Tuesday, 20 June 2023 [Volume 769] The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m. KARAKIA/PRAYERS Hon JENNY SALESA (Assistant Speaker): E te Atua kaha rawa, ka tuku whakamoemiti atu mātou, mō ngā karakia kua waihotia mai ki runga i a mātou. Ka waiho i ō mātou pānga whaiaro katoa ki te taha. Ka mihi mātou ki te Kīngi, me te inoi atu mō te ārahitanga i roto i ō mātou whakaaroarohanga, kia mōhio ai, kia whakaiti ai tā mātou whakahaere i ngā take o te Whare nei, mō te oranga, te maungārongo, me te aroha o Aotearoa. Āmene. [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 and humility, for the welfare, peace and compassion of New Zealand. Amen.] PRIVILEGE Disclosure of Select Committee Proceedings—Voting on Natural and Built Environment Bill SPEAKER: Members, I have received a letter from the Hon Eugenie Sage raising as a matter of privilege the disclosure of committee proceedings by Simon Court on the consideration of the Natural and Built Environment Bill. A disclosure was made by way of a press release. The committee has attempted to resolve this matter but has been unable to do so. Mr Court admitted making the press release informing the media of the outcome of a vote taken during the committee's consideration. However, he took the view that the proceedings could be disclosed under Standing Order 243(3)(a) because they did not relate to any business or decision still before the committee. The onus is on the member who divulges proceedings to check whether they may do so. If there is any doubt, they should seek clarification in the committee or discuss with committee staff whether disclosure is permissible. The confidentiality attached to committee proceedings apart from public evidence was relaxed in 2003 to enable members to disclose procedural decisions such as the appointment of advisers or a decision not to initiate an inquiry. Because these procedural matters do not reflect the potential findings of a committee or indicate the direction of its consideration, there is no difficulty in divulging them before the committee reports to the House. However, discussion and voting on substantive matters before the committee remain strictly confidential until the committee reports to the House. I do not consider that the matters disclosed by Mr Court are the sort of procedural decisions that the Standing Orders Committee contemplated being able to be divulged before a committee reports to the House. I have considered the degree of importance of the matter. It is essential that committees are able to consider matters freely and deliberate on them in strict confidence. They are obliged to inform the House of their findings first. Therefore, I find a question of privilege arises. The question stands referred to the Privileges Committee. PETITIONS, PAPERS, SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS, AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLS SPEAKER: Petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation. CLERK: Petition of Asia Pacific Refugee Rights Network requesting the House investigate the creation of a Rainbow subcategory within the New Zealand Refugee Quota Programme. Petition of Greg Rzesniowiecki requesting that the House urge the Government to hold a referendum before adopting any amended International Health Regulations of the World Health Organization concerning the use of mRNA vaccines in future pandemics. Petition of Greg Rzesniowiecki requesting that the House urge the Government to hold a referendum before signing the proposed World Health Organization pandemic treaty. SPEAKER: Those petitions stand referred to the Petitions Committee. Ministers have delivered papers. CLERK: 2021/22 Annual Report of the Hawke's Bay District Health Board The Government Response to the referral of the Petition of Leo Li The 2023/27 Statement of intent for the Serious Fraud Office 2023/24 Statements of Performance Expectations for Accreditation Council Transport Accident Investigation Commission. SPEAKER: Those papers are published under the authority of the House. Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation. CLERK: Reports of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee on the Petition of Postal Workers Union of Aotearoa Thomas Cawthron Trust Amendment Bill Report of the Health Committee on the Therapeutic Products Bill Reports of the Justice Committee on the: 2021/22 Annual reviews of the Criminal Cases Review Commission and the Privacy Commissioner Petition of Bridget King Reports of the Petitions Committee on the: Petition of Eva Chen Petition of Maggie Ross Petition of Robert Osborne Report of the Primary Production Committee on the Petition of Frances Clement Report of the Regulations Review Committee on the Inquiry into COVID-19 Secondary Legislation Reports of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee on the: Briefing on reports prepared by the Auditor-General and the Infrastructure Commission for Transmission Gully Reports of the Ombudsman on OIA compliance and practice in Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency and the Ministry of Transport. SPEAKER: The bills are set down for second reading. The report on the Reports of the Ombudsman and the Report of the Regulations Review Committee are set down for consideration. The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of bills. CLERK: Whakatōhea Claims Settlement Bill introduction Water Services Entities Amendment Bill introduction McLean Institute (Trust Variation) Bill introduction. SPEAKER: Those bills are set down for first reading. ORAL QUESTIONS QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS Question No. 3 to Minister, 21 June—Amended Answer Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to make a personal explanation to correct an answer to oral question No. 3 on 21 June 2022. SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none. Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: In response to Ms Ngarewa-Packer's first supplementary to oral question No. 3 on 21 June 2022, I stated that the Children's Commissioner, between 2015 and 2019, had had 78 complaints that were put through them that they then put on to the Ombudsman because the Ombudsman has had the lead role with regards to addressing complaints. The Office of the Children's Commissioner has confirmed to the Ministry of Social Development that the number of complaints in my answer is correct. However, following correspondence between my office and a stakeholder, I have been made aware that the time period I referred to was not. The time period I referred to should have been 1 January 2015 to 28 February 2022. My office advised me of this yesterday, and I'm taking this first possible opportunity to correct the record. Question No. 1—Social Development and Employment 1. Dr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What recent reports has she seen on the effects of changes to the welfare system since 2017? Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Last week, Max Rashbrooke reported in The Spinoff what progress has been made by this Government's successive investments to lift incomes, pull children out of poverty, and help those in need through changes to the welfare system. He concludes in his article that income poverty has decreased overall and that 115,000 people have been brought out of poverty since we came into office. This is hard—sometimes technical—work, but we are making progress. We're not shying away from putting families first and focusing on what matters most to New Zealanders as we continue to deliver meaningful change in children's and families' lives through the welfare system. We remain focused on easing the pressure for our most vulnerable families. Dr Emily Henderson: What progress has been made for reducing hardship through changes to the welfare system? Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Mr Rashbrooke identified progress on three key measures, including how many children are in families that find it hard to afford the basics, whether living standards are rising over time, and how many families report being unable to afford life's basic necessities. Mr Rashbrooke concludes progress has been made on these three measures and we are heading in the right direction. Today, 13 percent of children say food runs out sometimes or often, compared with 20 percent in 2019. On 2023 Government figures, 356,000 beneficiaries are estimated to be better off by, on average, $118 per week, which increases to $142 per week during the 2023 winter period. A further 109,000 beneficiaries with children are estimated to be better off by, on average, $190 per week, which increases to $222 per week during the 2023 winter period. Dr Emily Henderson: How do those who receive this support feel about their current situation following these changes to the welfare system? Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Max Rashbrooke spoke to a range of people. One man was Paul Clutterbuck, a 50-year-old Wellingtonian living with multiple rare health conditions. We take this person's situation very seriously, unlike the other side of the House. Mr Clutterbuck expressed his support for the changes this Government has made, stating, "I'm grateful for the improvement since Labour came into office." He noted that until the recent benefit increases made by this Government his disposable income had "stagnated terribly" for several decades. Dr Emily Henderson: And what further changes is the Government making this year to improve outcomes for those most in need? Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: From 1 April this year, we're rolling out further support to 1.4 million New Zealanders, including families, seniors, caregivers, students, workers, and those on main benefits. Examples include 646,000 children who will be better off through increases to Working for Families tax credits. In Budget 2023 we continued with the support, including 20 hours free early childhood education for two-year-olds, scrapping $5 prescription fees, and free public transport for under-13s with half-price for under-25s. While these measures won't solve everything, they will help to ease some of the pressure. And right now, every bit counts when making ends meet. Question No. 2—Corrections 2. RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori) to the Minister of Corrections: What actions, if any, is he taking in response to a recent report from the independent Office of the Inspectorate which found that 29 percent of all prisoners experienced solitary confinement over a 12-month period, seriously impacting on the wellbeing of people in prison and their families? Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister of Corrections): It's always my expectation that Corrections manages prisoners safely and humanely. Corrections' front-line staff work with some of the most challenging people in society, so isolation is a necessary tool in prisons to ensure both staff and prisoners' safety, especially as this investigation was conducted from October 2020 to September 2021, during the COVID pandemic. Staff have obligations to public safety, the safety of their colleagues, and the welfare of prisoners. That can, at times, lead to choices with very limited options, however, I absolutely agree with the report that being isolated for longer periods of time can have a negative impact on the prisoner and their whānau, and more needs to be done to minimise that. Corrections has accepted all seven of the report's recommendations, and I'll work to ensure that both the short- and long-term responses to the recommendations progress as quickly as possible. Rawiri Waititi: Does he believe that it is acceptable that a significant number of prisoners—disproportionately Māori—experience solitary confinement for months on end, and, in some cases, in excess of a year? Hon KELVIN DAVIS: I'm always concerned about the over-representation of Māori in prison and related statistics, which is why I launched a new strategy for Corrections in 2019 with a significant focus on this issue, but this is something that requires long-term change across the justice system, and I've made my expectations clear that Corrections manages all prisoners safely and humanely. Rawiri Waititi: So what is he doing about the fact that these findings confirmed that Aotearoa is in breach of international law—the Nelson Mandela Rules, which prohibit solitary confinement in excess of 15 days—and is Hōkai Rangi working? Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Yes. Rawiri Waititi: How can he expect that prisoners will receive the necessary rehabilitation and recovery support in order to reduce reoffending and risk to communities if they are stuck in solitary confinement, which has been proven to cause depression, anxiety, panic attacks, anger, irritability, perceptual distortion, and paranoia? Hon KELVIN DAVIS: There's quite a lot in there, so I'll address one part of it. We are making progress. In terms of the Māori resentencing rate, that has decreased by 6.4 percentage points from 2014 and 2015 to 2021 and 2022, and the Māori re-imprisonment rate has dropped nearly 5 percent in the same period, while all the while, the overall Māori imprisonment rate has declined. Rawiri Waititi: When will he be able to guarantee to this House that staff shortages in Corrections are not contributing to human rights offences in prisons, such as extended solitary confinement and refusing whānau visitation, or does he think staff shortages are an acceptable excuse to breach basic human rights? Hon KELVIN DAVIS: No, but I will say that in terms of visitation, the visitation rates are similar to when the Māori Party was in Government, and they had an Associate Minister of Corrections, but also in terms of visitation, there have been over 3,000 audiovisual link visits, which, in many cases, prisoners and their whānau prefer. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order. Sorry, I don't think that the question has been answered. It was quite specific and asked when. We did get a good spiel about what the Minister has attempted to do, but we didn't get an answer to the "when". SPEAKER: I ask the member to go back to Hansard, and I think the first word answered the question. Question No. 3—Prime Minister 3. CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all of his Government's statements and actions? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Prime Minister): Yes, particularly the decision to initiate a market study into personal banking services to ensure the market is working well for New Zealanders. The Commerce Commission study will be completed by the end of August 2024, with a preliminary issues paper expected in August this year. It'll examine barriers to new competitors, the introduction of innovative products and services, and consumers' ability to switch between banks. Christopher Luxon: Does he stand by his admission last year that "the Government needs to do more to tackle gang crime", and has he failed when gangs are taking over State highways and shutting down schools? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: In answer to the first part of the question, yes, I absolutely do, and I am very proud of the work that the Government did to bring a bill to the House to give police more powers to crack down on gangs. That bill, that new law, was used for the first time in Ōpōtiki, and the gangs are facing the consequences of their actions because of the law change that we have put through Parliament. Christopher Luxon: When he said "gang convoys suck for everybody [who's] disrupted by them", why won't he give police dispersal powers so they can actually stop gangs from taking over a State highway in the middle of the day and blocking law-abiding Kiwis from going about their business? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: As I indicated, we went through the process of identifying what the best tools were that were going to help the police whilst also protecting the safety of police as well, and the law change that we put through the Parliament is giving them extra tools in their fight against gang crime. Christopher Luxon: Why does this Government continue to allow gangs to shut down a State highway for two hours when he said last year, "gang activities have been totally unacceptable and our communities deserve [so much] better"? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I absolutely stand by my statement that that type of activity is totally unacceptable, and we are backing the police to do the difficult job that they have ahead of them. Christopher Luxon: Well, why, then, despite all his talk on gangs, is violent crime up 33 percent, gang membership up 66 percent, and Kiwis don't feel safe in their own homes, their own businesses, their own communities? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I note, when the member talks about violent crime and Kiwis not feeling safe in their own homes, one of the biggest drivers of the increase in violent crime has been increased reporting of domestic and family violence, something the National Party pretends doesn't exist. Christopher Luxon: What responsibility does he take for the record number of Kiwis turning to foodbanks because his Government increased spending by 80 percent, driving inflation and interest rates up through the roof, and now has driven the economy into recession? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The question asked simply is not credible. In fact, New Zealand's rate of inflation has been below the OECD average for much of the period in question. There is an international inflationary pandemic at the moment. New Zealand is supporting people through that, including those on the lowest incomes. I note that the members opposite think we have done too much to support people on the lowest incomes through the current cost of living crisis. Christopher Luxon: Doesn't he understand that his spending, which has pushed up inflation and interest rates and now driven New Zealand into recession, means that Kiwis can't meet their debt payments, they're lining up at foodbanks in record numbers, and they're cancelling their kids' activities to pay their mortgages? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I do note the member's trying to rewrite history here, in the sense that, as the inflationary spike started, the National Party continued to argue for more and more Government spending. In fact, we can go through the time line, where they were saying we weren't doing enough to support New Zealand through the events of COVID-19 and we needed to spend more money. Despite the fact that the warning signs of inflation were already there, the National Party at the time didn't seem to take much notice of those and was arguing the Government should spend more. Christopher Luxon: What does he say to Kiwis actually skipping meals because they can't afford food prices that his inflationary policies have driven up? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I would remind them that the National Party hasn't supported any of the measures that this Government has put in place to support those on the lowest incomes through the current cost of living crisis. David Seymour: Whakarongo mai, kōrero te reo Māori. He Māori ahau mō ngā kaupapa hauora. [Listen up as I speak in te reo Māori. I am a Māori for health contexts.] SPEAKER: Is that a supplementary question? David Seymour: Yes, Mr Speaker. Rawiri Waititi: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I didn't hear a question in that. SPEAKER: No, neither did I—that's why I asked. I heard a statement. David Seymour: I'm very happy to repeat it. SPEAKER: If you have a supplementary, please ask it. David Seymour: He Māori ahau mō nga kaupapa hauora? [I am a Māori for health contexts?] SPEAKER: He Māori hoki ahau engari ehara tērā i te pātai. [I am also a Māori but that is not a question.] Are there any more supplementary questions? Nicole McKee: Is it acceptable to him that, as a Māori woman, I could be placed higher on a surgical wait-list than someone of a different ethnicity, even if our clinical need, time spent on the wait-list, location, and deprivation levels are the same? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The member misses the whole thrust of the debate that's been had in the last 24 hours. We are talking about people who have been on a wait-list for more than two years, where there is clear evidence that if someone is Māori, if someone is a Pacific Islander, if they are from a rural community, or if they are from a low-income background, they have been languishing for longer on the wait-lists than people who don't fit those descriptors. The fact that the health system is ensuring that those with clinical need who fit those four descriptors are not being discriminated against is surely something the member should welcome. Karen Chhour: Is it acceptable to him that my Cambodian husband could be placed lower on a surgical wait-list than me, even if our clinical needs are the same, time spent on the wait-list, location, deprivation level are the same; and if not, why is ethnicity a factor on the surgical wait-list equity adjustor? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: To speak to the member's personal circumstances, I think it's wrong that that member will have previously been placed lower on the list than her husband. I don't think that's acceptable. Hon Nanaia Mahuta: Is it acceptable that a New Zealander with co-morbidities, living in a rural area, will be treated differently; and is that the case under the current system? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: There is clear evidence that people who are Māori, who are Pasifika, who are living in a rural community or who are from a low-income background have been disadvantaged by the health system wait-list. They have been on the wait-list for the same clinical reasons for longer than other New Zealanders who don't fit those descriptions. That is discrimination; it's not acceptable. The fact that the health system is working to remove that discrimination is a good thing. Dr James McDowall: Is it acceptable to him that my 5-year-old, half-Chinese daughter could be placed lower on a surgical wait-list than someone else with the same clinical need, time spent on the wait-list, location, and deprivation level due to her ethnicity; and if not, why is ethnicity a factor on the surgical wait-list— Hon Marama Davidson: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Dr James McDowall: —equity adjustor? Thanks for letting me finish. Hon Marama Davidson: Mr Speaker, I asked for your guidance back on 12 May 2021, and, through you, Mr Speaker—it was from David Wilson—an update to all of us from the Speaker then, who talked about a ruling of people taking care, as they express themselves, to think of the wider consequences when they do. The nature of these questions are absolutely intended to raise racist opinions amongst the New Zealand public, and I ask you, Mr Speaker—[Interruption] SPEAKER: Order! Damien Smith: Supplementary— SPEAKER: No, sit down. I'm going to rule on this. That is a very serious accusation that the member has made. The first part of it I disagree with in this instance. To carry on to make an accusation, as you did, I'm contemplating sending you out. It's a discussion that perhaps this House should have one day, but you cannot make that accusation in this House. You will stand, withdraw, and apologise. Hon Marama Davidson: I stand, withdraw, and apologise. Point of order— SPEAKER: No, do it properly. No, no, no. I'll give you one more chance. You do it properly, you can stay. Hon Marama Davidson: Point of order, Mr Speaker. SPEAKER: No, you're going to apologise correctly. Hon Marama Davidson: I stand, withdraw, and apologise. SPEAKER: You can leave the Chamber. Hon Marama Davidson: I withdraw and apologise. SPEAKER: You will leave the Chamber. Hon Marama Davidson withdrew from the Chamber. SPEAKER: Dr McDowall, can you ask your question again? Dr JAMES McDOWALL: To the Prime Minister, is it acceptable to him that my five-year-old half-Chinese daughter could be placed lower on a surgical waitlist than someone else with the same clinical need, time spent on the waitlist, location, and deprivation level due to her ethnicity; and, if not, why is ethnicity a factor on the surgical waitlist equity adjustment? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: My answer to that question is the same as to the last one, although, I will correct that and say that, generally speaking, I have not commented on members' family situations in answers to questions, and I was wrong to do so in the last answer and I won't do so again. Damien Smith: Is it acceptable to him that the migrant workers—[Interruption] SPEAKER: Order! I've had this ruling before, it's really important that members ask—are able to scrutinise everything that the Government does. If the Government doesn't want to be scrutinised, that's the message you are giving right now by interrupting, interjecting while questions are being asked. DAMIEN SMITH: Is it acceptable to him that the migrant workers, without whom the health system would collapse, could be deprioritised on surgical waitlists because they don't have a Māori or Pasifika ancestry, and, if not, why is ethnicity a factor on the surgical waitlist equity adjustor? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I notice the member has not yet raised anyone from rural communities or low-income backgrounds and the ACT Party don't seem to be raising any examples in that regard. I think it is wrong that people from Māori backgrounds, from Pacific backgrounds, from rural backgrounds, from low-income backgrounds have been discriminated against in the waitlist system. I think it is correct that the health system ensures that segments of the population are not being discriminated against. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order. Kia ora, thank you, e te Māngai. I refer to the House rules which prevents members conducting debates in certain ways that create disorder and lead to disorder because of racism or implied racism. It is not Māori's fault that we die seven years earlier, it is not Māori's fault that we live in systemic racism. This is a debate that is about systemic racism. It is not about the Government being held to account, and Te Paati Māori object to the way that it is going. SPEAKER: This is not a debate; this is question time where members of this House get to ask questions of the Government and the Government has the opportunity to answer them, which it has been doing. David Seymour: Ki a koe, he Māori ahau mō ngā kaupapa hauora? [To you, in regards to health issues, am I considered as Māori?] Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: There was no translation. SPEAKER: Well, ki taku nei mōhio, [Well, as far as I know,] this is my interpretation of what the member is saying. The members can listen to the—but I'm going to preside over as if the member has said to you, "Do you consider me to be a Māori?" Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The member can make his own judgment about what ethnicity he is. Question No. 4—Health 4. Dr ANAE NERU LEAVASA (Labour—Takanini) to the Minister of Health: What recent announcement has the Government made about increasing the number of first-year medical school places? Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Minister of Health): Last week, I was proud to announce that funding for medical school enrolments will be increased by 50 places, to 589 places annually beginning in 2024. Training more medical students will help us grow our medical workforce over time, ensuring we can provide sustainable public health care. Dr Anae Neru Leavasa: Why has the Government increased the number of first-year medical school places? Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: To build a sustainable workforce, we must grow and invest in our domestic doctors, especially where there is global competition for internationally trained doctors. We are growing the number of doctors trained in New Zealand to help meet the needs of our population and to ensure health equity across the country. We want to train and retain as many local health workers as possible. Dr Anae Neru Leavasa: How will this change support the Government's priorities in health? Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: The funding for medical school enrolments is one of a range of investments the Government is making in the health workforce to ensure all New Zealanders can access the medical care they need, when and where they need it. Workforce is a key priority for the Government. We are working on long-term plans to ensure a sustainable, representative, and responsive workforce to meet the future needs of New Zealanders no matter who they are and where they live. Dr Anae Neru Leavasa: What feedback has been received about this announcement? Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: This announcement has been received very positively by the sector. Professor Tim Wilkinson, Otago Medical School's Acting Dean, said it was "a significant investment", and Professor Warwick Bagg, from the University of Auckland's Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, said that "the funding for these extra places is a great start to strengthening our domestic workforce and responding to the health needs of all New Zealanders." Question No. 5—Finance 5. NICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Finance: What was the change in GDP per capita in each of the past two quarters, and does he agree that, by that measure, the New Zealand economy is going backwards? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): In the March 2023 quarter, real GDP per capita was down 0.7 percent from December, and in the December quarter it was down 1.1 percent from September. However, on an annual basis, Stats New Zealand reported that real GDP per capita in the March quarter was up 2.4 percent from a year ago following annual growth of 2.4 percent in the December quarter. In answer to the second part of the question, this is a tough time for many New Zealand households. New Zealand's real GDP per capita is rising on an annual basis—indeed, on both quarterly and yearly measures—and real GDP per capita has risen faster under this Government compared to the previous Government, but we will continue to support New Zealanders through this challenging time. Nicola Willis: Was Labour Party finance spokesperson Grant Robertson correct in 2017 when he said: "we got the last quarter's growth, and once again GDP per capita fell—two quarters in a row of GDP per capita falling. And so per person … New Zealand is going backwards", and why is it different this time? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: That handsome, young, somewhat naïve member at the time—no, I recall that line of questioning very accurately and the response I got referred me to "yearly" rather than "quarterly" results, because quarterly results show considerable volatility. Nowadays, I bear that in mind. Nicola Willis: Well, was Labour Party finance spokesperson Grant Robertson correct in 2016 when he said that flat GDP per capita was "the story of a complacent, out-of-touch Government"; and, if so, what does it say about his Government, which just oversaw per capita GDP declining for two quarters in a row? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Look, I can help the member out—if this is going to be the line of supplementary questions—in that the answer to: "Was Grant Robertson the Labour finance spokesperson correct?" is generally "Yes", and if there are further questions in that line, that will be the answer. In terms of the second part of the member's question, about that particular Government at that particular time being complacent, absolutely that Government was complacent at that time. They were failing to invest properly in the skills of New Zealanders, they were failing to invest properly in research and development, they'd become complacent about international trade agreements, and all the many things that make up productivity. So, absolutely, that man was correct. Nicola Willis: Does he agree with the reflection Grant Robertson shared in Parliament in 2016 that "We only grow our share of the economic cake when GDP per capita grows, otherwise we are running hard to stay still."; and isn't it the case that with his complacent, anti-growth policies, Kiwis are running harder to stay still? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The member is completely incorrect. This was a Budget that increased investment in our science and innovation sector. This was a Budget that increased investment in skills. This is a Government that has signed on to important free trade agreements with the European Union, with the United Kingdom. This is a Government that continues to support businesses and to support individuals in our community to succeed and thrive. Nicola Willis: Is he aware that New Zealand's decline in GDP per capita in the past six months was worse than in a range of European countries, including those struggling with major energy challenges following the Ukraine conflict, including Germany and the United Kingdom—why is it so much worse in New Zealand? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: This is an occasion to be able to refer to annualised figures, because different countries are at different points in their recovery from the COVID pandemic. It is right to say that New Zealand's annual GDP is up 2.9 percent, higher than the long-run average; compared to the same quarter a year ago, it is 2.2 percent larger. If we compare to those other countries on that basis, Australia is at 2.3 percent, Canada joins us at 2.2 percent, and the countries in the European area that she refers to have 1.3 percent. It is true that countries are at different stages, but when we do compare it annually, the results are a little different to what the member says. Nicola Willis: Is he aware that New Zealand's 1.8 percent decline in GDP per capita in the past two quarters is comparable to the decline that occurred in New Zealand during the absolute peak of the global financial crisis, and does he take responsibility for delivering an economy with record inflation, rising interest rates, a record current account deficit, and declining per capita GDP? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What I take responsibility for is an economy that is 6 percent larger than it was before COVID, has unemployment at 3.4 percent, and has debt at a level lower than most of the countries that we compare ourselves to. As the Prime Minister indicated in an earlier question, New Zealand's inflation rate has sat around the bottom third of the OECD over the last few years. This is a global inflation process. Many New Zealand households are doing it tough during this period. That's why I'm proud that the Government has supported those households, unlike the member's party. David Seymour: Does he believe it's sustainable for GDP to be supported by a $33 billion a year current account deficit, or does he admit he's putting the economy on after-pay: borrow now, pay next generation? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: New Zealand's current account deficit is a longstanding challenge. I do note in the latest statistics, it is starting to come down and it is forecast to continue in that direction. David Seymour: How can he say with a straight face that the current account deficit is a longstanding challenge when the last three quarters under his economic management have been the worst current account deficits since records began under Sir Roger Douglas in 1988? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I point the member to a couple of factors. Firstly, we have faced an extraordinary challenge on the supply side of the New Zealand economy which has contributed to that, including also higher interest rates globally in addition to the hangover from COVID. Secondly, if the member wants to make those kinds of comparisons, he should look at New Zealand's international investment position, because that was the concern in the last times that we have seen the current account deficit rise in the way that it has in recent years. Actually, the advice that I've had is that since 2009, New Zealand's international investment position has been sufficiently strong to in fact counter the impacts of the current account deficit widening. David Seymour: How can he look Kiwis in the eye and blame the current economic performance on the floods, the cyclone, COVID, Vladimir Putin, or anyone else that comes to mind when Auckland University economics professor Robert McCulloch recently said that this was blatantly untrue and that he "doesn't know what planet Grant Robertson is on."? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: It's the same planet that Sharon Zollner, the chief economist for ANZ is inhabiting, because she said the same thing—that, actually, the quarters numbers would have been positive if it weren't for the weather events. Nicola Willis: Why does that finance Minister persist in taking credit for positive economic indicators yet refuse all responsibility for every negative indicator, and is it in fact the case that when measured by the cost of living, per capita GDP, and interest rates, the standard of living for individual New Zealanders is declining on his watch? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I stand proudly by the record of this Government, for taking New Zealand through the greatest economic shock since World War II in a way that has left us at the end with unemployment at 3.4 percent, with our economy 6 percent larger, with our level of debt at a level that other countries would be proud to have. There have been many decisions to have made over the last few years. None of them were costless. This was a challenge that every county had to face, and when we compare ourselves against those countries, I believe we can be proud of our record. Question No. 6—Forestry 6. Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) to the Minister of Forestry: What recent forestry announcement has the Government made regarding the New Zealand emissions trading scheme? Hon PEENI HENARE (Minister of Forestry): This Government acknowledges the importance that the forestry sector plays in our economy, worth approximately $6 billion annually and provides over 40,000 jobs to this country. Yesterday, alongside the Minister of Climate Change, James Shaw—we both announced that public consultation opens for the redesigning of the permanent forest category. Hon Phil Twyford: What is the importance of this announcement? Hon PEENI HENARE: Last year the Government consulted on proposals to restrict permanent exotic forests in the New Zealand emissions trading scheme (NZ ETS) in response to concerns about the impacts on the environment and rural communities from these forests. The proposals generated wide interest prompting the Government to look further into the permanent forest category. This announcement ensures that we work alongside our valued communities, iwi Māori, local government, and the forestry sector to redesign the permanent forestry category. This announcement complements the recently announced changes to the National Environmental Standards for Plantation Forestry that will give locals and communities more control over deciding which land can be used for plantation and carbon forests. The proposals being consulted on consider the overall incentives driving afforestation and aim to help ensure the right types of forests are in the right locations and for the right reasons. Hon Phil Twyford: How does this announcement fit into the wider ETS announcement? Hon PEENI HENARE: We need to act now to tackle climate change and we need to use every single tool available to us. The NZ ETS is our main tool for meeting our domestic and international climate change obligations. There needs to be a strong role for forestry in our climate change strategy and we need to make sure that people also pollute less forests, store carbon, helping to address climate change by reducing Aotearoa New Zealand's net greenhouse emissions. Hon Phil Twyford: What is being proposed to guide the redesign of the permanent category? Hon PEENI HENARE: The three key design choices that guide the redesign of the permanent forest category are (1) what forests should be allowed in the permanent forest category; (2) how a transition forest should be managed to best ensure a successful transition; and (3) what rules will best maximise the benefits of permanent forests in that category? The consultation is an opportunity for New Zealanders to boost the benefits of permanent forests for the climate, environment, and landowners, while also minimising the risk of these forests in the same areas. I encourage all involved in the forestry sector and communities around the country to have their say on this very important matter. Question No. 7—Health 7. Dr SHANE RETI (National) to the Minister of Health: How much weighting will be given to the ethnicity component of the equity adjuster for surgical wait-lists, and what other parts of the health system, if any, has she looked at applying the adjuster to? Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Minister of Health): To the first part of the question, the most influential factor in how a patient is scheduled is how severe their condition is as determined by their doctor. For a clinically high-priority procedure, the other variables will have almost no weight in the algorithm and, therefore, would not influence a person's wait time. The second most influential factor is the number of days the patient has already been waiting. After that, the equity adjuster seeks to stop some groups from languishing on the long tail of the wait-list. Ethnicity, deprivation, and being from a rural area are the other factors taken into account. As I have already said to that member, including in written questions, the weightings are dynamic, so a specific weighting for ethnicity cannot be given. The weighting of elements varies between clinical specialities to make sure that clinical priority remains the primary element. To the second part of the question, no, I have not looked at applying the equity adjuster to other parts of the health system, beyond planned care. I remind the member that this initiative was developed by northern region clinicians and managers. Dr Shane Reti: Who is correct: the Prime Minister this morning suggesting that the equity adjuster is just for Auckland and Northland, or the Minister, who stated in written answers that there would be a national roll-out? Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: The Prime Minister has asked me to look at if the equity adjuster is working as intended, and I will do that before any national roll-out. Hon Michael Woodhouse: Point of order, Mr Speaker. That was not in any way addressing the question Dr Reti asked. SPEAKER: I'll ask Dr Reti to ask the question again. I think it's a close call, but— Dr Shane Reti: Who is correct: the Prime Minister this morning suggesting that the equity adjuster is just for Auckland and Northland, or the Minister, who stated in written answers that there would be a national roll-out? Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: The equity adjuster is in use in two hospitals in the northern region. The Prime Minister has asked me to look at if it is being used in the way intended, and there are no further plans for a national roll-out until I am assured of that. Dr Shane Reti: Which two hospitals? Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: Auckland Hospital, and I am advised the other one is Middlemore. Dr Shane Reti: Is the Health New Zealand business support manager correct when he wrote to clinicians that priority on the surgical wait-list will be 200 days for Māori and 250 days for non-Māori; if not, why not? Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: That statement doesn't really make sense, and I'd need additional context to be able to help interpret it. Dr Shane Reti: Did she say that the weighting adjuster is dynamic and will change day by day? Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: That's right, because, obviously, if you have waited for longer, it is more important that you get your procedure. Dr Shane Reti: When does she intend to roll out the equity adjuster for first specialist appointments, as indicated in her reply to written question No. 14489, or has this now been delayed as a result of the Prime Minister's request that she assure him that the equity adjuster is not replacing one form of discrimination with another? Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: As I have said, the Prime Minister has asked me to check that the equity adjuster is working in the way it's intended, and that's what I'll do. Question No. 8—Police 8. NICOLE McKEE (ACT) to the Minister of Police: Does she stand by her statement that "It is my view that New Zealanders feel safer with a Government on track to deliver 1,800 extra police"; if so, why, when gangs have recruited close to twice as many members in the nearly six years it took to recruit those extra police? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Minister of Police): To the first part of the member's question, yes, in the context it was given. The alternative would be to not have 1,800 additional police. To the second part of the question, I've always been clear about the challenges that both gangs and organised criminal groups present in our communities, but it is exactly the reason why this Government has enacted legislation to crack down on gangs, which, in the past week in Ōpōtiki, saw 26 vehicles seized, four firearms seized, 11 offensive weapons seized, and nine gang members arrested—all of this under new gang conflict warrants that did not exist before April. Nicole McKee: Does she think that New Zealanders feel safer when there is an average of two gang-related firearm offences every day this year to mid-May, and does she think that they will feel safer with the implementation of the firearms registry, knowing that gang members won't be using it? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: I would never be so bold as to speak on behalf of all New Zealanders, but I will say that this Government is cracking down on organised crime in three main ways. The first main way is through legislation, through the Criminal Activity Intervention Legislation Bill, through introducing a firearms prohibition orders ability to put those most dangerous individuals away from weapons, and also introducing new legislation around those driving and fleeing. By introducing a firearms registry, which will go live at the end of this month, it will be able to map, for the first time, where all firearms are in New Zealand. I believe that this is a good way to find out where the guns are and make sure they are out of the hands of those organised criminal groups who are a danger to our community. Nicole McKee: Does she think that New Zealanders feel safer when youth gang membership is up 700 percent over five years to April 2023, and youth gang members have, on average, 26 offences under their belt by the time they turn 18 years old? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: I have been clear that the level of youth offending occurring in New Zealand right now is completely unacceptable, but it is for that very reason that this Government has introduced and rolled out further programmes like "circuit breaker" and Kotahi te Whakaaro. These programmes show that 72 percent of young people going through those programmes do not go on to offend. I call that success. Nicole McKee: Does she think New Zealanders feel safer when the overwhelming gang presence in Ōpōtiki recently resulted in schools shutting down for the week? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: I have zero tolerance for the harm and intimidation caused by gangs in our community. The operation in Ōpōtiki, where police used new powers under the Criminal Activity Intervention Legislation Act meant that those communities were safe. I was pleased to see that there was not any harm done to individual people, and that is a result of those front-line police officers doing their job well and using the new powers that they had access to. Nicole McKee: Did the Mongrel Mob pay for a traffic management plan when it shut down the streets in Ōpōtiki, and if not, why not? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: No. Question No. 9—Workplace Relations and Safety 9. CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) to the Associate Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: What recent announcement has she made about more financial support for parents? Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Associate Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Our Government has a proud track record of supporting parents and families. Since we took office, we have extended paid parental leave from 18 to 26 weeks, made GP visits free for children aged 13 and under, extended 20 hours free early childhood education to two-year-olds as well, and scrapped prescription fees. I was proud to build on that track record yesterday when I announced that the Government will be putting an extra $51 per week into the pockets of new parents. That's an additional $1,327 for those taking the full 26 weeks of parental leave, and just another example of our commitment to supporting parents and families. Camilla Belich: How will this benefit parents and families? Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: We know it's tough for families right now, but the Chris Hipkins - Government is committed to supporting Kiwi families to have a bit more in their pocket and ease some of the pressures that they're facing. These changes will raise the parental leave payment by 7.7 percent to reflect the rise in average wage. Eligible parents will see an increase in the parental leave payment from $661.12 per week to $712.17 per week before tax. The minimum rate for self-employed parents will also increase to $227 per week, which is equal to 10 hours of the minimum wage for an adult worker. Camilla Belich: How many people will benefit from these changes? Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: These increases will support a large number of families. We know, for example, that 56,200 people received paid parental leave payments in 2022. This is a Government committed to making sure that families receive the support they need with this important investment, enabling parents to focus on their newborns in their early days. Camilla Belich: What other recent changes have been announced to support new parents? Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: As part of Budget 2023, the Government announced from mid-2024 new parents will also receive a 3 percent Government contribution to their KiwiSaver while on paid parental leave provided they continue their own KiwiSaver contributions. This initiative in Budget 2023 recognises that child carers can see their nest egg worse off while on parental leave, and is yet another example of this Government's commitment to supporting parents and families. Question No. 10—Justice 10. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Justice: Does she stand by all her statements and actions? Hon DAVID PARKER (Attorney-General): on behalf of the Minister of Justice: Yes, in their context. Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does she stand by her tweet on Sunday in response to National's gang policy "locking people up and throwing away the key is exactly what gangs want. They want NZers to pay for their university of crime.", and, if so, is she arguing that the gangs want longer prison sentences? Hon DAVID PARKER: In response to the second part of that question, no. Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does she believe gangs want longer prison sentences so that they can spend more time at what she calls their university of crime? Hon DAVID PARKER: The Minister was making the overall point that National's approach to law and order is ill-thought-out and lacks evidence to support it. Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does she understand why Kiwis who hear her saying that prison is just a university of crime, and see the Government's target of reducing the prison population regardless of the level of crime, are concluding that the Government no longer believes that serious crime should lead to serious consequences? Hon DAVID PARKER: Of course the Government doesn't believe that. And, indeed, the Minister of Justice has also pointed out that gang membership is already an aggravating factor in sentencing under section 9(1)(hb) of the Sentencing Act and has been applied in the likes of King and Reihana and King and Ormsby-Turner to increase the sentences meted out by the judiciary to gang members this year. Hon Paul Goldsmith: So how does she reconcile her statement that making gang membership an automatic aggravating factor at sentencing infringed criminal human rights with Chris Hipkins' earlier statement, "I have no issue with curbing the human rights of people who are engaged in criminal activity, because I think if they want to engage in criminal activity there's a consequence of that.", and is it the case that human rights are only an issue when National proposes something? Hon DAVID PARKER: The two statements the member referred to are not inconsistent. I further would also agree with the Minister of Police's comments at the time, in response to the National Party announcement, that National's got the policy microwave set on "reheat". Question No. 11—Commerce and Consumer Affairs 11. INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri) to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: What recent announcement has he made on market studies? Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Today, at 12.30, I announced that the next market study by the Commerce Commission will be into retail banking. Banks play an important role in our economy and in every Kiwi household; New Zealanders deserve to know that they can trust their banks with their finances. Banks have consistently posted high profits over a number of years, and Kiwi consumers rightly have questions about that during tough times. There is a strong public interest in ensuring that New Zealand has a competitive banking sector, and so I have asked the Commerce Commission to undertake a market study into retail banking today. Ingrid Leary: What will the study cover? Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: The Commerce Commission will have just over a year to look into any matters affecting competition for personal banking services. The study will be able to look at the full range of banking services people take up for personal or household use, but it can also narrow its spotlight and dig into certain products or areas if it needs to. It will get an understanding of competition by looking at the structure of the industry, any barriers to banks growing, or to new banks entering the sector, or any other factors affecting competition, and it will look at bank profitability. Ingrid Leary: What is the purpose of market studies? Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Market studies are a useful tool to take an in-depth look at markets where competition might not be working well. These studies take around a year to complete and look at the long-term structural issues and barriers to competition that might be driving up prices, suppressing innovation, or keeping out a bigger range of products, services, or suppliers. The Government has focused on things that matter to Kiwis in their living costs such as fuel, groceries, and building supplies—today, we add personal banking to that list. Market studies aren't a short-term fix, but they do the heavy lifting to determine how to start to address markets that aren't working well enough, and we are proud to do that work. Ingrid Leary: When will the results of the study be known? Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: This study will take 14 months and will report back in August 2024 with analysis and recommendations. We will have a clearer idea of the methods the Commerce Commission intends to use and preliminary issues in August this year. But we're not waiting that long to make progress: this week, we're also taking our next step in respect of open banking. A draft bill will be released for public consultation, and that will help make comparing and switching bank products easier for Kiwibank customers, because Kiwis should know that they're well served by their banks and we're doing everything we can to make sure that is the case. Nicola Willis: Why should New Zealanders have any confidence that this market study will be any more effective than the previous market studies into fuel, groceries, and building and construction materials, or is it his position that those studies have delivered transformational change for New Zealand consumers? Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Well, that member may be prepared to sit on her hands and do nothing; this Government will not. Later on today, that member might want to sit in the House whilst we progress the grocery reform bills that have already seen change. We see third parties entering into the market: we see The Warehouse, we see Costco and others. So that member might want to open the paper tomorrow morning and see all of the commentators congratulating this Government on the work it's doing in improving competition across the economy. Question No. 12 to Minister SPEAKER: Members, I have inadvertently broken the rules. I have asked the Hon Marama Davidson to return on the basis that she has question No. 12. The Standing Orders do not actually allow me to do that. The member has already returned to the House, so I am going to be guided by the House. DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Point of order, Mr Speaker. There has to be some penalty for getting kicked out—I say this with some experience! Now, if she was kicked out and she can return conveniently so she can do her next question, it seems like your penalty has been almost castrated, and that wouldn't be a very good outcome. So I don't think she should be allowed to ask the question. SPEAKER: That concludes oral questions. NGĀTI HEI CLAIMS SETTLEMENT BILL First Reading Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I present a legislative statement on the Ngāti Hei Claims Settlement Bill. SPEAKER: That legislative is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website. Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I move, That the Ngāti Hei Claims Settlement Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Māori Affairs Committee to consider the bill. SPEAKER: Order! Order! Can I ask members leaving to do so quickly and quietly? Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Tākiri mai ana te ata ki runga o ngākau mārohirohi, kōrihi ana te manu kaupapa, ka ao, ka ao, ka awatea. Tihei mauri ora. E mihi ana ki a koutou kua tau mai nei i runga i te karanga o te kaupapa o te rā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. E mihi ana ki te hunga mate, haere, haere, haere atu rā. Ki a tātou te hunga ora, tēnā tatou. Tēnei au, tēnei mātou te Kāwanatanga e mihi ana ki te kaupapa o te wā. Ngāti Hei, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa. [Dawn breaks upon a resolute heart, the bird chorus of this issue now sings, a new dawn leads to the full light of day. Vitality and health to all. Thanks and greetings to you all who have responded to the call of this issue to be here today. I acknowledge those who have passed, may you rest in peace. And to us who remain, welcome one and all. I, indeed we the Government acknowledge the present issue. Ngāti Hei, greetings and thanks to you, indeed to us all.] It's my honour and privilege to be here today to speak in the first reading of the Ngāti Hei Claims Settlement Bill. I extend a warm welcome to the negotiators of Ngāti Hei who have travelled from the beautiful Coromandel for this occasion, and I say to them, "Thank you, and it has been my privilege and pleasure to host you here today." Can I acknowledge Peter Matai Johnston and Mātua Joe Davis, who I had the good fortune to host—or they had the kai; I had to race off to prepare for the House. But to have some kōrero as we welcome them and to hear Mātua Joe's whakapapa, but also the connections to the other Hauraki whanaunga who are also very important to this bill and the associated bills that will go with this. It was interesting to hear from Mātua Joe that the first kōrero over Ngāti Hei's claims were with Tā Doug Graham, back those many years ago when that formidable then justice Minister led the way in opening what we might describe now as the modern Treaty of Waitangi negotiations processes. It's great, however, that after all that time and after many Treaty bills coming to this House, that now Ngāti Hei has their bill squarely before the House, after some delay too—and I'll come back to some of the reasons for that a little later. Can I also acknowledge and pay tribute to the generations of Ngāti Hei who have sought justice for their people, and the many members of Ngāti Hei who have passed away before they have been able to bear witness to today's milestone. In particular, in that regard, I acknowledge Ngāti Hei kaumātua Peter Tiki Johnston, who played a leading role in the settlement but, sadly, passed away in 2014; and his son, Peter Matai Johnston, has assumed his father's mantle and is in the gallery today. On the Crown side, can I acknowledge chief Crown negotiators Michael Dreaver and the Hon Rick Barker for their hands-on leadership throughout these negotiations—I might say, everybody amply supported by the team from Te Arawhiti in the gallery there. Can I acknowledge my predecessor, the Hon Chris Finlayson, as well, for his significant contribution to this Treaty settlement, and of course I thank my ministerial colleagues, Crown agencies, and the councils who have been involved in this for their support to achieve this settlement. Today's reading marks a major milestone in the Ngāti Hei negotiations. It was back in August 2017 that Ngāti Hei and the Crown signed a deed of settlement here at Parliament. I think we can all agree that six years is a long time to wait to advance the settlement to its next significant step. The delay between signing the deed and the first reading today is due to the structure of the Hauraki negotiations. Initially, the Ngāti Hei Claims Settlement Bill was drafted as part of an omnibus bill with 13 other Hauraki settlements. However, each negotiation moves at its own pace, and so, given the varying pace and a number of other issues that had arisen, I decided in 2021 that we would move away from the omnibus approach and progress the Hauraki bills that are ready and where litigation and overlapping interest claims have been dealt with or progressed sufficiently. That, of course, included Ngāti Hei and I thank Ngāti Hei for their incredible patience during this time. Ngāti Hei hold a unique place in New Zealand history. In November 1769, Ngāti Hei hosted the first recorded pōwhiri between Māori and Pākehā when Ngāti Hei Paramount Chief Toawaka invited Captain Cook, no less, to the fortified pā Wharetāewa in Whitianga. Cook and his crew spent 12 days at Te Whanganui-A-Hei measuring the transit of mercury across the sun, trading, and resupplying the ship in what was described then as a mostly amicable cultural exchange with Ngāti Hei. Despite these positive beginnings, even before Te Tiriti o Waitangi was signed, the negative effects of Pākehā settlement were felt by Ngāti Hei. By the 1830s, Ngāti Hei had lost much of their coastal whenua due to transactions with traders. The Crown's Land Claims Commission later investigated those transactions and awarded almost 7,000 acres of land, in which Ngāti Hei had interests, to European claimants. After the Treaty was signed, Crown land acquisition, and the operation and effect of the native land laws left Ngāti Hei virtually landless. The loss of land and resources reduced Ngāti Hei's ability to participate in the new economic opportunities and challenges emerging within their rohe in the 20th century. The Crown's repression of te reo Māori, along with the fragmentation of Ngāti Hei tribal structures and the migration from ancestral lands, severely affected Ngāti Hei's ability to pass mātauranga Māori on to their tamariki and mokopuna. The settlement is grounded in the Crown's acknowledgment of this history and the Crown's apology for its breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi. The redress contained in this bill will support Ngāti Hei in realising their aspirations for their iwi and the many generations to come. The bill will give effect to the redress provided and settlement of historical Treaty of Waitangi claims, including financial and commercial redress of $8.5 million; the vesting of 15 sites of cultural significance; and overlay classification and statement of association, which acknowledges the traditional, cultural, spiritual, and historical association of Ngāti Hei with certain sites of significance, including Moehau and Te Aroha maunga. This settlement legislation will also enact a Māori Land Court order that will vest Ohinau Island in the Ngāti Hei governance entity. Finally, relationship agreements between Ngāti Hei and Crown agencies will provide the foundation for a better future relationship between Ngāti Hei and the Crown. As I indicated earlier, this bill is one of a number of bills coming under the Pare Hauraki collective of iwi in Hauraki. There are others yet to make their progress—some have already been introduced—but eventually we will bring together a Hauraki collective piece of legislation as well. Bearing in mind now, with these bills and the Hauraki bills, what has been very important is to ensure that the relationships between each of those Hauraki iwi are sorted, but also the relationship between Hauraki iwi and other large national groups—and I'm thinking particularly of Tauranga Moana—that those are settled and healthy relationships as well. I sincerely hope that this settlement is the beginning of a stronger relationship between Ngāti Hei and the Crown based on mutual trust, cooperation, and respect for Te Tiriti and its principles. I propose the bill should proceed without delay to the Māori Affairs Committee. On that basis, I commend the bill to the House. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tatou katoa. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to. TAMA POTAKA (National—Hamilton West): [Authorised te reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] Ngati Hei ki Wharekaho is what we often refer to as Ngāti Hei, a well-known tribe of Hauraki, being a member of the Pare Hauraki Collective, and will receive redress through the Pare Hauraki Collective redress arrangements as well as this specific Ngāti Hei arrangement. The iwi marae at Whitianga, Te Rā Matiti, stands as a lighthouse for tribal identity, [Authorised te reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] Treaty settlements like this one that were launched and set about by the great elders of the National Party, Jim Bolger, Doug Graham, Kereama Rātima, and Bill Birch—Wīremu Birch—have been carried on by successive Governments and genuinely assisted in restoring wairua through acknowledgments and apologies, through cultural redress, and usually some modest commercial redress that sometimes includes land and buildings, and in some places just pūtea, just the cash. And like your relatives on the other side of Tīkapa Moana, Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, the Ngāti Hei nation are resilient, emergent, and aspirational. In fact, I wanted to take a moment just to comment on the comments of my former boss, Hemi Paraone, your whanaunga over there, Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, who always would refer to Matua Joe as an absolute icon of Hauraki identity. And in that little Switzerland that Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki sometimes is—Tāmaki-makau-rau, Tainui, Hauraki, and everything else—he always would pay that homage and that respect to the mahi that Matua Joe and others of Ngāti Hei have done to retain their identity, to drive their identity, and ultimately to restore and regenerate their identity. [Authorised te reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] —whilst the rearea is small it can overcome the tallest kahikatea in the great forest of Tāne Mahuta. And your negotiators, along with other iwi leaders, not only those that are on the paepae, but also those in the kāuta have brought this here to the Whare Mīere. So I acknowledge all those rangatira and ringawera of the iwi. [Authorised te reo text Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] Ngāti Hei—descendants of tangata whenua Te Hekenga-a-rangi and Hapū-oneone, as well as the great navigators and sentinels of various waka like Matahourua, Kupe, and Te Arawa. The deed of settlement outlines and sets out some kōrero around the eponymous ancestor Hei, son of Atuamatua, brother of Houmaitawhiti and father of Waitaha, and bound to the land and seas of Toi te Huatahi ki te Waitematā huri atu a Tīkapa Moana ki roto, the Hauraki Gulf to Waitematā and the food basket of Tīkapa Moana. The dominions that the Ngāti Hei people have are indeed mercurial—mercurial, Mr Simpson—and spread north and south, and are captured in various names: Te Ō ā Hei, or Hahei, Te Whanganui a Hei, Mercury Bay, and Ngā Tokotoru a Hei out there towards by Aotea. E mihi ana ki a koutou. The area of interest of your iwi, located on the eastern seaboard of the Coromandel Peninsula, is in works and the writings of my wife's great-grandfather Pei Te Hurinui Jones, who has links to you all. Moehau. He always refers to Coromandel Peninsula as Moehau, but Te Tara o te Ika a Māui through Onemana and Te Whangapoua and centred around Tairua and Mautohe known to most of us as Cathedral Cove—and those citadels of Ngāti Hei include Repanga or Cuvier Island, home of various tasty fish and shark, Moehau, Ahuahu, Motutere, Tahanga, and ngāRuamāhua islands. The Ngāti Hei massif also refers us back to our Tahitian ancestors with places like Hitiā o te Rā, or Whitianga, as we refer to it here in New Zealand, and Taputapuatea—what a beautiful place in Tahiti and also in Coromandel, and I'm sure many of the members here today—actually, some of our whanaunga members, across the benches—have also been to that place, both here in Aotearoa and also in Tahiti. The bill is one that the National Party supports to progress to the first reading. Like many whānau, hapū, and iwi, Ngāti Hei were entrepreneurial peoples in the early 1800s, being involved, like other iwi, in the timber trade, with foresters, albeit with some unconscionable arrangements along the way—reminds me of a few iwi through the central North Island. [Authorised te reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] One of the more difficult experiences Ngāti Hei went through was the purchase of Ahuahu— Mercury Island; what an outstanding place—by the Crown from other iwi. There is no evidence that Ngāi Hei were either consulted or paid for their interest in this breath-taking island, and then, of course, the Crown entered into land transactions called purchases for over 80,000 acres of Moehau paradise. The bill gives effects to some elements of the Ngāti Hei deed of settlement, and I mihi to those former Ministers for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, Doug Graham and Christopher Finlayson, who represented the Crown in those early high-level negotiations with Ngāti Hei. But it also reflects the acknowledgment and apology made in that deed gives effect to some of the redress outlined in that deed, and I want to thank and acknowledge our Minister, the Hon Andrew Little, Anaru Paku, and various officials for this important step in the redress process—Mike Dreaver, Rick Barker, officials from the Department of Conservation, Land Information New Zealand, and other agencies who have represented the Crown. I mihi to them and hope for further innovation in future settlements as well. This package, set out in the bill, is something that the National Party absolutely applauds and supports for further consideration. The acknowledgments record that the Crown failed to take adequate steps to protect the interests of Ngāti Hei, but it sets out the industrial activities—those extractive processes over the Moehau Peninsula, te Tara o te Ika; things like gold-mining, gum digging, flax milling, timber harvesting—all those extractive processes that have delivered very little upside for Ngāti Hei over time and have been very distressing. Those beautiful surrounds of Moehau, Whitianga, and elsewhere is something that—although there's a few roads that we need to fix up along the way, collectively there, Mr Simpson— Hon Scott Simpson: Hear, hear! TAMA POTAKA: Hear, hear! It's something that we look forward to restoring. By the end of the 20th century, left virtually landless like many other iwi throughout the motu, Ngāti Hei had been marginalised, with the loss of resources, poor educational achievement, socio-economic deprivation and all those other pretty difficult statistics that you're dealing with. The apology for the Treaty breaches and prejudice to Ngāti Hei, particularly given the impacts of Crown actions and omissions on the wellbeing of Ngāti Hei, is something that we will continue to canvass as we go through the legislative readings. The deed of settlement, which was initialled on 31 May 2017 and then ratified later in August that year, illustrates the progress that your whānau, your hapū, and your iwi have made in order to seal the deal but also to get to go. It's like going around in Monopoly, "Go back to 'Go' and collect $200", but in this case a little bit more commercial redress. Now, you have many uri and descendants, and I can't believe that Census 2018 only records 600, because I know there are more out there somewhere. [Authorised te reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] The census noted that only 44 percent of the iwi own their own home, and 27 percent of iwi members earn more than $50,000 per annum. Hopefully—hopefully—this redress set out in the bill and the pending legislation will give you a little bit of ballast and a little bit of kaha to carry out and improve those demographics and improve those statistics. The kaupapa of Ngāti Hei is set out on your website: "From our tūpuna we have inherited our moana, whenua, and cultural taonga. We will protect and enhance them to build a bright future for Ngāti Hei." E mihi ana—e mihi ana ki a koutou. Those various aspects of the bill include cultural redress—culturally significant sites being returned, places like Purangi, Tapu Point, and Rangihau; revitalisation funds for cultural purposes—financial redress of $8.5 million with commercial redress enabling the right to purchase part of Whenuakite—actually, I remember some kiwi coming over from Whenuakite Station to Motutapu. Had to give them a bit of aroha, a bit of love, all the way from Whenuakite right into the middle of Tīkapa Moana. And of course, there is the separation of negotiations in the future in relation to Tīkapa Moana and Te Tai Tamāhine /Te Tai Tamawahine. It is through these types of historic, "herstoric", and heroic Treaty settlement arrangements that we can help recognise the decades of loss and suffering, regenerate iwi, particularly rural economies like that in Ngāti Hei, and tautoko Ngāti Hei to realise your holistic aspirations with a carefully nurtured relationship reset with the Crown. [Authorised te reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Foreign Affairs): [Authorised te reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] It gives me great pleasure to be able to offer some brief remarks to the Ngāti Hei Claims Settlement Bill. We are at the first reading, and much of the substance of this bill will be heard by the select committee in fullness, but I wanted to make a few comments and echo the sentiments of our Treaty settlement Minister, the Hon Andrew Little, to pay homage to those who have gone before and carried the mantle, and have left it with those who are here with us now. In particular, Joe Davis and Peter Johnston, you represent, I think, many years of toil and aspiration and hope that we would get to this point. In saying that, it's not an easy thing to go down the pathway of Treaty settlements. There is always the hope and aspiration that justice can be achieved, but the Treaty settlement process is a difficult and fragile one. For those who have the fortitude to pursue a Treaty settlement, they know exactly—exactly—some of the trade-offs and sacrifices that have been made within the Treaty settlement context, and I want to acknowledge that in particular with Ngāti Hei. For the time that I've been a member of Parliament, Matua Joe, there are some things that you've brought to the Hauraki sentiment, I guess, or character that really impress upon me what are the things that are held dear, and that is the environment—the taiao. We only need look back over the way in which Ngāti Hei have advocated in favour of the environment, in favour of rāhui—to resource issues—and in favour of the right protocols for when we get tohorā that wash up on your shores, or ihe, or whatever, and Ngāti Hei has always been at the forefront of protecting the aspirations of kaitiakitanga in a very real and practical way. The other element of Ngāti Hei that I've observed during my time as a member of Parliament has been the way in which Ngāti Hei has worked constructively within their community. When I've been in Opposition, that has been the case, and when we've been in Government, that is the case, and I am assured that when that time comes and we may be on different sides of this House, Ngāti Hei's approach to their community will be absolutely consistent. That is why it gives me great pleasure to speak to this particular settlement, because of the consistency of the way in which Ngāti Hei's leadership can be relied upon: in favour of the environment, in favour of their community—in favour of every member of their community—and in favour of trying to make their small part of Hauraki a fantastic place to not only live but thrive. There are elements in this settlement that I think will be looked upon and perhaps even considered: "Well, where are the opportunities?" I know that Māori Affairs Committee members will be looking forward to your presentation as negotiators to identify where those associated opportunities are, because Ngāti Hei's settlement sits within the context of some collective redress but also some critical relationships that exist across Hauraki which other members in this House are very well aware of. The component parts of this settlement, especially in relation to overlay classifications and statutory acknowledgments, I think give you a sense. You only need to look at the map of the area of association that Ngāti Hei relates to, but it does give you a sense of the whakapapa connections, the relational connections with other iwi across Hauraki that Ngāti Hei have that have been long standing—long standing—and some of those relationships even extend beyond its own area. For the most part, I'm hopeful that we can progress in a considered way, with respect, acknowledging much of the aspiration that is intended to arise from this settlement and back the select committee process. It enables some of the perhaps challenging features or views held about this settlement to be explored and aired, and then we progress on. [Authorised te reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I wish to join with others from around the debating chamber this afternoon in offering a warm parliamentary welcome to our visitors and our guests from Ngāti Hei, who have travelled a distance that I travel regularly. But it's a long way and we appreciate you coming again to this place, again to advance a settlement that has been so long in the making—so long in the making—and your patience and your diligence and your forthright, resolute stickability to this process is something that I think we can all be very proud of, but I acknowledge that it has taken too long, far too long. A little bit of personal history: my whānau arrived at Kuaotunu in the rohe of Ngāti Hei in 1884, my great grandparents, and proceeded to embark upon a lifestyle and raise a family—large families in those days—and quickly started to interact with Ngāti Hei, I'd like to think over the years, over the generations, positively and constructively, but interact they did. And at Wharekaho, a beach sometimes referred to as "Simpson's beach", the relationship has been strong and there are still members of my extended family who farm in that area today. It was only a few weeks ago that I had the opportunity and a privilege to visit the beautiful marae villa site at Wharekaho to discuss matters of issue with Ngāti Hei and others about fishing, about the marine environment and the space and the accessibility, or over accessibility, of people who want to come and spend time in the beautiful Coromandel, in the rohe of Ngāti Hei, who want to come and spend time there, as they have done for millennia because of the beautiful environment, because of the lovely safe harbours, the beautiful marine environment, and the welcoming of the people. And so back in—I think it was—August 2017, when the deed of settlement was finally signed here at the Parliament, I had an opportunity to participate in that ceremony with my then colleague, the negotiating Minister Chris Finlayson. That was a moment of great personal pride, but it was pride really for the progress that Ngāti Hei and the people of Ngāti Hei have brought to this longstanding issue over such a challenging period of time. I want to endorse what others have said about how this negotiation process has been concluded or how it has progressed. And I want to also acknowledge those that have gone before, because many of them who started along this way are no longer with us. And we as descendants of those people have the privilege and honour of attempting to conclude a matter that has taken far too long to get where it is. So to Peter Matai Johnston, welcome to Parliament; to Joe Davis and the rest of the team, welcome. It's great to have you here on this auspicious occasion, but this is just another step along the way. We're not quite there yet. We are about to send this piece of special legislation to a select committee where the details of the settlement will be examined closely and where the grievances and issues that have led to the settlement will also be acknowledged and considered again. That will be part of the process. I can well remember a time when I was a very new MP and the Hon Christopher Finlayson was the Treaty negotiations Minister and visiting again at Wharekaho. And I can't remember exactly why, but the Minister had for some reason walked on grass or across pasture that was wet and his socks had got wet. It was a winter's day and the fire was roaring in the wood burner in the whare. And the Minister decided, as was his want, to dry his socks and he placed his socks on the wrong part of the fireplace and he left the whare with burnt socks but I think a good understanding and a good open relationship. I know that that relationship has endured and I know that he would be very pleased to be participating in this debate if he was here still in this Chamber. I know that that relationship is firm and strong, but that relationship's been carried on by his successors and we find ourselves where we are today. And again, because this is such an important part of the wider Treaty settlement negotiations process for the Hauraki area, I'm pleased that we have got past the idea of trying to settle the omnibus process involving the 13 iwi, because that was fraught and it was difficult and it was challenging. So let's get on with the groups that are ready, the iwi that are ready, and Ngāti Hei are ready to go. That, I think, is a good thing because back in 2011, when I was first elected to Parliament, I can remember someone saying to me, "Get ready, Scott, get ready. The Treaty settlement is about to come. You've got to get ready." And then they said, "Well, it'll be six months." And then the six months came and they said, "Oh, it'll be another six months. Just be ready. It'll be another six months and it'll be all done—another six months." And here we are, nearly 12 years on and maybe six months—maybe six months more—we'll be at least a little bit closer with Ngāti Hei. So I want to join with others. I'm very much looking forward to this bill progressing through to select committee, where I know it's going to be scrutinised carefully, where I know the dignity and the mana and the perseverance of Ngāti Hei will be acknowledged and maintained, and then we'll bring it back for a second reading and then finally a third reading and the legislation will be passed. And I hope that I have the honour and privilege of still being in this House when that occurs, as I know that there will be other members of the Chamber wanting to do exactly the same. Kia kaha! We look forward to progressing this legislation. Thank you. Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Minister of Conservation): [Authorised te reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] It's my absolute honour and privilege to speak in the House this afternoon on the first reading of the Ngāti Hei Claims Settlement Bill. In my mihi, I just wanted to acknowledge all of those descendants of Ngāti Hei who are here today but also those that may be tuning in, may be listening online as well to this really important part of the process. This is a milestone getting to the first reading of the settlement legislation. I wanted to acknowledge Minister Little and Minister Mahuta, who both spoke before me, and all of the acknowledgments that they made to those who were both on the iwi side and on the Crown side who have been involved in this mahi; just to repeat to the negotiators from Ngāti Hei, to Peter and to Joe, and also those Crown negotiators, Michael Dreaver and Rick Barker; and I want to acknowledge the former Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations as well, Minister Finlayson. As the member was just reciting the story, I could just imagine Minister Finlayson trying to dry his socks on the fire, and Ginny and I were laughing over here on this side, having had some experience with Minister Finlayson myself before coming into Parliament. I was reflecting on Minister Little's speech about the length of time that this has taken and some of the reasons for that, but also the ability to make progress when departing from that omnibus approach and being able to get it to where it is today. I just want to acknowledge that it was first signed in 2017 and here we are in 2023, finally having its first reading in the House. Manawaroa is the word that we use in Te Tai Tokerau for perseverance and patience, and that has very much been the case here. I want to acknowledge those that will be on the Māori Affairs Committee who are going to be receiving this bill and hearing submissions about it and the mahi that they will do. I have had the privilege of sitting on that committee in the past, and I know that they put a lot of effort into hearing the submissions, often visiting the rohe where these settlements relate to. So I know that they will do a very good job on behalf of us all here in Parliament. I believe that other members have already outlined the main parts of the redress that are in the settlement. There is the apology. There is the financial redress and commercial redress as well as cultural redress, which has been traversed by other members, so I won't repeat that for you this afternoon. And, given that it's been since 2017, I won't prolong it any further either and add to that delay. So with that, [Authorised te reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] KAREN CHHOUR (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It's a pleasure to stand on behalf of ACT and support the Ngāti Hei Claims Settlement Bill for the first reading. It's a real honour to be standing here and speaking to this. I don't know much about treaty settlements in detail and the processes that get us to this place, but what I do know is that it's taken far too long. And what I do hear is that there is a lot of pain and anguish when some of these settlements from beginning to end—we've lost people during that time frame, and I'd like to acknowledge those who have passed before these settlements have come into play because I think that's really important. We've got decedents from Ngāti Hei that may be here or may be watching today, and I'd just like to acknowledge those who have passed and who will not see this come into fruition. That saddens me, that this process takes so long to get where we are today, and so I'm grateful that we've got here today, and I'm grateful that some of the wrongs of the past are being addressed in this House. I think it's important that we do address wrongs of the past, and that we do make sure that an apology does happen for those roles, but also some kind of compensation for those wrongs of the past as well. So as part of this, as people have mentioned before, there will be properties of cultural significance that will be dealt with, there will be—this is a collective agreement and there's more to come. So I take my hat off to the Māori Affairs Committee, because it can't be easy listening to some of the Ngāti Hei and other iwis' stories about what it's taken to get to this place. So thank you to those who sit on the Māori Affairs Committee for taking this on and making sure that this is done appropriately and properly for all those involved. ACT support this through to the select committee process, and we hope to see it back before the House and passed as quickly as we possibly can. Thank you, Mr Speaker. TEANAU TUIONO (Green): [Authorised te reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] TĀMATI COFFEY (Labour): [Authorised te reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] This is a big day, as we've heard from previous speakers. A big day for Ngāti Hei, who started this journey quite some time ago. This is their time to shine, and I want to, if anything, just relay the sentiment that it has been a long journey. And to Ngāti Hei that are in the room, to Ngāti Hei that are listening from afar, we acknowledge you and we acknowledge the journey that it's taken to get you here. For me, as a geek of New Zealand history—a self-professed geek, as well—I want to take this opportunity to be able to tell the historical story of Ngāti Hei. This is something that sits within their deed, but it's actually something that takes a lot of detail to be able to get your historians into the same room, your kuia, your kaumātua, to be able to get those stories down on paper is a really big thing. So I want to take an opportunity to read some of that historical account so that people out there that are listening, trying to sympathise with the plight of Ngāti Hei, actually truly understand the hard journey that it's taken to even still be alive today. To be able to sit here in this House and talk about their Treaty settlement is a feat of nature unto itself. At the last census they identified that only 650 identified as Ngāti Hei. That means that the actions of the Crown which have sought to marginalise Ngāti Hei and wipe them off the face of this planet nearly happened—it actually nearly happened. So I want to start in the historical account and I want the House to know that as this goes through the House I hope that we continue to tell their story, their account, their acknowledgments, and eventually that sweetness of being able to hear the Crown apology back home, back on their whenua. In 1836 and 1837, a timber trader made agreements with Ngāti Hei rangatira over lands on either side of the Ounuora River. In 1839, another trader negotiated a land transaction for an area around Tairua. Both claims were investigated by the Land Claims Commission. There were anomalies in the evidence presented to the commissions. The boundaries of the transactions and the goods given in payment to Māori were sometimes unclear. After accepting the commissioners' recommendations, the Crown awarded almost 7,000 acres of land in which Ngāti Hei had interests to European claimants. As a result, Ngāti Hei lost much of their coastal whenua. Between 1858 and 1865, the Crown purchased Ahuahu, otherwise known as Great Mercury Island, from other Hauraki iwi. That's right, not Ngāti Hei—other Hauraki iwi. There is no evidence that Ngāti Hei were consulted about this purchase or that they received payment for their customary interests in this land. Between 1859 and 1865, the Crown bought over 20,000 acres of land in the Ngāti Hei rohe. The Crown did not provide reserves for Ngāti Hei, nor did it require any assessment as to whether Ngāti Hei retained adequate land for their needs. Between 1870 and 1890, 15 large blocks with 1,000 acres or more, totalling over 93,000 acres, were permanently alienated from Ngāti Hei. The Crown purchased 12 of those blocks, which amounted to over 81,000 acres in total. In 1885, the Ngāti Hei owners of Kuaotunu 3 entered into a lease arrangement with a timber felling company. The owners considered that the lease gave the company only the right to harvest timber. The owners claimed that the company had deliberately misled them over the contents of this lease, which included rights to land. The timber company took its case to the Validation Court in 1895. Ngāti Hei incurred considerable costs attending the court hearing in Auckland. The court rejected the timber company's case. At the same time, the Crown was in the process of purchasing interests in Kuaotunu 3. The Crown refused to give Ngāti Hei a reserve at Te Whauwhau, partly on the basis that there had been no reserve granted in the lease, despite the lease having no legal standing. There has been a history of extractive industry in the Ngāti Hei rohe, including kauri logging, kauri gum digging, flax milling, gold mining, and fishing. Ngāti Hei have derived little long-term benefit from these industries, and the damage done to the environment in their rohe is a source of grievance for them. In 1923, Ngawhira Tanui of Ngāti Hei wrote to the Crown to ask for a survey of Ohinau Island for the purpose of taking her claims for ownership to the Native Land Court. The Crown reacted by delaying the Native Land Court hearings while it surveyed the island and then took it under the Public Works Act of 1908. Although the Crown needed only a small part of that land for a lighthouse, it acquired the whole 72-acre island. By the end of the 20th century, Ngāti Hei were virtually landless. The resulting marginalisation of Ngāti Hei, including loss of te reo Māori, educational underachievement, sickness, and socio-economic deprivation, caused the iwi much suffering. The Crown's discouragement of te reo Māori, along with the fragmentation of Ngāti Hei tribal structures and the migration from ancestral lands, severely impacted Ngāti Hei's ability to pass mātauranga Māori on to their mokopuna. That there is the summary of the historical account. And I hope that as people here in this House, fellow colleagues, parliamentarians, but also for those people that are listening to this and will continue to listen to this into the future, I hope they understand the depth of this historical account. I hope that they understand that when you alienate a people from their land, as the Crown has done over a very long time now, it serves to displace the people that originally inhabited those lands. I look forward to progressing this through to the Māori Affairs Committee in what little time we've got left of this Parliament. I look forward to Ngāti Hei being able to tell their story in their own authentic way. I look forward to hearing from other iwi who believe that they may be impacted by this settlement. I look forward to that whole process. This is the moment where we pull the bandage off and we have a look at the hakihaki underneath and we try and chart a pathway forward. It's going to be maybe a bit triggering for some of the remaining members of Ngāti Hei to be able to hear these stories, but it needs to be done for them to be able to get to the point where they hear a Government apology out of the mouth of our Minister Andrew Little, the current Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations—I acknowledge him for bringing this to the House—but also for them to be able to move forward and seize the future opportunities. And while it might sound good to those people that look at what the redress looks like, we in this House know that it will never, ever account for the injustice that happened through structures that this Parliament, this Crown put in place to absolutely marginalise and wipe out these people. It will never, ever compensate for that. But I acknowledge, again, Ngāti Hei for their perseverance in going through this process that the Crown marginalised them out of in the first place and that the Crown's trying to do and trying to fix it up so that we can move forward together with opportunities. And can I say that there are some opportunities in there, co-governance opportunities, as well, for the iwi to have to work with local councils back home in the Coromandel, and that may be very triggering and very scary for some members of the community out there. But I'm a firm believer that when you have historical grievance like this the only way forward is together, and I acknowledge Ngāti Hei for even wanting to continue to go on this journey with the Crown, who were the ones that actually perpetrated the injustice in the first place. I acknowledge you. I wish you well on your journey going forward. I wish you well on conversations around what co-governance looks like. You are truly heroes in this equation, in this kaupapa. And I acknowledge all of those that have passed on in recent years because they haven't been able to be here today to be part of this journey. [Authorised te reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Kia ora. Our next call is a split call. I call on Sam Uffindell for five minutes. SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I just want to acknowledge everyone from Ngāti Hei up in the audience today, welcome here to our Parliament; it's fantastic to have you here in attendance for what I'm sure is an incredibly historic day for you as you progress here, so well done, and thank you very much for being here. I won't speak with the eloquence of Tāmati, who is just leaving the Chamber, but I recognise what he has said, and I saw a lot of nodding when he when he was speaking, so I'm sure a lot of what he said meant a lot to you. The purpose of this is the final settlement of the historic Treaty claims of Ngāti Hei, resulting from acts or omissions by the Crown prior to 21 September 1992. It includes an agreed historical account, Crown acknowledgments, apology, cultural redress, and financial and commercial redress as well. And I know the part of the country where you where you hail from—your rohe—I spent a lot of time up there as a child, and it is absolutely spectacular, so you're very fortunate to be able to call that your home; it is a beautiful, beautiful part of New Zealand. I note here that as we move forward, there is a fair bit of redress and it may not compensate for what was taken from you back in the 19th century, but I hope through the settlement process that there is a chance for everyone to move forward. And I also hope that through the lands that you receive or the minerals that are contained in them, there is the opportunity there for you to create significant economic benefits for yourself, for your children, for your families and whānau, because it is a beautiful and rich area of New Zealand and there is indeed enormous opportunities in there. So I'm sure you will take them up with both hands and do a fantastic job for future generations. The National Party supports this bill. RAWIRI WAITITI (Te Paati Māori—Waiariki): Tēnā tatou, tēnā tatou o te Whare. [Authorised te reo text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] Ngāti Hei has a profound history. On 12 November 1769, the first written account of a pō'hiri between Māori and Pākehā occurred when Captain Cook was invited to Wharetaewa Pā at Wharekaho in Whitianga. He spent 12 days at Te Whanganui-A-Hei, measuring the transit of Mercury across the sun, trading and resupplying his ship. But within 50 years of his arrival, Ngāti Hei numbers would be decimated to less than 100. Ngāti Hei would lose their land, their language, their culture. Te Paati Māori does not accept that settlements are full and final; we've said that in the past and we say that today. Our trauma does not lie in the past. Inequality, poverty, the desecration of Paptūānuku, and the separation of whānau and whakapapa is happening in the present and will continue to be our future if we continue down this track. We also know, too well, the divide and conquer tactics of the Crown, ignoring and sidelining of whānau, and attempting to pit each other against each other. That is not our tikanga. [Authorised te reo text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] That comes from a Crown process that we have to try and navigate our way through. It's difficult; it's difficult for this claim and it's difficult for other claims. Division that are engineered by the Crown negotiation policies like "large natural groupings", and the "fiscal envelope" that was based on the monetary stipulations in 1991. It's 2023, but they continue to use the same fiscal envelope that was the 1991/92. The settlement, as others have also done, includes a particular insulting of practice of vesting properties—just give it all back. [Authorised te reo text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] never mind all this other rubbish. I can't wait to go to the select committee and have that discussion. Because it is unjust, it is dishonourable, and that is what this Crown is—always has been, always will be. These types of practices—the honouring of the Tiriti o Waitangi say Te Tiriti o Waitangi is not for settling, aye, it is not for settling; it's for honouring. [Authorised te reo text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] Honour Te Tiriti, not settle Te Tiriti. And that's a message to everybody in this House: we didn't sign that Treaty for you to settle it, we signed that Treaty for you to honour it. So it's now time to honour it, and ensure that we don't just get one percent of our due. Where's the 99 percent? So full and final settlement must never ever be something that we settle for, because our mokopuna must be around to fight for the other 99 percent. [Authorised te reo text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] Our mana motuhake policy ensures that the Treaty settlement process is not final; ensures that everybody gets relativity as Ngāi Tahu and Waikato did, because it's about mana ōrite; ensures that we don't just get one percent, and that our mokopuna are there to fight for the other 99 percent. These are the roadblocks that the Crown puts in front of us; these are the injustices. I can't wait to have this argument within the select committee because I have the honour sitting on that committee to ensure that our voice is heard on that particular space. [Authorised te reo text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): [Authorised te reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] It is moments like these that I do see hope in this House. I also see the challenge and hear the frustration from my colleague across the floor, Rawiri Waititi, who just spoke. Who am I to speak on this? And I do often question myself. Take my words lightly; take them on or let them go, because they are mere words today in this House. I want to acknowledge Ngāti Hei, to acknowledge the ancestors of Ngāti Hei, who have gone before you, both long before, recently, and even today. For those of you who are here in this place or are here at this time, I acknowledge you and the work—the mahi—you have done to get us here today. As has been mentioned, I want to acknowledge the previous Minister, the Hon Chris Finlayson, and the current Minister, the Hon Andrew Little, who comes from a place that I come from, from Taranaki. I am an MP who now lives in a region that has gone through this process, and all eight iwi have come to a place of settlement. But I hope that this is a place of hope in a future, and I do hold those words "full and final" lightly, because I see it as being about a place of launching to what the future can be—the past that shouldn't have been, but a future that is to be—and it is one that is prosperous, it is one that is inclusive, and it is one that will see future generations grow and thrive. So I want to acknowledge those who are to come from Ngāti Hei; to acknowledge your tamariki, your rangatahi, your pēpē; to acknowledge those who won't be born for generations but who, I hope, when they are born on to this whenua, on to your whenua, in generations to come, will see this day not as the process into a full and final settlement but as a process around reclaiming the mana of your people—a time of re-empowering, of enabling, of enlivening your story, your whakapapa, your ancestors, and those to come. I hope that your generations who are to come will look back at this time and will learn from what has been. We talk about the wrongs of the past, and we talk about the historic nature of hundreds of years that have gone on and what pain we in this building have caused, but that is still something that exists today and something that we as a Government, that we as a House of Representatives, need to lean into to ensure that, yes, we have done wrong, but there are still things going on today that we must address, that I must address as Pākehā, as someone who has had the privilege of living on your whenua. This is about breaches of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, but this is about the future and how we can move forward together. And, no, we can't right what has been wronged, but we need to acknowledge it, and my people and I need to learn and to step on to that bridge, and cross that bridge that is around partnership, that is around friendship, that is around honouring something that we signed, that my people signed more than 180 years ago. I support this, and I acknowledge the people of Ngāti Hei, and I commend this to the House. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. Hon DAVID BENNETT (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. First, my acknowledgment to Ngāti Hei and your negotiators that have come here today and the work that you've gone through on behalf of your people over many years. It takes a lot to get to that stage where people agree to have that negotiation and it takes a lot to get to the stage where you actually get to a negotiated settlement. So we pay tribute to you for your leadership, for your whānau going forward, and also to the negotiators from the Crown for the work that they did as well. So thank you and it's an honour for us in this House to be here with you today. As you can hear, there are some people that have a great understanding of the history and the communities involved, and there are some people that have less of an understanding but a willingness to see a solution that is enduring going forward. There are many points of view, whether it is an enduring solution or there's more work to be done, and those things will not be sorted in this room here today. They are things that will develop over time, I'm sure, as this country develops in the future. But then, in total, you have the support of this House for this settlement and for the start that it gives and the redress and the apology that it starts the process of healing around. We've heard a couple of speakers that have gone through the deed of settlement and talked about some of the history around that land. As a farmer, your family's first, but farming the land's second. You just can't fathom the pain that would be involved in some of the actions that have been taken, the losses that have been incurred, not only for your iwi but around the country. It is actually something that is amazing to see that we actually get to this stage after what's actually happened. But in saying that, we've got to move on and this is part of that process. To see the settlement there gives a starting point, I guess, for Ngāti Hei going forward. When we look at area, I can't say I have too much relationship with the eastern Coromandel. It's a long way away from Hamilton in some ways, even though many Hamiltonians spend more time there than I do. But it is a wonderful part of our country, and no redress can ever give back for what that land and those communities and the physical attributes of that area actually mean to Ngāti Hei. The compensation in here of $8.5 million is really broken down into a share of a station, effectively, and that is a starting point, I guess, to enable greater development there. A house in that area can sell for $8.5 million—that's the reality of what has actually happened in that area over that period of time. So it will never compensate, I'm sure. And there's another settlement—the Hauraki settlement—that you will be part of that made part of that agenda as well. But I guess when Tama Potaka told about the 600 people and many not having their own home, many on low incomes, there's a lot of work to be done there to build that community up to a position where there is that independence. And that, I guess, is what everybody in this room wishes to see for all our people is to be able to run and live independent lives where they are able to make their own future. So in no way will this ever compensate for what has been lost, but we acknowledge the spirit of Ngāti Hei, the way you've come and made this starting process, and we look forward to the progress that you will make in the future as future generations continue to build and work on what your legacy is that you've set today. It is not finished—the job is not finished for you. It will continue, but I'm sure that over time you will get the benefits of that, and we thank you for the ability for us to be part of that journey for you. Thank you. SORAYA PEKE-MASON (Labour): Tēnā koe, Madam [Authorised te reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] It is with peaceful and happy spirits that I acknowledge uri o Ngāti Hei—those who have passed, those today, and those yet to come—and speak on this first reading of your claim. The vision of Ngāti Hei is aspirational. That is to preserve and enhance what has been handed down to them and for those yet to come. They wish to preserve and share Ngāti Hei's unique—and it is very unique—history, to retain the lands and their cultural taonga inherited from their tupuna. This includes holding on to and building up their people's knowledge of te reo Māori and tikanga. "Whakapapa binds us together." That is what I have found on the website of Ngāti Hei. I acknowledge my own whakapapa. My father died when I was three years old. I was raised by my mother on Te Awa Tupua o Whanganui, of which I place here today a Māori kōhatu given to me by my whānau of awa to guide, to nurture, to manaaki this journey as I share with you, uri Ngāti Hei. Sadly, I know little about my Papa, Joseph Peke, and Nana Sophie. But what I do know and acknowledge is my whakapapa to Ngāti Tamaterā and his whenua. I acknowledge that toto that flows in your veins, in our veins. The summary of history, the background dates back to 1836 and to 1923. It's a very, very long, long time. The settlement is grounded in the Crown's acknowledgment of this history, and, as mentioned by colleagues earlier on, it has taken far too long. The settlement entails Crown acknowledgments and apology, cultural redress, and significant relationships. It includes a collective redress and a financial commercial redress. Within that is the transfer of shares of Whenuakite Station, jointly, with Ngāti Tamaterā. I acknowledge the negotiators, in particular the late Peter Tiki Johnston and his son today, Peter Matai Johnston, and Joe Davis. It's a challenging task for any iwi to negotiate, at the best of times, this construct, this system of colonialism that we have to endure. Having experience on a post-settlement governance entity (PSGE) of one of my tribes, I want to acknowledge the trustees of the Ngāti Hei PSGE. I know how much sacrifice, how much determination, how much perseverance, and how much courage it takes to fill those roles—tēnā koutou katoa. Thank you to the Crown negotiators and all those involved. I look forward to the settlement making its way through the Māori Affairs Committee and through the Whare, and bringing hope and the fulfilment of Ngāti Hei's aspirations. [Authorised te reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] I commend this to the House. Kia ora. Motion agreed to. Bill read a first time. AMENDED ANSWERS TO ORAL QUESTIONS Question No. 6 to Minister, 8 June Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Associate Minister of Housing): Point of order. I seek leave to correct an answer given on Thursday, 8 June. In reply to question No. 6 on Thursday, 8 June I inadventently gave incorrect information. I stated that the healthy homes standards do not apply to boarding houses. In fact, the healthy homes standards do apply to boarding-house tenancies. The regulation for Healthy Homes standards made under the Residential Tenancies Act took effect in boarding-house tenancies from 1 July 2021. They will take effect for Kāinga Ora tenancies and community housing tenancies from 1 July 2024. Question No. 8 to Minister Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Minister of Police): Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Minister of Police): Point of order—Madam Speaker, point of order. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Oh! Point of order, the Hon Ginny Andersen—just in time! Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: I seek leave to make a personal explanation to correct an oral answer from question No. 8 today. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none. Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: In response to Nicole McKee's primary question today, I stated that 26 vehicles were seized under the Government's new legislation. I should have said that 26 vehicles were, in fact, searched. HOUSE IN COMMITTEE ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): I declare the House in Committee for consideration of the Grocery Industry Competition Bill, the Charities Amendment Bill, the Worker Protection (Migrant and Other Employees) Bill, and the Business Payment Practices Bill.