Parliamentary debates: Thursday, 6 March 2025

The House is resumed for the extended sitting.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave for there to be a party vote on the first reading of the Term of Parliament (Enabling 4-year Term) Legislation Amendment Bill so that Te Pāti Māori can have our vote recorded.

Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is none. Clerk, please conduct a party vote.

Members, in accordance with a determination of the Business Committee, the second reading of this bill is followed immediately by the committee stage, and then the third reading.

on behalf of the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations: I present a legislative statement on the Te Korowai o Wainuiārua Claims Settlement Bill.

That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

I move, That the Te Korowai o Wainuiārua Claims Settlement Bill be now read a second time.

E kī ana te kōrero ko Matemateāonga te maunga, te kōrero a Tūroa, e rua au, he awa au, he Rauru au, aue.

E tahuri ana te whakaaro ki ngā tūpuna o te wā kua upane, kaupane nei ki runga i a tātou. Rātou hoki nā rātou hoki i tā mai i te tāmoko a tūpuna mātua ki runga ki te Tiriti o Waitangi, ā, ko ngā tūpuna i roto o W’anganui. Rere-ō-maki, tērā wahine rangatira, tatū atu rā ki ōna tūngāne, ki a Anaua, ki a Te Māwai, tae atu ki a Takaremi mā nā rātou anō i hiki te kawenata tapu e kīia nei ko Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

Nōku te Hōnore ki te kawe mai i tēnei kōrero ki mua i te aroaro o tēnei Whare Pāremata ki te tautoko hoki i te anga whakamua o tēnei pire, Te Pire Whakataunga Kerēme a Te Korowai o Wainuiārua, mō tōna pānuitanga tuarua.

Tēnei pire e whakatinana nei i Te Tihi o Rae, te kawenata i tāia mai e Te Korowai o Wainuiārua me te Karauna i tērā tau, i te Hurae 2023. Me te mea nei tēnei kawenata tapu i whakatau hoki i ngā kerēme hītori, her-tori hoki i raro i te Tiriti o Waitangi mō Te Korowai o Wainuiārua, ēnei e whakakanohi nei i ngā ritenga me ngā āhuatanga o ngā iwi e toru e kīia nei ko Tamakana, ko Tamahaki, ko Uenuku ki Manga-nui-o-te-ao nā Tūkaihoro, arā kei roto hoki i te ngahere nui me te awa nui, Te Wainuiārua, te wai heru o ngā tūpuna mātua, te wai tuku kiri o te pō.

Tēnei pire, e toru ōna whāinga. Tuatahi ko te whakatau i ngā āhuatanga e pā ana ki tō tātou tuakiritanga me te taha pūtea, tae atu ki te whakapāha a te Karauna. E kī ana te kōrero a taku hoa Minita, a Minita Metekōura, ā, ākuanei hoki tōna pānuitanga tuatoru ka kitea te nui me te rahi hoki o ōna āhuatanga katoa.

Me te mea nei e tika ana te kōrero ki te āta mihi maioha ki a rātou kua nunumi atu ki te pō, nā rātou hoki i kawe tēnei kaupapa ki tōna māramatanga. Ā, ko taku matua a Boyd Cribb, ko ia hoki he hoa hutupōro, he hoa inu waipiro me taku matua, a Paddy, ki te karapu hutupōro o Raetihi. E hoa mā! Ka nui hoki ērā pō i a au e taitamariki ana e whaiwhai nei, me kī, i ngā aihikirīmi ki ngā toa hokohoko o Raetihi.

Me mihi ki a ia, ki a Matua Boyd, tatū atu rā ki a ngā ruanuku me ngā ruahine katoa o tērā moka, o tērā ripo hoki o ngā awa e tāheke nei i Te Kāhui Maunga; Matua te Toa, Matua te Mana, tae atu ki Te Matapihi ki roto i Te Moana-nui-tāpokopoko-a-Tāwhaki. Nā reira mai i Te Kāhui Maunga ki Tangaroa, e tahuri ana te whakaaro ki a rātou hoki o tēnei kaupapa, Te Korowai o Wainuiārua.

Me te mōhio hoki ka nui te ihi, te wehi, te wana, te wehi i whakapau kaha atu ērā momo pērā i a Boyd Cribb, engari te hunga ora o nāianei. Arā a Aiden, kātahi anō ia ka wehe i a ia mai tō mātou kāhui o Te Wainuiārua ki te whare o te Public Trust, ki reira hoki tū ai te whakatau i te ata nei.

Me mihi kāmehameha ka tika ki a rātou nā rātou i whakatōpū nei i ngā riri, i ngā namu, i ngā āwangawanga hoki o ēnei iwi kia tau ki tōna māramatanga mai i te pō ki te ao.

Tēnei pire i tukuna atu ki te Komiti Take Māori i te 13 o Aperira i tēnei tau tonu. Tekau mā whā ngā pepa i tukuna atu mō te pire nei, ngā tono, me te mea nei e tahuri ana ngā mihi kauanuanu ki ngā mema o tērā komiti, ngā mema katoa ahakoa te pāti kahurangi, te pāti whero, te pāti kākāriki, tō tātou pāti Māori, ahakoa ko wai, ahakoa ko hea tōna tae, e mihi ana ki ngā mema o te komiti nā ratou anō i whakahoki i tēnei kaupapa ki uta kia tae ki tōna taunga, koia hoki kia tae ki tōna taunga, koia hoki ko te rā nei tōna pānuitanga tuarua. Kāore e roa ka tae mai te iwi, ka tae mai te marea ki te whakarewa i tōna pānuitanga tuatoru.

Me te mea nei e mihi ana ki ngā āpiha a Te Arawhiti, a Chris McKenzie mā, engari ki taku tuakana, a Aiden, me taku Uncle Baldy, Paora Haitana tana ingoa tūturu, engari tōna ingoa ko Uncle Baldy. Ko ia hoki tētahi o ngā amokura kaihoe o te tira hoe waka o W’anganui, me ērā o ngā kuia mōrehu, ngā māreikura hoki nā rātou anō i toutou ngā ahi kā i ngā papa kāinga ki runga i Te Awa Tupua, ā, ko Mangapāpapa tērā, ko W’itianga tērā, ko Parinui tērā, ko Tieke tērā, me ērā o ngā wāhi katoa.

E ai ki te kōrero ko Te Waimarino i tēnei wā. Kei whea kē mai te ingoa, a “National Park”, engari ko Te Waimarino tērā. Nā rātou anō i kohikohi i ngā take katoa o tēnei kerēme kia pūāwai mai ngā moemoeā a tūpuna mātua.

I te ata nei i rangona hoki te riri me te mataku hoki, te whakatūpato a taku tuakana, a Tūrama, me taku kaihoe matua, a Hayden Tūroa, e pā ana ki te mata kino o ngā Kāwana tawhito pērā i a Kāwana Kerei mā, pērā i a Kāwana Thomas Gore Browne mā, pērā hoki i ngā tāngata ko ō rātou ingoa e tāia ki ngā ingoa tiriti o Te Ūpoko-o-te-ika. Ā, ko Stout tērā, ko Whitmore tērā, ko Wakefield tērā, me tā rātou whakatūpato ki a mātou katoa o te Whare Pāremata i te ata nei, me kaua e whai i te tauira o ērā tāngata, engari me hāngai hoki ki te anga whakamua i ēnei momo mahi.

Ko aku mihi mai i te ngākau iti rawa ki a Aiden mā, ā, ki a Chris mā, ā, ki a Paora mā, tatū atu rā ki ngā kuia nā rātou anō i whakarewa tēnei kaupapa ki tōna taunga i tēnei wā, mai i te kororipo, ā, ki uta.

Me te mea nei, kore e taea e au te tū wahangū i tēnei wā i te mea i tāngangae taku pito ki te whare ora o Raetihi. I whānau mai au ki reira, i tupu mai au ki reira me te papa hahau korowhā ki Mākaranui, tērā wāhi motuhake ki waenganui i Ohakune me Raetihi. I reira hoki i tupu ake mātou ko taku pā harakeke, me te reo ā-whakapapa, ngā tātai aroha ki roto i ōku ake, me ngā kōiwi o ngā urupā ki Raetihi, tatū atu rā ki Waimarino me ngā awa e teretere mai nā i Te Kāhui Maunga, ā, ko Manga-nui-o-te-ao, ko Mangaturuturuā, tatū atu rā ki ērā wai māori katoa.

Ētahi o ērā wai māori kua tukuna atu ki te roimata tuatahi nā Te Rauamua ki te awa o Waikato, engari ko tōna mātotorutanga me ū ki Te Matapihi.

[The saying goes Matemateāonga is the ancestral mountain, the phrasing of Tūroa, I am of two lines of descent, I am of the river, and I am of Rauru, alas.

My thoughts now turn to the ancestors of this time that have come upon us. Those who made their ancestral marks of identity on the Treaty of Waitangi, and the ancestors within W’anganui. Rere-ō-maki, that noble lady, and also including her brothers, Anaua, Te Māwai, and including Takaremi and others who took up the sacred covenant known as the Treaty of Waitangi.

It is my honour to convey these statements before the presence of this House of Parliament to also support the progress of this bill, Te Korowai o Wainuiārua Claims Settlement Bill, for its second reading.

This bill that implements the Korowai o Wainuiārua deed of settlement, the covenant that was signed by Te Korowai o Wainuiārua and the Crown last year, in July 2023. Subsequently, this sacred covenant settles historical and her-storical claims under the Treaty of Waitangi for Te Korowai o Wainuiārua, those that represent the practices and attributes of the three iwi known as Tamakana, Tamahaki, and Uenuku at Manga-nui-o-te-ao of Tūkaihoro—that is, within the great forest and the great river, Te Wainuiārua, the grooming waters of the ancestors, and the bathing waters of those who have passed on.

This bill, it has three goals. First is to settle the features that related to our identity and financial concerns, and also including the apology of the Crown. As my ministerial colleague Minister Goldsmith said, so it will reach it third reading and then the size and scope of all of its attributes will be seen.

Consequently, the statement is accurate that those who have disappeared into the darkness should be generously acknowledged, those who conveyed this initiative to its revelation. And my uncle Boyd Cribb, he is a rugby mate and a drinking buddy of my father, Paddy, at the rugby club of Raetihi. Oh boy! There were so many of those nights when I was a young child pursuing, I should say, the ice creams in the Raetihi shops.

I should acknowledge him, Uncle Boyd, and also all of those sage men and women of that place, of that whirlpool of the river that flows from the Alpine Clan; Tongariro, Ruapehu, and including Te Matapihi in the Tasman Sea. And so from the Alpine Clan to the ocean, my thoughts now turn to those of this subject, Te Korowai o Wainuiārua.

We are also aware of the magnitude of excellence, awe-inspiring perfection, the awe that was expended by the likes of Boyd Cribb, but also the people alive at present. That is Aiden, who has only recently left the organisation of Te Wainuiārua to the office of the Public Trust, where the official welcome was held this morning.

It is appropriate to greatly acknowledge them, those who consolidated all the anger, the irritation, and concerns of this iwi so that it may reach enlightenment from the darkness into the light.

This bill was allocated to the Māori Affairs Committee on 13 April this year. Fourteen papers were forwarded to the committee concerning this bill, submissions, and consequently the respectful thanks go to the members of that committee, all of the members regardless of whether they are of the blue party, the red party, the green party, our Māori Party—regardless of who they are or of what colour they are, I thank the members of that committee who have returned this initiative to shore to its destination, indeed to reach its destination, and this is the day of its second reading today. Before long, the people will arrive, the public will arrive to launch it on its third reading.

Consequently I acknowledge the officials of Te Arawhiti, Chris McKenzie and others, but to my senior, Aiden, and my Uncle Baldy, Paora Haitana is his real name, but his name is Uncle Baldy. He is also one of the noble paddlers of the flotilla of W’anganui, and those surviving matriarchs, the matrons who kept the home fires burning at the homesteads on the Celestial River, including Mangapāpapa, W’itianga, Parinui and Tieke, and all of those places.

They say that it is Te Waimarino at this time. The name “National Park” is awesome, but that is Te Waimarino. They were the ones who gathered all of the issues of this claim so that the aspirations of the ancestors and forebears may flourish.

This morning we felt the anger and the fear too, and the warning of my senior, Tūrama, and my most senior paddler, Hayden Tūroa, regarding the evil countenances of previous Governors, the likes of Governor Grey and others, Governor Thomas Gore Browne and others, similar to those people whose names are stamped on the street names of Wellington. That includes Stout, Whitmore, Wakefield, and their warning to all of us of the House of Parliament this morning, that we should not follow the example of those people, but we should face towards the future in such endeavours.

My humble heart thanks Aiden and others, Chris and others, Paora and others, and including the matriarchs who launched this initiative towards its destination at this time, from within the whirlpool, and to shore.

Consequently I could not merely stand here in silence at this time because my navel was umbilically connected to the house of wellbeing in Raetihi. I was born there, I grew up there on the golf course at Mākaranui, that special place in between Ohakune and Raetihi. That is also the place that my family was raised, in the intergenerationally transmitted language, and the ranks of love within my own, and the bones of the cemeteries at Raetihi, and including Waimarino and the rivers that flow from the Alpine Clan, Manga-nui-o-te-ao, Mangaturuturuā, and including all of those fresh water streams.

Some of those freshwater sources have discharged into the first tear of Te Rauamua, into the Waikato River, but its depths must remain at Te Matapihi.]

This second reading today is another important step in the settlement process before the third reading—funny that, second reading then third reading—which will result in the full and final settlement of the historical and her-storical Treaty of Waitangi claims of Te Korowai o Wainuiārua.

I’m very privileged and humbled to have this chance to convey my acknowledgements to the exemplary work of the negotiators and, in particular, my uncle Boy Cribb, who used to be quite an excitable and enthusiastic colleague of my father at the Raetihi Rugby Club many, many years ago in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

I had the great fortune of being born in Raetihi at the maternity ward that then existed up on the hill behind the school, and grew up in my early formative years for seven years on Grey Street in Raetihi and on Golf Road, on the first hole of the golf course of Waimarino between Raetihi and Ohakune in a place called Makaranui—no shop, three houses: it was us, the Alerbys, and another whānau.

It gives me great pleasure to tautoko the progress of this claims settlement bill to its expected conclusion later on this morning. I commend the Te Korowai o Wainuiārua Claims Settlement Bill to the House and thank all those members, no matter which party you’re from or which hat you wear, for the work that has been undertaken by the Māori Affairs Committee to tautoko our whānau to get to this denouement of the settlement. Tēnā tātou katoa.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

E te Māngai o te Whare. Ka tangi te tītī, ka tangi te kākā, ka tangi hoki ko ahau. Ko te mihi tuatahi ki te atua nāna nei ngā mea katoa. Ko te mihi tuarua ki te Whare e tū nei, tēnā koe.

Āpiti hono, tātai hono, te hunga mate ki te hunga mate. Āpiti hono, tātai hono, te hunga ora ki te hunga ora. Nō reira tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, huihui mai tātou katoa.

[As the muttonbird and the kākā cry, so too do I. The first acknowledgment is to the god who created all things. My second acknowledgment is to the House standing here, greetings.

The lines are drawn, the dead to the dead, the lines are drawn, the living to ourselves. And so salutations and acknowledgments to you and to us collectively.]

I rise today to speak on the Te Korowai o Wainuiārua Claims Settlement Bill. The bill represents an important milestone in the long and difficult journey towards justice for the people of Te Korowai o Wainuiārua. This bill, when passed, will give effect to the deed of settlement that was signed on 29 July back in 2023, settling the historical Treaty of Waitangi claims of Te Korowai o Wainuiārua. It acknowledges in law the huge injustices done to and suffered by the iwi Tamahaki, Tamakana, and Uenuku ki Manganui-o-te-Ao, and it also lays the foundation, most importantly, for the future in which Te Korowai o Wainuiārua can claim their rightful place as kaitiaki of their whenua, their awa, and their taonga.

The grievances of Te Korowai o Wainuiārua are real. They are lived experiences that have shaped generations—experiences of war, dispossession, economic deprivation, and cultural loss. These are the grievances that echo through the centuries and continue to impact on whānau, hapū, and iwi in Aotearoa.

Te Korowai o Wainuiārua have long occupied the central North Island. Their area of interest spans over 600,000 hectares, including large parts of Whanganui and Tongariro national parks, the upper Whanganui River, and the National Park township. Their lands are bordered by their rohe of eight other iwi, reflecting the rich and interwoven history of tangata whenua across that region. However, the story of Te Korowai o Wainuiārua in the past two centuries has been one of relentless pressure, forced conflict, and systematic alienation from their whenua and their rights as tangata whenua.

The first great wound came in the form of war, a war that forced ancestors of Te Korowai o Wainuiārua into conflict, sometimes with their own kin. The Crown’s relentless military campaigns in Whanganui saw communities devastated, land taken, and traditional structures of governance and authority shattered.

The second wave of destruction came through the relentless march of Crown purchasing. The supposed agreements and transactions that happened in the 19th century were often conducted in bad faith, with the Crown failing to uphold its promises to set aside and protect tribal reserves. Instead, vast areas of land were alienated, leaving Te Korowai o Wainuiārua virtually landless today.

The taking of land for public works then compounded the loss. Land was seized for hydroelectric projects, for railway construction, and for defence purposes, always with little or no regard for the rights and wellbeing of the people who called this land their home. The construction of the North Island main trunk railway, for example, cut straight through the very heart of Te Korowai o Wainuiārua land, yet the iwi were left without benefit, without redress, and without their whenua.

Perhaps most wrongly were the tracts of land that were taken in the creation of Tongariro and Whanganui national parks, parks that remain places of great natural beauty and cultural significance. Yet those parks were established without the consent of the very people who had cared for these lands for generations. In effect, Te Korowai o Wainuiārua found themselves stranded in their own whenua, their connections to their tūrangawaewae eroded by the actions of successive Governments.

The loss of land was devastating but this was not the only loss. The Crown’s actions and omissions led to generations of social and economic deprivation. Without land, economic stability was impossible. Without economic stability, communities struggled. Poverty took root where prosperity should have flourished. Opportunities for advancement were lost and few, and State policies only deepened that divide.

Alongside the economic impact came the slow but deliberate erosion of Te Korowai o Wainuiārua’s cultural and societal structures. The decline of te reo Māori, the fragmentation of traditional governance, and the undermining of tribal identity all resulted from the Crown’s neglect and active suppression of Māori rights and culture. These losses are, quite simply, immeasurable and no settlement can ever fully restore what has been lost and what was taken. But today, through this bill, we acknowledge these injustices, and we take a step towards reconciliation.

The settlement provided for in this bill is long overdue. It is a recognition at the highest level of the wrongs committed against Te Korowai o Wainuiārua, and it represents a promise that such injustices will never be repeated—even though we have the Treaty principles bill.

Part 1 of this bill contains a formal, historical account of the injustices suffered by Te Korowai o Wainuiārua. It includes the Crown’s acknowledgment and, crucially, a formal apology. Words alone cannot be enough but they are necessary and they mark the Crown’s acceptance of its past failures and signal a commitment to a different future together.

The second part of the bill provides statutory acknowledgements over 22 areas, and deeds of recognition over 13 separate sites. It provides opportunities that restore the role of Te Korowai o Wainuiārua as kaitiaki over their land of deep cultural significance. It makes changes to official place names, ensuring that the stories of whenua are told in the language of its people. The bill provides for the vesting of 19 cultural redress properties, including three that will be jointly held with other iwi, and it includes Te Korowai o Wainuiārua in the governance of the Tongariro-Taupō Conservation Board and development of its conservation management strategy. I think that’s what’s called co-governance. These provisions ensure that Te Korowai o Wainuiārua can reclaim their rightful role as the guardians and protectors of their land, with a voice in decisions that affect themselves and their rohe.

The final part of the bill outlines the commercial redress that forms part of the settlement. This includes the transfer of significant commercial property, such the former Waikune Prison site and Crown forest land at Erua. The bill also grants Te Korowai o Wainuiārua a right of first refusal over specific lands in the future, ensuring that should the Crown make land available, the iwi have the first opportunity to claim what is rightfully theirs.

Beyond what is contained in this bill, there is also financial and commercial redress of $21.7 million. Cultural redress agreements with Government agencies include revitalisation funding of $6.85 million. These are not handouts. They are not charity. They are a small portion of what was unjustly taken—returned in recognition of the historical, ongoing harm inflicted upon Te Korowai o Wainuiārua, and they are but a drop in the bucket of what was lost by these people.

This bill has progressed through select committee, and we considered the amendments, and it is important to acknowledge that there have been good changes done through the select committee process. We also acknowledge the ongoing dialogue between Te Korowai o Wainuiārua and Ngāti Hāua regarding their overlapping interests.

In conclusion, this settlement is not the end to this journey but is an essential step forward not only for Te Korowai o Wainuiārua but for Aotearoa. It is a recognition of the wrongs in our past, it’s a commitment to a partnership going forward, and it’s a pathway to a stronger, more just future.

Te Korowai o Wainuiārua, I acknowledge your endurance, your strength, and your unbreakable connection to your whenua and your whakapapa. This bill is for you, your tamariki, and your mokopuna. May it be a foundation upon which you can build, thrive, and reclaim what is yours. Nā reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

Ki kō, ki kō, ki kō—tirohia!

Kei whea te taunga o te Tītīwaitori?

Parepare mai ra koe i te tautara

E nono tītaka, tē tau i te mauri

Kataina mai rā e te kōkako,

“Kōaka, kōaka!”

Kia whakataukī te manu tūī,

Tuia, tuia, i te pūaotanga

Kia whakapurua ki te remu o te Huia

Ka whakarongo ki te tangi

a te kawekaweā, kawea mai rā

i te tō-matomato-tanga o te tōmairangi.

E rongo koe i te pīpīwharauroa

“Kūī, kūī, whitiwhiti ora!”

Kia whakapainga ki te Manu Tawhiorangi

ka puta, ka ora nā e.

[Over there, over there—look!

Where’s the resting place of the muttonbird

You may be diverted by the fantail

from the crossbeam of the sacred latrine,

by its flitting about, constantly alighting

filled with life’s energy,

and then be teased by the kōkako,

or the godwit.

And when the parson bird proclaims,

“Be bound together, together.”, at dawn,

be adorned with the tail feather of the huia

Listen to the cry of the long-tailed cuckoo

Heralded from way up on high

from whence comes the dew

May you hear the shining cuckoo,

“Cooey, cooey, good health!”,

And may you be adorned

with the blight bird (whiorangi)

Hence arising. and achieving wellness.]

I tēnei ata i noho tahi mātou, mema Pāremata, ki te taha o ngā uri o Te Korowai o Wainuiārua, Tamakana, Tamahaki, Uenuku, me te rongo i te mamae o te ngākau. Tā rātou kī, “He kokonga whare ka kitea; engari he kokonga ngākau e kore e kitea”.

Nō reira ki runga i tērā taimahatanga me te rongo i te tangi hotuhotu a te iwi ki roto i te Whare, e mihi kau ana ki a rātou. Ahakoa kāore rātou i konei, e tika ana me mihi atu.

Me tēnei pao, tēnei mōteatea nā Te Māreikura, ko Ki kō tērā, hei Hōnore, hei hononga ki a rātou kua mene atu ki te pō, me te maha o ngā whakaahua, te maha o ngā ika i kawea mai e tērā iwi, o Te Korowai o Wainuiārua ki roto i te Whare. Nō reira e te iwi, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou.

Tamakana, Tamahaki, Uenuku, e mihi ana ki a koutou.

[This morning, we, members of Parliament, sat together with the descendants of Te Korowai o Wainuiārua, Tamakana, Tamahaki, Uenuku, and we felt the anguish of their hearts. They said, “The corners of a house are clear to see; but the corners of the heart can never be seen.”

And so, with respect to those difficulties and hearing the anguished cries of the iwi inside the House, I acknowledge them. Even though they are not here, it is appropriate to acknowledge them.

And this song, this ancient composition written by Te Māreikura, called “Ki kō”, to honour and connect with those who have gathered in the night, and the many portraits, the many dearly departed that were brought here by that iwi, by Te Korowai o Wainuiārua, into the House. So to the iwi, greetings and thanks to you.

Tamakana, Tamahaki, Uenuku, I acknowledge you.]

I mihi to these humble iwi that come before us for an important day for their people and for their mokopuna into the future. Because we heard very clearly today as they came into the Whare for the pōhiri the heaviness of the heart and the many photos that they brought of their mate [dearly departed] who have passed during the negotiations process and their leadership—the tribal leadership—who have carried the mamae of their ancestors through the negotiations.

I acknowledge the chair, I acknowledge the negotiators, and I acknowledge those on the Crown’s side who have done the work to come and bring this settlement to fruition for the uri of Tamahaki, Tamakana, and Uenuku, otherwise known as Te Korowai o Wainuiārua. As they shared, this is a tough time for them as they reflect on the opportunity of today and what today brings, but tomorrow there are still challenges ahead in terms of what is a Crown-Māori relationship. It was shared clearly with us in the pōwhiri the way with which they still hold and worry about the prejudice that Māori face tomorrow, today, and what they are facing right now with laws and acts of the Government of the day.

Landlessness is a key theme of the people of Korowai o Wainuiārua, and I pay tribute to them for the tolerance that they have had as a people—tolerance and patience for the Crown to finally honour Te Tiriti o Waitangi in some small way. This settlement goes a small way in righting the wrongs of the past. It’s not an easy thing to be labelled, to be profiled, and to be called rebels in your own territory. It’s not OK that these people came with open hearts to a negotiating table, carrying those burdens of the past, the blood spilt, the land lost, the fact that much of it was taken through public works and for the benefit of all New Zealanders, and now we come to this point whereby they do still carry the mamae.

I want to pause and just reflect on that mamae, because getting to this point of settlement has been a long-fought journey for Te Korowai o Wainuiārua. And while we might give them one to two cents in the dollar for this settlement today, it is about what is the enduring relationship with the Crown. Much of what they have within their rohe is within Department of Conservation (DOC) estate. Much of what they have within their rohe is in private hands. We have national infrastructure going through their tribal rohe. So what mana whakahaere get into the future in their tribal rohe is a question that always weighs heavy on my heart when I think about the losses and the way with which these people were branded rebels.

In the whaikōrero this morning we heard from those who addressed us about the colonial footprint that Aotearoa has and the way with which colonial oppressors—those who represented the Crown, whether it be Wakefield, Onslow, Hobson—they’re all commemorated in street names, they are commemorated in school names. How do we hiki that? How do we actually bring forth the stories so that New Zealand does understand the work of the New Zealand Company and its impact—the footprint across the rohe. How do we tell those stories so that we have a stronger, better connection as New Zealanders to our colonial history so that Korowai o Wainuiārua can stand and say, “Yes, this is a part of the colonial footprint in our rohe and this is what happened to us.”

There was a lot lost, whether it be the Ruapehu purchase, and where they had 40,000 acres within the Whanganui area in 1848 taken for £1,000 and there were meant to be reserves set aside; or whether it was to put that national infrastructure, like the reriwei—the railway—that goes right through their towns, their villages. How do we tell the story of loss? That was something that came through in the Treaty principles bill submissions from Veronica Tawhai, may I share, where she said that, actually, there’s a huge amount of research, there’s a huge amount of stories told in the Waitangi Tribunal, whether it be the technical research, the tribal histories, or the evidence presented. How do we uplift that and make it something that New Zealand can listen, learn, share, and understand better?

The settlement here today is a part of just one part of the story of Korowai o Wainuiārua. The benefit that they have of having this building block of the $21 million in commercial redress is just part of their journey, but, actually, the journey of the tribe to get to this point in the 184 years since the signing of Te Tiriti o Waitangi is important for community, for our schools, for our civic leaders to understand as a part of our maturing as a nation.

As we heard this morning from kaikōrero, we’re not going to haere ngātahi; we’re going to haere taki rua, iwi Māori and te Kāwanatanga. I thought that was a really nice way of putting it that, actually, we will work on our side as iwi Māori and then as Kāwanatanga—you work on your side and let’s try and move forward together with a really strong, meaningful relationship. I think that this is a good stepping stone to provide a financial building block for the people. There are relationship agreements in there.

I think about the DOC estate, because there’s a huge DOC estate within their tribal rohe. They have aspirations for ecosystem restoration, they have aspirations around how they can tiaki and taiao. It is hoped that through the agreements and the relationships of these negotiations and the settlement, ultimately, that Te Korowai o Wainuiārua has the opportunity to put their hands on the steering wheel and then start directing what is the strategic future for these lands and territories within their rohe.

Now, when I think about some of what is being given back, it does come with a lot of mahi ahead. I think about our post-settlement governance entities and how we can build capacity and capability, because we’re just unlocking the door of capacity, and how do we support as the Kāwanatanga to grow the capability so that the iwi can move forward with confidence? These are some questions that I have in my head as I consider the settlements that come through. We are opening a door and providing resource—we might provide lands, mountains, rivers—and then how do we support building capability so that they can move forward with confidence, working alongside the Kāwanatanga, tari Kāwanatanga, kaunihera even in their own tribal rohe.

I will continue on asking these questions throughout the day, and I look forward to seeing our people join us after they’ve finished their parakuihi. Kia ora.

Good morning, everyone. Thank you very much. I’m going to lean on my ignorance; I don’t know a lot about this piece of legislation. I don’t actually sit on the Māori Affairs Committee, and it’s been a pleasure this morning to hear some of the oratory and the speeches shared about Te Korowai o Wainuiārua and their history.

Mr Speaker, as you rightly point out, the bill acknowledges the signing of Te Tiriti o Waitangi in Whanganui in 1840. Tūpuna of Korowai o Wainuiārua sought to enter a partnership with the Crown and clearly, evident from the speeches this morning, that relationship didn’t come to its fulfilment. The bill acknowledges the Crown breached the agreement and failed to protect iwi, hapū, and whānau of Te Korowai o Wainuiārua. The cultural redress regards geographical names, membership of conservation boards, and advisory committees.

The Crown’s failure to actively protect te reo o Whanganui is a breach of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and I think this is something the House is continually canvassing; I certainly heard that this morning. Thus, the Crown acknowledges that, in the second half of the 20th century, Te Korowai o Wainuiārua children who attended Crown-established schools were punished for speaking their own language. I don’t happen to speak Māori; I speak another language. I would be horrified if I was punished for speaking that. This is something of a nonsense and yet, sadly, this happened in our history. They were declined to speak te reo—try and reconcile that.

Major areas of change the bill affects and matters contained in the deed of settlement signed between the Crown and Te Korowai o Wainuiārua on 29 July 2023: it provides for the final settlement of historical Treaty claims resulting in Crown actions or omissions before 21 September 1992; the redress and some of the funds appropriated are $21 million in financial and commercial redress—seems like a small amount given the inordinate loss of land and life and property that went through this journey of these good people—$6.8 million in cultural funding so they can enhance what it means to be the people from this area, Te Korowai o Wainuiārua; the return of 19 sites of cultural significance and 12 commercial properties, including Crown forestry land at Erua and the former prison site which was formerly mentioned; conservation management redress to support establishment of a predator-free - proofed eco sanctuary. What a lovely idea. I think that is certainly something that the Crown would be interested in partnering with these good people. There is a seat at the Tongariro-Taupō Conservation Board, and various other relationships with Crown agencies.

I won’t over-litigate the issue. I’m looking forward to the company of these good people when they come in for the third reading later on today. I think it will be a pleasure to learn more as the speeches traverse the process in the House. Thank you for your time; thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is a privilege and a pleasure to rise on behalf of New Zealand First in support of Te Korowai o Wainuiārua Claims Settlement Bill. I’d just like to begin my contribution by acknowledging the Hon Tama Potaka, who led our Parliament this morning in the second reading of this bill.

One of the beautiful things that we get to witness is the whānau connection that we find our parliamentary colleagues have when we’re speaking to claims settlement bills, and noting that the Hon Tama Potaka was raised in Raetihi, in the area that we’re talking about regarding this Treaty settlement bill. No shop, three houses—that sort of takes us and gives us a very clear picture of the life that he grew up in, in a place that we’re talking about today. Yes, it has been a long and difficult journey, as Ginny Andersen has mentioned, and Hūhana Lyndon noted also the tolerance of the iwi of Te Korowai o Wainuiārua throughout this settlement journey.

Te Korowai o Wainuiārua Claims Settlement Bill acknowledges the historical breaches of Te Tiriti o Waitangi by the Crown towards the iwi of Te Korowai o Wainuiārua. Now, these breaches include the acquisition of really significant lands, and no one could doubt that; anyone who’s traversed the North Island through those regions around Ruapehu, the Desert Road—it’s magnificent country. These breaches also were the failure to consult or adequately protect the iwi’s interests and the detrimental impacts on the iwi’s culture—that’s without question—the language, and we’ve mentioned that here today, and great impact also on the socioeconomic wellbeing of the whānau there.

The bill outlines a deed of settlement, which will serve as a formal agreement between the parties, detailing the terms of reconciliation, including land settlements, financial compensation, and cultural revitalisation initiatives. That’s the forward-looking part of this Treaty settlement journey: that there is that revitalisation. That’s the restoration of economic wellbeing through the financial redress. Our New Zealand First position is that we believe that Treaty settlements must be final, just, and forward-looking. That’s why I mention that here. These historical grievances must be addressed in a way that is really sensitive to the past but also actually allows the iwi and the wider community to look forward and move forward together. Settlements such as this one are essential to that restoration of economic independence and the construction of cultural identity, so that the iwi have the means by which to construct their own future, reclaiming their power, not just culturally but also from an economic position as well.

I would like to talk a little bit about the historical grievances that relate to the experience of war in Whanganui, which forced Te Korowai o Wainuiārua, their ancestors, into conflict with each other—conflict with their own kin. I think it’s a really hard thing for us to imagine what that would be like today if we were forced to fight our own family. The Crown’s purchasing and the failure to make and protect tribal reserves; the public works takings, in particular for hydroelectric generation, defence purposes, and the construction of the North Island main trunk railway line; being made virtually landless, in particular Tongariro and Whanganui National Parks; the decline of te reo Māori; and the fragmentation of Te Korowai o Wainuiārua tribal structures—those impacts are huge and they reverberate for generations.

The cultural redress as part of this Treaty settlement will provide statutory acknowledgments over 22 areas, deeds of recognition over 13 areas, two overlay classifications, changes to five place names, the vesting of 19 redress properties, provisions for iwi involvement in the Tongariro-Taupō Conservation Board, development of the Tongariro-Taupō Conservation Management Strategy, and commercial redress, which will provide $21.7 million in financial and commercial redress.

Just acknowledging the committee process, it didn’t really seem that long ago now that we had our first reading and then it went off to the select committee. It was referred to the committee on 11 April 2024. They considered submissions from 14 interested groups and individuals and heard oral evidence from eight submitters. I’d like to thank the chair of the committee, Dan Bidois, and the rest of the committee, made up from members from across the House, for the work and diligence of shepherding the bill through. They recommended all amendments unanimously, and there were a number of amendments: changes relating to the Erua Forest sanctuary, changes to Part 3 around commercial redress, also land adjacent to Waimarino Reserve and the national park. There were a number of changes that came through the committee and all recommended unanimously.

In conclusion, as it is important that we are here and ready for the third and final reading when the whānau come to the House, I’d like to conclude my speech by saying that New Zealand First supports this bill. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Matua, Tama, Wairua Tapu me ngā Anahera Pono, me te Māngai hei tautoko mai.

Tēnā koutou e te Whare, e te iwi whānui o Te Korowai o Wainuiārua, tēnā koutou katoa.

As a mokopuna of te whānau Hikinui o Mangamingi Marae in Raetihi, I rise today with a heart full of aroha and respect to mihi to you my whānau for your relentless work, and to support the Te Korowai o Wainuiārua Claims Settlement Bill. This has been a journey of struggle, a journey of heartbreak and of resilience. For generations, our whanaunga of Uenuku, Tamakana, and Tamahaki have fought for their right to be recognised for their whenua, for their reo, and their tino rangatiratanga. Today, this bill is one step towards honouring that fight. The mamae carried by Te Korowai o Wainuiārua is not just a story of the past; it’s the lived experience of our people—the raupatu, the confiscations, the alienation from our whenua left our own landless.

As previously mentioned, the Crown acquired land for public works—including hydroelectric generation, defence, and to build the North Island main trunk railway—leaving Te Korowai o Wainuiārua deprived of our own potential. They were stripped of the ability to exercise kaitiakitanga over their taonga. The Crown actions severed their connections to the whenua, to our reo, and most importantly, to each other. And yet you, e te iwi, have fought relentlessly with dignity to get to this very moment.

Today’s settlement returns the tools which were wrongly taken, which can now be rightfully used for rebuilding, restoring, and reclaiming the mana that was stripped away. Importantly, this reaffirms our right to kaitiakitanga over our whenua within the Whanganui and Tongariro national parks, and ensures that our taonga are protected with the love and manaaki that they deserve. This is about more than compensation; it is about reclamation, it is about mana motuhake, and it is about protecting our taonga for our mokopuna.

One of the most exciting parts of the settlement is the vision for the Pōkākā Eco-sanctuary, a kaupapa that embodies what this settlement is really about. This will not just be a conservation project; it is a calling, a recognition, a way to bring back the mātauranga of the past to shape our future. It is the commitment to ensuring that the whenua is protected, that the ngahere thrives, that the manu—the kiwi, the whio, the kārearea—all return home. This is about the next generation growing up knowing they are the rightful kaitiaki of this whenua.

Despite this Government running rampant over our people over the last 16 months, from this day forward they are legally bound to the expectation of acting in good faith to Te Korowai o Wainuiārua. No longer can the Government make decisions about Te Korowai o Wainuiārua without them at the table—their voice, their whakaaro, their mana must be recognised and upheld. They can try and legislate the Treaty away, but by supporting the settlement today, every member in this House acknowledges that you are the sovereign—always were; always will be. This is a foundation for the future—a future where the decisions affecting these lands are made with their rightful kaitiaki leading the way.

Let’s be clear: no settlement will ever be enough to truly compensate for the harm that was done. We cannot undo the past. We cannot bring back the whenua that was stolen, the lives that were impacted, or undo the pain that was caused. But what we must do today is ensure that this redress sets a foundation for the future, that the tamariki and mokopuna of Te Korowai o Wainuiārua grow up knowing that their history has been acknowledged, that their rights have been restored, and that their people stand tall.

To Te Korowai o Wainuiārua, ngā mihi maioha ki a koutou. [To the Korowai o Wainuiārua, warm greetings to you.]

To the negotiators, the kaumātua, and the leaders who carried this kaupapa on their shoulders, you have done your people proud. Your perseverance, your patience, and your dedication to justice have brought us to this moment. E kore e mimiti te puna o mihi ki a koutou. [The fountain of thanks to you will never recede.]

This is your moment; this is your time. Ka tika, ka tika, ka tika. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

Whakataurangi ake te here ki taku ate

Pupū ake nei te mauri o te aroha

He hononga ki te iwi kua whakangaro ki te pō

Te pōuriuri, ki te pō i oti atu

Kei ngā whakaoati i herea ki te rangi

Hei huarahi atu

Tihei mauri ora

[Pledge to bind to my heart

The lifeforce of love is welling up

A connection to those who have vanished to the night

The darkness, the night which never ends

In the oaths which were bound to the sky

As a pathway thence

I sneeze, it is the breath of life]

E te Pīka, e te Whare, e ngā paepae tapu, tēnā koutou katoa. Ko tēnei te wā whakatau i te pire mahurangi. Nōku te honore hei tautoko ana au mō koutou uri o Te Korowai o Wainuiārua.

[To the Speaker, the House, the sacred benches of speakers, greetings to you all. This is the time to settle this important bill. The honour is mine to support you, the descendants of Te Korowai o Wainuiārua.]

I extend my most heartfelt and profound thanks to the many descendants of Tamahaki, Tamakana, and Uenuku who have made the journey here today, and to those too who have not. One hundred and eighty-five years have passed since the signing of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and with the flow and ebb of time, so too have generations arrived and departed. I acknowledge with love those who have been carried here in spirit and in heart, those ancestors and elders for whom today has come too late. Te Korowai o Wainuiārua will have gathered today to witness the passing of this bill into law so that the journey of truth and reconciliation, of healing and redress may begin a new chapter.

We in this House have the immense honour and indeed duty to stand on behalf of the Crown to bear witness and give support to this piece of legislation. As this bill is set down for all remaining phases in the House today, I wish to give a brief call for the second reading and will follow with a more substantive address during the third reading. Therefore, I commend this bill to the House.

E rere ana te mauri aroha ki a koutou. Nā reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā rā tātou katoa.

[To the Speaker, the House, and the many chiefs and others, I support this bill. Therefore, greetings to us all.]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise in support of the second reading of the Te Korowai o Wainuiārua Claims Settlement Bill, and I rise as a member of the Māori Affairs Committee. I’m really privileged to be part of that committee and to really get a deep insight into our Treaty settlements and into the kaupapa involved with coming to the point that we are at now, this second reading in the House.

At this moment, if I can start, please, by acknowledging members that have travelled to Parliament to listen to our second and third readings—and thank you very much. We all took part in the pōwhiri this morning. It was very beautiful, it was very moving, and thank you for bringing those photos of your ancestors, your relatives, who have, unfortunately, passed along the way, waiting for us to reach this settlement. May their souls rest in peace.

I’d like to also acknowledge that sitting beside me is our current chair of the Māori Affairs Committee, David MacLeod, an excellent colleague and local MP, and also I’d like to acknowledge my mate Dan Bidois, who was the chair when we were going through this process. When it comes to the second reading, we reflect on that select committee process and on how we opened up for submissions and what took place before and during the submissions and, indeed, after. As has been traversed very briefly, when it came to the submissions, we received 16 submissions, with 14 public submissions. I think it’s very important to acknowledge today in the House that eight of these 14 submissions were opposed to the bill, and the opposition was around a few concerns.

In the process, usually we try, as a committee, to go out to the whenua to listen to the submissions on a marae or in a local community hall, and with this situation, we tried. We tried a few times, didn’t we? Unfortunately, there were some sad circumstances with the iwi—there was a tangi—and we had to cancel our going to you, but I want you to know that we really would have loved to have come to you because it’s only the right thing to do. Thank you, all, for trying to do that and accommodating us in the absence of that.

With respect to the opposition to the bill, I want to reassure those who did oppose that we asked some really deep and profound questions of the advisers. We probed a lot, as a committee, and in the end we felt comfortable with the mandate process and we felt comfortable with what we saw before us. I know, as we’ve traversed it in the House many times, that the Treaty settlement process is not perfect and that some would say that it’s flawed, but it’s what we’re working with and we’re trying our best. I know that the advisers and the negotiators and those from our iwi try their best to come to what is a good and workable and, to an extent, fair situation for going forward.

As I’ve mentioned many times in the House, nothing, actually, will suffice to repay for the deep loss and the deep grievances that you rightfully have. I guess I can say that for me, as a person who was not born in Aotearoa New Zealand but who has come to New Zealand: one, the more I learn about the history, the more my heart crumbles with how little we know, actually, and how little many of our fellow Kiwis know about the horrific history that many of you have gone through; and, two, my desire and my hope is that we learn so that people will understand that when Treaty settlements are made, there’s a reason why there’s a recognition of these grievances.

Very briefly, I’d like to also recount just some main objectives of this settlement package, if we can put it that way. The deed of settlement was signed on 29 July 2023, and if I can, in essence, recount it, it includes a financial and commercial redress of $28.5 million in total. That’s broken up into $21.7 million in economic compensation and $6.8 million in cultural revitalisation funding, and there’s also land and cultural redress. Nineteen cultural sites are being returned to iwi—rightfully so—there are statutory acknowledgments of over 22 areas and deeds of recognition of over 13 areas, and there are five place name changes. We heard from our colleague Hūhana Lyndon, who asked: when names are given that actually refer to a very negative moment in history, how can someone go ahead and continuously see those names and not feel a building up of mamae—as we say?

There’s also going to be conservation and environmental redress. This includes the Tongariro-Taupō Conservation Board allowing iwi to contribute to environmental management, and also a commitment to Pōkākā Eco-sanctuary, a longstanding aspiration, as we know, of our iwi to really restore our native species.

With this, Mr Speaker, I see that our beautiful guests are making their way into the gallery, so I will end it at this point, if I may, and we’ll listen to the rest of our colleagues around the House. In this second reading, I commend the bill.

Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. Kāti, ko taku mahi tuatahi hei tautoko ake i ngā kōrero whakatau a Minita Potaka i te ata nei. Ahakoa kīhai wā tātou manuhiri rangatira i tae mai, i whakatau ia i te kaupapa o tēnei pire ki roto i te Whare.

Me tāku e kī atu ana ki te hunga, ā, wā tātou manuhiri rangatira e noho mai nei ki runga, ko te āhuatanga o taku kōrero i te pānuitanga tuarua o tēnei pire, ehara tēnei te whakahē i ngā mahi kei roto i te pire. Heoi anō, kia aroha mai ki tēnei e wero atu ana i te āhuatanga o tātou, o tō tātou ata nei.

[Greetings to the Speaker of the House. Well, then, my first task is to support the welcoming statements from Minister Potaka this morning. Although our chiefly visitors hadn’t arrived, he welcomed the matter of this bill into the House.

And what I say to the people, to our chiefly visitors sitting here above, the nature of my speech at the second reading of this bill—this is not to find fault with the tasks in the bill. However, please be kind to me as I challenge the circumstance we are in and of this morning.]

I want to stand in the second reading—and I’m glad the Minister is here—to express my dismay at the way that the process was run this morning. Now, I appreciate that it is an agreement, that we might try different things where we can have the second reading, the committee of the whole, and the third reading all in one sitting. My knowledge is that this House makes those rules, and also makes the process. In my 11 years here in Parliament, that is a process that has rarely been done—and there are reasons why you don’t truncate the process. They are so that we can plan and schedule, so that we can continue to hear submitters and make sure that the expectations of thorough due diligence on bills can continue to be heard and prosecuted in this House, from the first reading to the third reading.

That’s a well-known function of this House. It’s why we have the first reading, the second reading, the committee of the whole, and the third reading. For our whānau who have walked in and our whānau listening at home, we know the first reading introduces the bill, the second reading discusses what the committee heard through the select committee process and from the submitters—those for, those against, those with their own ideas—and then, of course, technical amendments are made in the committee of the whole, and then, finally, the legislation comes into law, into effect, after the third reading and its Royal assent.

Now, it’s already been described this morning in the speeches the dissatisfaction of not just our whānau who have come here today with the settlement process—because this is true about every single settlement that’s been done: a dissatisfaction with the process of that settlement. However, our whānau and our iwi and our hapū endure because they want to look towards a bright horizon. I accept that, and I congratulate them on that, and you’ve heard words in the House this morning that we acknowledge the whānau for their humility and their willingness to work on a way forward. However, when we look at these processes, with respect to how it’s worked this morning, it was clear that by the time the second reading started, our whānau weren’t here. Now, we control that—we control that—and in the six years I was a Minister, I had never seen anything like that. In fact, we’d have a second reading and we’d invite our whānau, at another time that worked for them, to come in here for the settlement. We’d have a pōwhiri process around midday, and then we had the third reading in the afternoon.

That allowed a far more inclusive process that allows our people to see something that is truly special, and we all agreed to that. We all agree that this is special. I want to put on the floor and on the record in this House, as consideration for the Minister, that as we progress other settlements, we look towards this process and do something that’s far more agreeable, not just for the whānau who have come so far to be here but also for the House, for the satisfaction of the House and the members within it to make sure that we get these things right. That’s important.

One of the reasons why I say this to members of the House is I think about my own people of Ngāpuhi. Ngāpuhi currently have over 500 hapū, and if a Ngāpuhi settlement wants to be achieved in whatever way, shape, or form, that’s entirely up to the Minister. I accept that, but to have a truncated process that might see people miss out on readings in this House—a process that this House controls—is simply unacceptable to me. I’m expressing that dissatisfaction here on the record and in the presence of the Minister in the hope that we can work across the House. I know the Business Committee does what the Business Committee does, but this is a suggestion whereby we can do this and do this better—and that’s the point I’m making—so that our whānau can be a part of this, so that second readings and the committee of the whole House are actually proper functions performed properly in this House as they were intended to be.

I bet for some of the whānau in the gallery here today, as we look to make technical amendments in the committee of the whole, what does that mean? It’s not getting the proper scrutiny that one might expect when these bills pass in this House. Like I say, I’ve been in this House coming up 12 years. I’ve seen a whole number of settlements passed through this House, and we’ve all agreed that not all of them are perfect—in fact, Māori give far too much in their settlements—but that’s their agreement and that’s what they negotiate with the Crown. For processes in this House, those are things we control, and I think we can do better—I think we can do better.

There are a number of settlements that are coming up into the future, and, of course, I’ve already mentioned a potential Ngāpuhi settlement, whatever that might look like. I can tell you: there’ll be an expectation that every single process in this House will give that particular settlement bill the due diligence to make sure that every voice of the 120,000-plus Ngāpuhi in this country is heard—that’s the least we can expect, because that’s the process that this House has determined for the passing of legislation.

More importantly, that should be the process that allows our people, regardless of their iwi or hapū, to have their voice heard on such important pieces of legislation—that these settlements are enduring, that they are, as my tupuna described, ka titia ki te ngākau, ka parania ki te rae. Titia ki te ngākau, parania ki te rae. [fastened to the heart and branded on the forehead. Fastened to the heart and branded on the forehead.] That they are enduring in the heart and for ever branded on your rae, or your memory, on your mind; not the failure of a process that we can control. That shouldn’t be the enduring memory. The enduring memory should be that whatever we decide, and pass in this legislation that’s been negotiated, and hard-fought-for by iwi in negotiation with the Crown, should be the enduring memory—not that, sadly, some of our whānau are only just walking in on the second reading of their bill. That’s the problem I have.

I can see the Minister scowling towards me, but that’s a fact. This House controls that process. The Minister controls that process, and that’s what I want our whānau, today, to hear. I apologise that the start of my kōrero—because I know that when these bills pass through the House, there is agreement across the House on these matters; of course there is, and there will continue to be through the third reading—but, as I said in Māori, I make no apology for challenging a process that this House controls. We can do better, whānau. I say that to my colleagues across the House: we can do better, because it’s one thing—and if you check the Hansard and all the records on all the settlements in the 12 years I’ve been in this House, I’ve heard people say, “Well, you know, aroha mai.”, and all these nice things, but, hey, we control this process. Let’s do it better—let’s do it better, whānau.

Heoi anō, e te Māngai o te Whare ki roto i taku miniti whakamutunga, ka hoki atu anō ahau ki te taumata o waku kōrero. Hēnā kōrero whakatau a Minita Potaka ki wāna whanaunga maha, kua tatū iho mai ki roto i tēnei whare. E mōhio ana au kua oti kē ngā mihi ki runga o Pipitea. Engari he whare anō tēnei.

Heoi anō tāku, hei karanga mai ki te kaupapa kua whakakāhui tātou, hei karanga mai anō hoki ki ngā mana, ki ngā tapu, ki ngā ihi, o ā tātou rangatira, o ā tātou whānau kua tae mai i te rā nei.

Nō reira e ōku rangatira, e ōku tini whanaunga, kei te mōhio au ki te tini o Ngāpuhi e heke iho mai ki roto i a koutou. Mahi reriwei, mahi topa rākau.

Heoi anō ko ā tātou whakapapa e noho ngātahi ana, kei te whakaae ki tēnei pire, ā, taihoa ake nei ka tīmata te pānuitanga tuatoru, ka haere tonu ngā kōrero e pā ana ki tō koutou ake kaupapa. E te Māngai o te Whare, kia ora tātou.

[However, Mr Speaker, in my final minute I return to the pinnacle of my discourse. Minister Potaka’s welcoming statements to his many relations, who have arrived in this House—I know that the formal acknowledgments have already been completed on Pipitea, but this is another House.

So all I have to say is to welcome the matter which has brought us together, to again give the welcoming cry to the authorities, to the sacred ones, to the powers, of our chiefs and families who have arrived here today.

Therefore, my chiefs, my many relations, I know that the multitudes from Ngāpuhi migrated down amongst you, building railways and felling trees.

However, our genealogical ties reside together, I agree to this bill, and before long the third reading will begin, the discussions will continue about your own initiative. Mr Speaker, I acknowledge us all.]

Tēnā koe. My understanding is that we are truncating some of the speeches that we are going into.

Tēnā koe e te Māngai, otirā tēnā rawa atu tātou katoa kua huihui mai i tēnei rangi ātaahua. Tēnei rangi titiro whakamua, ā, tēnei te mihi atu ki a tātou katoa. Heoi anō rā, ka tautoko au i ngā mihi kua mihia ki tō tātou nei runga rawa. Nāna i tae mai koutou ki tēnei Whare o tātou, nau mai, haere mai.

Heoi anō rā, ki te kōrero au ki te wāhi ngaro. Tēnei te mihi atu ki a rātou mā, kāore i tae ā-tinana mai, nā rātou i tīmata, i whakawhārikihia tēnei ara hei takahia ō koutou tapuwae ki konei. Tēnei te mihi atu ki a rātou mā, heoi anō rā ki a rātou mā, ngā mate huhua o tēnei rā, haere, haere, haere atu rā koutou, otirā huri noa ki a tātou. Tihei mauri ora.

Tēnei au e mihi atu ki a koutou Te Korowai o Wainuiārua, heoi anō rā koutou a Tamahaki, a Tamakana, a Uenuku iwi. Ko te tikanga me mihi atu ki a koutou i te tuatahi, nā koutou tēnei rangi.

Ahakoa he rangi tiro whakamua tēnei, kei te rongo tonu au i te pōuri, i te taumahatanga kei runga i a koutou. Nā reira, tēnei te mihi atu ki a koutou i tae hūmārie mai ki roto i tēnei whare, nei rā te mihi.

Ki tua atu o tēnā ka huri au ināianei ki te Kāwana o te rā, otirā ki a koe, Minita Goldsmith, ki a Tama Potaka te kaikōrero tuatahi i tēnei rangi, ki a Dan, tētahi o ngā Tiamana o te komiti Māori. Heoi anō rā ki a koe i tēnei rā Dave, te Tiamana hou. He whakaatu tēnei, he whakaaturanga tērā o te hūmārie o tēnei iwi ki tēnei Whare.

[Greetings Mr Speaker, and indeed my utmost greetings to us all who are gathered together on this beautiful today. This forward-looking day, I acknowledge us all. And so, I support the acknowledgments of our Lord above. Because of him, you arrived to this House of ours, welcome, welcome.

And so, if I address the invisible realm. I acknowledge them, those who didn’t come in person, those who began and laid out this path to be trodden by your footsteps to this point. I greet them, and also to those, the many deceased of this day, farewell, go yonder, and indeed turning to us. Behold, it is the breath of life.

I greet you, Te Korowai o Wainuiārua, there is none other than you Tamahaki, Tamakana, and Uenuku tribes. By rights you should be acknowledged first; this is your day.

Although this is a forward-looking day, I still sense the sadness and weight on you. Therefore, I acknowledge you who have arrived peacefully within this House, greetings.

Beyond that I now turn to the Government of the day, indeed to you, Minister Goldsmith, to Tama Potaka the first speaker of this day, to Dan, one of the chairs of the Māori Affairs Committee. And indeed to you today, Dave, the new chair. This is a showing, that is a demonstration to this House of the peacefulness of this tribe.]

I’m just going to turn to English now, and once again I welcome you and thank you for coming here and the demonstration of grace and patience you have shown this House and the Crown.

I just acknowledge the four Ministers and the chairs of committees that you have had to deal with. That is a demonstration of grace and patience and a demonstration that while there are frustrations out there in Aotearoa about the process of Treaty settlements, iwi continue to demonstrate their understanding of partnership, and their grace. In one hearing, I have named four parties they have had to deal with, demonstrating their commitment to the future of a positive relationship with the Crown. Tēnā koutou. Heoi anō rā, i runga i tērā, ka hoki ngā mahara ki tērā o ngā Minita, arā ki a Andrew Little, nāna i tīmata ai i tēnei ara i tō koutou taha.

[Greetings to you. And so, on that note, my memories return to that Minister, namely to Andrew Little, who started this path at your side.]

I just want to acknowledge a quote that Andrew—well, first of all, I want to return to the loss that you have suffered. While this is a great day and a day of opportunity, there’s just no way we can understand what you have been through for generations. I think Andrew Little summed it up when he said that you were left virtually landless. Kāore e taea te whakahua i te ngau o taua āhuatanga. [It is not possible to express the hurt of that situation.] I’m just saying we can’t understand the bite of that pain, that agony. And so me kōrero tātou mō te wāriu [we should speak of the value]—the value of the settlement.

It’s been acknowledged that the redress package includes $21.7 million in financial and commercial redress; $6.8 million in cultural funding; the return of 19 sites of cultural significance and 12 commercial properties, including Crown forestry land at Erua and the former prison site at Waikune; conservation management redress to support establishment of a predator-proof eco-sanctuary at Pōkākā; a seat on the Tongariro Taupō Conservation Board; and relationship agreements with Crown agencies.

I want to talk about value or te kupu Māori me kī rā, te wāriu [or the Māori word, so to speak, the value]. He aha te wāriu o te whenua? [What is the value of land?] For my non-Māori colleagues, one thing that you will be able to understand is, in Māori, “whenua” is also the placenta, the placenta which gives sustenance to the child. When you take that sustenance away from people, how they have survived, endured, and thrived when their sustenance was torn away from them must be acknowledged, must be understood beyond the value written on this paper. However, he tīmatanga noa iho tēnei ki a koutou. [this is simply a start for you.]

I had the privilege of hearing some of the submissions on the Treaty principles bill. I was told to keep this dignified and I shall; ha, ha! Actually, it was an honour and I left filled with hope. I just want to reiterate something: the phrase “Treaty-ism” was coined, and I want to reiterate—as has been acknowledged by every part of this House—through that sustenance, lives have been lost, generations and future lives impacted. People have gone; they are not here to see the conclusion of the path these people have taken on behalf of their tūpuna; a path they are treading with grace and dignity because they demonstrate the understanding of partnership. You know, you look at whenua: we have gripes when someone builds their fence a metre on our land. They were left virtually landless, and here they are, demonstrating partnership, accepting the apologies of their partner—“I’m sorry”; they are here in good faith. We need to remember that as we traverse Aotearoa and the world, and people come at us with phrases like “Treaty-ism”, as if we are doing a favour to people who are settling—they are doing this Crown a favour, maintaining the dignity of their tūpuna and demonstrating that they understand partnership.

Heoi anō rā, hei whakakapi, tēnei anō te mihi, kei te tū whakaiti au i mua i a koutou hei mema o tēnei Whare. Ahakoa he iti ēnei koha kua hoatu ki a koutou, he tīmata noa iho, ko te tūmanako, kei te mōhio pai au ka ora rawa atu ō koutou mokopuna i ēnei rawa.

Nā reira, ki a koutou Tamahaki, Tamakana, Uenuku, tēnei te uri a Ngāti Porou e tū whakaiti i mua i a koutou, e mihi kau ana ki a koutou kua tae mai i runga i tō koutou ake mana motuhake i tēnei rā, tēnei te mihi atu ki a koutou katoa.

[And so, to conclude, this is again an acknowledgment, I stand humbly before you as a member of this House. Although these gifts which have been given to you are but small, simply a start, the hope is, and I know well that your grandchildren will thrive on these resources.

Therefore, to you, Tamahaki, Tamakana, Uenuku, this is a descendant of Ngāti Porou standing humbly before you, acknowledging you who arrived here on your own authority today. This is an acknowledgment of you all.]

This bill is set down for committee stage immediately. I declare the House in committee for consideration of Te Korowai o Wainuiārua Claims Settlement Bill.

Members, the House is in committee on the Te Korowai o Wainuiārua Claims Settlement Bill. We come first to Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 3 to 22, “Preliminary matters, historical account, acknowledgements and apology, and settlement of historical claims”. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

The Te Korowai o Wainuiārua Claims Settlement Bill was first introduced in the House in December 2023. Since that time, a number of changes to the bill have been identified as necessary. The Amendment Paper is needed to make technical amendments to the bill, which were identified by the Parliamentary Counsel Office. Minor changes also are required to the relevant law by the courts.

The technical changes include correcting reference to ministerial portfolios and inconsistency with the time frames and board membership under the Resource Management Act and Reserve Bank. A minor change is also made to allow Te Korowai o Wainuiārua the opportunity to exclude the Māori Land Court jurisdiction from being applied. These amendments are minor and do not change the redress package.

The question is that the Minister’s amendment to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 248 be agreed to.

Members, we come now to Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 23 to 156, “Cultural redress”, and Schedules 1 to 4. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 2 set out on Amendment Paper 248 be agreed to.

Members, we come now to Part 3. This is the debate on clauses 157 to 213, “Commercial redress”, and Schedule 5. The question is that Part 3 stand part.

Members, we come now to our final debate, clauses 1 and 2, “Title” and “Commencement”.

Mr Speaker, the committee has considered the Te Korowai o Wainuiārua Claims Settlement Bill and reports it with amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

The Te Korowai o Wainuiārua Claims Settlement Bill is now set down for third reading.

I present a legislative statement on the Te Korowai o Wainuiārua Claims Settlement Bill.

The legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on Parliament’s website.

I move, That the Te Korowai o Wainuiārua Claims Settlement Bill be now read a third time.

Tihei mauri ora. E te Atua, nōu te korōria. Ko koe te tīmatanga me te whakaotinga o ngā mea katoa. Te Whare e tū nei, tēnā koe. Te papa i waho nei, tēnā koe. Te mana whenua o tēnei rohe, e Te Ātiawa, tēnā koutou.

E ngā mate, haere, haere, haere. Haere ki te wāhi ngaro, haere, haere atu rā ki te pō. E te hunga ora, tēnā tātou katoa.

E koro, Tamakana, Tamahaki, Uenuku ki Manganui o te Ao, nā Tūkaihoro, tēnā koe. E Te Kāhui Tupua, e mihi ana.

[I sneeze, it is the breath of life. Oh God, thine is the glory. You are the beginning and the ending of all things. To the House standing here, greetings. To the land outside, greetings. To the authorities of this tribal area, Te Ātiawa, greetings to you.

To the deceased, farewell, depart. Travel to the hidden place, depart to the night. To the living people, greetings to us all.

Sir, Tamakana, Tamahaki, Uenuku at Manganui o te Ao, of Tūkaihoro, greetings to you. To Te Kāhui Tupua, I greet you.]

Welcome to this House, everybody. It’s a great privilege to stand here today to support the third reading of this bill, Te Korowai o Wainuiārua Claims Settlement Bill. I’d like to extend again my warm welcome to the members of Tamakana, Tamahaki, and Uenuku ki Manganui-o-te-Ao, nā Tūkaihoro, three iwi of the central Whanganui region who are represented in this settlement negotiation. Thank you all for coming here to Parliament today. It was good to meet with you this morning and to have a wonderful time together. I also want to welcome those who could not be here in person, who are watching online or on television.

I want to start by thanking all those on the iwi side who have led the settlement negotiations over the past decade—in particular, Aiden Gilbert, the Chair of Uenuku Charitable Trust, Chris McKenzie as lead negotiator, and negotiators Paora Haitana and Steve Hirini. Thank you for your dedication to this significant milestone.

This settlement is a testament to the hard work of many, many, many people negotiating with the Crown, and, as I said this morning, I don’t think the average New Zealander understands the amount of effort that is put into negotiating these settlements, often by volunteers on their weekends and in their evenings, travelling large distances and getting plenty of advice from many people, and the challenges that come with that. To the people of Te Korowai o Wainuiārua, you have endured a long wait to settle your historical claims and I acknowledge your patience, your commitment, and your fortitude.

I also acknowledge the work of the chief Crown negotiators, Rosemary Banks and, more recently, Katherine Gordon, and the officials of Te Arawhiti and other partner agencies who supported this effort. I want to acknowledge Ministers of the Crown, past and present—and, in particular Andrew Little, and Chris Finlayson before him—and thank you for all your support in achieving this.

Significantly, I want to acknowledge those members from Te Korowai o Wainuiārua who are not with us today and cannot witness the outcome of years of effort, courage, and commitment to achieve this settlement. Our thoughts are with you today.

Today marks the final stage of the progression of this bill. It’s been a long settlement journey. The first Wai claims were submitted to the Waitangi Tribunal in the 1980s, and although no settlement can fully atone for the Crown’s past injustices or compensate for the hurt that the people of Te Korowai o Wainuiārua suffered, it’s my hope that we can look forward to the future, when Te Korowai o Wainuiārua and the Crown work together for the benefit of future generations.

The passing of this bill will give full effect to the deed of settlement between Te Korowai o Wainuiārua and the Crown signed at Raetihi Marae on 29 July 2023. The deed acknowledges historical Treaty of Waitangi claims relating to the area, acknowledges the Crown’s past acts and omissions that breached the Treaty, and recognises the injustices and the pain that those injustices caused.

In May 1840, 14 rangatira signed the Raukawa Moana Treaty sheet at Whanganui, placing their trust in the Crown. The Crown failed to uphold its responsibilities under the Treaty to respect the tino rangatiratanga of Te Korowai o Wainuiārua and to actively protect the taonga that Te Korowai o Wainuiārua wished to retain for their descendants. The people of Te Korowai o Wainuiārua have suffered as a direct result of the Crown’s Treaty breaches, causing them to endure significant economic and social deprivation.

The Crown did not protect the interests of Te Korowai o Wainuiārua when it purchased their land blocks to facilitate European settlement and development. In the early 20th century, the Crown continued to purchase their land and compulsorily acquire land for large-scale public works. Land was then used for the North Island main trunk railway, scenic reserves, defence purposes, and power generation, and was included in two national parks. These Treaty breaches have undermined the wellbeing of Uenuku, Tamakana, and Tamahaki, and have left their people virtually landless. Many of their people have left their homeland, and their ability to retain their language, culture, and tribal identity have been severely weakened.

As I’ve said, no settlement can ever fully provide compensation for the wrongdoing of the Crown or make amendments for the enormous suffering and hurt Te Korowai o Wainuiārua have endured across many generations, and we do acknowledge that. However, it is my hope that this settlement will be the beginning of a strengthened relationship between Te Korowai o Wainuiārua and the Crown based on partnership, mutual trust, and cooperation.

This bill seeks to give effect to the settlement package as outlined in the legislative statement. The settlement provides financial, commercial, and cultural redress totalling $28.6 million. It includes the transfer of 19 sites of cultural significance; 11 land-banked properties, including the former Waikune Prison site; and 39 properties on a deferred selection basis.

The settlement recognises and supports the aspirations of Te Korowai o Wainuiārua to establish a wildlife eco-sanctuary at Pōkākā, near Waimarino. The eco-sanctuary will bring together tikanga and traditional practices, conservation best practices and research, and a dedicated predator-control plan so that kaka, whio—the blue duck—and other birds and wildlife can again flourish in that region.

The settlement will contribute towards supporting the aspirations of Te Korowai o Wainuiārua to help the iwi to grow their economic base, provide housing for their whānau, develop their culture, and enhance the natural environment. It’s my sincere hope that this settlement will provide the basis for a positive future for the people of Te Korowai o Wainuiārua and a renewed relationship with the Crown based on respect.

Thank you all, again, for coming today. This is a special occasion, one of those rare occasions when the House comes together as one, recognising our past, recognising the wrongs that have been done, and seeking to make amends. I commend this bill to the House. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. Reo Māori. E ōku nui, e ōku rahi, i mihihia te ao Māori ki runga i te papa tū waewae i Te Matatini. I Te Matatini i whakakāhui te ao Māori i ngā mate huhua o te wā, o tēnā kāinga, o tēnā kāinga, o tēnā kāinga. Ka waiatahia tātou i ngā waiata, ka maringi roimata o te hunga mate kua riro atu.

Nā ka kawea mai te mauri o tō tātou huihuinga o Te Matatini o Te Kāhui Maunga ki tēnei kaupapa kua whakamine mai tātou i te rā nei.

Kei te pērā tonu ngā whakaaro. Kei te maringi tonu ngā roimata o te hunga kua ngaro atu ki te pō. Te hunga nā rātou tēnei kaupapa i kōkirihia ki roto i ngā tekau tau kua kōrero mai nā e te Minita, o ā tātou tūpuna i mate i te wā o te pakanga, o ā tātou tūpuna i peia i ō rātou whenua, anā, kia noho manuhiri ki runga i tō rātou ake whenua.

Nō reira, koinā tāku e mea atu ana ki a tātou e ōku rangatira, kei te maringi tonu mai ngā roimata. Kei te mōhio ina maringi mai te roimata, ko te hiahia kia mā te whenua, kia tīmata anō tātou te ao Māori, otirā koutou e ngā tapu nui, ā, te tirohia ki te taumata moana, ki te ao o āpōpō, ki ō tātou reanga hou kei te haere mai nei.

Nō reira, āpiti hono, tātai hono, rātou ki a rātou. Āpiti hono, tātai hono, tātou ki a tātou. Nā, i te pānuitanga tuarua o te pire, i kake mai ētahi o koutou ki runga ki tēnei Whare, me te mea anō hoki kua kite atu koutou i te whare o Peeni Henare.

Taku amuamu ki ngā nekehanga kua kitea e au, i taku tāima ki roto i te Whare Pāremata, engari i tēnei wā tonu, ka tae atu ki te pānuitanga tuatoru, te pānuitanga whakamutunga o tēnei pire, me kī pēnei taku kōrero ki a koutou, e ōku rangatira.

Ko ngā kokonga o te whare, ka taea te kite. Engari ko ngā kokonga o te ngākau, e kore e taea te kite. Koinā te hōhonu o tēnei mahi. Koinei te hōhonu o ngā mahi i oti i a koutou, tōku tuakana Chris, i kite ahau i a koe, koutou, ngā ringa raupā i kōkirihia i tēnei kaupapa.

Kua kōrero mai te Minita i ngā kōrero tika mō tēnei tūāhuatanga, te mahi tatū ngā kerēme a te iwi ki mua i te aroaro o te Karauna. Kei te tika wāna kōrero. Ehara i te huarahi māmā, he huarahi uaua. He aha nei te utu? Ko te tangata. Ko te tangata te utu.

Kua kōrero mai te Minita mō te āhuatanga o ētahi kāore i konei i te rā nei. Nā, koinā te take kei te maringi tonu mai ngā roimata, ahakoa te āhuatanga o ngā kōrero kei roto i tēnei pire.

E ōku rangatira, kua kōrero atu ahau mō te ekenga o Ngāpuhi ki roto i a koutou ki te mahi reriwei, ki te topa rākau, ki te whakatō rākau anō hoki. Tētahi o ngā kupu ki roto i a au nei, ā, anā, ko te pōkākā.

Ki te nuinga o ngā iwi, ki tāku e whakapae nei ki roto i ngā rārangi kupu o te reo Māori, anā, ko te pōkākā ki roto i a mātou, anā, he parekura ki roto i ētahi atu iwi. Arā, koinā ko tā mātou o Ngāpuhi ka kīia he pōkākā, he parawhenua mea, e kōrero ana mō tētahi matenga nui o te ao Māori, o tētahi pakanga, anā, koia, kua mate te tini o tātou.

I a au e pānui atu ana i ēnei kōrero kua whakaritehia e ngā kaiwhiriwhiri, arā, me te Karauna, koinā au e tautoko atu ana. Engari ka whakaaro ake mō te āhuatanga o ngā kupu kei roto. He aha te take i tapaina wā tātou tūpuna i tēnei ingoa ki runga ki tēnei wāhi, i tēnei ingoa ki runga ki tēnei mahi? He rangatira ki roto i tērā mahi.

Mehemea ka tirohia tātou ki wō tātou reo Māori, ka kitea atu, he aha i konei i mua i te taenga mai o te Pākehā? He aha i konei i te taenga mai o te Pākehā? He aha kei tua atu i te wā i peia e te Pākehā i a tāua? Koinā te pai o te reo Māori. Nē?

I te ata nei i whakatau koutou ki runga i te marae o Pipitea. E hoa, mōhio ana tāua te āhuatanga o te pipi. He kai pai ki te Māori. Engari, kei te mōhio ahau ko te mea ko te takutai, ana ko te onepū ki raro iho nei, ko tōna ingoa tika, anā ko Waititī.

Nā, kei te mōhio ahau he aha te take ka tapaina ko Waititī ki runga ki tērā wāhi. Nō reira i a au e pānui ana i ngā whakaritenga ki roto ki tēnei pire, ka kite atu ahau i te māramatanga o ā tātou mātua tūpuna. O wāna kōrero i marere iho mai ki a tātou i tēnei rangi, ki ō tātou uri whakatupu e haere ake nei.

Ko ēnei ingoa, ko ēnei kōrero, ko te hiahia kia haere, kia kaua e ngaro noa atu. Kia ū tonu ki roto i te ngākau o koutou, kia ū tonu ki roto i te ngākau o tātou.

Kia kaua ngā mema o te Whare nei e pōhēhē, ā, kua oti noa taku pānuitanga tuatoru o tēnei pire. Kāhore. Ahakoa ka oti i te rā nei, e hoa, ka tīmata ngā mahi ka kōrerohia ki roto i te pire. Nō reira, koinā tāku atu ki a tātou i te rā nei.

Koutou i rongo atu i taku pahupahu i te ata nei, anā, he maha wēnei momo tatūnga take Tiriti kua kitea e au ki roto i ngā tekau tau kua pahure ake nei. Āhua rerekē te nuinga, he āhua ōrite ki ētahi. Engari, ko ngā rerekētanga kua kite atu au ki roto i tēnei, kei te aro matua, ko te aronga matua o koutou, anā, kia tiakina i te whenua, kia tiakina te whenua mō te painga o ā tātou tamariki, mokopuna, ka kite atu ahau. Koinā tāku i tino mīharo nei.

I taku taenga mai, i taku taenga atu ki te marae o Raetihi i taua tāima, ko au te Minita mō ngā take Turuhi, mō ngā Take Tāpoi. Nā ko ētahi o koutou i haria au ki te wāhi e kīia nei i roto i te pire ko Pōkākā, ki te taha o Waimarino.

Ā, i kite atu ahau i te whenua rā, kātahi rā te mīharo, kia mīharo anō hoki nā te mea kua whakaritehia e koutou hei painga mō ngā uri whakatupu, mō te taiao. Ēnā mea katoa e tino ngākaunuitia ana e koutou, otirā e tātou katoa o Aotearoa.

Nō reira, e tātou mā, i mea mai tōku hoa rangatira ki a au nei nā, tā te mea ko ia tētahi nō Mōkai Pātea. Kua tiro atu ki ngā whakaritenga ki roto i te pire nei, kātahi ia ka tangi, ka tangi ia mō te āhuatanga ahakoa ngā mahi kua whakaritehia, engari, ko te mea kīhai i tutukihia ki roto i tēnei o ngā pire.

Anā, i taua tāima anō hoki ko au te Minita mō ngā take Wawaonga, arā ko te Minister of Defence, i kite atu ahau i te whānui o te whenua, i tango ake e te Karauna mō ngā take o Ngāti Tūmatauenga, kua kite atu ahau.

Kua rongo atu ahau i ngā kōrero a tēnā iwi, a tēnā iwi. Ia tāima ka whakapakari a Ngāti Tūmatauenga i a Ngāti Tūmatauaenga ka pahū anō te pū, ka pahū anō te pūrepo. Kīhai rātou i whai whakaaro ki te āhuatanga o te Māori, me te mea nei, ka rongo atu i te pakō o te pū, ka pēhea te mauri me te wairua o te Māori i te rongo atu i tērā mahi. Kua kite atu ahau, kua kite atu ahau.

Nō reira, koinā tāku e tautoko atu ana i te whakapāha a te Karauna ki a koutou. Engari, kei te mōhio ahau he nui tonu ngā mahi kei mua i a koutou, kia whakatikahia i ētahi o ngā tūāhuatanga ka whakaritehia e te pire, kāore anō ka whakaritehia e te pire.

Nō reira, e ōku rangatira, ki roto i ngā hēkona whakamutunga māku, heoi anō, ko tāku hei tukuna atu rā koutou ki wō koutou wā kāinga. Mā Te Atua koutou e manaaki, e tiaki, i roto i te roanga atu o tō koutou hokinga atu ki te wā kāinga, me te roanga ake, me te nui ake o ngā mahi kei mua i a koutou, otirā kei mua i a tātou, ki te whakatutuki i ngā oati i oatitia nei e koutou, ki roto i tēnei pire. E ngā tini whanaunga, e mihi atu ana ki a koutou, huri, huri noa, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora koutou.

[Greetings to the Speaker of the House. In the Māori language: to my esteemed and revered ones, te ao Māori was acknowledged on the stage of Te Matatini. At Te Matatini the Māori world brought together the numerous deceased of the time, from each and every settlement. We sang the waiata and shed tears for the deceased who have been lost.

And so the essence of our gathering Te Matatini of Te Kāhui Maunga is carried here to this initiative for which we are assembled today.

The thoughts are still similar. The tears are still falling for the people who have vanished to the night. The people who drove this initiative in the decades which have been referred to by the Minister, our ancestors who died during the war, our ancestors who were banished from their lands, behold, to live as guests on their own land.

Therefore, that is what I say to us all my chiefs, tears are still flowing. It is known that if tears are flowing, the desire is for the earth to be cleansed, for us as te ao Māori to start again, and indeed you the holy ones, and looking at the sea level, tomorrow’s world and our new generations that are coming.

Therefore, the lines are drawn, the dead to the dead. The lines are drawn, the living to ourselves. So, at the second reading of the bill, some of you came to this House, and it would seem as if you had seen Peeni Henare’s house.

My complaint about the proceedings I’ve seen in my time in Parliament, and indeed at this very time, on arriving at the third reading, the final reading of this bill, this is what I have to say to you, my chiefs.

The corners of a house can be seen. But the corners of the heart are unable to be seen. That is the depth of this work. That is the depth of the work which you have completed, my senior Chris, I saw you, all of you, the hard workers who championed this initiative.

The Minister has expressed appropriate statements about this aspect, the work to settle the iwi’s claims before the Crown. His statements are correct. It is not an easy path; it is a difficult path. What is the price? It is people. People are the price.

The Minister has spoken about the characteristics of some who are not here today. So, that is the reason that the tears still flow, despite the features of the narratives in this bill.

My chiefs, I have spoken about the settling of Ngāpuhi amongst you to build railways, fell trees, and plant trees. One of the words amongst my people is pōkākā.

To most iwi, in my opinion, in the Māori language vocabulary lists, behold, the pōkākā amongst us, there, a calamity which occurs in other tribes. Namely, that is what we of Ngāpuhi call a pōkākā, a tsunami, referring to a significant death in the Māori world, of a war, hence, many of us have died.

When I was reading these narratives which were prepared by the negotiators, namely, with the Crown, that is why I am supportive. But I thought about the characteristics of the words therein. For what reason did our ancestors give this name to this place, or this name to that action? There is nobleness in that task.

If we look at our Māori language, it is apparent, what was here before the arrival of Pākehā? What was here on the arrival of Pākehā? What was beyond when we were banished by the Pākehā? That is the benefit of the Māori language. Isn’t it?

This morning you were welcomed on to Pipitea Marae. Friends, you and I know what the pipi is like. It is a food favoured by Māori. But I know that the coast, and the sand below, its correct name is Waititī.

Now, I know the reason that place was named Waititī. Consequently, when I was reading the provisions in this bill, I saw the insight of our ancestors. Of their narratives which have been given freely to us in current times, and our descendants to follow.

These names, these narratives, I hope they continue, and don’t disappear. That they hold fast in your hearts, and in our hearts.

The members of this House should not mistakenly think that my third reading of this bill is over. No. Although it will be completed today, friends, the work referred to in the bill will commence. Therefore, that is what I share with you today.

Those of you who heard me rabbiting on this morning—indeed, I have seen many of these types of Treaty settlements in the decades which have passed. Most are different, and some have similar aspects. However, the differences I have seen in this one, in main focus, your main focus, indeed, is for the land to be looked after, for the land to be looked after for the benefit of our children and grandchildren, I see that. That is what really amazes me.

When I arrived at Raetihi Marae that time, I was the Minister of Tourism. So some of you took me to the place referred to in this bill as Pōkākā, beside Waimarino.

And, I saw that land, goodness gracious it was amazing, and I am amazed again because you have provided for the benefit of the descendants and the environment. All those things which you love, and indeed which all of us of New Zealand love.

Therefore, to us all, my wife said to me, because she is from Mōkai Pātea—she looked at the provisions in this bill, and then she cried; she cried for the circumstance that despite all the work which had been arranged, but, the thing which wasn’t achieved in this bill.

Behold, at that time also I was the Minister for Defence, I saw the vastness of the land which had been taken by the Crown for the New Zealand Army; I saw that.

I have heard the stories of each tribe. Each time that the New Zealand Army are training, the gun bangs again, and the cannon booms again. They didn’t consider the situation Māori were in; it’s as though, upon hearing the resounding of a gun, what happens to the life force and spirit of Māori upon hearing those actions. I have seen—I have seen.

Therefore, that is why I support the Crown’s apology to you. But I know that there is still much work ahead of you, to correct some of the sorts of things which the bill provides for, which have not yet been provided for by the bill.

Therefore, my chiefs, in the last seconds for me, and so, my task is to send you on your way to your homes. May the Lord take care of you and protect you throughout your journeys returning home, and throughout the increased work before you, and indeed before us all, to achieve the promises which you made in this bill. To my many relations, I salute you, to all gathered here, I acknowledge you all.]

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. E tangi hotuhotu kau ki a koutou, ngā uri o rātou mā mō te kuhu mai ki roto i tēnei Whare Pāremata mō tēnei pānuitanga whakataunga kerēme mō te Tiriti o Waitangi e. E mihi ana ki ngā mate maha kei waenganui i a koutou e pīkau mai nei i tēnei ata, me te taimahatanga ki runga i a koutou e. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou.

He tū whakaiti tēnei ki mua i te iwi, Tamahaki, Tamakana, Uenuku. I taku noho ki roto i te whakatau, ka rongo ahau i te mamae, ngā taimahatanga o rātou mā, te rironga whenua, te hamahama o te Kāwanatanga ki runga i a koutou, ki runga i te iwi Māori. Nō reira haere mai, haere mai ki roto i tēnei Whare Pāremata. Haere mai ki roto i tō tātou Whare Pāremata kia rongo mātou i tērā mamae e pīkau ana koutou i ngā tau maha.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker. I grieve and cry for you, the descendants of those who have passed on for entering into this House of Parliament for the reading of the claim settlement for the Treaty of Waitangi. I acknowledge the many deceased that are among you, being carried by you this morning, and the heavy burden upon you. Greetings and thanks.

I stand humbly before the iwi Tamahaki, Tamakana, and Uenuku. As I sat in the hearing, I felt the anguish, the difficulties of those past, the loss of land, the hammering of the Government on you, and on the Māori people. And so welcome, welcome into this House of Parliament. Welcome into our House of Parliament so that we might hear that anguish that you have carried for so many years.]

In sitting in the whakatau this morning, I felt very clearly the wairua of those ancestors that our iwi brought into the whare, and I acknowledge all those mate [dearly departed] that come on your shoulders and all of those that you have lost through the generations. I’m very mindful of the burden of knowing and feeling and experiencing landlessness, for landlessness is what has affected you, and being labelled as rebels—as hauhau—and losing land, and seeing railways and national infrastructure imposed upon you without your consent.

I understand and I feel that mamae when you know that you have lost elders who have waited for far too long to see this negotiation completed, because it’s the red book that dictates this negotiation—eh, Chris? It’s the red book, and it’s a Crown-imposed process. This isn’t our rule book. It’s not an agreed process, because it’s a Crown policy that dictates how it’s going to go.

I acknowledge you and your patience and your grace. I acknowledge the way that you have come as willing tangata whenua, signatories and uri of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, who said, “Nōnāianei, time to redress the wrongs of the past.”—time to redress the loss of Ruapehu, time to redress all those rerewei ways across your rohe, and all that Department of Conservation land, eh, that sits there. E mihi atu ana ki a Aotearoa, nō rātou te whiwhi. [I acknowledge New Zealand, who is so fortunate.]

Your patience and your grace, in a long negotiation that was Crown-determined, brings you into this House, and I acknowledge that, yes, you’re going to get one to two cents in the dollar. Yes, you’re going to get some mountains, rivers, and a few co-management agreements, and it is great to see that you’re getting the Pōkākā Eco-sanctuary, which you can whakahaere, and, yes, may you charge—may you charge—because nā te wera o tō rae ka whakahaere ēnei whenua. [it is due to the sweat of your brow that these lands are managed.] At what point will you get rangatiratanga over your lands, assets, resources, and people, as Te Tiriti o Waitangi guaranteed you?

I have riri as well, because I am taimaha for you, for what you have suffered, as I read the history of the peoples, and knowing that we enjoy driving through the Desert Road. You know, we enjoy it, eh? We take the selfies, we’ve got the pictures, but that’s your whenua, that’s your maunga, and yet it’s been given to the people of New Zealand for public works. Nā wai i teka? Nā wai i teka he mahi pai tēnei ki runga i te iwi Māori, ki runga i ō koutou pokowhiwhi, ki runga i ngā tūpuna. [Whose lie is it? Whose lie is it that this is a beneficial endeavour on the Māori people, on your shoulders, and on the ancestors.]

So, yes, I’m an angry Ngāpuhi, like my tungāne, but I’m also really honoured to be here to address you, because when we had the first reading, it was a rushed process, too—remember? We just quickly picked up, and you just came. We need to be honourable in this space, and if we’re going to genuinely look to our past, agree on a package, and then move forward into the future, hand in hand, rangatira ki te rangatira, may we take the time. May we take the time and not rush our iwi kāinga, because you’ve been waiting for 184 years for some type of redress. You’ve been waiting for a really long time.

Yes, you have a package to start a rebuild, but I also think about the capability, because we have capacity that will be coming, but it’s also the capability to move forward into the future. Your rangatira and your young people are a part of the now and into the future, and, as Te Rōpū Kākāriki, we stand here humbly before you, as colleagues and as whanaunga, and say that it’s a job well done to those who did the work to negotiate this. But where is the honourable Crown—where is the honourable Crown—for this one to two cents in the dollar is not enough.

May you continue on and strive for your rangatiratanga, for tō tātou rangatiratanga. Kia ora tātou.

Ka tangi te tītī, ka tangi te kākā, ka tangi hoki ahau, tihei mauri ora.

E te Pīka o te Whare, tēnā koe. E ngā uri o ngā iwi e toru o Te Korowai o Wainuiārua, ko Tamahaki, ko Tamakana, ko Uenuku. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. Tēnā koutou i tō tātou tini mate kua whetūrangitia, koutou kua wehe atu ki Hawaiki Nui, Hawaiki Roa, Hawaiki Pāmamao, haere, haere, haere atu rā. Tēnā anō koutou kua tae mai nei ki te Whare Pāremata o Aotearoa. Koutou kua mauria mai āu mamae me ō aroha i te kaupapa whakahirahira nei. Kāore tēnei he whakamutunga, engari he tīmata hou. Kei te tika ana te kōrero i ō tātou tūpuna, titiro whakamuri, kōkiri whakamua.

[As the muttonbird and the kākā cry, so too do I, I sneeze, it is the breath of life.

To the Speaker of the House, greetings. To the descendants of the three tribes of Te Korowai o Wainuiārua, Tamahaki, Tamakana, and Uenuku. Greetings and salutations to you all. Greetings with regard to our many deceased who have become stars, you who have departed to Hawaiki Nui, to Hawaiki Roa, to Hawaiki Pāmamao, farewell, go thence. Greetings also to you who have arrived at the Parliament House of New Zealand. You who have brought your pain and your love in this significant initiative. This is not the end, but a new beginning. The saying of our ancestors is appropriate: look behind to progress forward.]

This is not the end of the story or a relationship, but one of many unfolding and infinite beginnings. Such is the nature of whakapapa that we may simultaneously look to the past and the future through the lens of the present, and in this way, we must acknowledge those who have come before and who are yet to arrive—the ancestors and descendants of Te Korowai o Wainuiārua. They are with us now and for ever through the power and transcendence of whakapapa, an intrinsic connection shared collectively through their tūpuna Tamahaki, Tamakana, and Uenuku. They also share in the kaitiakitanga that connects them to the whenua in which they reside, and are the original custodians—an ancestral descent from the Waimarino Plains, Te Kāhui Maunga, and Te Awa Tupua o Whanganui.

The lands of Te Korowai o Wainuiārua were once covered in ancient ngahere, tall forest ecosystems, which housed abundant native wildlife. There are stories of the noisy kākā, which were once so ubiquitous their resounding call saturated the soundscape. It is for this reason that Te Korowai o Wainuiārua have aptly chosen the name Pōkākā for their eco-sanctuary, a visionary act of restoration and care.

Though let us reflect also on the reasons this eco-sanctuary is so needed in the first place. Why is it that native birds like the kākā no longer sing in multitudes? Why is it that ancient ngahere no longer cloak Papatūānuku from mountain to shore?

To restore is to bring back what has been lost, or, in this case, what has been confiscated or destroyed. The taking of lands for reserves, railways, roads, defence purposes, and a prison; the intensive logging of native forests and subsequent destruction of habitats; and the severance of peoples from their rights and customary practices of guardianship, cultivation, and connection is a textbook example of colonial domination. At the hands of the Crown, ngā iwi o Te Korowai o Wainuiārua have been left virtually landless. The deed of settlement describes the devastating effects of these violences, which continue to impact upon uri to this day.

It has been said many times by people much wiser than me that a treaty cannot be settled; it must be honoured. This bill goes some way to address the agony caused at the hands of this very institution we represent. It seeks to forge a pathway forward by addressing the realities of the past—realities which cannot be erased, but for too long have been denied and ignored.

The return of lands, of rights, and of names—these things are so important because they are so fundamental. Whose record is regarded as true or official and whose history is held up as accurate is so often a matter of cultural dominance. Under colonisation, the script is written by the Crown and reified by historical amnesia. It seeks to erase the indigenous narrative in an attempt to justify the unjustifiable—those heinous acts of invasion, confiscation, and violence.

Today, the record is set straight and the account—a lived reality, inherited pain—is recognised and recorded. E te Pīka, e te Whare, e rau rangatira mā, e tautoko ana au i tēnei pire. Nā reira, tēnā tātou katoa.

[To the Speaker, the House, and the many chiefs and others, I support this bill. Therefore, greetings to us all.]

Hapū and whānau of Te Korowai o Wainuiārua, tēnā koutou katoa. Tamahaki, Tamakana, and Uenuku, ngā mihi. Thank you for coming here today to listen to the Crown acknowledge what has been agreed to in this Treaty settlement bill.

I acknowledge also my colleagues who have spoken so far. The term “the red book” is an interesting term to have heard, and it describes a lot about what can be seen when people are trying to come together and understand each other, and processes that can be imposed, or not. Your grace, which has been spoken to, and your forbearance and what you have done by coming here today to listen to the Crown speak an apology to you, is bringing with you those ancestors that haven’t been able to come here today and hear it.

When I was thinking about how to deliver my speech, I thought back to the time I spent a year building in Ohakune and Raetihi. I’m from Tauranga, and so I had to come down and work and stay for a few weeks at a time in the cold draughty house that I was staying in. I thought about the strength and the unbelievable persistence of your tīpuna, who managed to survive in a thriving ngahere full of kai and that, but also I was wondering what did these guys eat—how do you sustain yourself when the growing season is not so long?

I thought about the knowledge that was brought by your tīpuna about how to survive on that land but also the ability to travel around the vast areas to gather kai, which is something that can’t be addressed by simply acknowledging the massive amount. I think I’ve written here that it’s 411,196 acres, which is a term for measuring land, but how do you measure the paths and the tracks and the places where you could gather kai? It’s hard to measure.

The ability for your tīpuna to survive up there just shows what resilience you have managed to hold on to, proudly. Through the great strength that has allowed those who were landless—landlessness is a term we’ve heard in the speeches so far. To maintain that strength and cohesion and your whanaungatanga between everybody during a time when you’re not—well, you always had a place that was your land, whether the title said it or not.

I think about some other things I’ve heard today, and that’s place names and the history of what you can learn. New Zealanders, I encourage you to take an interest in place names around New Zealand and the Māori names for places because it unveils a history. The etymology of a word can lead to great deal of understanding about the people and actions in the past in an area. Pokākā: “stormy”, “sharp”—I don’t know what the dictionary says, but I can well imagine there’s a story behind that that I would love to hear. I congratulate you on all that.

I don’t want to tarnish this third reading speech in any way, but I would just like to address something that the House has heard regarding how this process is going today. This House has a kawa and a tikanga about it, and one of the things is the Business Committee, which structures a day. The Business Committee represents all parties, and all parties agreed to our structure today, so I just wanted to put that out there.

That shouldn’t take away from this moment, which can be bittersweet for those who feel it should go further and more. It is also sweet in a way we can move forward and taste the fruits of the work that’s going to come ahead from what you have got a setting here today to work on for you whānau and your hapū.

Look, I could talk more about things I don’t know about, but I don’t think that’s going to do anyone a great edification or be a great use of your time. I sincerely would like to pass on, on behalf of the party which I’m speaking for—the ACT Party—our sincere apology as part of the Crown, and also our support for this bill. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. E Te Korowai o Wainuiārua, nau mai, haere mai ki waenganui i a mātou, te tōrangapū. E hari ana tōku ngākau ki te tū i tēnei wā ki te whakamana, ki te whakarangatira i a koutou, me te whakamāmā i ngā mamae kua kawea e koutou i ngā tau maha kua pahure.

Ko tēnei rā he tohu nui mō te tika, mō te pono, mō te whakahoki i te mana kua roa e tangohia ana i a koutou. Ka mihi atu ki tō koutou manawanui, ki tō koutou ū ki te kaupapa ahakoa ngā uauatanga. Kei konei mātou he hoa haere, hei pou tautoko i tēnei ara hou kua huakina mō koutou mō ngā uri whakaheke.

Anei tētahi uri nō Hokianga-whakapau-karakia e mihi kau ana ki a koutou.

He poto te tangata, he poto hoki te kōrero, nō reira tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, huri noa, tēnā koutou katoa.

[To Te Korowai o Wainuiārua, welcome, welcome among us, the politicians. My heart is gladdened to stand at this time to endorse and honour you, and to ease the anguish that you have carried for so many years past.

This day is a symbol of justice and truth, and for the return of the mana that has for a long time been taken from you. I acknowledge your resilience, and your commitment to the programme despite the difficulties. We are here as companions, as pillars of support on this new path that has opened for you and for future generations.

I am a descendant of Hokianga-whakapau-karakia that greets you.

One of short stature keeps their comments brief, and so greetings and thanks all around the House, greetings to you all.]

In the Māori language—our Māori language—what I said was: Te Korowai o Wainuiārua, welcome. Settle in amongst your politicians. I am overjoyed that the injustices, the pain, the suffering, the wrongdoings against you are finally acknowledged. I also acknowledge your perseverance and dedication, and the many hardships endured to get you to this point. We—Parliament—stand in support as you, the new generation, move forward in a new direction. I, a descendant of Hokianga, acknowledge you all. I am short, and so is my kōrero. Greetings to you all and, again, to everyone here.

I’d just like to give a little explainer. My father was born in Hokianga in 1925. In December this year, it will be a hundred years since his birth. Now, he was of a generation where his mother would not teach him the reo, so I grew up in a family that didn’t speak the reo and I have great understanding of what loss of language means.

The reason I talk about my father is—well, it just occurred to me about five minutes ago to, but one of the other reasons is the connection with Maunga Ruapehu. He, in the 1950s, loved tramping. He helped build a hut on the mountain, and so, as a child growing up, we would go through that area and spend time tramping and skiing, and he used to say that he was the only Māori on the maunga who was a skier. He also met my mother there and proposed to her there. We also got snowed in many times and had to walk down the maunga, as little kids with our frozen little waewae, crying and thinking it was the most dreadful thing because of how cold it was. But, really, it was a place of great warmth for my family and the wonderful memories we shared, and I just wanted to share that with you today.

With Te Korowai o Wainuiārua Claims Settlement Bill, as I mentioned in the second reading, it is really wonderful to stand in this House today and hear the stories and the connections to a place that other members—our colleagues across the House—have too, relating to the place that we’re talking about, relating to a Treaty settlement. I acknowledge all those members who connect to this area as well. It’s really lovely to also remember my memories of this area in travelling up and down the country, which I’ve been doing regularly over the last eight or so years, getting my daughter to and from school, down in the Manawatū, and university, and carting horses up and down. We always stop on the Desert Road somewhere and take photos of the beautiful maunga, and we’re always in awe.

I must pass on greetings from my colleague the Hon Shane Jones. Matua Shane sends his well wishes to you all, alongside that of my leader, the Rt Hon Winston Peters.

In the first reading speech, Matua Shane talked about the tangata whenua from that part of the North Island, which he regards as the coldest that God ever put breath into. However, the warmth of the people should not be underestimated, and there is some warmth—great warmth—in the House here today.

Matua Shane also talked about how it’s a complicated settlement, and although modest in fiscal size, its complication derives from many instruments that are in there. It’s complicated because it represents a great deal of responsibility to monitor and to exercise oversight of in terms of the multiple pieces of land and the statutory representations that are reflected in this bill, which you have to share with a number of your neighbours. Of course, sharing and having those overlapping interests requires another level of relationship and of managing and nurturing those relationships, and so we wish you well into the future with that.

He also mentioned that involvement in the Māori political economy. We know that, number one, it’s not easy, and, number two, if it’s not carried out in an efficient manner, it can be very, very burdensome. So we hope and send you good wishes that as you manage those relationships into the future, there is benefit for everybody.

I’d like to make a comment on my colleague and whanaunga from across the floor, Hūhana Lyndon, who mentioned being an angry Ngāpuhi woman. I think that the kōrero that you bring—really, we must release our anger. I think it’s really important that when we hold on to anger, whether it’s through grievances that the Crown has created—to make sure that that anger, that trauma, doesn’t settle into our own DNA, because when we pass that on to our children, we pass on a burden to them that we should not be doing. I hope that in terms of this Treaty settlement and through this process, we get to a point today, at the third and final reading, where you’re able to leave in this House your mamae, and you cast it down upon this place so that you no longer carry that burden of trauma and pass it on to your future generations. It’s important that you do that today.

New Zealand First believes that Treaty settlements must be final, just, and forward-looking. New Zealand First has always been committed to fairness in Treaty settlements. That entails ensuring that some settlements are complete and they maintain the mana of the relevant iwi, that they do not lead to ongoing disputes or competing claims, and that these Treaty settlements actually restore the mana of the Crown. It’s critical that settlements are substantial when it comes to economic and commercial potential so that the iwi can make viable economic bases for the future of their children, because it is about the future. While we don’t forget the past, we must release the pain of the past so that we can move forward into the future.

We support this bill because it provides a just and enduring solution for the people of Te Korowai o Wainuiārua. It’s an act of reconciliation and accountability. It ensures that this settlement marks the end of the historical grievances for this iwi. It’s also about being just, ensuring the Crown acts as it should, and giving Te Korowai o Wainuiārua the foundation to build a better future for all of your people. I commend this bill to the House.

Tēnā koe e te Pīka.

Ko Aotea taku waka, ko Tipuahororangi te tata

Te hoe ko Koutū-ki-te-rangi, ngā tai e Rīwaru

[Aotea is my ancestral canoe, Tipuaororangi is the ceremonial bailer

Koutū-ki-te-rangi is the paddle, the tides of Rīwaru]

Whakarongo ake rā ki te reo hōruarua i Pari-te-tai-tonga e pāorooro atu nei ki te whenua tahora, ki te whenua tomato tomato, tau atu rā ki Te Awa Tupua. E rere kau mai te awa nui mai i Te Kāhui Maunga ki Tangaroa. Ko au te awa, ko te awa ko au

Kei ngā uri o Te Wainuiārua, ngā uri o Tamahaki, o Tamakana, o Uenuku, tauti mai rā ki tō koutou nei Whare. Nā koutou tēnei rā ki te w’akanui, ki te w’akahōnore. Nā koutou i w’akapau kaha i ngā tau maha kia tutuki ai tēnei kaupapa.

Nō reira haere mai koutou, w’akakotahi mai tātou i runga i te aroha, i te tika me te rangimārie. Pai mārire.

[Listen to the hollow voice at Pari-te-tai-tonga that echoes out across the open land, the lush land, all the way to the W’anganui River. The great river flows from the Alpine Clan to the sea. I am the river, the river is me.

To the descendants of Te Wainuiārua, the descendants of Tamahaki, of Tamakana, of Uenuku, welcome to your House. This day is yours to celebrate and honour. It was you who expended your strength over many years to bring this endeavour to fruition.

And so welcome to you, let us unite in compassion, in truth and peace. Goodwill to all.]

As an uri o Muru Raupatu, I mihi to ngā uri o Muru Raupatu. As an uru o te Hauhau, I mihi to te uri o te Hauhau. As an uri o Te Kāhui Maunga, I mihi to te uri o Te Kāhui Maunga. I mihi to Te Tihi o te Rae. I share your hurt, I share your trauma, and I share your deep aroha for our nation.

The Crown were kino in their land grabs. They were greedy; they still are. We don’t believe in final settlements—I need to probably refer to everything the last speaker said, but I’m trying to keep on the kaupapa. We don’t believe in any finality to Te Tiriti, because it must be honoured. It’s not a settling document. It’s not like a jam jar—you preserve it, it settles, and you put it away on the shelf. It’s our living being, our essence, our hope.

I want to be really clear today that we support ngā uri o Uenuku, Tamakana, and Tamahaki, and I support what my whanaunga Adrian Rurawhe said in the first reading, which was that there’s a reason why those names aren’t well-known. So I’m going to say them again: Uenuku, Tamakana, and Tamahaki. There’s a reason why people don’t know where to look for these iwi, and they tried really hard. But today, I address and I celebrate your resilience, because not only are you up there; you’re down here too. You’re in the House, you’re out of the House, you’re on the House, you’re around the House, and we salute the fact that even colonisation couldn’t take you out—it could not succeed—and we celebrate your resilience.

What would this House have done? Imagine Hobson seeing us here, dressed like this, and Governor Grey, John Bryce, FitzRoy, and Hobson. Ha! Imagine their horror. You survived and, despite what everyone else thinks, you thrive.

E kī, e kī—you never left the ngahere. It might be on a piece of paper, and ka pai! Huge mahi, Chris. I mihi to you, I always loved you, and I’m always proud of your mahi. I’m so proud that you’re with our grassroots whānau because so many only want to go to the flash kaupapa. I’m so proud that you could feel and see and hear that they never left the ngahere, never left our whenua, never left our maunga—e kī, e kī! Pieces of paper.

There’s a lot in this House to show that in spite of, despite of, as matatini prove, we thrive, and we’re coming back in a way that the world is so excited to see. There’s a lot to be sorry for in this place and there’s really never enough making up, but we must continue to remind ourselves that we don’t need to be taught how to work together. We have w’akapapa. W’akapapa is something that no one else can take off us, and it’s going to be hard—it’s going to be hard—but we just have to remember the strength and the power of our w’akapapa. That is the story of aroha—Aotearoa New Zealand mā. This is a love story. This is a love story of our whānau who, despite and in spite, have shown their love and deep forgiveness for everything that this paru Whare has done—everything.

To our post-settlement governance entity trustees Aiden Gilbert, Hayden Turoa, Tāwhiao McMaster, Uncle Baldy—sorry, I don’t know your real name; I’m so sorry, I was trying to think what is his real name—Marilyn Karimu, my brother nō Wayne Cribb, James Foster, Missy Edmonds, Greg Robinson, let your pain strengthen your progress. Uniting is progress, restoring Waimarino is progress, remembering to remember is progress, an 11 percent increase in iwi membership is progress, asserting our tūpuna names is progress, remembering and asserting iwi names is progress, and I think we have to remind ourselves and our mokopuna of the progress that we potentially will always be in this nation. Fostering whanaungatanga is something we’re really great at, and no one else in this country can do it like we do.

I want to reflect on a few things, too, that we’ve seen go down in these settlement processes, and the fact that you must not be strangers to this House. While everyone will sit here and unanimously agree that Te Tiriti is important, so is everything else connected to Te Tiriti. I want you to never forget those who tomorrow will forget you, and what honouring Te Tiriti looks like.

Heoi anōhere, [However,] I want us to return back to the kōrero. I am deeply in honour of you not just because of our w’anaungatanga but also because of the relationship that you have in giving me my nieces and my mokopuna Colleen. We have for years and generations had w’akapapa together, and I am absolutely in awe of the fact that you manaaki my sister, that you manaaki our whānau, and that you have brought us back together in w’akapapa, in marriage, and mokopuna.

There’s something that we had shared that my brother-in-law—and I remember also many who have passed, including “Boy” Cribb. I don’t know how many years he used to talk about Uenuku, Tamakana, and Tamahaki. I hadn’t heard it. It was hard enough remembering our own Taranaki stories, but he would carry on and on in a way that you know “Boy” Cribb could.

One of the things he did—and I want to acknowledge those who walked before us, who lit the ahikā—and there was a story that was shared by Koro Mark Cribb, which I’d like to share with you before we finish up. When our ancestors first set foot upon this land, they lit the fire—ahikā—because the fire is a representation of our life principle that fire is not just about physical warmth; it is our identity, our connection to the land, our w’akapapa, and the essence of who we are as a people. No matter how much time has passed, no matter the challenges or the struggles, that fire continues to burn within us. There was a time when we were led away from our whenua and were made to believe that it no longer belonged to us, but, as Koro Mark reminds us, “we do not have to fight to get it back, because it never went anywhere. We were only directed away from it and now we are returning.”

Now is the time to rebuild and to re-establish ourselves upon our whenua. Only on our own land can we truly stand on our mana, raise our ancestral houses, and shelter the mauri—the life force—of our people. This is not about our war or conflict. It is about restoring balance, reclaiming what has always been ours, and ensuring our tamariki and our mokopuna inherit the strength of their tūpuna. Let us walk forward with determination, guided by the wisdom of our past and carrying the fire of our ancestors into the future. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Ata mārie, and welcome once again to all our whānau from our Te Korowai o Wainuiārua iwi. Welcome again to your House, to Parliament House. Haere mai.

I’d like to begin with maybe a light note, if I may. I noticed this morning when we were at the pōwhiri at the Public Trust building that I seemed to somehow get the memo that I’m wearing the colours of your iwi. The reason why I say this light-hearted comment is that I whakapapa to Lebanon, and what I realised when I started being embraced by our Māori brothers and sisters in South Auckland is that we’ve got a lot of similarities.

The first time I went to a tangi at Papakura Marae, the CEO over there, my friend Tony Kake—beautiful man—was translating and explaining a lot of the tikanga that was taking place, and I was shocked to learn how similar Lebanese and Māori are in certain situations like tangi. I noticed that after the formalities, there’d be some serious talk, and then there’d be some light-hearted comments and it would go a bit back and forth, and what I realised is that, like Lebanese, Māori grieve deeply. We wail, we cry, and we allow ourselves and our families to cry together, but we allow for some humour, and maybe that’s to dull some of the pain that we’re feeling—and that’s why I hope you don’t mind that I said the light-hearted comment about the colour scheme.

I saw this firsthand today at the pōwhiri. What I also learnt from Tony Kake was the karanga and the beautiful women that sing that, and what they’re doing is they’re calling upon those that have gone, the ancestors, the tūpuna. These tūpuna, when we call them, or when you call them—and thank you to the beautiful lady who sang today—you’re calling them and they’re with us. That’s why for me, brothers and sisters, when it was explained to me that we go into a state of tapu, I take it seriously, and I don’t leave any pōwhiri without having a sip of water because I take seriously what’s important to you, our Māori brothers and sisters.

Today, as we were sitting down and we were listening to many of our kaumātua and our Ministers reflect on the kaupapa that we’re here for today, I allowed myself to imagine that a number of those tūpuna of yours were sitting on those empty seats and standing around, and I tried not to get emotional. I think they really were there, and they’re here right now, as we’re talking about what we’re going forward with—the grievances that you collectively have suffered.

I’d like to reflect on some of those grievances, if I may. It’s important, and I know a number of us have reflected on it, but for those that have just tuned in from beyond our walls, there was warfare during the 19th century, led by the Crown in many situations, and these actions disrupted the social structure of Te Korowai o Wainuiārua. There was the land confiscation, which we’ve heard of, for public works, and yet we got some trains built and some railways built, but it was still on confiscated land.

There was the formation of national parks—the establishment of the Tongariro and Whanganui National Parks. This involved incorporation of ancestral lands without your consent, I say to those of you in the gallery—your ancestors—without consent or compensation, and when I realised this, I thought about how beautiful the Tongariro Alpine Crossing is and that national park. It’s so interesting: they’re beautiful and they’re breathtaking, but when you’re eating an apricot that is so sweet but it’s been stolen from a tree, that consumption is always underpinned with guilt, and that’s what I thought of when I realised that these beautiful places are actually on confiscated land.

There were social, economic, and cultural impacts. Cultural displacement, as we’ve heard, and the loss of land and access to sacred sites of course disrupted your traditional practices. This is part of what we’re acknowledging with this settlement bill today, and it’s important that we acknowledge it and it’s important that we try and find some type of resolution, which we really have tried with this process.

Finally, I’d like to end with just a small quote from one of the submitters, Pieta Gilbert—and I hope you’re here, and, if not, I hope you’re listening. Pieta said, “Our settlement has come in God’s timing. Although it will never be enough considering all the loss many generations of our people have endured, as a result of our lands being taken. We hope that through this settlement we can work together with the crown, government agencies, and community groups in achieving the bigger picture”.

Our settlement, as they have said, has come in God’s timing. God bless you as you go forward and create great opportunities for your mokopuna. I commend this bill to the House.

Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. Ka tangi te tītī, ka tangi te kākā, ka tangi hoki ko ahau. Tihei mauri ora. Ko te mihi tuatahi ki te atua, nāna nei ngā mea katoa. Ko te mihi tuarua ki te Whare e tū nei, tēnā koe.

Āpiti hono, tātai hono, te hunga mate ki te hunga mate. Āpiti hono, tātai hono, te hunga ora ki te hunga ora. He mihi mahana ki a koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Greetings to the Speaker of the House. As the muttonbird and the kākā cry, so too do I. The first acknowledgment is to the god who created all things. My second acknowledgment is to the House standing here, greetings.

The lines are drawn, the dead to the dead, the lines are drawn, the living to ourselves. And so warm greetings and acknowledgments to you and to us collectively.]

I would first like to acknowledge the fact that I was not able to come to your pōwhiri today, and I am sorry for that, and I would also like to acknowledge that you were not able to be here for the second reading of this bill. I would like to acknowledge the fact that we’re here today to right the wrongs of the past and acknowledge that, for too long, te iwi Māori have been required to conform into constructs that are not made for them, and yet still, today, your reading and your legislation and the commemoration ceremonies for this legislation have overlapped. Once again, Māori have been required to conform to fall into this form. I would like to acknowledge that the speech I gave in the second reading—when you were not here—I will be giving again now, because I crafted this speech for you to hear.

Te Korowai o Wainuiārua Claims Settlement Bill: this represents a milestone in a long and deeply painful journey towards justice for the people of Te Korowai o Wainuiārua. This bill being passed today will give effect to the deed of settlement signed on 29 July 2023, settling the historical Treaty of Waitangi claims for Te Korowai o Wainuiārua. In doing so, it acknowledges in law the immense injustices suffered by the iwi of Tamahaki, Tamakana, and Uenuku ki Manganui-o-te-Ao, and it also lays the future foundations for Te Korowai o Wainuiārua so that you can claim your rightful place as the kaitiaki of your whenua, awa, and taonga.

The grievances of Te Korowai o Wainuiārua are real. They are lived experiences that have shaped generations: experiences of war, dispossession, economic deprivation, and cultural loss. These are grievances that echo through the centuries and continue to impact on whānau, hapū, and iwi.

Te Korowai o Wainuiārua have long occupied the central North Island, and span an area of over 600,000 hectares, including large parts of Whanganui and Tongariro national parks, the upper Whanganui River, and the National Park township. Your lands are bordered by the rohe of eight other iwi and also reflect the rich and interwoven histories of tangata whenua across your region.

The story of Te Korowai o Wainuiārua over the past two centuries has been one of relentless pressure, forced conflict, and systematic alienation from your whenua and your rights as tangata whenua. The first wound came in the form of war, which forced ancestors of Te Korowai o Wainuiārua into conflict, sometimes with their own kin. The Crown’s relentless military campaigns in Whanganui saw communities devastated, lands taken, and traditional structures of governance and authority shattered.

The second wave of destruction came with the relentless march of Crown purchasing. The supposed agreements and transactions of the 19th century were often conducted in bad faith, with the Crown failing to uphold its promises to set aside and protect land as tribal reserves. Instead, vast areas of land were alienated, leaving Te Korowai o Wainuiārua virtually landless. Public works takings then compounded this loss. Land was seized for hydroelectric projects, for railway construction, and for defence purposes, always with little or even no regard for those whom it affected the most, or for the rights and the wellbeing of the people who called this land home.

The construction of the North Island main trunk railway is one example. It cut through the very heart of Te Korowai o Wainuiārua lands, yet iwi were left without benefit, without redress, and without whenua. Perhaps most wrongly, large tracts of land were taken for the creation of Tongariro and Whanganui national parks—parks that remain places of great natural beauty and cultural significance, and yet those parks were established without the consent of the very people who had cared for these lands for generations and generations. In effect, Te Korowai o Wainuiārua were left as strangers in their own whenua with the pressure of the Crown’s attempting to sever the connection of tūrangawaewae, and it is testimony today that you are here in this House, with members of Parliament, and also in the gallery to stand defiant in the face of that force.

The loss of land was devastating. The Crown’s actions and omissions led to generations of social and economic deprivation. Without land, economic stability was impossible, and without economic stability, communities struggled. Poverty took root where prosperity should have flourished, opportunities for advancement were few, and State policies only deepened that divide.

Alongside the economic impact came the slow but deliberate erosion of Te Korowai o Wainuiārua’s cultural and social structures. Along with that, the decline of te reo Māori, the fragmentation of traditional governance, and the undermining of tribal identity all resulted from the Crown’s neglect and active suppression of Māori rights and culture.

These losses are immeasurable. There is no settlement that can fully restore what has been taken, but today, through this bill, we acknowledge these injustices and we take a step towards reconciliation.

This settlement provides a bill that is long overdue. It is the recognition at the highest level of the wrongs committed against Te Korowai o Wainuiārua, and it represents a promise—a promise that such injustices will never be repeated, even though this House is still considering the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill, which is in select committee right now.

This settlement has provided a range of redress, and it also contains a formal historical account of the injustices suffered by Te Korowai o Wainuiārua. In that acknowledgment, it includes the Crown’s apology and acknowledgment. Words alone are not enough, but they are necessary. They mark the Crown’s acceptance of its past failures and signal a commitment to a different future, but this is but a drop in the bucket of what has been lost and what has been taken.

Part 2 of the bill provides statutory acknowledgments over 22 different areas and recognition over 13 sites. It provides overlay classifications that will restore the role of Te Korowai o Wainuiārua as kaitiaki over lands of deep cultural significance and it changes place names, ensuring the stories of whenua are told in the language of its people; the vesting of 19 cultural redress properties, including three that will be jointly held with other iwi; and the inclusion of Te Korowai o Wainuiārua in the governance of the Tongariro-Taupō Conservation Board and the development of its conservation management strategy. That’s called partnership, and it’s also called co-governance. These provisions ensure that Te Korowai o Wainuiārua reclaim their rightful role as protectors of their land, with a voice in the decisions that affect their rohe.

I’d like to conclude by saying that these are not handouts. This is not charity. This is a small portion of what was unjustly taken, and it is now returned to Te Korowai o Wainuiārua. I know that this will not anywhere near meet what has been lost, but I hope that this will provide a strong foundation for you, for your tamariki, and for your mokopuna in generations to come, and I wish you all the very best. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou katoa. Ko Ruapehu te maunga, ko Turakina te awa, nō Rangitīkei ahau. Ko Dossor Redmayne tōku w’ānau, ko Suze tōku ingoa. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Greetings to you all. Ruapehu is the mountain, Turakina is the river, I am from Rangitīkei. Dossor Redmayne is my family, Suze is my name. Greetings thrice to you all.]

Nau mai, haere mai ki te Whare Pāremata. Nau mai ki tō koutou Whare i tēnei rā—welcome to your House today. I want to celebrate the coming together of the people of Tamahaki, Tamakana, and my people, Uenuku, the god of the rainbow. Uenuku tū wae rua—a rainbow stands in two places. You are connected through shared experience, and today I am privileged to walk in your shoes, privileged to share your connection for the third reading of the Te Korowai o Wainuiārua Claims Settlement Bill.

One hundred and eighty-five years ago, rangatira from Te Korowai o Wainuiārua signed the Treaty of Waitangi with the expectation of fair treatment, justice, and honour between Crown and iwi, but the good faith of your people was not matched by the Crown. Te Korowai o Wainuiārua persevered through land confiscation, unmet promises for the preservation of whenua Māori, and a complete lack of engagement on the developments and activities the Crown proceeded with on your land. You fiercely defended these actions by the Crown. Your people were drawn into conflict, fighting in battles that define New Zealand’s history, such as those at Moutoa Island, Ohoutahi, and Pīpīriki Pā.

It’s important today to acknowledge the impact of the loss of your lands. Despite the strength of your people, by the 20th century you were virtually landless and were forced to face the social and economic challenges which followed. Casualties of the Crown’s actions included the loss of mātauranga Māori due to discouragement of te reo Māori and the destruction of your tribal structures. This bill acknowledges breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi which literally left hapū and iwi landless and caused significant and ongoing social and economic harm.

Aidan Gilbert—kia ora, e hoa—has also talked to me about the symbolic division of the Whanganui River at Pīpīriki with Whanganui to the south and the three hapū of Uenuku, Tamahaki, and Tamakana to the north. Those to the north were labelled Hauhau, or rebels, by the Crown. He told me how they endured the stigma, the whakamā, of the Hauhau label, and they endured the subsequent painful divisions between their iwi and the iwi of Whanganui.

Although Tamahaki, Tamakana, and Uenuku are distinct tribal entities, you are tightly connected through whakapapa and a shared history. In negotiations, you demonstrated manaakitanga as a people and as iwi. You’ve bound yourself together under a vision for collective prosperity. The outcomes of this settlement mark a starting point for redressing those harms. They’re a springboard for hope and progress.

I want to acknowledge the negotiators, Aidan Gilbert, Chris McKenzie, Paora Haitana—“Uncle Baldy”—and Steve Hirini, and the many others who supported them. You’ve navigated changing Governments and hard conversations with neighbouring iwi. I commend you for your persistence and your patience.

I also want to acknowledge those who aren’t here to witness this special day. There have been many over the years who have advocated tirelessly for recognition and redress. I pay tribute to kaumātua and kuia who aren’t here any more who also fought hard and were among the first to submit claims to the Waitangi Tribunal in the 1980s. Kua roa koutou e tatari ana—you have waited a long time.

I want to congratulate the recently elected board of trustees for the Uenuku Charitable Trust: for Uenuku, Aidan Gilbert, Lesley Edmonds, and Tāwhiao McMaster; for Tamahaki, Paora Haitana, Wayne Cribb, and Greg Robinson; and for Tamakana, Hayden Turoa, Marilyn Davis, and James Foster. This election was historic, and I wish you all the best for your efforts to build a prosperous future for the benefit of our region and all its people.

As the proud MP for Rangitīkei, I’m excited about what this settlement means for you and for our region. I enjoyed a candid conversation with Elijah Pue just the other day. We talked about the much-needed shot in the arm, as he described it, that this settlement will bring to Waimarino at a time when we most need it following the mill closure and the harsh economic realities. We also talked about the political environment peddling division. Well, this bill signifies the opposite. As Elijah reiterated, this is the start of new beginnings, and a time to focus on shared commonalities and to focus on what brings us together, not on what divides us: the health and wellbeing of our people, and the health and wellbeing of the environment and of our communities of interest.

This bill signifies the end of a long and tumultuous claim period. What comes across so strongly is a shared desire and a steely determination to make this settlement work for everyone. There are green shoots. The trust is already starting to do great things, and I look forward to seeing this shared vision of Te Korowai o Wainuiārua come to fruition. Initiatives like the Raetihi Community Hub and the Pōkākā Eco-sanctuary give us just a glimpse into what the future might hold.

Uenuku tū wae rua—a rainbow stands in two places. To the people of Uenuku, Tamahaki, and Tamakana, you are connected through shared experience, and today, in this House, we are all connected to you.

It’s my privilege to commend the bill to the House. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

Glen Bennett—a five-minute call.

Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou, and I bring warm Taranaki greetings to you this morning, from my whānau to yours. We have a shared history, and, you know, a love story. It didn’t go quite so well for us, but that’s OK. You benefit from the Whanganui Awa, and I say thank you for allowing us to—from your story of love—have our beautiful Taranaki Maunga watching over my people and the lands that I live in.

To those who have gone before you and who weren’t able to be in this place today to commemorate where we have come to, we acknowledge those who have gone before: your ancestors, those who have departed these realms. But to the living, to those who are here today and those whom you represent, I say welcome, and I look forward to seeing the progress and the movements that this moment in history will make for the future.

We must acknowledge the past—it is so important—so to the iwi of Tamahaki, Tamakana, and Uenuku, I say welcome and thank you for your patience, but also continue to challenge and push those of us in this place and what this place represents for a thriving future together. We have to acknowledge our past to look forward to our future. We look at the warfare, we look at the martial law on your lands, we look at the confiscation, and we look at what was taken in terms of your awa—for what? For some roads, for some rail, for some electricity, for some tanks and warfare, and for the main trunk line.

Like with most iwi and hapū around Aotearoa, it was your resources and it was your lands that forged a pathway for my people to build our towns and our cities. It was your forests that were cut down to build our schools and our houses and our main streets. It was your lands that were taken for the sake of transporting the goods and my people to the places we wanted to go and to heat our homes, to run our factories, and to build profit and prosperity, leaving your people behind, landless and, in many ways, with resources taken from them. But I take great comfort—“comfort” is the wrong word; I apologise—in the mana that I see not only today but in the fight that has gone on for more than 140 years for your lands and your resources.

I want to acknowledge those who have come before, but I look forward to seeing those who are yet to come—your tamariki and your tamariki to come. I look forward to today being a pivotal day, not of settlement, but of some kind of redress that will see a thriving and inclusive community, iwi, and hapū that show my people in Aotearoa what the future holds: honouring Te Tiriti and walking together. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

Ki ngā iwi e toru o Te Korowai o Wainuiārua, Tamahaki, Tamakana, Uenuku. Nōku te honore, nōku te whiwhi, nōku te tino maringanui ki te tū ki tō koutou aroaro, kia tautoko ai te pānui tuatoru o tēnei pire.

[To the three tribes of Te Korowai o Wainuiārua, Tamahaki, Tamakana, Uenuku. It is my honour, gain, and great fortune to stand before you to support the third reading of this bill.]

Can I just start by acknowledging the previous speaker Glen Bennett’s point. I loved the way that he moved away from the language of settlement and towards one of hope and of promise. This is, indeed, of course, a settlement, but it’s for that purpose.

I had a speech written for this occasion, of course. I finished it last night, but then, this morning, I went to the mihi whakatau. We’ve heard a number of critiques this morning of the process of this House, both here and generally, and the suggestion and the call made that you all needed more time in this place. I didn’t hear you ask for that this morning; rather, I heard you inviting us to your place.

It was my privilege to sit on the Māori Affairs Committee. I was so sorry that with the cancellation with the tangi that came up, we didn’t get the opportunity and we weren’t able to reorganise, and I apologise for that. I won’t let that happen again in the future. I will move heaven and hell to make sure that for any iwi with whom we are going through a process like this, we get in front of it.

Hearing you this morning at ko te whakamōmona o te māramatanga [the enrichment of understanding], can I acknowledge just two of the speakers in particular. To Hayden Turoa, he ātaahua tō kōrero i te ata nei, e hoa. [your speech this morning was beautiful, my friend.] Āe. Kua rangona au tō wero, kua hīnātore ināianei. [Yes. I have heard your challenge, it is now clear.]

Your challenge about the disconnect of much of this city was, for me, further emphasised when moments later, I had to miss the hākari to race back here because this House demanded my presence at 9 a.m., and not a second later. He kupu whakarite, nē? [It’s a simile, eh?]

To Paora Haitana, nāu i whakatau te wairua mā te karakia, mā te waiata ki te atua o tō tātou whakapono [you settled the atmosphere through the karakia and waiata to the god of our faith]. I a koe e kōrero ana ki tō koutou tipuna, i kākahutia ō kupu e te tangi o te mokopuna, a Hunter Cribb.

[When you were speaking to your ancestor, your words were cloaked with the grandchild Hunter Cribb’s cry].

For me, the most powerful moment this morning—and it’s the picture that will stay with me for as long as I am graced with years on this earth—was when you were speaking to your tūpuna about where we had come and where you were and where we were this day, and Hunter’s cries were addressing your words. That picture from Hunter, through his dad, Gordon, to his ancestors—they say a picture is worth a thousand words. I think you will have had to have listened to about 20,000 words by the time you’ve finished here today, but that’s the picture that will summarise it all for me.

I can’t wait to meet Hunter again a few years from now—an uri of this moment—for the bill that we pass today recognises that Te Korowai o Wainuiārua has suffered greatly through incredible land loss through social and economic deprivation, through the decline of te reo Māori, te tino taonga tuku iho nō ngā tūpuna [a precious resource handed down from the ancestors], and the fragmentation of your tribal structures. The intent, the purpose, and the hope of this moment, and what I heard you yearn for this morning, is that Hunter will mature and grow on the land of his ancestors, that that land will flourish and thrive, and that Hunter, fluent in te reo takitaki, te reo o te whenua, te reo o te rangi, te reo o ngā tūpuna, will spend his days strengthening the ties of his iwi and hapū.

Koirā te tino tūmanako. Koirā te take o tēnei pire. Koirā te tino wawata o tēnei Whare. Koirā tō koutou wawata.

[That is the ultimate hope. That is the purpose of this bill. That is the ultimate dream of this House. That is your dream.]

I commend this bill to the House.

Tuatahi, e tika ana kia huri atu ki a koutou, ngā iwi e toru nei, Tamahaki, Tamakana, Uenuku ki Manganui o te Ao, nā Tūkaihoro.

Tēnei ahau e whakapiri ana aku mihi ki ngā mihi tino flash a ngā rangatira nei, a Peeni Henare, a Tama Potaka, tae atu ki te whakamoemiti e tuku atu i te mokopuna o āpotoro Paora Hekenui, arā ko Takutai Tarsh Kemp, tae atu anō ki te whakataukī whakahua ana a Debbie Ngarewa-Packer, tae atu anō ki te karanga o Hūhana Lyndon ki a koutou, tae atu anō ki ngā mihi katoa o te Whare nei, tēnei ahau e tuku mihi atu ki a koutou. Nau mai, haere mai, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, otirā, tēnā tātou.

[Firstly, it is appropriate to turn to you, the three tribes of Tamahaki, Tamakana, and Uenuku ki Manganui o te Ao, of Tūkaihoro.

This is me appending my acknowledgments to the very flash acknowledgments of these chiefs, Peeni Henare, Tama Potaka, inclusive of the prayer delivered by the grandchild of the apostle Paora Hekenui, namely Takutai Tarsh Kemp, and including the proverb expressed by Debbie Ngarewa-Packer, and also including the ceremonial call of welcome by Hūhana Lyndon to you, and including all the acknowledgments of this House, here I am delivering acknowledgments to you. Welcome, welcome, greetings to you and indeed to us all.]

It’s an honour to stand in the House today to acknowledge this bill and the third reading of this bill. I remember that I accompanied the Hon Andrew Little on his first visit to Waimarino, where he was told about the vision that the people had. We heard a lot of kōrero about what has materialised in this bill, and I’m thankful that we have arrived at this day to see its fruition.

A lot of work has gone into getting to this point and I, like others in the House, acknowledge the leadership and tenacity of te rangatira, taku tuakana a Aiden Gilbert, otirā tōna tīma katoa, i mahia ēnei mahi. [the chief, my senior Aiden Gilbert, and indeed his whole team, who did this work.] We all know it’s not an easy task, and it’s made more difficult by the hurdles and barriers that iwi go through to get a settlement. To be the referee amongst overlapping claimants, with other iwi, and to deal with the perpetrator of the breaches of the Treaty, who is also the decision maker about whether or not you get a settlement—it takes a huge amount of determination to get to this point, and I acknowledge it, as we all should.

We’ve heard a lot of kōrero—most of it really good—in this Whare, in this debate. Some of it was a little bit disconnected—however, good intent there. One should never forget the breaches and, yes, we should move on for the future generations, but let me tell you that in this bill, there’s an apology. I always say that apologies are only worth anything if the perpetrator never again perpetrates, and whilst we are passing this bill in its third reading, there are other actions that this House is considering which will directly impact on all three iwi in this settlement.

I’d take it with a little bit of a grain of salt when someone says to move on, probably because I’m a whanaunga of yours, and when I’m hearing that, I’m not hearing it as a member across the other side of the House. I’m hearing it as an uri and I’m considering it in that context, and I just hope and I challenge this House to never again trample on the mana of these iwi—ever—and that when certain bills arrive back into this House, they take that on board.

I want to take the opportunity—and I’m not going to speak for too long, but I do want to speak directly to the next generations. Your mātua, your koroua, and your kuia have done this today, and they have done this for your future and they have done the best under this construct that it allowed them to do. One day in the future, I know you will return to this House. You kind of have an obligation to do that, and don’t look at it as trampling on the mana of what your mātua and your tūpuna have done—no—but look at it as challenging whether or not things like relativity to other claims has been achieved, and whether or not this is in fact full and final, because it can only be full and final, or can be assessed to be so after all settlements have been done. There is work for you to do in the future, e ngā rangatahi. You should be proud today of your iwi—I certainly am.

I’m going to finish there with—I don’t usually do this, but I’m going to do it today. Korōria, hareruia ki a koe, Ihoa o ngā mano. Tūāuriuri, whaioio, kī tonu te rangi me te whenua i te nui o tō kororia.

Anā i mātou i tono atu ki a koutou kia hōmai piki te ora, piki te kaha, piki te māramatanga me te rangimārie, kia manaakitia hoki ēnei iwi e toru a Tamahaki, Tamakana, Uenuku ki Manganui o te Ao, nā Tūkaihoro.

Manaakitia ōna ā rātou tamariki mokopuna me te huarahi i mua i a rātou. Nō reira, ko koutou nā hoki te tīmatanga me te whakaotinga mai a mātou tūmanako atu nei i roto o koutou kororiatanga. Ko te māngai i tautoko mai, āia nei, ake nei, āe. Āe.

[Glory, hallelujah to you, Jehovah of the masses. Eternal and enduring, the heavens and the earth are filled with your glory.

We also ask that you give us increased health, strength, enlightenment, and peace, and to look after these three tribes, Tamahaki, Tamakana, Uenuku ki Manganui o te Ao, of Tūkaihoro.

Look after their children and grandchildren on the road before them. Therefore, you are the beginning and end of our hopes in your glorious kingdom. May the divine speaker confirm this prayer now and for ever, yes. Yes.]

E ngā mana, e ngā reo, e ngā iwi, tēnā koutou. Ki ngā mate, haere atu rā. Ki a tātou katoa, tēnā tātou.

[To the esteemed people, voices and tribes, greetings to you. To the deceased, go yonder. Greetings and salutations to us all.]

Many of us enjoyed the mihi whakatau this morning, and I rise to speak as the last speaker in the third reading on this settlement bill. Today, we take another important step towards settlement for Te Korowai o Wainuiārua. This is a moment that has been a long time coming, one that has taken years of hard work, dedication, and persistence from many people. In my first reading speech, I acknowledged that, indeed, in my context this has been what you would call a lifetime of work for many people.

As the 12th speaker, I know that some of what I’m going to say today will be repetitive for those of you in the gallery, but, hopefully, I’m going to add something new to the kōrero this morning. I want to start by acknowledging those who have fought for this settlement, both past and present. In particular, I want to acknowledge how so many of those who began this journey in the 1980s are not with us any longer, as we complete this part. To the negotiators, the kaumātua, the legal teams, and the whānau who have given their time and energy to get to this point, it has been a hard road, and today is part of recognising that mahi.

The history behind this claim is hard to hear, but it needs to be acknowledged. The people of Uenuku, Tamakana, and Tamahaki have suffered through war and through decisions of the Crown that left them with almost nothing. The label of “rebels” has stuck with them for generations, causing harm not only to their land holdings but to their identity and their future opportunities.

The impact of that loss was not just economic; it was cultural, it was social, and it was personal. When you take land—when you take whenua—you take away a community’s ability to determine its own future. That is what happened here.

A critical part of this settlement is the Crown’s formal apology. Words alone cannot undo the past, yet they matter. They acknowledge what happened and who was responsible, they acknowledge the hurt caused, and, hopefully, they enable both iwi and the Crown to reorientate for the future.

This settlement also, as we know, includes financial and cultural redress. The $21.7 million is an acknowledgment of the damage done. It’s not a replacement for what was lost, but a foundation to help rebuild. The $6.85 million in cultural revitalisation funds will support the strengthening of language, traditions, and history for future generations, for your mokopuna and for all of your uri.

Then there is also the return of 19 sites. These are not just parcels of land; they hold deep significance. They are places of whakapapa, places of connection, and places that tell the story of all these three iwi.

Over the past few days, I’ve taken some time to look at topographical maps of the rohe and where these sites are. It really reinforced how much was lost and why this redress matters. If you have not ever looked at a topographical map of the area, take some time to do so. Some of the places in this settlement are right beside the Whanganui River—like Ramanui, where one of the hapū recently journeyed down the awa, reconnecting with their whenua. That’s what the settlement is about. It’s not just looking back but it’s creating opportunities for people to reconnect to what was taken.

I asked Don Robertson about his journey and asked what he wanted me to say in this House today. He said, “I started the grievance process in 1983”—literally, the year that I was born—“which, at times, has been a long and painful journey. A lot of people who started with me have now passed. A few weeks ago, my whānau paddled down the awa, and I was able to stand there with my 85-year-old brother and 80-year-old sister and, in anticipation of tomorrow,”—today—“recount our process with our wider whānau. Ātaahua—beautiful.”

This settlement also recognises the role of these iwi as kaitiaki of their whenua. That’s an important step, particularly in relation to Whanganui and Tongariro national parks. The ability to be involved in protecting and managing these areas is vital. The establishment of Te Korowai o Wainuiārua Trust is another key part of this settlement. It is already seeing more engagement from whānau. Membership in 2024 had increased by 11 percent, which shows that people are seeing the opportunities that this settlement creates.

We are also seeing that in the strategic projects already under way, which were mentioned by my fellow member Suze Redmayne, the MP for Rangitīkei. These initiatives are about investing in the future, creating opportunities, and ensuring that this settlement leads to long-term benefits. There will also be some passing of the rākau to the next generation to lead through the next part of your story.

Some people might ask why we are still doing this. The answer is simple: because justice matters, and when something was done wrong, it should be put right. This is not a handout. It is a recognition of harm, an effort to restore what was lost, and a way to ensure these iwi have the means to determine their own future. When iwi are strong, their communities are strong. When the past is acknowledged, we can move forward properly. This settlement will not fix everything, but it is a step in the right direction.

It is an honour and a privilege to stand here and be the final member to commend this bill to the House. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

I present a legislative statement on the District Court (District Court Judges) Amendment Bill.

That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

I move, That the District Court (District Court Judges) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

This bill supports the implementation of the Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill, which is central to delivering on the Government’s objective to restore law and order and to restore real consequences for crime. The sentencing bill is around reducing the ability of judges to massively reduce sentences through a series of discounts, and limiting that, and one of the consequences of that legislation is that there will be more pressure on the courts. We’re very conscious, also, of the fact that many New Zealanders are waiting too long to achieve justice through the court processes. There have been very long delays in the courts. They got worse particularly over COVID and, frankly, got worse over the last few years. As a Government, we’re very determined to do many things to speed up the processes of the courts.

This bill will help alleviate pressure to a modest degree. It amends the District Court Act 2016 to increase the statutory maximum for District Court judges by one, an increase from 182 to 183 fulltime-equivalent judges. I don’t think there’s much need to go into the detail much further than that, other than to say that this Government is committed to restoring law and order in this country. We are bringing in a raft of changes to toughen consequences, particularly for serious repeat offenders. That’s not the only focus of our justice policy; we’re also very much interested in ensuring that prisoners get access to rehabilitation programmes, which is why we’ve allowed for that to happen for remand prisoners. We’re also focused on dealing with some of the long-term causes of crime, such as making sure that kids actually go to school, which is a useful thing and one of the most important things that can help deal with youth crime and the funnel of justice that we’ve inherited.

There’s much going on in this space, and it’s good to see widespread support for this legislation in the House. I commend it to the House. Thank you.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Madam Speaker, thank you. What an extraordinary speech from the Minister of Justice—and the temerity of saying he thinks he’s doing well in reducing crime by sending kids to school and feeding them the rubbish that that Government is providing to them. The only reason this bill is needed is because this Government wants to put more people in jail; that is their only justice policy. It’s a provenly wrong and failed policy, and we have things like boot camps contributing to the problem. Yes, we support this bill, because we do need faster and more-effective justice, but the only justice that those people are delivering is putting people in jail. They’ve seen the backlogs in the court, and they have made zero progress to date.

I make a prediction: this will make no difference whatsoever. They will continue to go behind on access to justice, and remand populations in our prisons will increase because of the failed policies, like arresting people because of what they are wearing—absolutely ridiculous policies. There is a problem of law and order in our society, and we need to address it, but the idea that putting people in jail for longer, taking away discretion from judges in sentencing decisions, not giving discounts for youth and remorse, is, in some way, going to solve the problem is just a failed policy which goes against advice. It goes against evidence, and it goes against common sense. Yes, you’ll get our vote for this trivial little bill, but in terms of your wider justice policies, it’s time to wake up.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Green Party in support of the District Court (District Court Judges) Amendment Bill. However, there are a number of things that I would like to address. Now, I think it is appropriate for us to start by just sort of providing some context around the committee stage of this bill. The bill itself is not controversial. It is to increase the maximum number of District Court judges from 182 to 183 fulltime-equivalent (FTE). This comes as a part of the package of the Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill as well.

Going to the committee stage, there were a number of questions that we asked the Minister during the committee stage that were not responded or articulated with a response. I think, most importantly, one of the things that we have asked during the committee stage is where would they anticipate the judge to go and how would that then be divided? Are we looking at part-time judges in multiple locations? While moving up by one, in terms of fulltime-equivalent, that could mean five judges in different locations at 0.2 additional to that. Where are the judges? What court are the judges going to? One of the things that the Minister did highlight during the committee stage is that the District Court doesn’t just cover the District Court but also covers the Family Court, as well as the Youth Court.

The lack of response that we were given during the committee stage is a bit of a concern. The whole time the Minister was talking about the policy intent behind it and the fact that the official information, which we were given, is that they will need to have one increase. We have mentioned it in previous speeches in the House, as well, that the last time the number of District Court judges was increased was in 2019, where it was increased from 165 to 182. This time around, the advice we were given was just one, but without clearly articulating where that judge may be going or even which court they may be going to.

Understandably, when we were looking at clause 4, section 12 amended—when we were looking at the principal Act that this is amending, which is the District Court Act 2016—section 11 of that particular Act talks about the appointment of the judge. I one hundred percent agreed with the Minister during the committee stage that, when we are looking at the appointment itself, that has a level of independence; as we see with the principle of comity, the appointment of our judges is done independently. However, in this case, for the Government to actually say that only one judge is needed, there must be some level of understanding or some level of conversation that they’ve had with the justiciary system on where that’s going to go, otherwise how could anyone so confidently say, “All we need is one more District Court judge FTE.”? That is the kind of clarity that we did not receive during the committee stage. I think that is something that must be highlighted as part of the third reading.

The other thing that we heard from the Minister during the committee stage was the broader sort of justice reform that we are seeing in this space. One of the things that the Minister specifically mentioned during the committee stage was that we have more things coming and there are more policies that we are looking at. Again, something like this in terms of the number of District Court judges cannot be discussed or cannot be decided in silo, in terms of the broader context of some of the policies that the Minister mentioned during the committee stage.

I think, when we are looking at the reason that this bill was split in the first reading into two separate assessment processes or scrutiny processes through the select committee stage and second reading and committee stage, aside from the Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill, it is the fact that it’s supposed to be a response to the Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill. However, as we’re currently going through the committee stage for that particular bill, there are a number of issues that are really, really important that potentially would tie into this particular bill and whether this bill itself provides the support and the access and the resources and also the availability and the possibility to mitigate some of that backlog. I don’t know if the accompanying bill and this bill will actually do what is needed in the Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill.

Overall, yes, having one additional judge, love it, it’s great; we would like to see more, as many of the submitters have mentioned. They think that one isn’t going far enough; that in order for us to really address the backlog, we need to look at more. But, again, within the court hierarchy, this is just one aspect of the court. We are also looking at a lot of the work that needs to be done from the High Court, from the Court of Appeal, and also from the Supreme Court perspective.

One of the things that is particularly important and that I want to highlight as part of this is the fact that one of the things that has been introduced in the other bill—again, coming back to the reason why this bill even exists in the first place, which is because of the Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill. One other thing that was introduced in the other bill is around the increase or addition of aggravating factors. The particular aspect that I want to home in on is the inclusion of section 66 (1)(b), (c), and (d) of the Crimes Act 1961, particularly around party liability. That is something that is incredibly complex and is something that in many, many cases has gone all the way up to the Supreme Court, if we are looking at a case of Ahsin v Queen in 2014. For us, looking at this particular bill and the number of District Court judges and just increasing the District Court judge number from 182 to 183, this creates a broader problem of the bottleneck effect we may potentially see in the higher courts as a result of the changes to the other piece of legislation.

With that, you see that if we do have the increase of one judge FTE across the board and we’re seeing that being done and we’re seeing that then going through to the next year—and we’re seeing that actually then it means that, yes, maybe at a District Court level we are seeing that this will maybe mitigate some of the issues and address some of the concerns—once we get to the higher courts like the High Court, Court of Appeal, and Supreme Court, we are stuck with the same concern and the same issue and the same backlog created as a result of the Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill. Again, with that and the committee stage, the question then still remains of why we are only increasing the number of District Court judges just by one and not looking at other potential court judges.

I will say that I agree with what the Minister was saying: that when you are appointing a judge, it is permanent. There is a level of tenure, and you can’t really just easily go back without reintroducing other primary legislation bringing the number of District Court judges down. At the same time, what we are seeing, and in terms of some of the other reports that I asked the Minister about during the committee stage—around the latest report in 2022 for improving access to civil justice. Particularly in paragraph 40 of that report, it talks about the fact that we are looking at a decline of the District Court’s civil jurisdiction in response to the fact that District Court judges, and the District Courts in general, simply cannot handle the workload that is there. When we do have some of this evidence and some of these reports that we are seeing, it still remains: why are we only increasing the number of judges by one, even though in 2019 we increased it from 160 to 182—by 22 District Court judges? All of this, sort of combined together, does beg the question of what is the ultimate policy goal, because we can’t look at bills—and particularly when we look at the judiciary system, we can’t look at it in silo.

I think one of the things I would really like to address, as sort of the finishing remark for this, is that as we are looking at the District Court judges and the number of District Court judges and the way that we’re appointing District Court judges, it must also be said that we are entering a new phase where our judges don’t necessarily reflect the cultural diversity and also the diversity that we are seeing in Aotearoa. I think it’s particularly pertinent when we’re looking at the accompanying bill, the Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill, where it will potentially have the possibility, like I mentioned, with the introduction of party liability as an aggravating factor, of increasing and further punishing Māori, but also women in general and wāhine Māori. We are seeing that wāhine Māori already make up 63 percent of the prison population. I think, when we look at this bill, we support it but we do think it can go a lot further. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. This is a relatively simple bill, increasing District Court judges by one from 182 to 183 fulltime-equivalent. This is actually really important, that we’re acknowledging that the workload within the District Courts over the last few years has increased quite significantly. We have been appointing more judges to meet this increased workload, but it has meant that we have reached the maximum number, and we need to increase that by one.

Whilst this Government is very focused on the victims out in our communities of crime, we also have to acknowledge that when we’re in the process of accountability for those who are perpetrating those crimes, that justice must be delivered in a timely manner. Justice delayed is justice denied, so we have to make sure we find that balance of making sure that going through our court system is done in an appropriate way.

I, as Minister for Children, with reforms around youth crime and lowering the amount of victims within the community and saying that there must be accountability for those crimes and we must be making sure that our communities are safe—in that process, yes, there will be more pressure on the courts, but this is part of taking accountability for the crimes that are being committed within our communities and making sure that there is justice for the victims of those crimes.

I really support this bill, making sure that our justice system moves faster, but also will not apologise for our Government’s focus on victims in our communities and making sure there is accountability for those crimes.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support this bill, the District Court (District Court Judges) Amendment Bill, at its third reading. This bill is common-sense action again from this Government. It increases the statutory number of District Court judges by one, lifting the number from 182 to 183. It’s quite that simple. This will help the District Court run smoothly, especially to support the Government’s action on crime through the Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill.

We acknowledge that there are long delays in our justice system that need to be addressed, and this Government is also addressing that issue and those concerns in various other reforms, and those reforms are through court technology and modern case management systems.

New Zealand First is eager to see this bill receive Royal assent, and New Zealand First is pleased to support a bill that is part of this Government’s work on law and order. We look forward to further action, reducing wait-times, and delivering effective justice for New Zealanders. With that, I commend this bill to the House.

Hei tīmatanga māku, ka riro māku ngā whakaaro a Te Pāti Māori e whakapuaki mō te pire e kīia nei ko te District Court Amendment Bill.

Engari hei tīmatanga māku ka mihi atu rā ki te hunga kātahi anō ka wehe i te Whare. Arā, ki Te Korowai o Wainuiārua, o Uenuku, o Tamahaki, o Tamakana, me tō rātou whakatau i tā rātou kerēme tuatahi me te Karauna.

Hoki rawa mai ki tēnei pire me tōna whai pānga ki a Uenuku, ki a Tamakana, ki a Tamahaki me te whānui, te horapatanga o te iwi Māori. Ēnei mea ngā pire o tēnei Whare e kore e noho takakau noa. Ka whai pānga ki tēnā pire, ki tēnā pire, ki tēnā whare, ki tēnā whare, ki tēnā iwi, ki tēnā iwi, koia te pūtake o aku kōrero.

Kei tāruatia, torutia, whātia ngā kōrero kua tukuna kē e te Whare. Nō reira ka hoki au ki te reo Pākehā, e horapa ai te māramatanga.

[To commence, it is up to me to express Te Pāti Māori’s thoughts about this bill, which is called the District Court (District Court Judges) Amendment Bill.

But to start with, I acknowledge the group of people who have just departed from the House, namely, Te Korowai o Wainuiārua, Uenuku, Tamahaki, and Tamakana, on the settling of their first claim with the Crown.

And returning to this bill and its relevance to Uenuku, Tamakana, and Tamahaki, and the breadth and spread of the Māori people. The bills of this House don’t exist in isolation. They have connections to each bill, to each house, to each tribe; that is the basis of my speech.

Lest the statements which have already been made by the House are repeated for the second, third or fourth time, therefore, I will return to English, so that the understanding is extended.]

Just to begin, I would like to acknowledge the whānau who were here only moments ago, a few minutes ago, Te Korowai o Wainuiārua and their hapū that they represent, their iwi that they represent, Uenuku, Tamakana, and Tamahaki. And I want to just say to the House that bills don’t exist in isolation, but I see the behaviour of the House promotes the idea. Iwi come to this House seeking a face-to-face discussion with the Crown to discuss the impacts of the many bills of the Crown on those iwi, and this bill is one of them.

It may seem insignificant in nature, increasing the amount of District Court judges from 182 to 183. It doesn’t seem like much, but when you consider it in an ecosystem of bills, in an ecosystem of ministries of the House, it maintains the settings, the societal settings that have been produced out of the behaviour that the Crown just apologised for. They are indeed connected. They are connected in every way, and we shouldn’t just brush them aside as some small bill with not much influence.

Bills do not exist in isolation; that’s my point. Despite the fact that this is a relatively simple bill, with a relatively simple outcome, it still has a large impact, particularly when you consider the raft of justice legislation being promoted by this Government—a raft of legislation that, as described by the Minister’s own ministry, is likely to double the prison population in New Zealand over a short period of time. What we know about that is that the current population is about 10,000. If you double it, there will be another 10,000, and half of them will be Māori. That’s the connection of one piece of legislation to the next—that’s the connection of one piece of legislation to the next. A hundred years of experience tells us this.

How do you know that?

Quite easily—I thought you fellas were on to it. Bills do not exist in isolation—

The Chair?

The Chair—are you not on to it?

Oh, I see that the decorum of the House has rapidly regressed from 15 minutes ago, when the Government was here apologising for appalling behaviour, and now you want to drag us back down into it.

Follow the rules and we wouldn’t need to.

Mr Bates, who gave the last speech—the last speech to Uenuku, Tamakana, and Tamahaki—here you are running the kōrero again.

Oh, back to the bill.

Oh, back to the bill? My colleagues on this side don’t understand how I connect everything to the bill, but that’s OK; they’ll catch up at some point in the future.

I think someone said it, though: they said, you know, apologies mean nothing when the behaviour continues. I see the behaviour continuing—your apologies mean nothing. And, you know, maybe we could just consider listening—

Is 8 a.m. too early for you? You could have come to the select committee.

Oh, I think the Minister for the South Island should be more worried about getting ferries for them.

Heoi anō e te Pīka, kia hoki ki a koe, ko tāku e mea nei—the point of my speech is that bills do not exist in isolation. Kia ora tātou.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I think it’s really important to hammer the point that the District Court (District Court Judges) Amendment Bill, as simple as it may sound, as has been said by others, does not exist in isolation, in terms of a political agenda that will actually see our judicial system overloaded by other bills that do not have an evidential basis—other bills that will actually put pressure on the judiciary, that will not address the core drivers of issues like violence, and that will actually criminalise Māori, low-income people, disabled people, and many other groups that have already been failed.

I think, to me, what was really telling is that the bill was described by members of the Government as a common-sense bill, but, as my colleague Lawrence already explained at the committee of the whole House, actually there was little common sense explained by the Minister when it came to justifying the increase of District Court judges by just one. At the end of the day, this is a country that is seeing a population increase, that is seeing a political agenda by this Government to double our prison population, and one that actually is not, despite all the bumper sticker comments from the Government side, centred on supporting victims. Actually, if they followed the evidence on what some of the best ways to support victims are, yes, sure, supporting and resourcing the judiciary is one way, but when you already have people who work at the front lines telling this Government that some of the other reforms that relate to this will actually lead to victims being potentially worse off—for example, when it comes to issues around retail crime—I think it reeks of a disconnection with the evidence, in relation to what else they are proposing.

When we have already victims that have low incomes unable to adequately access things like legal aid, it really tells us that, actually, this isn’t a Government that is genuinely centred and focused on supporting victims who face violence. When we have a Government that is not actually supporting—for example, providing adequate income support to—people needing to leave issues of family violence, that tells us that this is not a Government genuinely supportive of victims. This bill in and of itself, yes, will go a small way towards increasing access to justice, but I think it needs to be said what kind of justice this Government is actually seeking to achieve. As the previous speaker, Tākuta Ferris, noted, we’ve seen the rapid shift in rhetoric and approach when a tiny bit of not even full justice being delivered in the previous bill now is kind of turned upside down when it comes to making a mockery of a person.

I think we deserve better than high-level rhetoric statements that this bill is common sense when the evidential basis for it is not actually being presented to us, not at the committee of the whole House stage, not by the Government side, as to exactly the justification as to why we’re only seeing an increase in District Court judges by one. I think we also deserve a robust analysis and commentary from the House, from the Government side at least, as to which populations, for example, are likely most served by the current make-up of the judiciary and why this justifies increasing it by just one.

Finally, I want to touch on the reality that, actually, when we have a Government that is doing a lot of other harm in other spaces, whether it’s the environment, inequality, etc., I think I’d rather be spending the time of this House debating something like this, because actually, in isolation, this won’t cause harm. If time is going to be spent on things like this—that are not going to directly result in our communities being harmed—compared to other pieces of legislation, then let’s do so. Actually, I’d rather be standing here right now debating a very, very, very small reform than enabling the Government to push forward pieces of legislation that attack Te Tiriti, the environment, people living in low-income communities. I invite the Government to bring forward as many primary pieces of legislation they have to increase the number of District Court judges one at a time, so that perhaps this is all we do this term.

This is a very clear illustration of the difference in perspectives from that side of the House to this side of the House. Over here, we believe that if you do the crime, you do the time—if you do the crime, you go into prison where you should be, and you need District Court judges to make that happen. Over there, let’s be very clear, you are hearing what’s going to happen should they ever get—God help us!—back to the Treasury benches. They’re going to open the gates to the prisons and let people out, because they don’t believe that if you go and do something wrong, you should go into jail, because they don’t say that, actually, it’s logical: there is stuff that’s been happening, we need to put people through the court process, and you need a judge for that process. It’s pretty common sense; pretty basic. They’ll catch up eventually.

It is important that we ensure that this bill goes through the process so that we can have the District Court judges in place to do what New Zealanders want in this country, and that is the restoration of law and order. That’s what they wanted, that’s what they voted for, and that is what this Government has been delivering. As much as they want to hoot and toot and puff and huff, Madam Speaker, you’ve got two options here—you don’t; the country does—they can either have a Government that ensures law and order, or they can have a bunch of the Opposition—I won’t use anything too colourful to describe them, in case I get in trouble, and this kōrero is all about not getting in trouble, and ensuring that those that do, feel the consequences. So the alternative is a bunch of the Opposition who literally want to unlock the gates and let people out of prison, because they have us on when the prison numbers go up because we actually hold people accountable. That is what New Zealand wants. This bill helps ensure that happens in a very practical, common-sense way. I commend it to the House.

Oh that life were that simple! It would be easy if we could do—look at what’s happening at the moment in America. You’ve got a man who aspires, who arrives and then “This is a good idea; let’s just do it.” And we know this could take about five years to actually fix some of that damage.

Listen to what Mr Tākuta Ferris said: everything is joined up. This is a very simple bill. It is just about increasing the number of District Court judges. Now, what I’d invite those opposite to do is to reflect on what the role of a District Court judge is. He or she is a part of a much bigger ecosystem. By the time a set of facts arrive before a District Court judge, there are so many component parts that have got there, so that judge is actually a really important part of the decision making.

I’d also invite those opposite to have a look at another piece of legislation which has been oft referred to in relation to this, where we are actually going to be purely prescribing outcomes. Well, we might as well get AI to do it, because we’re going to end up by actually—we put these highly qualified people, and some have been very good lawyers, some have been very good commercial lawyers, some of them have been very good prosecutors, in the chair and say, “Tick this box.”

Now, as a young police officer starting—and I know there’s a lot of old ex-cops who are on all sorts of websites who will be sitting listening to this at the moment, because they tend to like to listen to any piece of legislation that is around law and order; each one of them will be sitting talking about old District Court judges that they knew, old characters—we in Wellington had Ben Scully. Now, Ben Scully was that judge when you had your first “Not guilty”, when you were appearing—Ben was a character, but the important thing with Ben was that, if you went in and you weren’t dressed properly, you would get a dressing down, as would the lawyers, as would the defendants. They were actually an integral part of things. When we’re actually considering this legislation, and particularly other legislation—as Mr Ferris has quite rightly pointed out, everything is joined up—just what I’d invite you to do is to ensure that you do have an understanding of the broader ecosystem.

Mr Meager, I know that you’ve stood in the District Court; you’ll know exactly what I’m talking about. If you just break the District Court judge’s role down to its component parts, which actually the legislation which is coming next is endeavouring to do, then you’re going to lose an important part of justice. Those District Court judges—guys like Sir David Carruthers, who went on to become the Independent Police Conduct Authority—when they sat there they could actually join bits up, because they were also seeing the same defendants coming through week after week, month after month. Now, that might be as simple as saying—you’ve got some old drunk, winter’s coming on—“I’ll give him six months so he can go and dry himself out. Give him six months at Mount Crawford and he’ll come out.” We know he’ll probably start again, but that judge actually had the ability to look and understand everything that was going on.

Yes, we’ll have another judge here—we could have another five judges—but unless we fully understand what the role of those judges is, and if in doing so we’re completely disempowering them, we’re completely taking any judgment out of the judges, we might as well change their name. In fact, we used to call them magistrates. I’m one of those old-fashioned guys. I think “magistrate” had a little bit more of a sort of mythology around it than just “judge”—I think we did that in about 1980. A lot of the old characters I’m talking about were magistrates.

I’m not standing here saying let’s go back and call them magistrates, but what I would like to say, and I’ll leave the Opposition with this, is that they’re going to be looking at different legislation. When you’re sitting around, you’re going to be in your caucuses and someone will bring another piece of legislation saying, “This is going to solve everything. This is going to solve everything—the common cold, right the whole way through—if we just pass this.” What I invite those opposite to do is just give a bit of thought, and those that have stood in the District Court, those that have been part of the justice system, just think, “OK, is this Trumpian? Is this to make a Trumpian-type of arrangement around justice and it’s going to fix everything?” Well, it won’t any more than those judges who will sit there. Give them the opportunity to actually join the dots up themselves.

Again, as Mr Ferris said, just try and take a little bit of a holistic view. Yes, there are people who should never see the light of day. There are people, and I’ll be the first to say it—and they’re relatively easy to identify—make sure those people do their time and stay in there, but also be very careful that you have a system that those people almost become obscured by a wave of people who the justice system has probably failed. Again, I’ll tell you what, and I’ll go back, Mr Meager, because you’re standing in front of me: having been a lawyer, you know full well where if you’d made submissions for people who have come in with a good family—and you’re saying, “Don’t give this person the maximum”. Be very careful. You may well—sorry, Mr Meager. Someone in your position may be doing that very same thing again at one stage, so just be wary of such prescription and give this very judge—and I’m coming back, Madam Speaker—who is going to be appointed as a result of this the ability to do their job. Give them the ability to join things up, because otherwise, yes, I heard the previous speaker say, “Isn’t it wonderful. We’re going to fill more jails up.” Well, they cost money.

The other thing too—and I actually believe, and some of my colleagues don’t, we should actually sometimes make more use of imprisonment but make smarter use of imprisonment. I’ll give you a really good example of that. Everyone talks about the New York law reforms. Well, when I was in the Police Association, we brought the deputy commissioner who was Bratton’s deputy at the time, and when those reforms went through, it was obviously going to result in a lot more people being arrested, a lot more people going to jail. Well, what the police did was they said to the city, “Look, don’t worry about it. If the prisons get full, put them out at the top end. The fact they’re going in at the bottom end is more important.” The fact of imprisonment is actually as important as a deterrent than the length of the imprisonment.

I actually honestly believe that, because, actually, we say: “He only got 12 months.” Think about it. You know, as MPs, you have to be down here for four days away from home. Actually 12 months is a very long time. Twelve months is actually not a bad sentence, because it means that probably when that person comes out of prison, their partner will still be there. If you go for four years, their partner probably won’t be there and they’ll be absolutely guaranteed to go straight back into it. I worked as an undercover police officer and the most dangerous time for me as an undercover police officer was when I’ve infiltrated a group, I’m sitting in a bar, and someone comes out of prison where they’ve been away for three years. The first thing they’ll do is look around: “He’s a new face, he might be a cop.” Actually what they were going to do is go straight back into the very place that they’d been to.

Madam Speaker, I know this is starting to get a little bit—I can see the look on your face; I’ve had it myself when I’ve been sitting in that Chair. If I go back to Mr Ferris’ point, the bits are joined up. We are going to shortly be passing legislation that gives one more judge there, but what I’ll say is that the next time in the caucuses that we’re going to be discussing what this person is going to be doing, let them be a judge. Look at the word. Look what they’re called; they’re called judges. That means give them the ability to make a judgment, because what I fear is that there will be some quite big injustices.

Go back. Yes, there absolutely are people who should never see the light of day, and I’d be very happy that they never see the light of day, but on the other hand, there are people who the fact of jail, the fact they’ve just done three months, six months, sitting in their cells, scared as hell who’s going to come there in the middle of the night—they will go and say, “Actually, I’m never going back there again.” Leave them there for two or three years and they’ll become so adapted to the place, they’ll be part of it, and actually by the time they come out in three years, they’re going to go straight back in because they’ve got no ability to work on the outside.

All I would just say is if we’re going to appoint another judge, give him or her the ability to take into account some of the things that I have just talked about so that when they do make a judgment, it’s not AI, it’s not tick, tick, tick, bang. You might as well otherwise have a little robot sitting there. It’s a bit like speakers in the House. Give them the ability to be a little bit different, eh, Madam Speaker? While commending this to the House, let’s take this as an opportunity to actually be a bit smart. The most important word in this whole bill is the word “judge”. Let them judge. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Mr O’Connor. That was very entertaining.

If I could be a judge for a moment, I’d be giving the member Greg O’Connor a 10 out of 10 for energy, enthusiasm, and hand gestures. What did he have? He found his inner Anna Lorck and got the Berocca—he got up and had the Berocca and had a good time with the 10 minutes, and well done to the member for a great contribution.

We seem to have sort of strayed a little bit on this debate. Fundamentally, it’s about increasing the amount of District Court judges from 182 to 183—that’s simply all it is. We can talk about prisons, and we can talk about institutional racism, in some people’s eyes, but, ultimately, we’re just increasing the District Court judges from 182 to 183, and we’re enabling it. That’s all we’re doing. The reason we’re doing it is because they’ve had an increased workload over the last couple of years and over recent times, so we’re giving them extra capability to do their job.

We could go on about the causes of crime and what one side of the House would do versus the other side of the House, or we could just talk about the legislation, which is increasing the amount of District Court judges from 182 to 183, and I commend it to the House.

Thank you. This is a job where we really are encouraged to think deeply about things, so while I take the member Tom Rutherford’s point, I think it is very important we join the dots in this situation. We have a movement of just a single judge, and we have that decision to do that because we have enormous delays in our system and they are feeling overwhelmed.

Now, I want to take the example really of the Chief District Court Judge, who has brought an enormous amount to the role itself. He’s a Māori man who’s come up from the army. He came in as a mature student, and he’s been a real leader in developing the District Courts into a more responsive place, and they’re doing incredible work. He came up with a scheme which was called Te Ao Mārama—it became a framework for acting in this space and acting effectively in this space. It’s a really important thing that he immediately talks about the backlog in the courts. He immediately says it’s really important we get these decisions out, but that isn’t where he stopped; he actually talked about other things that were important if it was going to be an effective system.

We have really good leads in the Family Court; we have, I think, Sandra Moran. In the Youth Court, we have Ida Malosi. They’re incredible people. They’re from backgrounds which probably they wouldn’t have been a few years ago—my friend Greg O’Connor was talking about the way that the magistrates were. They are from very diverse backgrounds, and they bring all that to bear in their areas. What the chief judge said is those areas are really important. It’s really important that when we put people into those positions and in those courts, we really need to make sure we’re supporting those people in them.

He, interestingly, recognised that 83 percent of the people in our prisons who were aged 18, 19, and 20 had been in State care—83 percent. He also said that 50 percent of prisoners had been subject to family violence before they went there, and 60 percent of those were Māori; 70 percent of women in prison have been subject to family violence. These are very, very real things. What he’s trying to do is build a system which actually solves problems—he calls it solution-focused judging. He’s trying to make sure that the judges are going in there and they’re doing not a tick-box exercise but they’re actually finding solutions so you don’t have these people coming back. These are things that will, hopefully, be things that our new judge will be encouraged to do.

Now, I’ve got to say I was concerned to see the support for boot camps, and the financial support for those without any evidence. But the Chief District Court Judge was told with regard to these policies, which are informed by the actual work that those people have done—he had to prove they work before he got any funding for them. That’s an interesting thing, isn’t it? We’ve got these people who are highly skilled, they’ve come out of professions, and now I’m saying they’re coming out of diverse communities, and they want to do these things. Are we actually adequately supporting them to do these things?

Isn’t it our responsibility to think a bit deeply, not to do what Carl Bates did on the other side of the House today? There’s almost an alienness in what he said. He talks about “these people”—you know, “keeping these people inside”. That’s shallow thinking. These people are our children, our family—these people are us. It’s very, very important that we see those connections. These people are prisoners, but they’re also victims, because those tend to come from the same place. I go back to that number—we have 83 percent of those 18- and 19- and 20-year-olds having been in State care. That’s a huge correlation.

It is our obligation in this House when we are adding a new District Court judge to think really deeply about what we are doing and to think, “OK, we’ll do this. We’ll add this resource. But are we really adding the support we need to these people who are deeply committed, passionate advocates for justice and for rehabilitation, for example—are we adding?” Now, I just want to have a talk about—[Time expired]

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I don’t want to get too judgmental about this; 183 sounds like a fantastic idea. I commend this bill to the House.

I think the time has come for the lunch break. This House is adjourned until 2 p.m. today.

Almighty God, we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests, we acknowledge the King and pray for guidance in our deliberations, that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom, justice, mercy, and humility for the welfare and peace of New Zealand. Amen.

Members, I’m sure that members would wish to welcome members of the Swedish Riksdag Friends of New Zealand Parliamentary Group, who are present in the gallery.

Do we have the Leader of the House?

Sorry—too many papers. Next week, the House will consider the third readings—

Not paying attention—wake up.

Does the House want to hear?

Well, we waited long enough.

OK, we will hear now, thank you. [Interruption] We will hear now, thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Next week, the House will consider the third readings of the Regulatory Systems (Immigration and Workforce) Amendment Bill and the Regulatory Systems (Economic Development) Amendment Bill. On Wednesday morning, there will be extended hours for Government business, and the afternoon will be a members’ day. The general debate will be replaced by the debate on the Finance and Expenditure Committee’s (FEC’s) report on the Budget Policy Statement. On Thursday afternoon, there will be a special debate on the FEC’s inquiry into climate adaptation.

I’m just wondering if the legislative programme will be better organised than the Deputy Leader of the House.

The member’s free to choose whether she answers that question or not.

Well, in terms of the regulatory systems bills, I hope the Opposition have more to say in the committee stage.

Oh!

OK, time for order. [Interruption] Order!

No petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation. No papers have been delivered for presentation. Four select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.

Report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the Budget Policy Statement 2025 and Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update 2024

reports of the Governance and Administration Committee on the:

2023-24 annual reviews of the Department of Internal Affairs, Digital Executive Board, and Taumata Arowai

2023-24 annual reviews of the Office of the Clerk of the House of Representatives and the Parliamentary Service

report of the Social Services and Community Committee on the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System Legislation Amendment Bill.

This bill is set down for second reading and the report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee is set down for consideration. No bills have been introduced.

I have received a letter from Scott Willis seeking to debate under Standing Order 399 the appointment of John Carnegie to the board of the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority. This is a particular case of recent occurrence for which there is ministerial responsibility. Members will have different views on appointments to statutory bodies. Not every appointment with which some members disagree warrants an urgent debate. In this instance, I am not convinced that the matter warrants setting aside the business of the House today to debate it. The application is declined.

to the Minister for Māori Development

Does he stand by his appointment of Richard Prebble to the Waitangi Tribunal in light of Prebble’s comments on his resignation; if so, why?

Ki te wāhanga tuatahi o tēnei pātai, āna, āna. Ki te wāhanga tuarua, i whai whakaaro mātou i ngā rārangi kōrero i raro i te ture mō Te Tiriti o Waitangi 1975, me te mea nei me āta whakaarohia, me āta tirohia hoki te hononga i waenga i te Karauna me te iwi Māori, tae atu rā ki ngā pūmanawa me ngā pūkenga o ngā mema. Nā Mr Prebble hoki i tuku mai i tāna reta rihaina. E mihi ana ki a ia me tēnā reta, ā, hoki ora atu, e Rīhari, ki Rotomā.

[To the first part of the question, yes, absolutely. To the second part, we considered the clauses under the legislation regarding the Treaty of Waitangi 1975, and consequently the relationship between the Crown and the Māori people must be carefully considered and examined, including the talents and skills of members. Mr Prebble sent me his letter of resignation. I acknowledge him and that letter, and, Richard, safe travels to Rotomā.]

What does the Waitangi Tribunal do?

The Waitangi Tribunal’s role is set out very clearly in the Treaty of Waitangi Act, which I suggest the member reads. It is to inquire into and make recommendations on claims that the Crown has acted in a manner inconsistent with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.

Was he aware of Richard Prebble’s views prior to his appointment to the tribunal that there is one Treaty, despite there being both English and te reo versions which are not direct translations of each other, and, if not, why didn’t he ask him for his views before appointing him?

I was aware of some of Mr Prebble’s views prior to appointment, and he’s entitled to his own opinions and his own views.

Did Māori cede sovereignty when they signed Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and, if not, why not?

As we’re all aware, there are a variety of views in relations to that matter. But what I’m absolutely clear about is that there’s one thing that existed before the Treaty of Waitangi and will continue to exist after we all leave this place, is that rangatiratanga will be protected, preserved, and enhanced.

How can New Zealanders, and especially Māori, trust his judgment after he appointed someone to our Waitangi Tribunal who has proven themselves historically illiterate?

Can I just have that question again, please? Thank you.

Please repeat the question.

How can New Zealanders, especially Māori, trust his judgment after he appointed someone to our Waitangi Tribunal who has proven themselves historically illiterate?

The Waitangi Tribunal is not the preserve of one party, whether or not it’s the Green Party or any other party. If the use of the word “our” is to select one particular group in this House, I reject the characterisation.

Point of order, Madam Speaker. We have a longstanding expectation in this House that members not use our free speech in this Chamber to potentially defame members of the public who don’t have the opportunity to defend themselves, and accusing someone of economic illiteracy—sorry, historic illiteracy—is a claim that, if used outside this Chamber, would be challengeable.

Look, I’ll talk to the Clerks post this and if I come up with a different view, I’ll let you know. But at this moment, the member actually gave her point of view on what had been previously said. So I accept that at this point in time. If I get a different view post this, I’ll let you know.

If 103 years ago, a brilliant scholar in law, who got a law degree in two years flat—Sir Apirana Ngata—said that the Māori ceded sovereignty, then who in this House is so historically illiterate now?

Point of order—

I’m not sure that that’s actually an appropriate question. The Minister does not need to answer it.

I’m happy to respond to it.

Yeah, I do have a point—

My point was it was a totally out-of-order question and inappropriate that it be attempted.

Yeah, I don’t think it’s something the Minister needs to answer.

Point of order. With the greatest of respect, Madam Chair, did I name anyone? No.

No.

Which is a qualifier for your kind of judgment which was improperly made, and therefore I’m asking you to review your decision.

Does he acknowledge that his appointment of Prebble to the tribunal, only for him to immediately resign and make a political stunt, makes a mockery of the institution itself?

The appointment of the Hon Richard Prebble followed due process. Mr Prebble has resigned. I have accepted his resignation and I wish him well.

I just have a note in front of me that said the public do have a right of response—Standing Order 160/1. Public figures are subject to criticism in the House. Thank you.

to the Prime Minister

Does he stand by all his Government’s statements and actions?

on behalf of the Prime Minister: I thank the member for that very, very, very clever question. The answer is yes.

Thank you. Does he agree with Nicola Willis that she delivered new Cook Strait ferries on 11 December 2024; if so, why was Winston Peters subsequently dispatched on a global search for replacements, including meeting with the company who was contracted to build those ferries in the first place?

The reality of the matter is that the Minister of Finance inherited an absolute mess. What was meant to be $401 million for two ferries and then a total infrastructure cost under $1.4 billion, all up with the ferries, had gone from there to over $4 billion, which was a warning that Treasury gave the previous Government. So, having dealt with that, the job happened to be by chance passed on to me, and I’ve sought to rectify the matter, at a massive saving to the New Zealand people.

Does he agree that Nicola Willis was too hasty in cancelling the ferries, as reported by the New Zealand Herald?

The reality is that we will all have those sorts of criticisms being made, but the New Zealand Herald today got it massively wrong in the editorial in the second to last paragraph. I’d ask them, for goodness’ sake, to start getting their facts right for a change by reading the full story, which was told not by me, not by Nicola Willis, but by Treasury itself to Grant Robertson.

Will Winston Peters prioritise negotiating the break fee with Hyundai before he enters into another contract with them, or will he pursue both negotiations concurrently?

I appreciate what the member is asking, but the so-called break fee lies as a matter between KiwiRail and Hyundai; the new issue that we’re dealing on is separate. However, in our representations, it was made very, very clear to me that, while that matter is separate, if there were to be a new deal, there would be a reconsideration of the prior settlement, to which we are not a party at the moment.

How many millions of healthy school lunches could Nicola Willis’ ferry break-fee have paid for?

Well, all I do know is that we’ve got a sort of parallel circumstance here: the Government inherited a school lunch programme unfunded, and we inherited a ferry programme unfunded as well.

How many Kiwis are now out of a job thanks to the Government giving the school lunches contract to multinational corporation Compass?

I don’t think anyone can answer that question on speculation, but, if the member wants to write a note or put it in written form, we’ll get an answer.

When Nicola Willis said she has delivered, did she mean delivering 31,000 more people to Work and Income New Zealand, delivering 72,000 New Zealanders overseas, or delivering thousands of inedible meals into rubbish bins in schools across the country?

I think when the Minister of Finance was saying, “I have delivered”, she meant the answer that came in the quarterly update this morning. We have turned the circumstances of this country’s economy around. It’s the first bright news we’ve had, and, like a big vessel out at sea, it is hard to stop. It is hard to turn an economy around—

What vessel? There’s no vessels.

Well, we know where there is a stack of empty vessels—yes, I’m looking at them.

to the Minister of Finance

What recent reports has she seen on the Government’s fiscal position?

Today, the interim financial statements of the Government for the first seven months of the financial year were released by Treasury, as referred to by the Deputy Prime Minister. The statements show Crown revenue and expenditure for the financial year up to 31 January, and they also update both the operating balance before gains and losses, excluding ACC—that is OBEGALx—and the Crown’s debt position.

What do the financial statements show about revenue and expenses?

Core Crown tax revenue for the seven months was $600 million higher than forecast in the half-year update in December, while core Crown expenses were $600 million lower than forecast. Some of that is likely to do with timing across the year, but it is interesting to compare growth and expenses in this set of accounts with a year ago. Over the seven months to January, core Crown expenses were only 2 percent higher than they were in the corresponding period a year earlier. That shows the Government’s commitment to spending constraint and turning around the poor fiscal position we inherited.

What do the financial statements show about the operating balance and debt?

The OBEGALx deficit at seven months is $3.7 billion, which is $1.4 billion better than expected at the half-year update. Let’s see how that pans out at year end, but the improvement is a positive sign so far. Net core Crown debt is in line with forecasts, at an estimated 42.8 percent of GDP. The Government’s intention remains, in the short term, to get net debt trending down towards 40 percent of GDP, and that will involve reprioritising spending over the next few years.

What else would help get the books back in balance?

The economic growth is good for wages. It is good for jobs. It is good for opportunities and living standards. It is also good for the books. Additional growth of even a quarter of a percent of nominal GDP each year would boost tax revenue by $2 billion a year by the end of the forecast period. That is why the Government is committed to removing unnecessary obstacles from the path of businesses and creating an environment in which people are rewarded for investing, for innovating, for taking risks, for employing others. We do not view business as the enemy, because we know it is not the Government that ultimately creates jobs. It is business, not Government, that generates the revenue that funds public services.

to the Minister for Māori Development

Does he believe the Waitangi Tribunal plays a critical role in holding the Government accountable for its actions or omissions that breach Te Tiriti o Waitangi?

Under the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975, the Waitangi Tribunal is empowered to inquire into and make recommendations on claims by Māori that the Crown has acted in a manner or omitted to act in a manner inconsistent with the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, the Treaty of Waitangi. As an independent commission of inquiry, the tribunal provides a platform for claims to be heard, ensures historical—and herstorical—and contemporary grievances are examined, and offers recommendations to help guide the Crown in upholding its Treaty obligations. As such, I disagree with the member’s characterisation of the Waitangi Tribunal as holding the Government accountable.

Does he agree with the late Moana Jackson, one of the most profound contemporary contributors to Tiriti understanding, that the Treaty is to be honoured, not settled, and, if so, does he agree that the tribunal’s work must be ongoing and, for the sake of clarity for the nation, have its power strengthened, not diminished?

I absolutely agree with the sentiment that the Crown and the Government—and, actually, everyone in this House—need to ensure that historical Treaty claims and grievances are resolved and settled. That’s why I want to mihi to Minister Goldsmith, who led the settlement of Te Korowai o Wainuiārua claims today through legislation.

Is it appropriate that New Zealand First are leading a Government review of the function and purpose of the Waitangi Tribunal, given their senior Ministers have been publicly hostile towards the role of the tribunal, which already has limited powers?

Point of order. Ministers in this House are not responsible for individual party policies, and that member should know that. If he spent more time here and learnt the Standing Orders, he would not have asked the question in the first place.

Point of order.

Is this a new point of order or are you responding to the point of order?

Responding to the point of order. Speaker’s ruling 197/5 clarifies the whole idea of supplementary questions is to make a range of political statements about an issue, not to sit there and qualify New Zealand First’s response. So what was the supplementary question?

So the Minister is not responsible for New Zealand First, unless it’s a Government review, and then, if it’s been decided by Government, the Minister is responsible. But he’s not responsible for a New Zealand First position.

Speaking to the point of order, as I recall, it was agreed in this House—and has been agreed in this House before—that party policies which are reflected in a coalition agreement are properly able to be questioned in this House. It’s well known that the question it referred to, and the New Zealand First policy referred to, appears in the coalition agreement, and therefore the question is in order.

Well, thank you. I’ll ask Tākuta Ferris to ask that same question again. If that’s the case—and I’ll take Dr Duncan Webb’s word for it—we’ll take the question. Thank you.

Is it appropriate that New Zealand First are leading a Government review of the function and purpose of the Waitangi Tribunal, given their senior Ministers have been publicly hostile towards the role of the tribunal, which already has limited powers as it is?

The review of the Waitangi Tribunal that’s articulated and set out in the coalition arrangement between New Zealand First and National is one that will be undertaken in due course. As to the allocation of responsibilities in regards to that review, that’s something that the member clearly knows more about than I do.

Pātai anō? [Another question?]

Yes. You’ve got one more.

Ah, ka pai. What is he doing to uphold the tribunal’s recommendation that this Government abandon its coalition policy to review and potentially remove Treaty clauses from 28 pieces of legislation, as promoted by Matua Shane and “Koro Winnie”?

Point of order. With great respect, the member cannot come and have contempt for the procedures of this House or the plain and common sense and manners that’s required. That conclusion of his question should have ruled his question out straight away.

Sorry, what—

Speaking to the point of order.

Yeah, speaking to the point of order.

In that question, the member referred to someone not by their proper name and it’s quite disrespectful.

Well, yeah, he omitted the last name of the person. So, look, if you—

Well, more than that, Madam Speaker—more than that, it was a nickname. [Interruption]

Yeah. Look, I understand the rules of this House are that we call people by their first and last name and give them their proper titles. I don’t think this member is the first person that has actually broken that rule. So I’m going to give that member a chance to ask that question, using the correct name of the person he’s referring to.

Ka pai. Tēnā koe. Back to the Minister: what is he doing to uphold the tribunal’s recommendation that this Government abandon its coalition policy to review and potentially remove Treaty clauses from 28 pieces of legislation, as promoted by New Zealand First?

We have received a number of recommendations from the Waitangi Tribunal, as Ministers, over the last 15 months, and those matters remain for active review.

to the Minister for Rail

What recent announcements has he made on the Cook Strait ferries programme?

On 4 February, the Government opened the door to alternative proposals from the market, as we leave no stone unturned in getting value for taxpayers. We’ll have much more to say about this process after Cabinet meets at the end of March.

How does this approach differ from the previous project, iReX?

Well, the previous project was commissioned at $401 million for two ferries, and then there was an infrastructure cost contained in the forward proposal, which was promptly abandoned, and it went from just over $1 billion to, as Treasury forecast, over $4 billion. In this case, we’re announcing a worldwide search for shipyard partners, but we cannot speak for specific shipyards’ interest. But the reality is that commercial shipbuilders all around the world are showing an interest now, and we should be able to give the country far greater detail in a matter of weeks now.

What does the Government expect to announce on the ferries after Cabinet next discusses the topic?

We were very clear on 11 December 2024 that Cabinet will be considering two firm options: cost-effective infrastructure with vessels taking vehicles and passengers—that’s one—and cost-effective infrastructure with vehicles taking vehicles, passengers, and rail wagons. The second one hasn’t been worked on—

Rail-enabled?

—and that’s what we’re working on at—I beg your pardon?

Rail-enabled?

Well, if it’s got, as a possibility, rail wagons and passengers and vehicles, quite possibly it’s rail-enabled.

to the Minister of Finance

Does she stand by her statement that “Recent data releases are consistent with a growing New Zealand economy”; if so, what impact does inflation in international economies have on New Zealand’s growth?

Yes, and to the second part of the question, it depends. For example, an increase in world dairy prices would likely be good for the New Zealand economy.

Is 31,000 more people on the jobseeker benefit consistent with a growing New Zealand economy?

Well, there are two parts that we need to consider there. The first is that unemployment is running at exactly the rate that it was forecast to be when that member’s party was leading the Government prior to the election. The second part is what has changed is we now have a Minister who is dedicated to putting incentives in place so that as many people as possible who can work do work—an active welfare system. Because I am looking at members—and I’m looking at Carmel Sepuloni—who, despite record low unemployment, allowed the number of jobseeker beneficiaries to increase dramatically. What a failure.

Is consumer credit defaults increasing by 42 percent consistent with a growing New Zealand economy?

I am always concerned by New Zealanders being under financial stress, and obviously consumer credit defaults are evidence of that. But what we need to be clear about is that we had a Government that allowed inflation to be driven to 7.3 percent, that saw successive years of high inflation outside New Zealand’s target band, that saw the Reserve Bank left alone while they sprayed the money hose around to crank up interest rates at a rapid rate. That has then had a very chilling effect on the economy, and it shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone with economic literacy that it takes some time to turn a mess of that magnitude around.

Is a 35 percent increase in liquidations for the North Island and a 67 percent rise in the South Island consistent with a growing New Zealand economy?

I want to see New Zealand businesses thrive. That’s why, from day one in office, this Government has leaned into the actions a Government can take to make this a better place to invest and grow. That is why we are better educating New Zealand kids. That is why we are reducing red tape and regulation. That’s why we’re investing in productivity-enhancing infrastructure. That’s why we’re making sure our science system actually delivers commercially realisable opportunities. What I would say to any New Zealand business who is struggling is this: you’ve gone through a really tough few years, but you’ve now got a Government that’s on your side.

Is building consents being down 7.2 percent consistent with a growing New Zealand economy?

Well, I want to see construction improving and increasing, and that’s why we are taking steps across the board to support that, including liberalising land markets, improving infrastructure funding and financing, reducing the complexity of getting a building consent, allowing people to import more easily. But fundamentally, the construction industry responds badly when interest rates are high, because they need to borrow for their construction projects. So Governments that allow inflation to get out of control so that interest rates are ratcheted up tend to find that construction drops off. That member, Barbara Edmonds, is sitting next to members of a Cabinet who allowed a historic level of damage to be delivered to the New Zealand economy, and now she has the cheek to blame us for fixing it. [Interruption]

OK. That’s quite enough.

Is the growing number of people on the benefit, growing company liquidations, growing numbers of New Zealanders leaving for Australia, growing consumer credit defaults, fewer homes being built, the green shoots of a growing economy or, like the ferry contract, an example of her delivery?

No, they are the remnants of a failed regime, a Labour-led Government that did all it could to destroy this economy, and we on this side of the House are fixing it up.

to the Minister for Tourism and Hospitality

What recent announcements has she made about boosting tourism in New Zealand?

I have recently announced a range of investments and initiatives to boost tourism in New Zealand. This includes a new $3 million Regional Tourism Boost Fund that will be used to attract more international visitors to regional destinations, and a $9 million boost for infrastructure upgrades and replacements on our Great Rides cycle trails. Tourism is a crucial part of our Government’s focus on economic growth, and these investments are part of our tourism boost package to bring international visitor numbers back to pre-COVID levels.

Why are these investments important?

Together, the 23 Great Rides receive about a million visitors a year; of whom, around 20 percent are international visitors. With those numbers expected to continue growing, maintaining and improving these trails is a must. That’s why the $9 million boost for our Great Rides cycle trails is important, so visitors can keep enjoying the unique experience of pedalling through New Zealand’s beautiful landscapes. The Regional Tourism Boost is a chance for regional tourism organisations to secure funding for activities that boost international visitation, helping local businesses and communities thrive.

What benefits does she expect to see as a result of these investments?

The benefits of these investments will reach beyond our cities and into our regions. Our Government’s tourism boost package is part of a bigger plan to create a thriving, resilient economy. By investing in tourism, we are creating opportunities for growth, as tourism supports almost 200,000 jobs and contributes $44 billion to the economy. Ninety-three percent of New Zealanders agree that tourism is good for our country, and more visitors means more income for local businesses, more job opportunities for Kiwis, and a stronger, more resilient economy for all.

What feedback has she seen on these announcements?

The feedback has been fantastic. Everyone has been talking about tourism. Regional Tourism New Zealand and the Restaurant Association have welcomed the Regional Tourism Boost announcement, with the latter saying, “it’s positive to see targeted efforts to boost regional tourism,”. Inside Tourism said the $9 million Great Rides boost was crucial in maximising the Great Rides’ potential to deliver ongoing regional economic benefits. There will be more to come: 2025 is our chance to reinforce the value of tourism to a humming, vibrant country where we welcome anyone from anywhere at any time.

to the Minister for Rail

Does he stand by his statement regarding the new Cook Strait ferries that by the end of March 2025, “We’re going to be able to announce who’s in the game, what they’re aiming for, and what the cost will be”; if so, is he on track to do so?

I thank that very sensible member for his sensible two questions, and the answers are yes and yes.

Has he actually received any bids yet from shipbuilders for the new Cook Strait ferries; if so, how many?

No bids have been received yet.

Did he provide Hyundai with any assurances that a new contract signed with his Government would not fall through again; if so, what were those assurances that he gave?

I reminded Hyundai that in 1950, when their country was under attack, my country came to their aid. When their currency collapsed in 1997 under the Asian financial crisis, my country was one of the nine that underwrote its currency. It’s a thing called respect and gratitude, and that he could go forward in the future and trust my country and me.

Is the Government currently in a formal contract dispute resolution with Hyundai, such as arbitration, and, if not, why is it taking so long to exit the existing ferries contract that Nicola Willis cancelled?

The answer to that question lies with KiwiRail—that’s in charge of the process, not the Government.

Does he have confidence that the total cost of ferries and infrastructure will come in under $2 billion?

What we have enormous confidence in is that the Treasury forecast that was given to the Labour Party and us of it passing $4 billion is not going to happen. In short, hang on, help’s on its way, and I’ll give the details shortly.

Is it still possible that Nicola Willis’ preferred ferry replacements will be purchased, or is her delivery finally dead in the water?

The reality is that what Nicola Willis did was see a financial crisis and take the appropriate action when her predecessors had not.

to the Minister for Mental Health

What announcements has he made this week regarding the Mental Health and Addiction Community Sector Innovation Fund?

On Tuesday, I visited Wellington City Mission’s Crisis Café to announce they are one of the latest recipients of the Government’s Mental Health and Addiction Community Sector Innovation Fund. The funding will allow the City Mission to scale up its Crisis Café to 24 hours a day, four days a week. Crisis Cafés provide an alternative place where people can go when they need support to alleviate demand on emergency departments. One of the criteria of the innovation fund is to increase access to mental health and addiction services, and this is exactly what this announcement does.

What other announcements has he made this week regarding the Mental Health and Addiction Community Sector Innovation Fund?

Oh, a good question. Yesterday, I was in Rotorua to announce that the Rotorua community youth centre would be receiving funding from the mental health innovation fund. The trust provides free primary mental health and addiction services to young people. The funding will support an additional 560 young people as well as provide a range of courses and workshops to upskill people in the community to better support youth mental health. One of the criteria of the innovation fund is to develop capacity in the mental health workforce, and this is exactly what this announcement does.

What other services has the Mental Health and Addiction Community Sector Innovation Fund funded?

The innovation fund provides Government funding to match, dollar for dollar, philanthropic and other funding secured by organisations, including New Zealanders, with their mental health. In addition to the Wellington City Mission and Rotorua community youth centre, it has funded Youthline to expand its youth counselling, the Sir John Kirwan Foundation to scale up Mitey, the school-based mental health programme, and to support Mates in Construction to deliver vital suicide prevention on site. One of the criteria of the innovation fund is to deliver scalable solutions for unmet need, and this is exactly what these announcements do.

How does this fund support the Government’s mental health priorities?

Well, this Government is laser focused on reducing mental health wait times, training more mental health workers, and investing more in prevention and early intervention. One way of achieving this is investing more in our hard-working community and NGO mental health services, who are already making a difference on the ground. This Government is committed to getting money out of Wellington to the grassroots, and that’s what we’re doing.

to the Minister of Housing

Does he believe that State housing is important for growing the supply of affordable housing; if so, why is the Government opting for zero growth in State housing beyond next year?

on behalf of the Minister of Housing: Yes. However, the Opposition’s infatuation with State ownership of affordable housing is laughable. We are very comfortable and enthusiastic with community housing providers, iwi, and others providing affordable housing where suitable. This Government’s housing renaissance, led by the energetic Minister of Finance and the exemplary Minister of Housing, is focused on fixing the housing ecosystem to grow affordable housing. In relation to the second part of this question, it’s inappropriate to get ahead of the Minister of Finance’s Budget decisions.

How many of the—[Interruption]

Quiet! There’s a question being asked.

Has the Minister seen yesterday’s poll from Public Housing Futures that shows that 72 percent of people believe the Government should address the housing crisis by building State housing at scale, and, if so, will he listen to the people and abandon their anti-growth State housing plan?

No, but I have seen the tables that have seen nearly 3,000 children come out of emergency housing in the last 15 months and a reduction of 5,000 households from the social housing register. I have seen the absolute reduction in the million dollars a day that the previous Government was spending on emergency housing. Those are the tables I’ve seen. But I’m happy to get the member’s polls and materials through my office. Thank you.

Does the Minister recognise that despite the tinkering to leasing and contracts, Kāinga Ora is in a much stronger position to finance new social housing at a lower cost per home than community housing providers, who face more expensive borrowing and have far smaller balance sheets than Kāinga Ora?

I’m not going to get into the member’s fuzzy accounting and math, but what I will say is this: that I have—

Could I please ask the Minister to rephrase that answer without the attack back about the member’s fuzzy question. Thank you.

I will ask the member to reset the question and send it back to me.

OK. I’ll ask Tamatha Paul to please repeat the question.

Does the Minister recognise that despite the tinkering to leasing and contracts, Kāinga Ora is in a much stronger position to finance new social housing at a lower cost per home than community housing providers, who face more expensive borrowing and have far smaller balance sheets?

We on this side of the House recognise that community housing providers and Māori and iwi housing providers often have better outcomes for provision of housing that is affordable than utilising Kāinga Ora. We are very proud of the recent announcements that we made to support and accelerate 400 or so homes amongst Māori housing providers, utilising funds. Thank you.

Is the Minister concerned about the loss of local trade jobs and contracts across the country due to the stalling and cancellation of State housing developments, when over 10,000 construction workers lost their jobs due to that last year?

As we know, we have suffered a market downturn and a cost of living crisis and an economic crisis over the last couple of years, and those are the things that the Minister of Finance is absolutely and diligently and professionally ensuring that we deal with and get housing back on track.

How does the Government reconcile putting Kāinga Ora projects comprising of over 4,000 units under review, including over 500 in Wellington, with the overwhelming support of New Zealanders for the Government to get on with building State housing at scale?

The nature of that question demonstrates the absolute gulf between the Opposition’s view of how housing should be generated in this country. We have a view—a very strong view—that a number of players, including iwi Māori, community housing providers, and others, are in a position to activate more social and affordable housing. The Opposition, including the member who’s asked that question, has a very strong view that the Government should have a monopoly on the provision and we don’t agree with it.

How many of those iwi Māori - led and community housing provider - led houses that he has been mentioning are a result of funding committed by this Government and not the previous Government, led by the Labour Party and the Green Party, that had already been committed to, given that Government hasn’t committed any funding to new builds beyond 2026 or the operational subsidies needed to actually run that housing?

The first part of the question was a question, I think.

We’re very proud in ensuring that 1,500 additional social houses, income-related rent subsidy funded places, have been provided for community housing providers to deliver over the next couple of years. Actually, that’s something that we are really enthusiastic around.

to the Minister for Trade and Investment

What impacts does he think the imposition of tariffs by the Trump presidency will have on New Zealand exporters and importers?

on behalf of the Minister for Trade and Investment: Rising tariffs between the major economies have the potential to drive global inflation, lower demand in some countries, and supress economic growth. While President Trump campaigned on a tariff agenda, there’s no suggestion the US is focused on or singling out New Zealand. The embassy in Washington, DC is gathering as much information as it can, while continuously making the case to the US that New Zealand’s trade is well balanced. We are monitoring developments, taking advice on everything available to us—everything is still on the table.

Who does the Minister agree with, the Todd McClay who stated on 31 January this year that exporters will do “very well” during Trump’s second term, or the Todd McClay who stated on 6 March 2025 that “A tariff on New Zealand exports … is not a good thing for New Zealand.”?

On behalf of the Minister for Trade and Investment, of course, Todd McClay was the same man on both occasions, and on both occasions he was right. New Zealand exporters do have a great future ahead of them, and of course New Zealand has consistently opposed additional tariffs on our goods.

Does she agree with the statement by Sir John Key that Trump will “be better for the economy”, and what should New Zealand KiwiSaver fund holders think about that?

On behalf of the Minister for Trade and Investment, I don’t take responsibility for the comments of the Rt Hon John Key.

Why did the Minister state that “we will face about an extra $5 million of tariffs—plus or minus” on tariffs that have already been imposed on aluminium, iron, and steel, and how does the Minister reconcile this with Statistics New Zealand figures that show a 25 percent tariff would be about $34 million a year, based on last year’s export figures?

On behalf of the Minister for Trade and Investment, obviously, I take a range of advice from my officials, and that is what informs my statements. I would like to acknowledge the member asking these questions, who, alongside other members of this House, has worked hard over many years to help secure good trading relationships between New Zealand and a network of other nations around the world. I would like to remind the member that, ultimately, our exporters are resilient and will continue to find good opportunities in a range of markets.

Point of order. That was a very clear question. The Minister had indicated an estimate of costs. Statistics New Zealand have estimated a different estimate of costs for tariffs. Whilst the Minister’s reply about our great exports is pleasant, it came nowhere near actually addressing the disparity between the Minister’s opinion and Statistics New Zealand’s statistics.

Well, I think given that all of this is based on estimates, no one’s in a position to say what exactly it’s going to be, so I’m satisfied with the Minister’s answer.

If the Minister can’t get the maths right, why should exporters trust his advice at this uncertain time, considering no one in his office has contacted any US officials since President Trump’s election, and he hasn’t even contacted the Meat Industry Association about the proposed tariffs on agriculture, when the US is now our single largest meat market?

On behalf of the Minister for Trade and Investment, I can assure the member that this Government is working hard through all of our channels, across multiple Ministers, to ensure as strong a relationship as possible with the United States is in place in order to ensure that New Zealand’s interests can be pursued, and that absolutely includes the interests of our exporters. Minister McClay has instructed New Zealand officials in Washington, DC to engage with the new administration to ensure that they remain aware that our trade is balanced and complementary, and that US exporters predominantly enjoy lower tariff rates into New Zealand than our exporters do into the US because we have a very low-tariff regime.

Point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek leave to table an Official Information Act request received back in my office on 28 February from the Hon Todd McClay, that states, “My office does not hold correspondence between members of my office and any United States Government officials since 5 November 2024.”

Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. The paper can be tabled.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

to the Minister for Women

What is the Government doing to support women?

How fitting to address this House on this matter with you in the Chair, Madam Speaker. I want to wish all women a very happy International Women’s Day this Saturday, and I’d like to send my personal thanks and appreciation to the women across the country, who deserve to be celebrated on this day and every day. To support women, last year I launched the first ever Government-backed gender pay gap tool kit. This helps businesses to calculate their pay gap and then an action plan tailored to their individual needs. It was designed alongside business to ensure sustainable and enduring change, and I thank those involved. I encourage members across the House, instead of carping and moaning, to get on board with it and visit the resources this International Women’s Day.

Why is this work a priority?

The gender pay gap, of course, sits at 8.2 percent, and the Retirement Commission has found a 36 percent gap in the amount that men and women are putting into their KiwiSaver each year, which is primarily caused by the gender pay gap rather than contribution rates. Reducing that gap, of course, can lift women to economic empowerment, which is my number one priority as Minister.

What has the engagement been like so far?

It has been fantastic. I am very pleased to share with this House that since the day we launched it, there have been 16,000 hits to the site and 750 downloads of the workbook by individual businesses. It’s really great to hear all the positive feedback from the business community as I travel across the country sharing this resource with business and professional sectors.

What else is the Government doing?

The Government is committed to supporting women. That is why we have increased paid parental leave by 6 percent, we have introduced the FamilyBoost payment to help meet the cost of early childhood education, and we have rolled out an extension to breast screening services to include 70- to 74-year-olds. We are all about action, not press releases and empty, hollow promises.

Why did the Minister and her Government get rid of the mandatory pay transparency scheme that was introduced by the last Government, when BusinessNZ, unions, and Government stood together, in a tripartite agreement, to say that this would make the single-biggest difference to women’s pay?

I am so pleased the member has asked that question. Cabinet has not yet made a decision on a mandatory reporting system, and I note that the last Government announced it but did not fund or deliver it. So we are progressing—[Interruption]

I cannot hear the Minister. Carry on answering—I’m just asking other people to tone down the noise.

We are progressing a voluntary system that has been designed by the business community, including BusinessNZ, so that it works for them, and, as I’ve noted, the organic uptake has already been very encouraging.

Can I ask the Minister, with respect to Jan Tinetti’s question, is it, properly, “women’s” pay or “woman’s” pay?

I thank the member for his question. Anyone who knows how to enunciate correctly in English would say “women”.

It probably depends on where you grow up.

In what ways does cutting the Pay Equity Taskforce, coalition members dismissing causes for the gender pay gap, and making derisive comments about women count as the Government supporting women?

This Government absolutely remains committed to pay equity and meeting its obligations under the Equal Pay Act 1972. As the Minister for Women, as that member will well know, I am not responsible for pay equity legislation, but I advocate very strongly on behalf of women, and I am proudly a very squeaky wheel.

Right, that concludes oral questions, and in the tradition of the Rt Hon Gerry Brownlee, I’m going to give people 30 seconds to leave the Chamber quietly.

I present a legislative statement on the Referendums Framework Bill.

That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

I move, That the Referendums Framework Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice Committee to consider the bill.

The bill provides a generic framework which focuses on the mechanics of a referendum. It largely reproduces the same legislative framework that applies to the conduct of the general election. The bill draws on the foundations of our electoral law and does not create, nor is it specific to, any referendum. The bill’s largely modelled on the temporary legislation put in place for the two referendums held alongside the 2020 general election.

In line with coalition agreements, a separate bill is being progressed that would enable the extension of the maximum term of Parliament, subject to a binding referendum. At this stage, there is a commitment for that bill to progress to the select committee but not necessarily any further. However, the Referendums Framework Bill provides the necessary legislative framework to govern the conduct of a referendum if required at the first or second election after commencement.

Ensuring the smooth and efficient conduct of a general election and any referendum held at the time is obviously important. Our Electoral Commission needs to be able to plan appropriately. This Referendums Framework Bill provides a single set of rules to govern the conduct of any referendum held alongside the general election. It ensures that the same rules apply both for the general election and referendum as far as practical. The bill ideally needs to be passed by October this year to allow the Electoral Commission sufficient lead-in time to prepare for a referendum if there was to be one held alongside the 2026 general election.

The bill focuses on the mechanical aspects of the conduct of any referendum held with a general election—for example, it enables the Electoral Commission to conduct the referendums using the same voting places and electoral staffers for the election, provides counting of the referendum votes and the release of the results either with or following the general election, and provides that the offence and penalty provisions of the Electoral Act apply to similar offences committed in relation to referendums. This bill does not include any specific referendum-related material, instead following the enactment of the relevant primary legislation for a referendum topic. An Order in Council will act as a trigger for holding a referendum alongside a particular general election.

Advertising is a key issue. To achieve an appropriate balance between freedom of expression and transparency, the bill regulates referendum advertising in much the same way as the Electoral Act regulates election advertising. These rules require promoters of referendum advertisements to place a promotive statement, to register if they intend to spend over a certain amount, and in addition, registered promoters will be required to submit a return of their expenses if they spend more than $100,000. There will be an overall limit on the amount that can be spent of just over $400,000. The bill also provides expenditure on dual advertising, covering the election and the referendum will count both to electoral and referendum advertising thresholds and limits.

The bill also addresses some minor areas of difference from some rules applying to the election, which reflects the nature of referendums. For example, there’ll be no preliminary count on any referendum vote on election day, to avoid delays for the preliminary count for the general election. Referendum results will be released with or following the official results for the general election.

The select committee process is very important. I encourage members and the public to have their say. On that basis, I commend this bill to the House.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. This is another piece of—

What have you got to say?

Well, what I’ve got to say, Mr Goldsmith, is that this is another job that David Seymour has given Paul Goldsmith, because, yet again, the Government, which should be focused on things that are important to hard-working New Zealanders, has, in fact, been distracted by things like the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill and a four-year term with bizarre select committee rules by the ACT Party. Now, the Minister of Justice and the Justice Committee, which I sit on, are very busy with some interesting and important pieces of work, but this isn’t one of them.

God’s work.

Well, Minister Goldsmith is not quite God; in fact, he’s far from it. I think he’s at the other end of the spectrum.

Look, sure, this bill: if you’re going to run a referendum—[Interruption] Well, you asked for it. It’s late on a Thursday—

Yeah, the members did ask for it, and the spectrum hasn’t been defined, so just carry on. Thank you.

Look, if you’re going to run a referendum, we accept you’ve got to get your rules right, and in some ways, I’m curious as to why we’re doing a kind of patch-up, rather than having a long-term look at how we run referenda. If you’re going to do it, you may as well do it right, and this bill is really only aimed at a referendum that’ll happen in one of the next two elections. Yes, all of those things, like the questions around interference and promoters, donations—all the things that the Minister referred to—are appropriate, and if there’s going to be a referendum, yes, we absolutely want to make sure that it’s done with integrity, because we know that integrity around our electoral system is critical.

It’s funny that the Minister was talking about the Electoral Commission and the work that it does, including in referenda, because, at the moment, it’s under siege. It’s had a walkout from its IT department, and there are deep problems with it. We saw at the last election not only did we have a miscounting problem, where boxes of votes went missing, but we had a problem about the independence of a marae. So, yes, let’s get it right, but the integrity of the process is important.

Look, if the National Party wants to be distracted and this is the biggest thing that it wants to send to the Justice Committee, then go for it, but the fact of the matter is that this bill and the four-year term bill are not something which is going to change New Zealanders’ lives, and it’s the ACT Party wagging the dog, once again.

The four-year term bill itself is poorly drafted, but this really sits alongside of it, and we’ll take a good-faith look at both of them. We don’t have a closed mind on either of them, but it’s really just getting a bit tiresome when the legislative agenda—in justice, in particular—of the Government is run by the ACT Party.

Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. A standing framework for conducting referendums—and it does pain me to say that and not “referenda”, but each language has its own idiosyncratic adaptations—is much better than creating new legislation every time we want a referendum. It’s also appropriate, often, to have a referendum at the same time as a general election, but not necessarily. You would reduce costs and gain maximum participation, but sometimes holding a referendum at the same time as a general election could be much more polarising. This bill only applies to referendums at the next two elections, but why? If you’re not very sure about the legislation, perhaps a five-year review period would be more sensible. Why are referendums good for two rounds and not for longer?

There are bigger issues: when is a referendum appropriate rather than divisive, and when is it the best method of deciding an important question? The multiple costly local referendums on Māori wards this coalition Government is forcing on councils—costly? Yes, the dollars are dollars whether they’re ratepayers’ dollars or taxpayers’ dollars. Those aren’t designed to promote local engagement. They’re not designed to be deliberative democracy. They are a simplistic lever for rednecks deciding on rural wards, but large wards? They’re not appropriate for a referendum, and I say deciding on Māori representation is not appropriate in a referendum, either. Maybe we could look at whether being a republic or a colonial monarchy is appropriate, but you wouldn’t do that without a very serious conversation first.

That’s what I’m concerned about: going straight to a referendum. A referendum should be a full stop after a deep conversation, not the first binary yes/no, “let me go with my gut feel”, which is not a great way of doing democracy.

As the Minister said, the bill does allow for advertising for referenda, but, again, this Government has not listened to the Independent Electoral Review. Is the balance between free speech and undue influence correct? Why do we allow overseas promoters to influence democratic outcomes in our country? Do we want large corporates to influence referendum outcomes? And are the amounts for disclosure and for total spend correct?

I understand that the Taxpayers’ Union or Greenpeace or Forest & Bird could each spend up to $406,000 on their election campaigning, and a further $406,000 on referendum adverts. The report of the Independent Electoral Review, which some of you don’t seem to have read, recommended tighter controls both on total spend and on recording where donations came from. The Green Party would go further and say that only registered voters should be involved in donating to those causes. Those points about general elections should equally apply to referendums.

In conclusion, a referendum is at the very low end on the scale—or the spectrum, if Madam Speaker prefers—of participatory democracy. Citizens don’t define the question. They don’t even refine the question, and there’s no opportunity to come towards a consensus. However, if there are going to be referenda, we need a framework, so we will be supporting this bill.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Haven’t we heard some colourful oratory this afternoon? I wrote it down, because I have a propensity to misquote people: “It’s simple levers for rednecks.” Try and reconcile that, everyone here today, this afternoon—“levers for rednecks”. Gracious me! The idea that we would have a discussion about framing up a four-year reality, whatever it looks like, in a piece of legislation; having a referendum, or a referenda—whichever way you want to frame it—and inviting New Zealand to have its say, and they’re “rednecks”—gracious me! Unbelievable.

Respectfully—and we are a House of privilege here—that is, for me, personally, a pretty dumb remark. Gracious me! This is involving democracy—

I would just pull back on that remark about calling a—I know you were speaking to the remark and not the member—

No, I was certainly not addressing the member.

—but it’s a freefall—yeah.

Well, Madam Chair, I note your addition, and I appreciate it, but the remark is not a reflection of the person who made it. I am fascinated—I will reframe it.

Thank you.

Gracious me! We come into this House every day to debate ideas. This is a House of contest, and yet that member referenced those outside the House, who don’t have the luxury of privilege, as being a certain kind of people.

Duncan Webb, or, if I may, “Negative Nelly” over there—“It’s all doom and gloom.” I actually think this is a great piece of legislation. How many referendums would New Zealand and New Zealanders want to be engaged with? Look, our mates on the left, who wanted a conversation about cannabis—did they instantly forget that part of our history, and anything else that might have come up. It could be something to do with alcohol, which is often a controversial thing. We take New Zealanders on a journey and we represent their interests, and we certainly share the ideas from outside the four walls of this building.

Incidentally, the Treaty principles bill—that’s come up in the House, so I’ll reference it. Having a bill where we can have a framework that acknowledges New Zealand in a referendum process, this cyclical reality where we have two election cycles and we loop it all in for when we have a general election so New Zealand can have a say—and this obviously ties into the previous bill, the four-year term bill. Why would we not want to engage with New Zealand in this instance?

I think, tying off in this first reading—and I don’t want to over-litigate the complexities of the bill, because it’s not overly complex; you can all read it—the wider point is that we’re taking New Zealanders outside of this building on the journey so that they can have a say on very salient issues to them. Whether it’s cannabis or it could be abortion reform, or it could be all manner of things, there’s nothing wrong with having a four-year rolling maul, you might say, that allows us to have referendums. And, by the way, I’d just remind that member that most New Zealanders are not negative; they’re positive, and they’re certainly not rednecks.

Thanks, Madam Speaker. Look, it was a bit of a struggle to think of what to say about this bill, because it’s actually a relatively mechanistic bill and it really just allows for the design, the management, and the running of referenda in the next two elections alongside the elections themselves, using the same personnel, using the same procedures, the same eligibility for election, and so on.

That’s not particularly exciting in itself, but what we’ve heard in the debate from the Opposition—or at least from one part of the Opposition—does get a little bit exciting, it does open up a debate, because what they have said is that they, essentially, do not believe that there’s much value in the public as a whole engaging in a referendum question. I find that quite remarkable. Some of the most successful—and I’m going to pick one particular country because I often talk about them, the Swiss; they use referenda all the time, and, actually, it doesn’t seem to have done them a whole lot of harm and they seem to manage that really, really well.

To call referenda the lowest form or the low end of participatory democracy; just assuming that there’ll be nothing, there’ll be no lead-in in conversation, no lead-in debate, no lead-in information going into people having to say, “Yes, we support this.” or “No, we don’t.” That never happens. You look at the debates around all the issues that have been before our country in terms of referenda and there has been extensive debate—extensive debate. People care about those things very deeply, particularly where they’re citizens initiated referenda. They care about those things. They care about those very deeply.

Which one? Name one!

Well, all of them.

But which one? Name one!

I’m not going to name one of them.

You can’t name one!

I can pick dozens. I can pick dozens of them.

You can’t name one.

Oh, I could. Honestly, I could pick dozens of them, but that’s not the point. The point is that people debate these things with passion. At least we’ve got Duncan Webb sort of—now he’s getting himself up and vaguely interested.

The point is that people do get engaged with these things. Take the cannabis referendum, take the firefighters referendum, take the number of MPs—there are a whole range of them. People get engaged with these things and we have extensive debate, extensive information about those, and the people of New Zealand come to a decision about them. Actually, rather than being, as the Green Party said, the low end of the spectrum in terms of participatory democracy, I think that is very much the high end of it because that means that we all—we all—get to have a say about something. We don’t say to the Parliament, “It’s your call.”; we say, “It’s our call.”

Sometimes they’re binding: MMP. Well, it wasn’t a citizens initiated one, but MMP was a response to the public of New Zealand saying they had concerns about the unbridled power—in fact, I mentioned unbridled power yesterday—being exercised by this place or by the executive within this place, and they wanted to respond to that, and they did, and they’ve changed the way in which our Government is elected and run. That is very, very important. There was a huge debate about that. We can all remember the huge debate that was around that, and that was significant, so I could not disagree more with the Green Party. Effectively, I would say that the Green Party here is being anti-democratic. This is a party which tries to pride itself on its own democratic processes within its own party, and yet here they are saying that the public of New Zealand being able to vote on something is in a way anti-democratic. I think that is appalling. I think it’s very, very sad.

Look, the other thing I would like to mention is just to say that this, to me, is a response. It sits alongside the four-year term bill. I think Duncan Webb said that a four-year term is a distraction—I think it was the word that he used. Well, look, I don’t agree. I think, over time—and we had a good debate about this yesterday—just about every person in the leadership role in this country has said that a four-year term makes a lot more sense than a three-year term. It is something which we should be putting in front of the public. It is something that we have two slightly different coalition agreement components to and said that we would do that. We’ve got support pretty much around the House, and that is something which we should be going to the public to decide on. The way in which people get elected is the decision for the public, not the decision for parliamentarians, and I commend this bill to the House to support the other bill.

Tēnā koe e te Pīka. Tēnā tātou. E tū ana au ki te tuku i ngā whakaaro o Te Pāti Māori mō te pire e whai ake nei.

[Greetings to the Speaker. Greetings to us all. I stand to deliver Te Pāti Māori’s thoughts about the following bill.]

Te Pāti Māori supports the essence of this bill, because we support giving power to the people to decide on our laws in some situations. What we do not support is allowing the majority to decide the rights of minorities and dismissing the constitutional rights of te iwi Māori through Te Tiriti o Waitangi along the way. We do not support the tyranny of the majority, as described by Sir Geoffrey Palmer in his submission as part of the King’s Counsel submission against the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill. That tyranny of the majority has been weaponised against te iwi Māori over and over and over again.

Last year, the Government passed a law that would force almost all of our Māori wards to be put to a referendum. These seats are necessary to promote unapologetic and unrestrained voices of tangata whenua, those people, as Te Tiriti partners in local government. Their existence should not be subject to a referendum where the majority of voters are not Māori. The ACT Party wants to put the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi to a referendum. They’ve made up their own meaning for the Treaty, a novel one at that, a meaning that suits their desire to open up Aotearoa to corporate exploitation, and they want to ask the public whether or not they agree with the principles—principles which have no basis. These are the dangers of a referendum.

They’ve made up principles out of thin air, and asking the voting public to tick “Yes” or “No” without providing any information—these are the dangers of a referendum. Āe, those are the dangers of a referendum. Referendums can be used to take away our voices and take away our rights at the whim of the public, the ignorance or otherwise of the public, and if there are no cautions put in place to raise the skill of the public to make a good decision, then referendums are very dangerous things.

These are the dangers of referendums for tangata whenua. These are the dangers that referendums pose to the rights imparted to the Government through Te Tiriti o Waitangi and every other citizen in the country. We cannot have referendums that victimise minorities or rewrite history and, sadly, recent history has shown us that these are the only reasons that the Government will use a referendum.

We cannot support the bill in the context of where we are today. Referendums have not been on our side since the establishment of Parliament in 1845 and, unfortunately, despite the apologies of the Crown to te iwi Māori, as we listened to, all just graciously politely listened to, this morning, agreed to this morning—despite those apologies to te iwi Māori, we continue to see the promotion of ideas and bills that run straight over the top of Māori constitutional rights, constitutional rights in our own country.

These are the dangers of referendums in 2025, referendums of the ignorant. These are the dangers of those things.

So you don’t support referendums, but you support this bill?

Well, you obviously haven’t been following the whole speech, bro. These are the dangers of referendums, and this is our position.

We agreed to share this country in 1840. Our tīpuna committed to sharing it and, unfortunately, we’re still here waiting for the Crown to come around to honouring their commitments. Kia ora tātou.

Thanks, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on this bill. I think that the detail of the bill is pretty straightforward, and it’s laid out for the Justice Committee to do its good work and ensure that we get it through and bring it back to the House.

What concerns me, though, is some of the speeches that we’ve heard in this House already in this first reading. It was surprising—had to follow along somehow—the Greens’ contribution around the idea of referendums and that we should only have them after we have had a big discussion about the thing we’re going to take to referendum. It was surprising to me when I looked at Morning Report on 25 February and it says, “The Green Party says it backs the idea of a four-year parliamentary term, but with caveats.” Had they decided that after a big kōrero with the whole of New Zealand before they put the full stop on their policy, or were they going to take it to a referendum? I’m confused.

Then we had a conversation that sounds like Te Pāti Māori will only agree with New Zealanders that vote for them. I’m not sure about you, Madam Speaker, or the rest of the House—

You can’t bring me into the debate, Mr Bates.

Fair call, Madam Speaker, I won’t bring you into the debate. All members of this House, I’m sure, got votes from Māori voters across New Zealand, so I’m looking forward to the day that they recognise that there are other views than their own. I think this referendum process, should it be utilised, will give us the opportunity to see the view of wider New Zealand. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. On this side of the House, in the Labour benches, we’re supporting this bill today to select committee. The reason is that it’s very clear that this is a companion bill to the four-year term bill. If that is, in fact, going to happen, it’s an extremely important constitutional event and it’s really incumbent on this House to make sure that if there is going to be a referendum on that issue, it has to be done properly and we have to give the people of New Zealand every opportunity to engage properly and be part of that decision-making process.

I do want to say at the same time that this is a Government led by a Prime Minister who wants to say yes all the time. The problem for his party is that the things he’s mostly saying yes to are ACT’s policy proposals. Increasingly, this House and the legislative agenda in this Parliament is dominated by ACT’s political programme. We saw the Treaty principles bill really suck up the oxygen in this place for weeks and weeks on end. We had tens of thousands of people marching in the street for a bauble of the coalition negotiations which was to take the Treaty principles bill to select committee. Really, we’re debating this bill today only because it is the companion piece to the four-year term bill that we’ll be discussing shortly. This is really part of ACT’s programme, but it is important, nevertheless, that if referenda are going to be used for things like the four-year term, they have to be done properly.

What does the bill do? It provides a legal framework to make sure that referenda are carried out in a way that is transparent, well-organised, and fair. The bill, which I think, really, at first reading, gets the tick, deals with the really important elements of holding a referendum: ensuring broad public participation, making sure the results are binding and are respected, clear and neutral questions in the referendum that avoid ambiguity and bias, public education campaigns to support the referendum, and financial transparency.

There’s significant debate to be had about the role of referenda in our political system. Colleagues across the House have raised some of those questions. Personally, I’m not a fan of too many referenda. I think that our representative democracy should, if working well, be able to deliberate, build consensus, and make good decisions for the future of the country. But there are things from time to time, like some of the great conscience issues that this House has dealt with in recent years, and constitutional issues, where it can actually be reduced to a clear binary choice: yes or no. It’s very important when those things happen to make sure that the public have a say about the rules of engagement in our democracy. I think the four-year term is one of those things.

I will add as a post-script that there are some eyebrow-raising elements of the four-year term bill, and we’ll have a chance to get into those in detail, but the idea that you would give future Governments the responsibility to have to choose between the three-year or a four-year term and some consequent adjustments to the select committee process every time the Government changes, every time there’s a new parliamentary term, is gaga in my view. I cannot imagine who thought it was a good idea to draft a bill that did that. Having said that, I think there is a lot of support around this Parliament and around the country for the idea of a four-year term. I hope that, through that legislative process, we’ll at least get a chance to think about it, debate it in this House, and hopefully come up with something that’s a bit more grounded and a bit more sensible.

Labour supports this bill because we believe it is essential that, if there is going to be a referendum on the four-year term, it has to be done properly to do justice to our democracy and to the people of New Zealand.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Just a reminder for those listening from home and really struggling to cope with what they’re hearing, we’re on the first reading of the Referendums Framework Bill. It’s a bill that the National Party and this side of the House supports. Welcome, Mr Speaker, to the Chair.

It’s very interesting. The feeling that I’ve been getting listening to some of our colleagues across the House is that there seems to be a problem with us multitasking, but on this side of the House, the Government, we have no problem multitasking. Someone made the comment on the other side of the House that we on the Justice Committee, which I’m so proud and privileged to be part of, should be focusing on things that matter—I’m paraphrasing here. Look, the fact is, to us here on this side of the House, the Gangs Act is a law that really mattered, and we focused on that and we got that done, much to the happiness of people in South Auckland that are feeling a lot safer. The Sentencing (Reinstating Three Strikes) Amendment Bill—that’s something that we passed into law through the Justice Committee while we were multitasking, and something that I’m very proud of because it means that people committing crimes no longer have a “get out of jail free” card, an endless one that keeps going and going. Currently, we are working on the Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill. This is multitasking, and this is what people that are used to multitasking can do.

What this bill will do, Mr Speaker, as you may know, is, essentially, strengthen consequences for when those people are going out to the shops, smashing up the dairies, smashing up other shops in South Auckland, in Takanini. They’re not going to get away with an 80 percent discount anymore when we pass this law. We have no problem multitasking on this side of the House. We commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. And, gosh, talk about multitasking! The member who has just resumed her seat, Rima Nakhle, managed to talk mostly about something that was completely irrelevant. I congratulate her for sneaking that one in. Unfortunately, what we’re here to do, in a proper sense, however, is talk about this particular bill, the Referendums Framework Bill.

As has been said by my colleague the Hon Phil Twyford, we will be supporting the bill, because we have to, essentially. It is important, if you’re going to do something, that the framework and the scaffolding is there to support that so it can be done well. What’s at stake is our democracy, our reputation for being a good democracy, and all of the mechanisms by which our citizens, including ourselves, need to be able to trust those processes. As we have heard today, when we think about referendums, it does conjure up some deeply held thoughts on the rightness or the wrongness, so to speak, of using this within our democracy, but it is simply a tool, and, like all tools, it is a good tool for not depending on the scaffolding around it and depending on the good faith of the actors involved in utilising such a tool.

In this particular example, we find ourselves introducing this bill as a means by which to support the piece of legislation that the ACT Party has brought to this House regarding the four-year term, the Term of Parliament (Enabling 4-year Term) Legislation Amendment Bill. It does strike me that, yet again, here we are in this House talking about another piece of ACT legislation, and it does conjure up the visuals of the tail wagging the dog. If you create a vacuum, as the National Party have, if you create a vacuum and there’s a little bit of a lull in legislative ideas, all of a sudden you’ve got to plug that with the old ACT Party suggestions. But that’s all right—that’s all right. We just don’t think it’s a priority, but it’s here before us now, so this is what we’re dealing with—of all the things we could be talking about, when the Government talks about its priorities and the things that are important to New Zealanders. Never mind!

As has already been discussed as well, we do have some concerns about the larger bill that this particular bill supports, in so far as the messiness of the four-year term. Again, my colleague the Hon Phil Twyford talked about some of the examples of how the three- versus four-year term—which, on the surface, when I heard it in the media, I kind of thought, “Well, that’s relatively novel.” Then, as more details came out about the Government being able to opt in or opt out, we looked at the fiasco and the debacle in terms of this Government being able to form a Government after the last election and the sheer amount of time that that took—and you add another level of complexity about taking that coalition and then being able to choose whether they would have a three- or a four-year term and the ramifications of how the select committees would work post that decision—and all together that’s quite a substantial amount of time. We hear, time and time again, not just in this House but throughout our engagement with people from all walks of life, that certainty is such an important part of being able to function properly. This bill certainly doesn’t create that.

What it does do, though, is it governs the basic conduct of referenda, and that is necessary if we’re going to go down this pathway. It allows the legislative framework and the regulatory rules governing the electoral process to be, essentially, consistent, efficient, and there is some precedent from 2020, when a similar bill was passed to regulate the referendum associated with the 2020 general election. Obviously, that Act was then automatically repealed in 2022. Given the potential for a new referendum, this bill is necessary. With regard to parliamentary time-management, however, it is, as I said, frustrating that Parliament’s time is being consumed by yet another ACT Party pet project when some more pressing things should be done. I think, when all is said and done, that is quite illustrative of this current Government, and it’s no wonder that the tail continues to wag the dog.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It seems that the debate has been taken offtrack, and I’m keen to bring it back on track. Members have talked about a variety of different subjects, but this is a really generic bill. There have been complaints made from the other side about priorities and bringing legislation to the House, and things like that, yet they’re supporting the legislation, so you can see the hypocrisy there.

The bill is very, very generic, and it says, “The bill provides the legislative framework to hold a referendum on the term length of Parliament.” That’s it. That’s all it’s doing. We in the National Party are supporting this bill to the select committee, just like we have done already for the four-year term legislation.

As a member of the Justice Committee, I eagerly—eagerly—await consultation on this bill, and the four-year term bill as well, and seeing what the feedback is from the general public in New Zealand, whether they are happy with the legislation as it is or whether they would like changes made to it in engaging and consulting on it through the legislative process at the select committee. I commend the bill to the House.

The question is, That the Referendums Framework Bill be considered by the Justice Committee.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to take this call. I’m taking this call on behalf of ACT to support the Customer and Product Data Bill. This bill was considered by the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, and, as the chair of that select committee, I want to, firstly, thank all individuals and organisations who submitted on this bill. We received 40 submissions, and we were fortunate to hear from 15 submitters. I also want to thank the staff on the committee. I also want to thank the advisers for their help, and of course all of the committee members.

As we know, this bill is about providing that overarching, economy-wide framework to allow greater access to and sharing of consumer and product data with businesses. The ultimate goal of this bill is to promote innovation and competition. When we talk about data, there were certain things that we wanted to keep in mind when we were considering this bill in the select committee process. We wanted to see that there was certainty given to consumers—because it’s their data—for their rights, and also that there are enough obligations on data holders. We wanted to see that the bill was balanced in terms of providing the protections for consumers, but, on the other hand, that it was not putting in too many restrictions and liabilities which would make it impossible for this framework to work in a practical manner, or would create too many legal or other kind of implications.

In the select committee, we considered a lot of things. We wanted to see that this bill was focused on benefiting customers. When the bill was sent to the select committee, one of the clauses—that is, clause 3(1)(a), which sets out that the bill’s purpose is to establish a consumer data rights framework—stated that one purpose was to “realise the value of certain data for the benefit of individuals, organisations, and society;”, and the select committee recommended that it should be referring to benefiting “customers”. That was clarifying that the focus is actually the customer. Of course they control the data, but they should be the party that is benefiting from sharing that data.

Data holders are when the consumer request is to share that data with third parties, and here, when we talked about third parties, it was really important for us to see that there is that right kind of balance so that the third parties have the obligation to keep that data secure, and also the application process to become those approved third parties is actually going to be practically workable. As an example, one of the requirements in the bill was that a company or business led by a director and senior managers should be of good character. We made an amendment that would require the applicants’ director and senior managers to be of good character, and also that the applicant must have adequate security safeguards in relation to data that may be provided to them.

When we talk about data, sometimes data is not used in the form that it is provided in—the raw form—and sometimes the data is extracted and data is transformed, and we wanted to see how regulations around derived data are going to work. Changes were made to ensure that it’s not too restrictive. We do want people to have confidence when they share their data, but, on the other hand, we also want to make sure that it’s not too restrictive—that would actually not lead to the innovation or competition that we are hoping to see once this economy-wide framework is put in place.

There are liabilities, of course, for data holders in there, but there were certain circumstances discussed in the select committee where we thought that the liability of data holders was not fair. The example was if a hacker poses themselves as an approved third party, and in that situation, because they have stolen the credentials of that third party, the data holder is, apparently, complying, and in that situation, we in the select committee thought it would be unfair for the data holder to be liable. That was quite a good discussion in the select committee process, and we concluded that the data holder in that kind of situation should not be liable under the Privacy Act contract, or other obligations for disclosing customer data.

Now, when we talk about data or when we talk about benefit because of the data, or any of those things, there can be situations where people are actually forced to take that action, and we wanted to see that people are covered for that kind of situation where people are forced to provide their data. In that kind of situation, it is quite possible that the person who actually owns the data—the consumer—will not benefit, but someone else is going to benefit, and they might be authorising transfer of that data because of some kind of threat. We wanted to see that the duty of care—the customer care—is not just sitting with the data holder but is also sitting with the third party, because the third parties, if they’re interacting with the consumer, would know somehow the situation of the requester, and if they feel that there is some kind of threat or if there is some kind of pressure and it’s because of that pressure that they are providing that authorisation, then the responsibility should sit with that third party, as well.

Overall, we can say that the select committee worked really hard to improve this bill, and the bill has been reported back in a much improved way—this version looks much, much improved. There were some other recommendations made by the advisers which were discussed by the select committee and which the select committee could not agree to, because it’s a split committee—some members agreed; some members didn’t agree. I just wanted to note that all recommendations made by the advisers were not included in the version that has been reported back to the House. With that, we support the second reading of this bill. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First in support of the bill. I want to also thank the chair of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee. I was also part of that committee, and I’d like to compliment her on the very structured way in which she chairs our select committee. Thank you for that; we always seem to be doing everything on time.

Now, I would also like to thank all of the staffers who helped us to understand this bill, because it’s a very technical bill. When the parliamentary staff came in and explained things to us and would answer our questions, a part of me would think to myself, “Please respond as if I’m an 8-year-old so that I can understand it.”, and they were very, very good. I mean, it was such a technical bill in some parts, and they were so patient and tolerant and explained everything to us very quickly so that we could make informed decisions.

As already mentioned, there were 40 submitters—probably more than I thought there would be; however, as we got into listening to the submissions, I could understand why it was important that they make their submission. One of the areas that was important to look at was privacy, to ensure that privacy wasn’t breached. There were some larger organisations like Xero and banks, and there were also some smaller submitters.

Part of me made the wrong assumption of “Well, how would a small business feel about a bill like this?”, but, actually, the response from small business came back and said, “You know, this is our data. Customers should be able to share their data with whomever they like in a timely manner.” That was really good to hear; that, overall, no matter whether it was an extraordinarily large business or a small business, they were very much in favour of being able to share their information to a third party so that they could then have the information required to make informed decisions.

I think I shared, last week, how the transfer of data over the years has changed. We used to carry things in boxes, and then it was spreadsheets. I don’t mind a spreadsheet, but many people don’t like spreadsheets and numbers, so they want to be able to hand everything over and say to someone else, “Please give me the information that I need so that I can make the decisions I need.”, and this is what this bill does. It’s common sense, but, yes, we did need to take a look at the issue of privacy, for example, to ensure that there was nothing breached there.

It’s a very technical bill. I don’t want to go into the detail of some of those technicalities, but in order to be able to explain to everyone out there who is listening, it is about being able to have your data transferred safely to another organisation so that you can make decisions yourself with the right information. On that note, I will commend the bill to the House. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Green Party also in support of the Customer and Product Data Bill. Like many have mentioned already, I think the bill does strengthen the laws that protect against anti-competitive behaviour, it does allow greater customer control over the data, and also potentially allows for innovation of new products.

I think, more broadly speaking, everyone in this House recognises the fact that data, and particularly big data, is currently something that the tech industry and businesses are developing and evolving at a rate that’s much faster than what legislation and what the legislative process sometimes may allow for. We are seeing that both domestically as well as internationally through various trade deals, for example.

In terms of this particular bill, there are a couple of things that I would like to raise in addition to what has already been raised by my colleague Ricardo Menéndez March on this bill. I think I want to get into some of the more technical elements of this bill. Some of these will be discussed further as part of the committee stage, and I will look forward to the opportunity to engage with the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs on this bill.

I think the first thing is in terms of the conversation that’s been had between the Economic, Development, Science and Innovation Committee and also the Regulations Review Committee around the understanding of why it is needed for there to be both two separate forms of secondary legislation to do the same thing that is required. For this one—we’re looking at clause 126(1)(f) and (g)—I think the decision that was made as part of the select committee process is that the regulation or the standards—whether it is a regulation or whether it’s a standard, it actually provides different things. Whereas a regulation is made for specific requirements, the standards may allow for other things, such as particular businesses or certain industries may contain standards for a range of matters, and it allows a different level of flexibility, which is sufficient. I think it would also be good to tease out some of those examples as we look at this bill in the committee stage.

One of the key elements of this bill is the privacy provisions that have been given. I think this is where we are looking at greater control over a person’s data that has been granted—I think particularly with the part around the complaints and being able to make those kind of allegations against the use of personal data as part of Parts 5 and 6 of the Privacy Act 2020. I think also when we’re looking at some of these, in terms of the privacy component, it’s also interesting to see that the bill introduces provisions for both civil remedies as well as criminal offences. I think there is also room for scope in looking at how customers’ data is used by businesses both domestically but, honestly, how our data is being used through algorithm, etc., through AI being used by overseas tech companies as well. I think that is a really important part of when we’re looking at data protection and the use of consumer data.

This also again ties into my next point, and this is more of a mixed bag. On one hand, from a Te Tiriti perspective, you know, we are really heartened to see that, as part of the process that was originally done by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, Te Kāhui Raraunga was consulted as part of Mana Raraunga data sovereignty. I think that is something that is really, really important to mention and I think it’s important to have their contribution into it. However, we are a little bit concerned and a little bit perplexed, and we’d love to tease this out more at the committee stage as well, about why upon further discussion the Minister chose not to include the consultation of iwi, hapū, and whānau Māori before making regulation a standard that really affects their data sovereignty in this sort of stage.

Part of the reason that was given was that the consultation will not add anything substantive or would be inconsistent with similar provisions in other Acts, but I think when we’re looking at something like this, there’s actually a real opportunity for us to look at something that is new, that is inclusive, that does actually look at tino rangatiratanga from the position of data, from a Te Tiriti perspective. I think that is something worth looking into as well.

To finish, we do support this bill. We think it does give greater control for the people of Aotearoa, and we look forward to the committee stage.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a real pleasure to speak on the second reading of the Customer and Product Data Bill. We had a very engaging and interesting discussion about this bill. We had quite a good range of submissions from a variety of stakeholders, and they were very useful contributions that they made, and I’d just like to thank the other members of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee—hello, everyone over there. It was a very—

What about me?

Well, you weren’t actually there, Dr Campbell. It was actually very engaging, and, all around, we all understood the utility of this for customers.

The idea is that we can improve competition, which helps to drive economic development and growth. By having competition, we can drive down prices and make things more convenient for people, so that’s what it means for people at home. It means better access to information and that they can swap banks more easily and they can understand their electricity bills and how they work. Those are the kinds of outcomes that we’re hoping to see from this for people at home. This bill will introduce across whole sectors a customer data and product right. That means that behind this legislation, there will be secondary legislation that will set out all of the parameters, with all the detailed rules and standards that will enable this to happen, and the people that are writing those standards and preparing all of that will be designated by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment.

During the process, we did actually end up making, as a result of many of the submissions and many of the discussions that we had, a number of changes to the original legislation that I think were actually very useful. As previous speakers have discussed, there was a mention of a topic called derived data. Basically, derived data is where the raw numbers are taken by a company and turned into a story or information, using their intellectual power to change that information and make it a more usable product. If that was not allowed to be exchanged, if there were some prohibitions on that, or if there were some problems caused by having derived data being part of it, people might not want to participate, and it might actually hold things up. We decided to remove that.

We heard some of the experiences that happened in Australia, where there’s been less valuable uptake of a similar kind of approach in their jurisdiction. Part of that was because of a lack of confidence in the system around trust and privacy, and because we have a Privacy Commissioner and we have quite robust privacy law in New Zealand, we were able to make ourselves very comfortable that privacy would not be breached and that all of the elements of privacy law would actually apply and protect people within this framework as well.

However, there were potential fish-hooks that we saw, and that’s why we also decided that it would be very helpful to point out that if there were breaches of privacy that had happened accidentally whilst people were carrying out exchanges of data that they believed to be done in good faith and in accordance with the regulations and rules, but later it transpired that it was some sort of fraud or it was some sort of undetected problem, it shouldn’t be the responsibility or the liability of the person providing that information if they had done so following all the rules, and we thought that that was a very sensible approach. Part of the reason for some of that leniency is that if there are bad actors within this framework, the penalties are actually quite steep. They’re steeper than if you breach the privacy law, for example, because we see that breaches under this would be constructive and quite significant malice, and, therefore, there are very steep penalties associated with it. Therefore, we need to have some flexibility around accidental disclosures when people are acting within the law.

I think that this was a very robust process. I think it underscores the importance of putting consumers in the driver’s seat when it comes to their data, and it creates greater control, it promotes competition, and it is fostering innovation. Actually, it marks a really significant milestone in advancing New Zealand’s economy, and I’m sure that as we see the passage of the bill going through, customers and businesses can reap the benefits of having a more fair and transparent data ecosystem.

Thanks. I’d like to compliment the last speaker, Dr Vanessa Weenink, because she has framed up some things and ruined my speech. I think those were very fair portrayals of the issues that we had in the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee. This is a bill that is really responding to a very changing world, and there will need to be reconsideration. The Labour Party was concerned that perhaps there wasn’t sufficient emphasis on the rights of the consumer at the heart of the bill, so it may be that that proves to be correct, and we would need a little bit of strengthening later.

I want to explain for the public why this is such an important bill. There has been a tendency of our big entities to hold information like this for anti-competitive purpose. The little players that come in and disrupt and do a good job of really challenging that competition and giving us cheaper prices couldn’t actually access the information they needed. While there are really important concerns around privacy, our job was to make sure that those privacy concerns were addressed and we protected the public, but also the consumer got the benefit of a system that was more open.

That’s a really important difference in our society, from one perhaps 50 years ago. Information is flowing, and when it stops flowing and when we have these kinds of anti-competitive actions, we end up in a really—really, it’s the consumer who misses out. It’s very important to things like the price of electricity, and it’s very important to the prices that we pay in our banks, our interest rates, and all the fees we pay, that that information—that is our information; it’s about our experience as a consumer, the rates we pay in the situation we are and what we’re doing—is something that we have free access to and we can pass on to another player in the market.

It’s really good that what has happened here is we’ve had pretty much consensus, I think, across the House that this is an area where we need to update our law and we need to look at the situation in places like Australia, which we have done, and make sure that we’re learning lessons as we go along, getting the balance right where others perhaps have tried earlier and they’ve fallen a little bit short in some ways. We tried to do that on this committee, learn those lessons and do our best to provide a decent law in this area. We still, in the Labour Party, want to make sure that the consumer was more at the heart of this legislation, and so that view has been expressed. Basically, that’s our job in the Opposition: to keep the feet to the fire in that regard.

This has been a piece of work that involved more than one Government, really, because Dr Duncan Webb initiated this work, then we had—and very much associated with the open banking work, I think, that Dr David Clark was involved with—Arena Williams pick up the bill as a member’s bill, and then Minister Bayly pick up the work as well. This is very much recognised by this Parliament as an important empowering Act for customers, and those are everyday New Zealanders. I hope that the work we’ve done means that the prices of these things will come down.

Now, in the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, we’re also really concerned about building up our economy, and I am very interested in companies like Xero, which have really worked in a new way and have harnessed the information that they’ve been able to get to build really a very new product in New Zealand that has gone international. It’s been an extremely successful operation. We listened to those people in this committee. I learned things from them, and I fully intend to have my ears open to the experiences of those newer companies that have come into the market and have experienced some of this actually quite anti-competitive behaviour by players that want to hold their space and hold their profits to themselves. I was keen to hear from them.

I know there are other players on the market that will be interested in this. In fact, this is, I think—while it’s a bill here now, this area is one that’s incredibly important. We should all have our ears open in this Parliament to the experience that consumers have under this. Also, the experience of players like Xero, of other new start-ups in the industry, because they’re going to be the people that tell us whether this is working well or whether, in fact, we need to tweak the bill.

I’m not going to talk about derived data. It’s one of those things that I think we’ve done our best on to try and liberalise from the place where Australia had got to and slowed things up. But I thought I’d just reassure the public that what we came across—and I think this was said by my colleague across the House—our own, better settings in terms of privacy in New Zealand. It was really clear that the privacy regime that we already run really answered some of that need that we have. If you are giving your data into these situations, you can rest assured there still must be adequate security, there still must be adequate consent, you must know where your data is going. That’s something that’s really important, that you actually aren’t just throwing this information in and not being able to control where it goes, and that there are remedies for that under our Privacy Act.

Now, we were concerned that the levels of penalties might not be high enough. They are not always going to be sufficient. We’ve put that in our report. We’ll be watching that space, because it’s very important that penalties are not worth breaking. I’ve seen that a number of times in the House and in other areas where actually there is an economic calculation that goes on, that it is better to break the law and pay the penalty because they still make a giant profit. That sort of thing, we’re going to have to watch, and that sort of thing I would really ask everyone to consider whether we in fact do a review of penalties across the whole of our institutions with regard to that.

I think it’s time to look at whether we’ve got the settings right because of that kind of practice of calculation that goes on. Those are the sorts of things that undermine the law and really hurt the New Zealand consumer and the ordinary New Zealander. Thank you. I commend the bill to the House.

It’s my honour to rise and speak in support of the Customer and Product Data Bill in this second reading.

It is always good to see that there’s agreement across the House when it comes to an issue of data, because we live in a world obsessed with data. Let’s be honest, we’re not just passive observers of data; we’re actually walking, talking, breathing data generators. Every step we take, every purchase we make, every word we type, every heart palpitation—it all creates data, so it is very important that we have rules and regulations that we can then use our data.

This data, which is actually our data and it fuels a whole range of algorithms that actually shape our everyday lives, dictates what we see online, what products we’re offered, and what opportunities are presented to us. Yet how much control do we truly have over this? Too often our data is locked away in corporate silos, used to predict our behaviour to sell us things that we may not need, but how many times can we actually use the data for our benefit? We’ve heard from the other side about how we need to open it up so we can actually stop some anti-competitive behaviour.

I think a prime example is if we look at Consumer New Zealand, recently they found that Kiwis saved an average of $524 per year by changing their electricity, but despite the acute cost of living pressure, only 10 percent of households actually changed their provider in the last 12 months. This tells us there’s actually barriers when it comes to comparing plans and switching providers and suggests those barriers and the friction is literally just too high.

Under the existing rules, consumers can request access to their electricity consumption data for free, up to four times a year, and retailers must provide that information within five working days, but in a modern, digital, on-demand economy, this is a cumbersome process which is totally out of touch. Of course, we want to make sure that our consumers can get the best deal, whether it be in electricity, where every time we hop in the hot shower, the electricity retailers probably know there’s a spike in electricity. We need to be able to make sure that we can be able to actually utilise that data when we go to a competitor retailer and say, “Well, actually, this plan works for us best.” It’s either that or with our cellular providers. Of course, there’s a lot of confusion with the different plans, so it’s very important that we can actually do that.

Of course, there is the kind of cliché that data is the new oil, but I actually think that’s a little bit overused, because data is not like oil. It’s not finite; it can be reused. There’s no harm for some of these companies to give us, the consumer, some of this information or access to our data so we can make really informed choices. That’s what it’s about, so the customer can make informed choices.

I do want to acknowledge the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee. At that stage, I wasn’t a member of that select committee. I am now. They’ve done a good job—

They’re lucky to have you.

Thank you—thank you. They are lucky to have me! They had 40 submitters come. As we’ve heard, there were issues around privacy. There were issues around derived data. These things are all very important. I actually have, in my past, worked in the data-science field as well, and I think it’s really important—the insights we can actually get from data, whether it be from our phones, whether it be from some of our behaviours. It’s all very important.

I think we deserve better. We deserve access to our data. We deserve to understand how we can use it. We want to be able to control it. We want to be able to leverage it for our own benefits. This is what this bill is really about. It’s not about paranoia; it’s about empowerment. Of course, making sure that we have a competitive industry—especially in Christchurch, we have some amazing start-ups that are just eager to get their hands on some of this data so they can really, really make some good products, whether it be in fintech, whether it be in the health space. Therefore, I commend this bill to the House, and let’s champion data portability.

Labour is supporting this bill, with reservations. I will detail some of those reservations, but I just want to start by saying something about competition policy.

One of the really painful things in this country for so long has been the economy too often looks like it’s a company town; it’s run by duopolies and oligopolies. One of the most egregious is the banking sector. Every year, they funnel away multiple billions of dollars that get shipped across the Tasman at the expense of New Zealand homeowners and businesses. We need to do something about it. It is so past time that we tackle it. The two big ideas that are out there are: trying to find a properly capitalised disruptor in the banking sector that can hold the others to account, but the other really powerful idea in this space is open banking. A lot of us have pinned our hopes that open banking will finally inject enough competitive tension into the banking market that Kiwis will start to get a better deal from particularly the big Aussie banks.

For my part, I really hope that this bill that we’re debating today achieves that, and that the Customer and Product Data Bill will have the effect through allowing customers to have much better transparency and direct access to interest-rate information and their own data, held by the banks, with sufficient portability that they can pick up their accounts and take it to another bank quickly, simply, and easily, and that that applied en masse across the whole market will make it much more competitive. That’s my personal wish: that the bill that we’re debating today succeeds in that respect. I think that the same dynamics we can see so clearly in the banking sector really can be observed in many other industries and sectors.

I want to acknowledge the work that was done. Really, the initial, kind of, heavy lifting and policy work that supported this bill was done by the Hon David Clark and the Hon Duncan Webb as Ministers in the last Government. My colleague Arena Williams had a bill similar to this, and very close in the intent and the direction, as a member’s bill in this Parliament. We’re really glad that the recently former Minister Andrew Bayly has picked it up and brought this bill to the House.

Two really important main ideas here. One is the right of consumers to have access to and to control the data that is held on them by businesses. Colleagues around the House have commented on just how extensive that data is in the modern economy. There’s a rights question about the consumers having control of and access to the data that their business, their custom generates. Secondly, it’s the economic development potential of spurring competition in multiple industries by allowing consumers to have their data and, if they’re not happy with the business that they’re currently with, to pick up the data and walk down the road to another business and send a message that way. Those two things are really tightly linked together. I hope that we’ll see some positive effects.

I want to just touch, briefly, in the time remaining, on the reservations that Labour has. I know that my colleagues will have a lot to say at the committee stage when the House gets to it. We feel that there was missed opportunity, that the bill could have been much tougher and clearer on focusing on the consumer benefit, and that’s spelt out in the purpose clause of the bill. Colleagues have mentioned this question of derived data and how there are restrictions associated with derived data like those in the Australian regime. We think that this bill, the version that’s come back to the House, could have gone further in clearing out those restrictions. It doesn’t go far enough. Thirdly, penalties and dispute resolution. We think there could have been stronger penalties in favour of consumers.

I’m very supportive of this bill. Great to see it moving through. Great to see some progress, and we just heard about the importance of things like open banking and open electricity markets. We want to see more competition in the market. That’s one of those underlying values that is driving a lot of the policy of this Government, and it’s been great to see colleagues like Cameron Brewer, like Ryan Hamilton, really holding the feet to the fire of those big four Australian banks, to see a better result for Kiwis who deserve it.

This is another piece of the puzzle. This is another important piece of the puzzle as we move towards things like open banking markets. If we think back to December, when this bill was introduced to the House, New Zealand had nothing in this way, no mandatory data standards, unlike Australia, unlike the UK, and unlike the EU, who all had or were on short finals to having—sorry, were very close to having, to use normal language—data standards. That’s an important step, that we take this.

I did just want to touch on some of those things because I think that, often, when we hear about this, we think, “Do we want more companies to have access to our data?” But, of course, this is entirely opt-in. There are some great benefits that have been identified of what a consumer data right could have—for example, tools like access to budgeting, access to payments by third party providers on your behalf, making it easier for consumers, for customers to shop around or to switch between companies. I think they’re really important tools that we want to have people able to opt into.

Of course, this is the second reading, and it’d be worth reflecting on some of the points that came out of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee. There were relatively minor changes. It’s great to see unanimous support across the House for the bill. I do note a couple of provisions that have been removed around concerns that it might have made the tool a little harder. It could have added some unnecessary costs around compliance and ultimately reduce the adoption of this regime, because we want to see more adoption.

It’s pleasing to see signals that this might not just apply, for example, in the banking sector, to just to the big four, but it could be broader than that and enable other players into the market. I think that’s good for consumers and a good step forward.

A couple of minor additions have come through at the select committee. Particularly, I’m thinking around new clauses 96A to 96H around the development of standards. When the bill was introduced, requiring standards to set the technical rules for making, receiving, and responding to requests for data, there was a lack of, maybe, clarity around the detail about how the contents of those standards would be set, and so these additional new clauses in that section 96 just bring some clarity to that. It says how the chief executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment can do that. It also reinforces what we always wanted, which was that stakeholder-led approach. These are relatively minor standards. It maintains that unanimous support.

This is good for consumers. We are really conscious of the pressure on the cost of living for Kiwis. It’s been a tough few years with high inflation, with high cost of living, and with a struggling economy, but we are focused as a Government on rebuilding that economy, on going for growth, and on making life a little better for consumers, for everyday Kiwis. This bill is just one piece in that strategy of going for growth, and I’m pleased to commend it to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is a pleasure to rise and take a call on the Customer and Product Data Bill here, at its second reading. I’m also lucky enough to be a member of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, and it’s been good to hear from a number of former members and current members of that select committee as we have discussed this bill today. The Labour Party are giving our broad support to the bill, but also acknowledging that it does fall short and that there are opportunities that have been missed in its current form. Now, when we empower consumers, there are three things that can happen: we can increase competition, we can drive innovation, and we can create fairer outcomes for consumers.

It’s probably good to start with a little bit of bill history. Under Labour, this was the Consumer Data Rights Bill, and it’s shifted to become the Customer and Product Data Bill. One of the important changes that we see in there we’ll find in the purpose clause, where it’s detailed as being “individuals, organisations, and society;”. It feels very broad—too broad—and it doesn’t actually prioritise consumers, which was the original intent of the bill. We really need to focus on consumers if we’re going to ensure that the bill achieves its stated goals, and those goals—I’ll state again—are increasing competition, driving innovation, and creating fairer outcomes for consumers.

I thought it would be good to look at an element of the ministerial statement that was released at the time that the then Minister Bayly started work in this space. It reads, “Every New Zealander relies on banking and electricity. These are foundational services for our lives and our wellbeing but also for our economy. However, at the moment, banks and electricity companies are operating inside a walled garden, with both sectors dominated by a handful of large, profitable companies that face little competition. New entrants face high barriers to entry and, as a result, consumers do not benefit from innovative new products and services. As part of the Government’s ambitious agenda”—I’m not sure I agree with that—“to drive better competition, we are supporting the roll-out of open banking and open electricity, which will better level the playing field between established companies and start-ups.”, and the portion I’m reading finishes by saying that “The first step was the introduction of the Customer and Product Data Bill, which establishes an economy-wide legislative framework for secure data sharing. The next step, which we are progressing at pace, is the development of regulations which will create the rules for how a consumer data regime will work for different sectors.”

What should we expect to get from increased competition? That’s a good question, and a member who spoke just earlier talked about the potential for lowering power bills and better pricing for consumers. The average New Zealander, if they look to switch power companies—and the member stated the figure correctly—can save up to $524 per year. Now, that’s a significant amount of money that would be of advantage to a consumer.

I will just take a moment to talk a little bit about derived data. What I wanted to talk about in the derived data space was a watermelon, which may seem like a very strange example of derived data, but bear with me.

On 5 February—so the beginning of last month, the day before Waitangi Day—I was very lucky to be in Waitangi and to purchase a very large watermelon from a vendor on the side of the road. The watermelon weighed 11.3 kilograms, and I transported that watermelon on an ATR aircraft from Kerikeri Airport to Auckland, where I then transitioned through the airport and on to a larger Air New Zealand aircraft and flew from Tāmaki-makau-rau—Auckland—to Ōtautahi.

Once I arrived there, I was able to transfer the watermelon, which hadn’t reduced in weight, into my private motor vehicle and travel to Akaroa to attend Waitangi Day events at Ōnuku Marae. Once those were completed, myself and the watermelon—still in my possession—travelled to Ōrua Paeroa, also known as New Brighton, to meet a hīkoi of more than 2,500 people, who had walked, from the central city of Christchurch, the 9.9 kilometres to the New Brighton Pier. The watermelon did not come out of my vehicle at that point in time, but it did, in fact, come out of my vehicle on 10 February, where it was presented at a birthday celebration for my mother, at a picnic.

Now, there’s a lot of numbers and a lot of data that can be derived from that story, but I think the most important part of that story is that a watermelon is able to attend more events for Waitangi Day than the Prime Minister of this country, and I think that that is something that we should reflect on and wonder about at length.

I allowed a small amount of time there for you to do that; you’re welcome to do the rest on your own. But I—

I thought that was for applause!

It was definitely not for applause—just to clarify for that member who asked that question.

Getting back to the bill—and thank you for indulging me, Mr Speaker—I think it’s also important to hear from some experts, one of those being Digital Identity New Zealand. They make some really valid points in their submission, and I’m just going to step through some of them here.

Digital Identity New Zealand fully support the bill’s goals to unlock the value of customer data that fosters competition and innovation. However, their submission highlighted specific areas where the proposed rules could and, in my opinion, should be enhanced to better achieve these objectives. Digital Identity New Zealand appreciates the bill’s focus on giving customers control over their data, which can drive a more dynamic and competitive marketplace. However, they raise concerns around the prioritisation of the banking and electricity sectors, believing that a much broader scope of competitive third-party providers is essential for success. Additionally, affordability is crucial as the cost of third-party services could hinder widespread adoption.

A further point they raise is around data security and privacy. Maintaining data security is a key focus for Digital Identity New Zealand. While the bill requires a transparency from data holders and accredited requesters, the important point here is that they recommend aligning with the New Zealand Privacy Act 2020 to safeguard consumers’ data without unnecessarily disclosing sensitive information. That is a point I think everybody would agree with. The last thing we want to see here is significant breaches of data. This recommendation from Digital Identity New Zealand would ensure that robust protection and, really importantly, that trust that New Zealanders deserve to have.

Now, a number of members have also spoken about learning from Australia’s open banking journey, and Digital Identity New Zealand go into that as well, speaking about the slow uptake of open banking and cautioning against an overreliance on the Digital Identity Services Trust framework as being a singular solution, recommending instead a more holistic approach. Whilst Digital Identity New Zealand supported the general direction indicated in the discussion paper, it did consider that not enough attention is being directed to the reasons behind the slow take-up in Australia, nor to the unintended consequences which may arise from its seemingly overreliance on the Digital Identity Services Trust framework as the magic bullet to resolve all the digital identity verification, attribute exchange, and consent.

In finishing, I had stated at the beginning that Labour has broad support for this bill but believes that it does fall short. I’ll conclude by saying that companies know a lot about us from our consumption of their services, and the point of this bill should be that consumers should benefit from that knowledge. This bill does not go far enough. It could and it should, but it doesn’t. Thank you.

Thank you to the member. I’m now hungry for watermelon.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Credit to the previous speaker, Reuben Davidson: he has an artform of being able to turn really interesting and fascinating legislation into the most bland, boring 10 minutes of monotone drivel—absolute drivel.

The Ayes have it!

Well, the Ayes do have it. I would point out to the member that 10 minutes is not a target; you don’t have to hit it. You just have to contribute and then sit down and we’ll get on with our legislation. That’s all you’ve got to do. It’s the only target—it’s the only target. They weren’t particularly good in Government with hitting targets, but they could learn something in Opposition.

It has been interesting to listen through the debate. I wasn’t part of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee that considered this legislation. But just speaking quickly to my colleague Vanessa Weenink, she said that, actually, during the select committee process it was really fascinating. The different conversations, the different submissions, the conversations had around the select committee table on this piece of legislation were interesting. It did pique my interest. I had a look through some of the information provided by the Parliamentary Library. I could see that if people and consumers in New Zealand looked for alternative energy or electricity providers, there were significant savings that they could make, but it was so difficult for them to do so, or so many weren’t interested in doing it, that they just took the “couldn’t be bothered” task.

Actually, if you look, if you were to change your electricity provider and to shop around, you would, on average, save $524 a year. But only about 10 percent of people in New Zealand take up that option. So this legislation enables Kiwis to have the ability to do that a lot more easily by the sharing of their data and greater access to their customer and product data, and therefore I commend the bill to the House.

I declare the House in committee for further consideration of the Arms (Shooting Clubs, Shooting Ranges, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill.

Members, the House is in committee for further consideration of the Arms (Shooting Clubs, Shooting Ranges, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. When we were last considering the bill, we had finished debating Part 1 and we were about to come to Part 2. Associate Minister of Justice McKee has just asked me whether she can clarify something that she spoke to in Part 1.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d just like to clarify a couple of statements that I made during Part 1. This was as I was reading through the Hansard last night. I answered a couple of questions in relation to a Labour member’s tabled amendment 12.30.02. When looking at the Hansard, I hadn’t said anything wrong, but I got confused at what I said, so I just want to clarify.

The tabled amendment 12.30.02, in the name of Ginny Andersen, relates to the deletion of section 38XJ(2), and I had answered that member, and I had answered another member, and I just want to clarify that I do not support the removal of section 38XJ(2), because it’s the section that qualifies 38XJ(1) and it’s essential for removing uncertainty for volunteers. I hope that that clarifies the previous messages.

Thank you, members. We now come to Part 2. Part 2 is the debate on clauses 11 to 23, “Other matters”. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I just want, if possible, to clarify something that occurred—like the Minister—the last time we were there.

At the very end of the previous debate in the committee stage, Associate Minister of Justice McKee stated right at the end that two clubs have actually shut down and a series of individuals came to her—so as a result of the last changes, clubs shut down. I wanted to know if she’s able to provide the names of the two clubs that closed. Also, she stated others who indicated they were going to close, and I want to know whether they actually did close or not. There is a possibility that those clubs did close, but I think if she’s stating that in the Chamber, it would be good to know what the names of those clubs that closed are.

When I was the police Minister, I did get advice stating that small clubs were not worried about being inspected for safety compliance, but they were concerned that they were so small, with dwindling memberships, that they might not have enough members to meet the legal requirement to become an incorporated society because they have to have a minimum of 10 members. Just to clarify that, it would be good to know: what are the two clubs that the Minister said have closed?

The Minister’s just advised that a written parliamentary question would be a good opportunity for that question. Thank you.

Right—so she doesn’t have that information to hand?

Not on me, no.

Thank you. Do we have questions on Part 2?

Yeah, I do, actually, thank you very much. I’ll continue with the next point.

I’d like to raise a question with Associate Minister of Justice McKee in relation to the regulation-making powers. The last power is referred to in amended section 74A(1), in clause 13, going to now the responsible Minister in this case, which is the Associate Minister. Under new section 74(3) and (4), in clause 12, there are recommendations for the responsible Minister to be satisfied that the Secretary for Justice has undertaken requisite consultation, which now includes consultation with the Police. The changes reflect that the principal Act is now administered not by Police but by the Ministry of Justice and acknowledge the continued interest of Police. The amendments to new sections 74(5), 74A(1), and 74D(1) replace references to the Minister of Police with references to the responsible Minister—the Associate Minister—in the principal Act.

What would be interesting to know in particular is the point in section 74A(1), which gives specific powers to the Minister to make Orders in Council regarding prohibited definitions—so prohibited weapons is the term used for military-style semi-automatic weapons. The title of section 74A(1) has the words “(Order in Council relating to definitions of prohibited firearm and prohibited magazine, and declaring prohibited ammunition)”, so, effectively, this would mean that the responsible Minister could, without any consultation with the public or communities, change the definition of what is in fact a prohibited weapon in New Zealand. This is likely to be problematic, we think in the Labour Party, that people are not made aware of this and it can be done simply by an Order in Council without public consultation.

I would like the Minister to respond to the view on this side of the Chamber that there is absolutely no mandate to weaken our gun laws this way, particularly considering the recent history in New Zealand of 15 March which used one of these prohibited weapons. We are, in fact, less than two years away from the sixth anniversary of a mass shooting which used exactly one of these firearms. I would like the Minister to speak to the fact on whether she intends to use section 74A(1) in order to change the definition of prohibited weapons in New Zealand. And if she does intend to do so, what is the consultation with communities around New Zealand if she proposes to make this change?

Thank you, Madam Chair. The assertations that the member Ginny Andersen is making that I as a Minister would have sole control over making changes by Order in Council by myself is simply incorrect. I’m not quite sure what happened when that member was a Minister, maybe perhaps the large numbers of Orders in Council that went through under the previous Government without consultation is the reason why there is fear about what’s going on, when, in actual fact, there does not need to be such fear.

This Government has made it very clear what the firearms reform regime is going to look like. We have been very open with the New Zealand public and encouraged them to be a part of the solution as we change and modernise the firearms laws through reform that we have clearly outlined. I was hoping that the member would be aware that no one member of Parliament can make changes by Order in Council; they actually need the votes of the Cabinet behind them to do so.

The reason for these changes is because we are, as we have forecast throughout the election campaign, removing the Firearms Safety Authority from the New Zealand Police, and putting them into an independent agency, allowing New Zealand Police to focus on enforcement of our firearm laws. Part of the reason why we have included police as part of the consultation in section 74 of the Arms Act, amended by clause 12 of the bill, is because we need to ensure that the communication between police and the agency continue and that any potential changes that are made by way of Order in Council are ones that are going to help New Zealand Police, not hinder them.

In relation to these particular clauses and the changes that we are making, these changes that we are making right now here, through this piece of legislation, are to allow the Ministry of Justice to start the transfer of the Firearms Safety Authority away from New Zealand Police.

Maybe Associate Minister of Justice McKee didn’t hear me. I appreciate what the Order in Council process is, and I appreciate that that goes to Cabinet, but I wanted to know what consultation would be taken with New Zealand communities. Many of the processes through the four stages of firearms reforms have taken place with a list that has been hand-picked by the Minister’s office, who have gone and asked people for their views. These have predominantly come from the firearms community, and they have ignored large parts of the community who also have a vested interest in firearms safety.

With this legislation, with this section, section 74A(1), in clause 13, she is giving herself the power to determine what is a prohibited weapon in New Zealand, nearly six years after we lost 51 lives on 15 March with the same prohibited weapon, and I’ve asked today what is the consultation process that she will undertake before, once again, making military-style semi-automatic weapons available to be used in New Zealand.

The member is once again making a whole lot of assumptions that actually have nothing to do with this piece of legislation that’s in front of us now. I have clearly explained the reason why we are making the changes, and it does not say in the bill that we are removing this and giving it to the Hon Nicole McKee. It says that we are giving it to the Minister in charge of the legislation, or the Minister that will be in charge of the legislation. That may not even necessarily be me in the future. It may come under the Minister of Justice or it may come under the Minister of Internal Affairs.

I think if we look into the long range about modernising the Act, this is the first stage. When it comes to consultation, we have just closed a public consultation asking New Zealanders what they would like to see in the Arms Act. This went out to everyone, where everyone has had that opportunity. As we start to reform what will be a new Arms Act, again, we will be going out to all of New Zealand, because this is what we did in 1983 when we established the Arms Act 1983. That was after two years of consultation with everybody, where everyone got to have a say about what they would like to see. We have opened that up. Now, the reason why we went to targeted consultation for shooting clubs and ranges was also made very public at the time that we did it. It was a coalition commitment to remove the entirety of Part 6, everything to do with clubs and ranges.

When going through this and speaking with officials, I realised that there were aspects of Part 6 which we needed to keep there because it related and was influential to public safety. Now, when we talk about what we’re doing in the firearms reforms, we’ve made it very clear and very public that public safety, good regulation that people can live by, and compliance are the three main things that we’re going to be looking at as we start to reform the firearms Act. The Arms Act, the rewrite itself—a bill will be available at some stage soon, one would hope, once we’ve gone through the consultation which has just recently closed. I thank all the members of the public who have been a part of that and have given their submissions to the Ministry of Justice.

Moving forward, this is a positive thing for New Zealand because the reality is that we have had clubs close, we have had ranges close as a result of that, and it’s important that we support the maintenance of clubs and ranges as safe places for people to go to learn about firearm safety, to be educated on firearm safety, and to not be down at the riverbank trying to sight-in their hunting rifles with no oversight whatsoever. There has been an 18 percent increase in firearms charges since 2018. I’ve had barristers tell me that the law is unworkable, that there are conflicts within it. This bill here is a part of fixing some of those irregularities, and none of it relates to interference with public safety. In fact, by keeping these ranges and supporting these ranges and these clubs to continue to operate, we are increasing public safety.

As we work through the whole Arms Act rewrite, everybody will be invited to submit and also be a part of that process. In this regard, I’m fulfilling our commitment that we made to the voters that voted us in. I haven’t gone as far as we said we would, in the interests of public safety, and I stand by the decisions that have been made today.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d just like it recorded that Associate Minister of Justice McKee did not respond to what the consultation period was for reintroducing prohibited weapons. That was not responded to.

It’s got nothing to do with this bill.

My question—it is in this bill—

The member can record that, but the Minister talked about a previous consultation and talked about two years. She has said she may or may not be responsible for future consultations, so it’s a bit difficult to put her in the position of expecting her to know something that may happen in the future.

Thank you, Madam Chair. My question to the Minister is in relation to amended section 74A(1), inserted by clause 13, as to why it’s in this tranche of legislation. The Minister has spoken about the consultation that has just closed, which is in the wider review of firearms legislation—to look at things like if the legislation is up to date and the role of the Firearms Registry. There has been significant commentary from experts, from media, and those who are directly affected that this section here, which transfers power from the Minister of Police and from Police to the Associate Minister of Justice and Justice, that that would have better belonged or fitted in a bill that is about the entire reform of firearms legislation. This bill we’re discussing now is about gun ranges, about regulating gun ranges, and it’s about winding back all of the changes that were brought in under Part 6 when the last Government was in power, post - 15 March.

There is quite a wide gap between the subject matter we are dealing with here and the transfer of power from one Minister to the other, because it’s a very significant change to shift the responsibility of firearms, which has always sat with Police. It sat with Police for some very good reasons. It’s because our police officers on the front line are the first ones to turn up when someone’s gone rogue with a gun. It’s them who put their lives on the line every single day and need to have real-time intelligence and real-time information. It is the Minister of Police who has always had oversight over their wellbeing and their safety. Quite rightly, the Police Association have been calling out, and front-line officers have been calling out, and they are very concerned that there is a transfer of power from the police Minister to the Associate Minister of Justice. And why is it being done under a bill that’s about deregulating gun ranges? It should have been in the consultation around the overarching firearms reform. We should have had that question in the consultation that’s just closed.

If this was actually a genuine process that was going out and discussing with our community who are at most risk from being embroiled in firearms and having to face those risks and dangers on a daily basis, we should have been consulting with police officers and with the Police Association as to whether this is a good idea to simply shift responsibility of the Arms Act from Police to Justice. I appreciate that that might be a coalition agreement and that that was something to get ticked off as quickly as possible, but that’s not a sufficient answer. There needs to be some good rigour in terms of the policy decisions that were taken by this Minister. If that is directly impacting upon front-line safety, I think that we deserve to have a clear answer as to why the power to make such determinations around firearms is sitting in an Act about gun ranges and not in the wider reform about the Arms Act.

I don’t know how many other ways to say it: the Firearms Safety Authority is being removed from the New Zealand Police. They’re being put into a different agency. Usually when you do that you make sure that the Minister in charge of that agency has some say over what’s going to happen. The changes are happening now because the Ministry of Justice—who may not be the end home carer for the Arms Act—needs to make policy changes, administrative changes, be able to have the ability to do that as we work through the other phases. It is logical that we put that in there now.

What the member, Ginny Andersen, is trying to tell the New Zealand public is that there is some sort of bad thing that I’m going to do in the background and the whole reason for making the changes is not because it’s an effective, efficient way to remove and drop into a new agency the Firearms Safety Authority but because I have some underhand thing that I want to do. The reality is, I have not said anything—but everybody else has—about what the intent is, when the intent, as I laid out just earlier, is to have firearms legislation which improves public safety, which has good regulation that is readable and enforceable, and also increases compliance. This is not a “Nicole McKee Bill” because “she is wanting to something underhand to the New Zealand public.” This is about creating good regulation.

The reality is, if we’re going to do it and do it well, we need to make sure that there is good information-sharing arrangements between New Zealand Police and the new home agency for the Firearms Safety Authority. We do that before we start to make the changes, otherwise we could compromise the safety of our front-liners. I make no apology for putting that into this bill, because that allows the Ministry of Justice to get on with their work, and while they do that they can ensure the safety of our front-liners while they work through the process of the exchange. There is nothing underhand here. This is a good legislative process. I guess it’s something that, perhaps, that the other side have not been aware of, because the last set of changes that were made were so rushed—

Public concern.

—that we are having to clear it up. When I just hear someone yell out “public concern”, I’m not surprised that there’s public concern when what we hear coming from the other side and out through the media actually doesn’t tell the country what is happening.

Your constituents.

I’m also being yelled at that it’s my constituents, a quarter of a million of them. It’s like the retailers that are out there in New Zealand. There are quarter of a million of them, but do we just ignore them? Every person in a democratic society should have a voice and they should be heard. That means—whether they’re licensed firearm owners or not—they should have a say in the way that they’re regulated, as we would do for other members of our society when we make bills, or laws and Acts, that will affect them.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ve just joined this debate, but I’ve had a bit of history with the Arms Act changes, particularly following 15 March. At the time, I was working for the Minister of Police and was in his office when the call came through from Police National Headquarters around the incidents that were happening down in Christchurch at the time. It became the start of a very big chapter of some very swift changes with the first bill, which were to restrict military-style semi-automatics, and that was the start, really, of what was the second tranche of the Arms Act reforms, which did go through a longer select committee period.

I just have one quick question for Associate Minister of Justice McKee first, before I take another call—if that’s possible. I’m trying to ascertain from the ministerial statement the changes for this particular bill—to the Minister: are these changes that you’re putting through now because of 15 March, the first tranche of Arms Act reforms; or was it the second tranche? I just wanted to understand that context first, before I take another call.

There are four phases in our firearms reform. The entire idea is that we have an Arms Act that is broken, that is not workable; it has been a concoction of a whole lot of legislative changes. In fact, I liken the Arms Act to being something like the Resource Management Act, where you have a piece of legislation that people have put things on top of and it’s grown out of proportion and is now unworkable.

This is the reason why we are doing these changes. The other side have said that it’s because of 15 March that I’m in here making these changes. Actually, that’s what brought me to Parliament: the fact that we had legislation that I could see was not workable. I wanted to be able to make a positive change for New Zealand and make sure that we have legislation in our future that will increase public safety, have good regulations, and also encourage compliance.

The changes that we are making are about modernising the legislation. This is one part. We will finish the modernising of it when we do the Arms Act rewrite, but the changes that we have made here today—or we’re about to make—in this piece of legislation do not affect public safety. It’s about taking away some of the doubling of some of the work that volunteers have to do. It’s about making sure that we can support clubs and their ranges to be able to open and to operate. With that, this is phase two. Phase four is the Arms Act rewrite, and this will be about a whole regime of modernisation.

I encourage all members across the House who—I have invited members into my office to say to them, and I will restate it again: if you have issues with the Arms Act, come and talk to me, because, across the House, we need to have a piece of better legislation for New Zealanders, to keep all of us safe. I will always have an open-door policy so that members of the Opposition can come and speak to me about what their concerns are and what they think needs to be addressed, so that we can try and work it out and get some support. You may not support the changes in the bill, but at least have the conversations so that we can address the concerns.

Is Tamatha Paul wanting to take a call?

Yeah, I’d love to.

OK, I’m going to take a call from Tamatha Paul, but what I’m going to make very clear at this stage is that we are dealing with a very small part of the bill, which is Part 2, and it’s very administrative. I’m finding that the Minister should not be having to go back now and answer questions on the what and the why, which are all part of Part 1. I’d like people to be very specific about what clause they’re looking at in Part 2 when they ask their questions. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I really appreciate you allowing me to take a call on this, because I haven’t been engaged in the previous committee of the whole House phase of this bill.

That’s fine, but you can’t go back to Part 1. It must be on Part 2.

I wanted to ask a question based on some of the answers that Associate Minister of Justice McKee gave just now in this session, if that’s OK.

As long as they weren’t related to the what and the why. They need to relate to Part 2 and the administration.

Yeah, that’s cool. The first part of my question is around the separating of functions out from the New Zealand Police into the Minister’s jurisdiction, which was brought up by the member Ginny Andersen over there. I’m just trying to understand this some more because, to a layperson who isn’t involved in this area, it seems a bit confusing that you have the police who are in charge of licensing people and making sure that people that get their licences pass all their checks—that they’re of sound mind and are able to safely possess a firearm.

I’ve also been thinking, because a lot of the comments have been around 15 March and what happened there, and we know, thanks to the royal commission of inquiry, where the loopholes were and what went wrong—I’m wondering why we would separate out these kinds of regulations and operations from the police when they also hold lots of important intelligence around the actions and maybe offences or patterns that they’ve observed of people within their community that they might consider when they’re granting somebody a firearms licence. I’m keen to dig into that around why we would separate out this regulation from the New Zealand Police.

The other question that I had was in regard to 15 March and comments that the Minister made when the previous Government was undergoing firearms reviews following the 15 March terrorist attack. The Minister was on record making comments accusing the Government of not waiting for the recommendations from the royal commission of inquiry. I’m confused as to why this—

Point of order, Madam Chair. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to ask for the Chair’s clarification. Is it appropriate for somebody questioning the Minister in the chair to refer to the Minister as “the Minister” when describing actions and things that happened before the member was elected and before the Minister became a Minister as if the Minister had said it? Just a bit of clarification from the Chair in relation to the member’s question.

Well, the questions are really related to what the Minister is doing here, today, in this piece of legislation, in Part 2, related to part events. It’s not particularly appropriate what a Minister said prior to this—this is about Part 2 of the bill.

Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair, and if the member over there would hold his horses and let me finish my question, you’d see that it’s actually related to the inquiry that is still continuing to this day.

OK, well, we’ve closed the point of order now and I’ve ruled on the point of order, so let’s come to the particular clauses and the questions on Part 2. Thank you.

Thanks, Madam Chair. To continue what I was saying before in relation to how it is relevant today, my question is why the same rationale isn’t applied by the Minister in the sense that the second phase of the royal commission of inquiry is continuing right now and there is a particular focus in that inquiry on firearms.

My question to the Minister is why not apply the same advice—which she herself has given in the past—to wait for the recommendations of the inquiry that is happening actively right now, and take her own advice and apply that to these changes, about which, from my short listening of the arguments that have been made today, there doesn’t seem to be a really clear rationale behind the bill, and in this session there has been constant referral to the fact that shooting ranges and clubs have closed down.

By my reading of things, there have been two closed down out of about 500 shooting clubs and ranges, so I don’t think that that justifies the bill in front of us. Not to mention that those clubs closed down not because of regulatory requirements but for other reasons—which you would know if you’d read the reports as well.

Thank you, Madam Chair. In the first instance, there is no other royal commission of inquiry stage 2. There is no royal commission of inquiry stage 2—

It’s the coronial inquiry.

Then that’s not what you said, and as it’s a coronial inquiry that has still not delivered its decision, it is not something that should be discussed within this House, because a decision is still pending.

In relation to the member’s first question that she asked—and the royal commission of inquiry did talk about having a separate entity to be able to do the licensing. When you remove that entity, which was not separate—it was under Police, staffed by Police, funded by Police, who report to Police, so it wasn’t separate, it wasn’t independent. We’re going to remove that. In order to make these changes that are in Part 2, we have to make the changes in order to get the policy work under way. It’s not uncommon; it happens all the time.

If people are worried that by uplifting the Firearms Safety Authority and putting it under another agency, we stop communicating with Police and that we don’t have this line of discussion open, then that is a very sad state of affairs for New Zealand, if we ever got to that point. The whole reason—and I’m reiterating this because I’ve said it several times here—that we are moving the Firearms Safety Authority is to increase trust and confidence back into a system that is incredibly broken and has no trust. It does not mean that New Zealand Police will be left on the outside. New Zealand Police have a very important role to play with the licensing system, with the enforcement.

At the moment, they do the policy, they do the administration, they do the enforcement, they do all the licensing—they do everything; they’re a one-stop shop. That is not their core business. Their core business is enforcement, and in order to allow them to get on with their core business and be able to allow the separation to occur, we have Part 2, and Part 2 then gives the ability for the Minister, or responsible Minister in charge of the Act, to make policy decisions on policy, regulations, and administration.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Members, we now come to the debate on clauses 1 to 3. Clauses 1 to 3 are “Title”, “Commencement”, and “Principal Act”. The question is that clause 1 stand part.

Can I take a call on my amendment that’s been tabled in relation to the commencement date of this legislation? We received in the Justice Committee quite a lot of information from officials that the current commencement date in this legislation is insufficient for them to be able to do all the necessary changes that are required. What my amendment does is it makes a change to replace the three-month commencement date proposed in clause 2 with one year. That’s exactly what Police asked for in select committee.

The amendment to the commencement of this Act is really intended to delay its implementation until the current Arms Act rewrite is complete, so that the oversight of shooting clubs and ranges is considered within the broader context of the wider firearms regulatory system. We’ve already heard Associate Minister of Justice McKee say that all of the changes that we’ve just voted on are to set things up so that the Firearms Registry can be transferred, and so she’s just said that. There’s no outcome from the review on that Firearms Registry. There is no business case that’s been made public on the review of the Firearms Registry. It’s unclear whether Cabinet has signed it off. It’s unclear what IT system would be needed to host such an agency. It’s very unclear as to how much that would cost. It’s also unclear whether the finance Minister has given approval for this to happen. My change here, by pushing it out for a year, would actually give the New Zealand public the opportunity to have all of those questions, that are fundamental.

We have the Minister of Police, who has publicly said, out on the tiles, that the Firearms Registry is going nowhere. He has said that on the record, on the news. We’ve got the Minister of Police speaking with a completely different position to the Minister in the chair, the Hon Nicole McKee, right now about the future of the Firearms Registry. If we are, right now, passing legislation that does, as the Minister has stated, transfer all the powers from police to justice, with her presiding as the Associate Minister, I believe that we should understand why we can’t delay that for a year, why we can’t have those answers about what happened for the review of the Firearms Registry, and, also, what is the information that’s been done about the cost to the New Zealand taxpayer of taking it out of Police.

We know that real-time information is absolutely critical to the lives of our front-line officers about where firearms are, and taking that away from Police is endangering the lives of our front line. I think it is only right—

Madam Chair?

The Hon Nicole McKee.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This amendment is about extending a date from three months to one year. I’ve been advised that three months is fine. I have no need to extend it by a year. By the way, this is about the transfer of the Firearms Safety Authority, not about the registry.

Kia ora, Madam Chair. It’s interesting to listen to Associate Minister of Justice McKee’s narrative on this. As has been spoken about in previous calls, there is concern around the rush that the previous Government made around firearms reform.

My brief question to the Minister is: why the rush? Why the rush? Why not consider my colleague’s amendment to make it one year? As I look at the commencement date of three months, and as I was listening to the earlier debate, my concern is the fact of bringing the community with us. What I’ve picked up through every single call in the committee stage from the Minister has been around the fact that the previous Government didn’t take the community with them. When I look at the three months—and I think it’s reasonable to add another nine months on to that to make it a year. It would actually make sense because (1) it’s bringing the community with us, and (2) it’s because of the concerns that have been raised in previous calls around the ministerial oversight and the challenge that has because of history.

My question to the Minister is: why would she not consider an extension to the commencement date, it being the fact that it’s actually, I guess, following on in the footsteps that she has been talking about so often around how everything’s been too rushed? Let’s slow it down and let’s actually give it time to embed, understand—as my colleague has talked about—the cost to move it, what it’s going to look like for the police, and what it’s going to look like in terms of the arms register.

I think we need to seriously consider this amendment, and not ignore it just because it’s an Opposition amendment but actually consider the fact they’re adding nine months on and giving us time as a community to move forward; that it’s not seen as being rushed, because the Minister keeps going on that our Government rushed things. I’d like some feedback on that, please.

It can be done within three months. There is absolutely no need to extend it. These are changes that can be made easily, and we’re doing it in three months.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This is my first opportunity to take a call in this session, and I appreciate it. I’d like to ask Associate Minister of Justice McKee whether there has been any consideration to changing the title of this bill.

I note that we were discussing, in new section 74(4)(b) in clause 12(1) under Part 2, the phrase “done everything reasonable to consult other [people]”, and I would like to also congratulate the Minister on being very effective at getting some people to submit on this bill, because, as a firearms owner, I do get a lot of correspondence. One of the bits of correspondence I got was from a pro-gun lobby that suggested—my wording—in a submission that “I object to my personal information being released as part of an Official Information Act request. I object to this due to concerns around my data and identity security”, etc.

As a suggestion, I think that the title of Arms (Shooting Clubs, Shooting Ranges, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill 2024 could be changed. I would suggest that we could simply alter it to call it the “Pro-gun Amendment Bill” to describe what it actually is and who has been consulted on this and who has been listened to on this, because, as a firearms owner, I like clarity and I like people to speak directly, and I think that’s exactly what it is. I’d like to the Minister to respond to whether the Minister would be open to changing the title of this bill. Thank you.

Point of order. Thank you, Madam Chair. I actually want to bring, Madam Chair, to you a conversation, a point of order in the previous session of this bill that the Hon Kieran McAnulty raised, regarding in terms of a clear ruling and elucidation around one of the terms that the Minister used around misinformation.

I was very grateful that the Chair was the same Chair as the one we had before. If you remember, in the previous session on this bill the Minister specifically used the term “the pure amount of misinformation that has just been read out on what this bill does”. I understand that there’s some elucidation on the term “misinformation”, but I want to get clarification from you, Madam Chair, on Speakers’ ruling 48/1, which states “but must not accuse another member of making a statement that member knew to be incorrect.”

If we take “misinformation” as something that is incorrect, and if we take the verb that was used—that being “read out”—as someone knowingly doing or performing an action, I want to get a clarification from the Chair on whether that is considered out of order.

OK, at this point, I did undertake, about this time last week, to give a clarification on that, and I do have clarification that was, ultimately, sent to Kieran McAnulty. I don’t have the power to be able to just do it off the bat until someone asks the question, so I really appreciate the member asking that question. I understand you may have had it in writing as well, at this point?

No, not yet.

OK, I’ll check up on that.

Thank you.

Really, this was the information that went to the Hon Kieran McAnulty: you raised concerns about the use of the term “misinformation” in debate and whether an accusation of misinformation is the same as accusing a member of lying and therefore out of order.

Members often disagree about whether information is correct or not. In fact, that is a vitally important part of our democracy: for members to be able to share their opinions about what is correct or incorrect. It is particularly common when members have differing views on a policy or the effect of a piece of legislation. Saying that a member is misinformed or inaccurate or incorrect is completely in order as an opinion. This is a clear line crossed when a member accuses another of lying or deliberately misleading the House with their statements.

The use of the word “liar” is the only word that’s always out of order when used to describe a member—Speaker’s ruling 57/4. Knowingly spreading misinformation or spreading disinformation is deliberately deceptive. An accusation of knowing something is misinformation or disinformation and saying it anyway is an accusation of intentionally misleading the House and should be raised as a matter of privilege at the earliest opportunity. If it is raised as an accusation in debate, it is out of order and the member will be asked to withdraw and apologise.

Context is important, however, and using a word in one context may be acceptable and not acceptable in another context. That is the advice that I’ve been given, thank you.

Speaking to the point of order, Madam Chair?

Yes, you can speak to the point of order.

Thank you so much for that elucidation. I think it is really helpful for the House to get that sense, to get that clarity, but I think, in light of what you have just read out, I wonder if implying that misinformation has been read out is a sense of referring to a member as deliberately misleading.

Well, I think if anyone’s referring to a member deliberately misleading, the course of action was in here [Gestures to paper] and you can actually—I’ll get the exact words around privilege, but it’s, basically, saying that you can take a privileges—I’m just trying to get the right sentence where it’s said. “Knowingly spreading misinformation or spreading disinformation is deliberately deceptive. An accusation of knowing something is misinformation or disinformation and saying it anyway is an accusation of intentionally misleading the House and should be raised as a matter of privilege.” Thank you.

Speaking to the point of order—thank you very much, Madam Chair. When we were just now speaking about the Firearms Safety Authority, Associate Minister of Justice McKee just said that there was no trust, or low trust, in that system. There is clear evidence that’s available through the Firearms Safety Authority that surveys of licence holders show strong and growing trust in the Firearms Safety Authority. Is that a matter of privilege?

OK, so I think at this point we should absolutely stop, because I’m sure that one member can make one case for what the level of trust is and another member can make another case. I don’t believe the Minister was intending to mislead anybody in that particular situation. If that member believes the opposite, I’ve just given that member the course of action.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to clause 2 be agreed to.

Madam Speaker, the committee has further considered the Arms (Shooting Clubs, Shooting Ranges, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Members, we were up to call No. 11, and it’s a Labour Party call.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. District Court judges—where would we be without them?

Where would we be?

Where would we be? The Labour Party—as I was going to say, discussed last night, but it was in fact this morning because today has felt like a very long day—is going to support this bill, but we do have some comments to make about it.

The primary justification for increasing the number of judges by one is to alleviate the court backlog. That seems like a very noble ambition. Obviously, there would be several other ways in which we might see this Government taking action to try and alleviate the court backlog. We don’t see that, but we do see this before us.

The fact that it’s one additional judge feels like a bit of an oxymoron, really, because we’ve heard this Government go on ad nauseam about the fact that they—well, they talk a lot about being tough on crime, and they talk a lot about all of these measures that they’re introducing to somehow signify that they’re being tough on crime. Yet at the end of all of that, and some sort of natural sequelae—you know, what will that mean on our judiciary and on the pressure on our judges? “We’ll just chuck one extra judge in there and that should do it.” It doesn’t really add up, and it doesn’t feel particularly congruent that all of this tough on crime is going to result in one extra District Court judge. But so be it. We have no objection to the fact that that is what is before us today.

It’s just one of those things where you think, “Gosh, is this a good use of our time?” I suppose it could be worse, though, as someone said earlier. You know, if we’re in this House talking about little things that by definition and technically possibly need to be done as a matter of course, then at least they’re not doing things that actually cause harm, and we’re not spending our time here today talking about that.

When we think about the bottlenecks in the court system and what are the various different ways this Government could have or might have chosen to address those, there are several, but it’s probably outside the scope of this particular bill before us today. It does kind of seem like a bit of a symbolic fix, really. Earlier on, my colleague the member for Ōhāriu, Greg O’Connor, who has a very long history in the justice area—

Animated.

—through various iterations, gave what was recalled as an animated speech with hand gestures, if I remember correctly, and walked us through the realities of what it is to actually be a judge.

To sum that up somewhat—because I’m not going to try and replicate his animism—he wanted us to focus on the fact that the name was written on the tin, and it is to judge. To do so therefore requires the appropriate allowance of discretion—the appropriate allowance of trust, even—the appropriate esteem in which we used to hold our judges in, in so far as taking in the complexities of the situations and the people they see before them. It is a shame that this current Government seems to be quite intent on watering that down and nullifying, somewhat, that esteemed history of judges. But we’re going to get one extra, so that’s something that we should at least be grateful for.

I think that when I say it’s a symbolic fix, it is a little bit ironic as well, given that the aforementioned measures that this previous Government is taking in the justice space all in all, in terms of their endeavour to be tough on crime, is largely symbolic in and of itself. We’re happy that there’s an extra judge. We see no complications in this bill apart from the fact that it feels a little bit incongruent and a little bit unnecessary, but we do commend it to the House.

It really is a pleasure to be the final speaker as we’re ending the third reading for this bill before it becomes law—the District Court (District Court Judges) Amendment Bill, increasing the total number of District Court judges by one to 183. It’s a pleasure because, in essence, as our Minister Paul Goldsmith said earlier, this is part of our wider objective to restore consequences of crime and also support the victims first. I commend this bill to the House.

on behalf of the Minister for Social Development and Employment: I present a legislative statement on the Social Workers Registration Amendment Bill.

That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

I move, That the Social Security Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

Social workers provide essential support to some of the most vulnerable populations across New Zealand, including children and marginalised communities. They support their communities to ensure people receive the assistance that they need to live safe and fulfilling lives. This Government wants to empower and support this critical workforce to meet the diverse and evolving needs of our communities. The bill seeks to amend the Social Workers Registration Act 2003 to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of operations carried out under the Act. It highlights our Government’s commitment to enhancing the social work profession and is a way to ensure that social workers are supported and regulated to serve our communities, importantly safely and effectively.

The Act protects the public by ensuring that social workers are registered, competent, accountable, and follow professional standards. This ensures social workers have the necessary level of professionalism to deliver appropriate care and service to their communities and is an important part in keeping our most vulnerable people and children safe. The Act establishes the Social Workers Registration Board as a regulatory authority for overseeing social worker registration. The Act also mandates the board to conduct a review of both its operations and the operation of the Act at least every five years. This bill responds to the board’s 2020 review of the Act. The 16 minor policy changes and technical amendments will strengthen the efficiency and effectiveness of operations under the Act, as well as address inconsistencies that have crept in over time. The first reading and select committee process showed a good level of support for these proposals.

I’d like to use this opportunity to remind the House of the six key policy amendments in this bill and the rationale behind them. Firstly, one amendment seeks to broaden interim suspension grounds, allowing action when a formal investigation is considered but not yet started. This change prioritises public safety by addressing concerns about a social worker’s professionalism or practice, while ensuring suspensions meet specific criteria to maintain fairness.

Another amendment would allow for the extension of interim suppressions to allow sufficient time for an investigation to be completed. Currently, suspended social workers receive notices every 10 days, even if there is no change to their status. This amendment streamlines communications while ensuring the correct process continues.

The bill also seeks to enhance the board’s professional conduct committee’s flexibility by allowing it to combine available outcomes rather than it just being limited to one per case, ensuring it can handle complex cases effectively. To improve efficiency, another amendment would allow the board to delegate registration functions, freeing members to focus on governance responsibilities and reducing delays for applicants seeking registration.

The fifth proposed amendment would clarify the board’s role in monitoring prescribed qualifications. While already implied, this change makes it explicit in law, ensuring there is no ambiguity about the board’s responsibility.

Finally, the bill seeks to transfer the power to investigate individuals falsely claiming to be registered social workers, or practising without the authority, from the Ministry of Social Development to the board.

On behalf of the Government, I want to thank Social Services and Community Committee members for their review of the proposed amendments and commentary across the House. I note the committee raised that extending suspension notice periods may create uncertainty for suspended social workers. As mentioned before, this amendment is about reducing the administrative burden on the board as well as removing excessive communication when there has been no change in the status for suspended social workers. I want to reassure you across the House that the notice period this amendment updates is not tied to the investigation. When the board has sufficient information to believe that a social worker is safe to return to practice, they can lift an interim suppression, even when an investigation is ongoing.

I want to thank the five submitters who took the time to share their perspectives on this bill. Your input is invaluable and has been very helpful as part of developing this bill. It was encouraging to hear submitters express their support for key amendments in the bill, particularly those that aim to strengthen public safety provisions, update language to be gender-neutral, and create greater flexibility in tribunal membership.

I also want to address some of the concerns raised by submitters. One submitter raised concerns that the amendments might increase social workers’ fees and costs for tertiary providers. However, the board assures us that these minor technical changes won’t directly affect costs. Another concern was regarding the amendments to broaden interim suppression grounds so that a social worker could face an interim suspension if a police or other investigation is likely. The submitter highlighted that this could lead to arbitrary suspensions and suggested stronger evidence requirements to be introduced. The Act already strikes a careful balance between ensuring public safety and minimising unnecessary disruption to the workforce, and existing safeguards within the Act will continue to prevent arbitrary suspensions, even with the introduction of this amendment. The select committee carefully considered these concerns, along with the other points raised in submissions, and ultimately determined that changes to the proposed amendments were not necessary.

Officials have identified one technical adjustment to the bill. This change aims to ensure the smooth transfer of the investigative function from the Ministry of Social Development to the board. This change will prevent unnecessary disruption for those currently under investigation and enable the board to carry out the function effectively from the transfer date.

While workforce shortages are out of scope of this bill, they remain a significant concern and an important issue, echoed by our submitters during the select committee process. I am very aware of the challenges this presents not just for the workforce but, importantly, for the communities across our country in which they serve. That is why Minister Upston in this instance has made her expectations to the board very clear: that developing a robust strategy must be a priority. The strategy will focus on mitigating workforce shortages and ensuring we have a resilient and well-supported social worker workforce.

Although at face value this bill makes minor amendments to operations under the Act, the cumulative changes of these changes is important, and it is an important step in ensuring the Act remains fit for purpose. It demonstrates that this Government is committed and is a strong and sustainable supporter of our social worker workforce. Importantly, we are committed to ensure public safety. I commend this bill to the House.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Kia ora, Madam Speaker. As I listened to the Minister of Revenue’s comments there, it is interesting just to consider the work of our social workers throughout New Zealand, and the important role that they play in every single part of society. Often, we consider social workers to be those who work for Oranga Tamariki, but, actually, it goes far further than that. As we consider the second reading as it’s come back from the Social Services and Community Committee, I think it’s really important for us to acknowledge the social workers throughout our society, in every part of our community. We think of in our schools and the work that many social workers to do support our young tamariki, our rangatahi.

We think of our hospitals and our healthcare centres, where social workers are so crucially involved. I had an example of that several years ago in Taranaki Base Hospital. My old neighbour was a little bit older and had been struggling with his health, and I’d tried to support him into a rest home. There was no way he was going to move, because he was stubborn and he liked his own home, and rightly so. Why would he want to move out of that? But several falls later, we were in A & E, and it wasn’t until the social worker at the hospital actually came down and sat with myself and Jim and talked through why he should consider this, and gave him options and didn’t direct him to do anything, but it came to the place where he actually made the right decision, I believe, because he needed better care. It was a social worker within our hospital system that supported myself and supported my friend through that, and I say thank you.

They’re also obviously with our young people in Oranga Tamariki, Open Home Foundation, and many other youth and child organisations. They’re in our rainbow community in terms of social workers who are working across our rainbow whānau, whether it be in RainbowYOUTH or OutLine and other spaces. Then there’s also community groups in our Māori iwi space, and we think of marae that actually have social workers in some parts of the country. I think of Tu Tama Wahine O Taranaki, an organisation in my community, who have been committed for more than 40 years in terms of doing the hard social work of family violence, the hard work of working with violent men, the hard work of working with wāhine, the hard work to actually find solutions and find hope and find liberation. We must say thank you to our social workers, who do so much for our communities and who do so much to build the social cohesion, whether it be in families, whether it be iwi hapū, whether it be in health, whether it be education, and all the other places I missed.

We do support this piece of legislation. It’s something that was reviewed five years ago, and it’s a five-yearly process that it goes through. I think and know that we need to continue to develop this legislation and, as we review it time after time, we need to strengthen it. I really believe, as I look through the legislation that is before us, it is another step in terms of ensuring—whether it be about accountability, whether it be around the protection not only of the social workers themselves but the people they’re working with, and the Minister made that clear in terms of checks and balances, and it’s important.

We need to make sure there is accountability, because our social workers are working so often with our most vulnerable, and we need to know that they are registered. We need to know that they have the skills not only to protect the people they work with but to protect themselves, because there are dynamic and volatile situations that they are so often in.

We have concerns, obviously, with what we believe the Government is doing, which is stripping away many of those social connections and the access. There was a report that was out not too long ago around restructuring and the work that was going on in Oranga Tamariki. It was pulling, actually, social workers away from the front line in terms of how they were operating, so we must be concerned.

As we support this legislation going forward, we support it with caution and with concern, but we always support it with the fact of having the community at our heart in what is going on. I won’t go on any further, but just to say let us be careful. I mean, the dream and the hope would be that social workers wouldn’t be needed in our communities, but it is just a reality. Let us make sure that we have the best systems, the best checks, and the best balances in place to make sure that our communities bring redemption, bring possibility, and enrich the lives of those who need it, whether it be in our hospitals, in our schools, in our child centres, or wherever it is. We commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. We are supporting this bill. I, too, want to pay tribute to all the social workers across Aotearoa, who are doing their best to support our communities, and I want to acknowledge, as well, the tertiary institutions that they train under.

This bill in and of itself is not radical, but it does include some practical changes such as broadening the scope of grounds for interim suspension where an investigation under the Social Workers Registration Act, under the Health and Disability Commissioner Act, or a criminal proceeding is “reasonably contemplated”, not just under way. The stuff around changing the extension period of interim suspension so that the suspension can be tied to the completion of investigation of medical examination, as well as other issues relating to the accountability that social workers face and issues relating to, for example, the cap on the number of social workers on the social workers disciplinary tribunal.

I think, to me, this raises a few really important issues, particularly having seen social workers at the front lines working with people on the benefit and supporting them to get their legal entitlements. Many of our social workers that are going through our tertiary institutions and then going to work themselves come from—many of them—lived experience backgrounds. In many of those cases, that means low-income communities. Having given guest lectures to social work students in the past, prior to becoming an MP, it was really clear that many of the challenges of the people who social workers face were faced by social workers themselves, including in their training. Many of them that are deployed in the field end up working on low wages and with high workloads. When we have a combination of those things, we actually create a recipe for the very same things this bill is trying to address, right, which are some of the mechanisms relating to accountability.

What this means is that, I guess, if what the Government is trying to do in this bill is improve some of those accountability mechanisms relating to conduct, for example, and how we deal with those, I think there’s also a need to then look at the working conditions in the training that we provide to social workers. I think, to me, we are then addressing the accountability mechanisms that happen once a social worker actually, for example, misbehaves or does something that isn’t right. Those mechanisms should absolutely be refined, and I think, to me, you know, it’s been a constructive experience at the Social Services and Community Committee trying to address those things.

If we want to set social workers up to be their best selves and to unlock their full potential, I think, to me, then this Government needs to continue looking at what other levers exist to them to make sure that the content of this bill isn’t just an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff. To me, that includes issues around making sure that when social workers are doing their placements, they’re actually adequately supported and remunerated for their work. I say this because when I was a field educator for social workers in my previous employment, many of them would be having to work multiple jobs on top of their placement. What that means is that, when they’re doing their placement, they’re actually probably more worried about paying their bills than actually absorbing the knowledge that then prevents them from actually making the kinds of mistakes that land them in the sorts of situations—or potentially lands them suspended—which is something that this bill is trying to improve upon.

Again, I think we can all make speeches and sort of talk about—particularly from the Government side, who currently hold the levers—acknowledging the amazing work social workers do, but until they are supported to be their best selves, we are putting them in situations where they are more likely to make errors, often because of the stress they face.

We support this bill. We support the work the select committee did to look at the components of this bill, but, you know, I just want to say that our social workers deserve more than our thanks. They deserve bread and roses and the world, because, for many of them, what they are doing, it’s often, for example, stopping—they’re the conduit between communities and our Government agencies.

I think some of the stuff in the bill relating to, for example, creating more flexibility in relationship to the duration of suspension, you know, in relationship to particularly the provision around changing the extension period for in-term suspensions to tie it to periods that are reasonable and necessary for the board to complete a formal investigation and or medical examination—that specific provision I think is great, but it doesn’t look at the upstream effect and the upstream things we should be targeting.

Again, this bill is relatively minor, and it provides technical amendments, but I think, like with other bills, we have to look at it in the ecosystem of what else is happening in the field that our social workers are doing. I’ll give an example: the changes to emergency housing where you’re now likely to see more people rejected for emergency housing. That in and of itself puts pressure on our social workers, and that in practice actually means social workers will end up finding themselves working with people in situations of distress. They’ll be working with community members who may be facing chronic homelessness, who may then ask the question, “What am I to do and how am I supposed to be supported?” Those social workers, who are often on low wages and come from low-income backgrounds, many of them—from my own experiences—will then be facing additional stresses, which increases the chances of them doing something that may land them in the very same disciplinary spaces that this bill is improving.

I think, again, the Government needs to take a step back themselves and look at the broader legislative ecosystem that they’re creating this term and ask themselves the question: are we actually putting more pressure on social workers, or are we relieving them of the pressure to ensure that they can be their best selves? Personally, I think it’s the former, and that to me raises concerns about why this bill is taking priority over other issues that could improve the conditions that our social workers are in and prevent them from making mistakes.

Paid placements is something I referenced earlier. We have heard petitions on these issues in our select committees, calling for paid placements to be put in place so that not just social workers but other professions can fully unlock their potential, and, more importantly, so that we can also diversify our professions. There have been lots of calls and previous debates on, for example, the experience pathway as a tool to increase the diversity of the social work profession. When we are able to do that, we also actually prevent conditions in which a social worker who may not have the cultural competency is making mistakes with someone they’re walking alongside with and that ends up landing that person in disciplinary spaces.

Again, we support the measures included in this bill, because we none the less acknowledge that those very mechanisms of accountability could always be improved upon, but without looking upstream, I think the Government is just looking down the cliff instead of doing the necessary and systemic changes so that people don’t need a social worker in the first place, and that those social workers, when they are needed, are well remunerated, well supported, and well trained.

Madam Speaker.

This debate is interrupted and is set down for resumption next sitting day—sorry, Mr Court. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 11 March 2025.