill is about. Lastly, it occurred to me during William Sio—

Le’aufa’amulia Asenati Lole-Taylor: Su’a.

MIKE SABIN: —Sio William Su’a’s contribution; thank you very much—

Iain Lees-Galloway: Other way round.

MIKE SABIN: Well, I am sure the member can assist. It occurred to me during the member’s contribution why so many former Labour Party activists and supporters in South Auckland are now signing up to National. That is because of the rubbish that comes out of that party. I wholeheartedly commend this bill to the House, and I am sure other hard-working, taxpaying New Zealanders will also do the same.

[Continuation line: Party vote on third reading]

ROAD USER CHARGES AMENDMENT BILL

Third Readings

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Associate Minister of Transport) on behalf of the Minister of Transport: I move, That the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Road User Charges Amendment Bill be now read a third time. These bills are the product of the dividing of the Land Transport and Road User Charges Legislation Amendment Bill at the Committee of the whole House. The Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Road User Charges Amendment Bill correct a small number of anomalies with the road-user charges system that affect a small number of vehicles and their owners. These changes allow for the fair and practical application of road-user charges, called RUC, in a range of unusual circumstances. The Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 2) amends the Land Transport Act 1998, which provides for a range of functions relating to land transport, including the registration and licensing of vehicles. The purpose of the bill is to enable annual charges, in lieu of road-user charges, to be collected for vehicles that are exempt from road-user charges.

Hon Member: It’s interesting.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Exactly. Some classes of vehicles are exempt from road-user charges because it is uneconomic to collect road-user charges for them. Most of these vehicles also do very little travel on roads, and already make a significant contribution to the costs they impose on the road network, through the vehicle licence fee. However, some exempt vehicles, such as fast tractors, do a sufficient amount of travel on roads to cause road wear, so it is fair that their owners should make a contribution towards the costs they impose. The bill amends the Land Transport Act to allow for an annual charge in lieu of road-user charges for these kinds of vehicles, collected through registration and licensing processes. By doing so, it allows for the fair and practical recovery of costs where collecting them through the normal processes would be impractical and uneconomic. The Road User Charges Amendment Bill amends the Road User Charges Act 2012, which provides for the regulation and administration of the collection of road-user charges for the use of roads and road wear. The main purpose of this bill is to address an anomaly for some vehicle owners who are required to pay road-user charges for their vehicle but are unable to do so because their vehicle is not registered and not legally required to be. The bill also makes other minor changes to the Road User Charges Act 2012. Unregistered road-user charges vehicles that are exempt from registration are not required to be registered or operate under a trade plate or in an unregistered state, but are subject to road-user charges unless they belong to a class of vehicle that makes them specifically exempt. However, it is not possible to issue road-user charges licences to these vehicles because the licences are linked to a vehicle’s registration number. These kinds of unregistered vehicles make only limited use of roads, and it is not cost-effective to try to collect road-user charges for them. The Road User Charges Act 2012 will be amended to allow regulations that exempt these unregistered vehicles from road-user charges. This bill also amends the Road User Charges Act to add offence provisions where light vehicles conditionally exempted from road-user charges are operated in breach of those conditions. Finally, the bill contains amendments of a technical nature, which support the policy aims behind road-user charges and rationalising enforcement activity. These clarify that a person who has entered into an arrangement to pay overdue fees by instalment will not be subject to additional penalties, allow road-user charges collectors to set a licence fee for one-off vehicles not covered by prescribed road-user charges types, and make minor amendments that allow the effective functioning of the road-user charges system. In closing, the changes proposed in these bills improve the functioning of the road-user charges system, and allow for the fair and practical application of road-user charges in a range of unusual circumstances. I commend the bills to the House.

[Continuation line: FENTON]

ROAD USER CHARGES AMENDMENT BILL

Third Readings

DARIEN FENTON (Labour): It is a pleasure to take a call on the third reading of the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Road User Charges Amendment Bill. These are the bills that the Land Transport and Road User Charges Legislation Amendment Bill has been divided into. We have been very pleased to help the Government get this legislation through. It has been quite a long saga. I think what it shows is that the Government does not always get things right. We are very generous on this side and happy to give the Government a hand to fix its mistakes. I think the only concern I have about it, though, is the long period of time, the length of the saga, around these bills. They go right back to when the Road User Charges Act was amended by the Government, back in 2009 I think it was. At that time I was on the select committee. Road-user charges bills are always very interesting to debate, and we have a range of people who come along and have news about how we should be charging for the use of the roads. There is always a great deal of interest from a range of road-users, and it can be highly technical. At the time we expressed our concern about the regulation-making powers in this bill, and we did warn the Government that it could end up in some tricky territory with it. Of course, that is exactly what happened. We have rehearsed the saga of the Regulations Review Committee and the disallowance motion moved originally by the honourable Charles Chauvel, and then the unprecedented overriding of that by the Minister by reintroducing the same regulation. I think it was the day after it was disallowed.

[Continuation line: Then, back to the Regulations Review Committee, by that time]

Then it was back to the Regulations Review Committee by that time ably chaired by my colleague the Hon Maryan Street—

Grant Robertson: More than ably.

DARIEN FENTON: More than ably and guess what happened? The regulations were disallowed again. This has gone on and on. Last August, in the middle of winter in 2013, we were in this House debating the first reading of this legislation under urgency. The provisions in the legislation that the Government was trying to get through by regulation—through the sneaky back door, if you like—were due to come into force on 1 August. Of course, that could not happen because of the disallowance motion, so we ended up under urgency and I do remember very clearly that it was about quarter to midnight when I took my first call on this legislation. I found myself very bemused about why we were debating something under urgency and, could I say, I am still bemused, given that it is now April and we have finally reached the third reading of this legislation.

Jami-Lee Ross: Hurray!

DARIEN FENTON: Yes, hurray, it is good. As I said, we have been delighted to help the Government get this right. There is no doubt about it there were anomalies in the Road User Charges Amendment Act brought in by the National Government and the proposals under this legislation are mainly to exempt fast tractors. We had quite an education on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee about what fast tractors are. It was the first time I had ever heard of fast tractors. In fact, I thought that all tractors were slow. I thought they crawled along. Mr Assistant Speaker Tisch, you probably know more about this than I do, but I had never ever seen or heard of such a thing—a tractor that could go over 40 kilometres an hour. I do remember one tractor going very slowly up the steps of Parliament several years ago driven by that very nice member Shane Ardern. What were they protesting about?

Grant Robertson: It was about climate change and their ignorance of it.

DARIEN FENTON: Oh, it was about climate change. That is right.

Hon Simon Bridges: What was the name?

DARIEN FENTON: It was Myrtle the tractor. It was about climate change and carbon tax. That is right. It just really shows you I suppose how out of touch and backwards looking the National Party was back then.

Hon Simon Bridges: Well, “backwards” was the word.

DARIEN FENTON: The Hon Simon Bridges likes to think he is forwards looking when it comes to things like carbon emissions but I have my doubts about that really, particularly when we are passing legislation just before Easter to allow fast tractors to be exempted from road-user charges. Fast tractors are those that operate over 40 kilometres per hour on the road and, instead, they will be paying an annual charge in lieu of road-user charges to cover the costs that they impose on the road network. The legislation also proposes to exempt all unregistered vehicles—that is, vehicles exempt from registration or not required to be registered, or operating under trade plates from road-user charges and apply to them an annual charge as well. As I said, we have agreed with this. I guess our major objection has been the way the Minister tried to sneak this through by of regulation instead of fronting up and saying “Look, I made a mistake.” This very generous Opposition understands that the Government gets it wrong quite often actually, but I think we have done our best to cooperate with this and get it through. We agree that we need a modern and simplified road-user charges system that has appropriate provision for compliance as well as appropriate monitoring mechanisms. The history of the road-user charges system in New Zealand goes back several years—about 30 years, I believe. But the interesting thing that I have discovered in the various road-user charges bills that I have been part of debating on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee—and the chair over there, David Bennett, will agree with me on this—is that New Zealand is actually way ahead of the game when it comes to road-user charges. In fact, many, many countries rely on petrol and diesel tax, but what is happening now in Europe is they are increasingly turning to a road-user charges system, particularly for heavy vehicles. If you think about where things are heading in New Zealand and if we think about how—

Carol Beaumont: We’re thinking ahead. They don’t do that.

DARIEN FENTON: No, well we do. They are thinking ahead just to what sort of transport system we are going to have in the next 20 or 30 years. The reality is that petrol tax, as it is today, which funds the road through hypothecation—thanks to the Hon Annette King, who actually brought that in—is declining. It is declining because cars are becoming more efficient and they are using less petrol and also car ownership is going down. So we are going to have to find a different method of funding road-user charges, if you like. It may be that all vehicles in the future have a system, an electronic system, of flagging their use and paying for it. We had a very interesting presentation last night from a company that was talking about electric cars and the future of electric cars. In my mind, I thought that where we were going with electric vehicles is that we would have to have plug-in stations all around the country—a bit like petrol stations. But now what is happening with solar power and other methods of renewal energy is that people are going to be able to have their own battery charging systems at home where they will be able to charge their electric vehicle. They are going to become much more accessible to people and over time they will become much less expensive. I also believe that diesel buses and diesel trucks will over time adopt electric technology. So we are going to have to turn our minds to a new system—a completely new system of funding our roads. Certainly, we in the Labour Party have been thinking about that and it is a challenging thing because we will have to think about different methods of charging for the use of the roads and it is always tricky—people do not like additional charges like network charges or congestion charges. Even people who pay road-user charges on their light diesel vehicles do not like that either, so it is a very challenging and demanding consideration, but we are going to have to face up to it. So although I am really pleased that the fast tractors are going to be exempted under this bill, that is only a temporary solution and I can confidently predict that we will be back sometime—if not us, then the next generation, perhaps—debating a completely different way of how we fund our roading network, our transport network. We can only vaguely imagine how different that is going to be and that is the big challenge. We are happy to support this legislation in the third reading. It has been an interesting debate but I think the debate is about to get a whole lot more interesting around how we fund our transport system.

[Continuation: D Bennett]

ROAD USER CHARGES AMENDMENT BILL

Third Readings

DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): I just want to take a short call on the legislation arising from the former Land Transport and Road User Charges Legislation Amendment Bill , because everyone has been pretty much in agreement. I was quite surprised with that last speech from Darien Fenton, actually, and why somebody in the Labour Party would want to talk for 10 minutes about transport, after this week. I have got a lot of time for Darien Fenton. She is actually a good member of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee . She is very good to work with. Actually, the last minute of her speech was more insightful, concise, and important transport policy than anything that has come out of David Cunliffe this week. When Labour members talk about fast tractors here today, why did they not make fast tractors part of their transport policy? Why did they not make fast tractors have to stay in the slow lane? Can fast tractors overtake a truck now, under the Labour Party transport policy? I think they can. If you go down the Auckland motorway—all six lanes of it—you are going to have the fast tractors overtaking trucks. That is all right in the Labour Party, because it is all about the ability to get from central Auckland to your holiday home like David Cunliffe wants to. That is what the policy is about. When you are on the southern motorway, instead of being held up by a truck, now you are going to be held up by a fast tractor, under the Labour Party. David Cunliffe will not get to his holiday home because there is a fast tractor in front of him. That is about, I will have you know, the only thing that the Labour Party will do for the agricultural sector—letting fast tractors pass trucks. I appreciate the Labour Party actually supporting this legislation here today. It is good to see Darien actually doing that. It is a shame that you did not have any input into your transport policy, which was a total disaster and gives us so much ammunition. It is the end of the Labour Party again, in transport, but it is good to see. Thank you.

[Continuation line: Andrew Little]

ROAD USER CHARGES AMENDMENT BILL

Third Readings

ANDREW LITTLE (Labour): After that contribution from that member, David Bennett, on the eve of the celebration of the resurrection, I am surprised that he should wax so eloquently on this issue. When I look at the loudest members in the House at this very point—Mr Bennett himself, Mr Auchinvole, Dr Calder, and even Mr Simon Bridges—the theme of resurrection is most apposite, because these are careers that are about to come to an end and those members are desperate for something to bring them back. Of course, they are not the only ones. There is at least one other Minister who is hoping for a miracle this weekend, and, of course, we all know what is going to happen to her. I want to say this. This legislation arising from the former Land Transport and Road User Charges Legislation Amendment Bill , with further management of road user charges for heavy vehicles and diesel vehicles and with Labour’s policy on effective management on heavy traffic on big roads, will, I think, have the making of something very special for New Zealand travellers and New Zealand drivers. I look forward to the day—very soon, in the next few months—when the next Labour-led Government will be able to complement this legislation with its new transport policies. We will have the freedom campers in their mobile homes and those who are towing their registration fee - free caravans not be held up by the big, heavy lorries in the fourth lane or in the third lane of the Waikato Expressway , which that member David Bennett trumpets loud and long every opportunity he gets. I look forward to those days when we will complement this legislation with those sensible, and I might add very popular, transport policies, because the feedback has been phenomenal. The feedback has been phenomenal. People love it and they look forward to it. They know that they have only a few months to wait. They will get to their Christmas holidays this year and the roads will be clearer. They will be able to move more rapidly, safely but rapidly, and with a lower breath alcohol rating, and life will be a lot better. I could not possibly let further comment on this legislation pass without mentioning what I know this House understands is a very important piece of roading infrastructure for New Zealand, and that is State Highway 3 in North Taranaki . That is a very important piece of roading. It carries a lot of heavy lorries, certainly a lot of trucks—in fact, maybe a fraction more than one or two—and a few heavy farm vehicles that are not routinely on the roads but that move on those roads as they move between the very well-managed and efficient farming sector in North Taranaki. It is a very lush and green farming sector in North Taranaki, and, I suspect, it is more lush and more green after this week, too. This regime, this provision in this legislation, will allow a change to the regulation of road user charges that means a fairer system can be put in place to levy those vehicles so that they are not overburdened and overcharged for the impact they have on our roads. But, most important, through doing that, we allow ourselves to approach the issue of road funding in a way that is a little more sophisticated, that is a little fairer, and that buys in that consent of the Government that is so important to democratic institutions like this Parliament. It is so important, too, when we are considering the allocation of the resources gathered through these levies and where they should be applied. That, of course, is the yawning gap in transport policy at the moment, because areas like Taranaki and roads like State Highway 3 are the ones that miss out. A road like State Highway 3 in particular is, sadly, rapidly deteriorating because of a lack of attention from this Government when it comes to the fair allocation of road funding. This Government is quite happy to plough billions into the Waikato Expressway just because it has got a new velodrome, and it wants to make sure that Mr Bennett can leave the place in quick order, but provinces in the regions in the country that actually generate the wealth that props up this Government—this shabby, nasty, grubby, little Government—are the ones that miss out. We are the ones that miss out. The good people of Taranaki are looking forward to a change of Government and to a change of MP because they know that it is high time that they had somebody in this House who has a proven track record of advocating for their interests and for their key road, their main road, which goes in and out of North Taranaki, because it is not happening now.

[Continuation line: So on that note, I reluctantly conclude my]

So on that note, I reluctantly conclude my remarks and my comments. I just say that this is good legislation and that it will do good things. I would like to conclude—

Simon O’Connor: Wish us a happy Easter.

ANDREW LITTLE: I was about to wish the House a very happy Easter, but I will exclude Mr Simon O’Connor for foreshadowing my comments because that is an unkind thing to do in the House at this time. I wish you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and, indeed, all members of the House a safe Easter weekend on our roads, and for those travelling on State Highway 3 north of Taranaki, as I will be doing, I wish them an even safer weekend. Thank you.

[Continuation line: Julie Anne Genter]

ROAD USER CHARGES AMENDMENT BILL

Third Readings

JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): This legislation makes very minor changes that we do not oppose, so the Green Party will be supporting the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Road User Charges Amendment Bill. But I think that in order to understand the minor changes, it is important to understand the entire context of the road-user charges and fuel excise duties scheme. For those who are watching at home today, road-user charges are charges that heavy vehicles, or those that are using diesel, pay. Therefore, they do not pay their tax directly. They pay road-user charges instead of fuel excise duty. Road-user charges contribute about one-third of the money to the National Land Transport Fund, which is used on transport projects. Fuel excise duty, which is obviously levied on all petrol vehicles, contributes about two-thirds of the National Land Transport Fund—$2 billion. So the total National Land Transport Fund is made up of $3 billion, about a third of which is from trucks and heavy vehicles, and two-thirds of which comes from light, passenger vehicles. This is a change under this Government. When it overhauled the road-user charges scheme, it actually reduced the contribution that was being made by large vehicles, or heavy vehicles, and increased the contribution from light petrol vehicles, or households, because it put up the petrol tax quite a bit and it basically dropped the contribution from truckies. Of course, one of the justifications for the changes to the road-user charges system was that if we made it more simple, then we would reduce evasion of road-user charges. But, of course, when submitters came and spoke to us at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee , it turned out that evasion has not fallen at all. Evasion is about the same as what it was before, but, overall, the road freight industry is paying less towards our roads than it was before the National Government came into power. One other important thing to realise is that about $1 billion of ratepayer money goes into our roads and our transport system, so although there is often some idea bandied about that roads are user-pays, that is not true at all. The entire system is full of indirect charges and cross-subsidies. About one-quarter of the entire transport budget is contributed to by ratepayers, but they actually pay for half of local roads, and local roads carry half of all vehicle trips travelled. So basically, what is happening is that there are as many vehicle trips on local roads as there are on the State highway network, but most of the money levied in fuel excise duty and road-user charges from motorists who are driving on local roads, which are paid for in part by ratepayers, is going to the State highway network, not to the local roads. That is also a consequence of policy changes by this Government, which has sucked most of the money out of the transport budget and is applying it to just a few, very expensive projects that benefit very few vehicles and people. Really, in 2014 you could not think of a worse time to be spending billions of dollars on State highways, because we already have a very mature road network, and what it really needs is to be looked after and maintained properly. But by duplicating a few of the networks in the State highway system, the Government is actually taking 75 percent of the money on new transport infrastructure and spending it on only 4 percent of the trips. I know that this is a lot of numbers and I know that that might be confusing for members opposite, but, ultimately, it is important to understand these numbers and take an objective look at how we are spending the transport budget. At the moment the National Government is spending the transport budget in a very irresponsible way. What is most concerning is the fact that not only it is spending most of the money on a very small proportion of vehicle trips, which is not going to benefit people in New Zealand when they are trying to get to work, trying to get to school, and trying to get to the shops, but also it is not even going to help our exporters, who are trying to get their product from the farm gate to the port, because most of the time they are not even travelling on the State highways that are receiving all of the money. The National Freight Demand Study, for example, shows that most of the freight in Northland does not leave Northland, so although the Government is trying to justify an extension to the motorway north of Auckland so that more people can live further north of Auckland and commute into the city by car, it justifies it on the basis that, somehow, it is going to help the economy of Northland. Well, the Pūhoi to Warkworth “Holiday Highway” does not even go into Northland, and most of the freight in Northland does not travel on that road. But it is easy for National to bandy about these slogans, which are completely meaningless, and say that it is for economic growth when, in fact, it does not understand the first thing about how to improve economic productivity or how to have a functioning transport system that is going to benefit New Zealanders well into the future. The Green Party is actually here to say that we have a smart Green vision for our country. We are going to use best-practice evidence from overseas to ensure that New Zealanders have safe, affordable options for getting to work and to school, because that is what is really important. The way that you do that is not by throwing most of the money at a few highways that carry 4 percent of vehicle trips. We need to invest in the City Rail Link in Auckland and finish it on time so that we can trains every 5 minutes. That will make a real difference to commuters in Auckland. Having a train every 5 minutes will make it much more attractive to take the train, and it will take cars off the road, so it benefits the people using the road and it benefits those who are using the train. We want to reduce public transport fares because they are too expensive—far too expensive. When you reduce public transport fares, it makes it more attractive to take the bus, and it means that there are fewer cars on the road and less congestion for those who are driving. It just makes economic sense. We want to make it safe for kids to walk and cycle to school because that is their birthright. Kids are no longer walking and cycling to school at the same rate that they used to because parents are, understandably, afraid. They fear for the lives of their children because we have spent so much money facilitating the flow of vehicles around schools, rather than putting aside safe cycle lanes and safe pedestrian ways for people to walk and cycle to school.

[Continuation line: Obviously, as all New Zealanders know]

Obviously, as all New Zealanders know, during school holidays there is not the same level of traffic congestion. A very low-cost, effective way of dealing with traffic congestion is investing $50 million a year into safe walking and cycling around schools, as the Green Party would. While this Government is wasting most of our tax dollars on projects that are not actually going to help New Zealanders get around, the Greens are standing up and saying that we believe in choice, and we are going to invest in smarter choices and ensure that there is a road-user charges system that is fair, not one that is subsidising road vehicles and road freight at the expense of everyone else. Thank you.

[Continuation line: SABIN]

ROAD USER CHARGES AMENDMENT BILL

Third Readings

MIKE SABIN (National—Northland): That was an excellent speech for the National party vote in Northland. I will take the speech of Julie Anne Genter and email it far and wide because it is a very, very good demonstration as to why the Greens are ranked absolutely nowhere on the political platform. If the member had done her homework, she would know that $800 million of the Northland economy travels down State Highway 1 and out of the Northland district. If the member had done her homework, she would also know how—in Northland—the idea of relieving congestion by building footpaths so that children can walk and cycle to school more safely is going to help someone from Pawarenga to get to school in Kaitāia . Does the member even know where I am talking about? No, because the member has no idea about Northland. I am going to make a once, and once only, special offer to Julie Anne Genter. I am going to build a little soapbox—I will even paint it green—for the member to member to go and stand on in Northland to talk about the “Holiday Highway” and how they want to get rid it of it, because everyone in Northland knows that it is a trade and economic highway. When this National Government fast-tracked that motorway, what did it do in Northland? What it did in Northland was that everyone stood up and said “Fantastic.” Why? It is not just about safety, and it is not just about the economy of that road in terms of the costs saved and the efficiencies created, but it is also because what that says to the people of Northland is that Northland matters and Northland is a place that this Government values and wants to ensure that the infrastructure exists for the economy of Northland to realise its true potential. During the economic summits I ran in 2012, the No. 1 piece of infrastructure that Northland wanted to see happen—and that was everywhere from Whangarei to Kaitāia, from Kaipara through to the Bay of Islands—was the Pūhoi to Wellsford motorway. That says something. The reality is that if that member took herself out of the bustling city for a moment and came to Northland to stand on the soapbox that I am happy to provide for her, she would actually find that out. In the real world, the philosophical ideology that the Greens think—that everyone can unicycle their logs to market—is just an absolute load of tripe, and probably why Roy Morgan Research has them on 11.5 percent today. It is probably why Roy Morgan has them on 11.5 percent. It is not because Labour has rocketed up, because they are down around 28-point-something. That is a little more than we had them on in our internal polling, with Mr Robertson, of course, at around 26 percent. I wonder what conversations will be had with Mr Cunliffe now. Anyway, I must wind this up because our very fine senior whip has just given me the old fine whip nod. In any event, this is a very good legislation because tractors and road-user charges matter. The way that this Government provides pragmatic solutions for the people who actually create the economy that this country relies on is what the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Road User Charges Amendment Bill are about. It is excellent work from Gerry Brownlee, and I am happy to commend it.

[Continuation line: O’ROURKE]

ROAD USER CHARGES AMENDMENT BILL

Third Readings

DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): New Zealand First has expressed concern about a number of amendments to road-user charges made during this term of Parliament. The Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Road User Charges Amendment Bill seek to correct some of the stuff-ups made so far. We will support the bills on that basis as far as they go, but there are many more stuff-ups that are not being addressed in these bills at all. New Zealand First has concerns for the 22,000 motorhome owners registered with the Motor Caravan Association , although the total number affected is of course many more than that. Vehicle operators in that category justifiably oppose having their road-user charges increased—mostly doubled, and sometimes trebled—because of new bandwidths and maximum permissible on-road weight charges when their weight is constant, and, in most cases, considerably less than their maximum chassis weight. There are a great number of motorhomes that are built on chassis that have a greater gross vehicle mass rating than the actual on-road weight of the motorhome. This matter should have been attended to as part of these particular stuff-ups – correction bills so that the owners of these vehicles would not be required to purchase road-user licences for a greater laden mass than the actual laden mass. The purpose of road-user charges legislation is to continue the system by imposing charges on heavy vehicles, and certain other vehicles, for their use of the roads that are in proportion to the costs that the vehicles generate. That is the whole thrust of the system. That is not what is happening with these motorhomes and they are suffering huge and unjustifiable increases in charges as a result. There should be a provision to enable motorhome-type vehicles, which are never likely to operate at near the maximum permitted laden weight, to be assigned a road-user weight that would be sufficient to cover their actual laden mass. An example is a motorhome with a gross vehicle mass of 12,000 kilograms, but an actual on-road mass of say 8,500 kilograms. Under the 2010 road-user charges their charge was $120.24. Under the 2012 changes, the owner is now required to purchase road-user charge licences for 12 tonnes, at a cost of $246.26. That, of course, is an increase of $126.02, or in other words, an increase of over 104 percent. We in New Zealand First think that is absolutely outrageous. The requirement to have all heavy vehicles operating with a road-user charge licence to cover the maximum permissible laden weight as the lesser of the rated gross vehicle mass or the vehicle’s dimension and mass—referring to rule 2002—has resulted in some excessive increases in costs to the owners.

[Continuation line: That should have been put right]

That should have been put right in this amending legislation, and it has not been attended to. The greater percentage of private motorhome owners in New Zealand are retirees, as you would expect. These people have limited income and in many cases will not easily be able to absorb such large increases in their costs. This amending legislation should have included a provision to allow motorhomes to have a road-user charge licence weight allocated that covers the actual on-road mass of the vehicle. The current regime, which captures motorhomes, and hugely increases their road-user charges liability, is grossly unfair and should have been addressed as one of the Government’s many stuff-ups where road-user charges legislation has been concerned. Although these bills are supportable as far as they go, New Zealand First places on record our strong objection to the way motorhome operators have been treated. They have not even been considered as part of these amendments, and we think they certainly should have been. I am glad to see that since I made my first reading speech on this issue the Labour Party has adopted New Zealand First’s policy on the issue. I congratulate them on doing that. We are always willing to share our policies with other sympathetic parties. I now call upon the National Government to do the same.

ROAD USER CHARGES AMENDMENT BILL

Third Readings

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National): This is a short call on the third readings of the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Road User Charges Amendment Bill. By amending the principal Acts we allow reasonable charges for diesel vehicles and all vehicles over 3.5 tonnes to be charged accurately. The vehicles that make heavy use of the roads, usually for the purpose of a successful commerce or agricultural venture, will be assured that they are paying the correct charges. Private vehicle owners will also get to share the benefits of having well-funded roads, so that we can more safely and easily reach our home or holiday destinations this coming weekend. On that note, as the final person to speak in the House today, may I wish all colleagues a happy and holy Easter. I trust we can all return restored, regenerated, reinvigorated, and ready to engage again in decisive, determined debate. Thank you.

Bills read a third time.

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE

17:02:50~The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch)

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Members, I thank you for the expressions of goodwill that have been expressed this afternoon for the Easter adjournment. Have a safe and enjoyable period, and members—

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE

17:02:59~LOUISE UPSTON (Senior Whip—National)

LOUISE UPSTON (Senior Whip—National): Sorry, I think I need to seek leave for the House to lift early, if I may do so.

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE

17:03:11~The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch)

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection.