Tuesday, 15 August 2023 [Volume 770] The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m. KARAKIA/PRAYERS GREG O'CONNOR (Deputy Speaker—Labour): Almighty God, we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests, we acknowledge the King and pray for guidance in our deliberations, that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom, justice, mercy, and humility for the welfare and peace of New Zealand. Amen. BUSINESS STATEMENT Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Leader of the House): Next week, the Appropriation (2023/24 Estimates) Bill will receive a third reading. Other legislation to be considered will include further stages of the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill, the Fuel Industry (Improving Fuel Resilience) Amendment Bill, the Land Transport Management (Regulation of Public Transport) Amendment Bill, the Land Transport (Road Safety) Amendment Bill, the Legal Services Amendment Bill, the Local Government Electoral Legislation Bill, the Resale Right for Visual Artists Bill, the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Community Participation) Amendment Bill, the Taxation Principles Reporting Bill, the Water Services Legislation Bill, and the Water Services Economic Efficiency and Consumer Protection Bill. There will also be 11 valedictory statements next week. SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Will the House be in urgency again all of next week? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Leader of the House): Oh, well, the Government, as I've just outlined, has a very busy programme of work, and we'll make decisions about those matters as we go. But if we continue to receive strong support from the Opposition, as we did on the Taxation Principles Reporting Bill today, we'll make excellent progress. PETITIONS, PAPERS, SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS, AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLS SPEAKER: A petition has been delivered to the Clerk for presentation. CLERK: Petition of Nola Blainey requesting that the House urge the Government to halt all Kāinga Ora social housing developments proposed for Kerikeri until a master and spatial plan has been completed. SPEAKER: That petition stands referred to the Petitions Committee. Ministers have delivered papers. CLERK: 2023-27 statements of intent for Heritage New Zealand Museum of New Zealand, Te Papa Tongarewa 2023-24 statements of performance expectations for Creative New Zealand Heritage New Zealand Museum of New Zealand, Te Papa Tongarewa New Zealand Film Commission, and New Zealand Symphony Orchestra. SPEAKER: Those papers are published under the authority of the House. Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation. CLERK: Reports of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the briefing on banks processes and consumer protections for scams inquiry into the current and future nature, impact, and risks of cryptocurrencies New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Controlling Interests) Amendment Bill report of the Controller and Auditor-General Co-ordination of the all-of-Government response to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 report of the Controller and Auditor-General Inland Revenue Department: Benefits Management for the Business Transformation Programme report of the Governance and Administration Committee on the Statistics New Zealand, Long-Term Insights Briefing 2023 reports of the Health Committee on the Petition of Associated Myalgic Encephalomyelitis Society Incorporated: Reclassification of ME/CFS to disability Petition of Tourette's Association New Zealand: Recognise Tourette Syndrome as a disability report of the Māori Affairs Committee on the petition of Te Paati Māori: Change our official name to Aotearoa reports of the Social Services and Community Committee on the 2021-22 annual reviews of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra the Social Workers Registration Board, and on the Social Workers Registration Legislation Amendment Bill. SPEAKER: The bills are set down for second reading. The reports of the Controller and Auditor-General, the inquiry, and the long-term insights briefing are set down for consideration. The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of a bill. CLERK: Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill, introduction. SPEAKER: That bill is set down for first reading. ORAL QUESTIONS QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS Question No. 1—Education (Māori Education) 1. SHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote) to the Associate Minister of Education (Māori Education): What recent changes has the Government made for Māori tertiary institutions? Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Associate Minister of Education (Māori Education)): Yesterday, we passed a bill which included a historic change for wānanga, who are now able to work with the Crown to agree bespoke governance and accountability arrangements that better reflect their whakapapa, their mana, and their rangatiratanga. We were pleased to welcome representatives from Te Wānanga o Aotearoa, Te Wānanga o Raukawa, and Te Whare Wānanga o Awanuiārangi here at Parliament to commemorate this occasion. The key principle in this change is the ability for wānanga to define the characteristics of their institutions, and decide who they're accountable to and how they operate. Shanan Halbert: What do these changes look like? Hon KELVIN DAVIS: The legislative changes developed in collaboration with the wānanga enable a move from imposing barriers for wānanga to enabling success. Wānanga will now be able to choose to remain as they are, reconstitute as a bespoke Crown entity wānanga, or convert to a non - Crown entity wānanga, in which they will be accountable to iwi, hapū, or another Māori organisation while retaining some Crown accountability. The legislation clearly articulates the characteristics that define wānanga, sets out provisions for establishment and disestablishment, and provides non - Crown entity wānanga with new accountability monitoring arrangements. In delivering fit for purpose legislation, the Government recognises the important educational contribution that wānanga make for ākona, kaimahi, and their founding iwi. Shanan Halbert: What does this mean for wānanga? Hon KELVIN DAVIS: These changes are the culmination of decades of work from the wānanga. While wānanga were established to protect and revitalise te reo, tikanga, and mātauranga Māori, they remained a tertiary option for all New Zealanders. Wānanga make a huge contribution to the tertiary sector and to the community, and we are recognising them by enabling them to operate in a way that works best for them. These changes better recognise the values, principles, unique role, and collective mana of the wānanga and their communities. It also ensures that individually, wānanga can exercise their rangatiratanga by determining their own futures. Shanan Halbert: What's the significance of these changes? Hon KELVIN DAVIS: This Government made a commitment to not only recognise the vital contribution of mātauranga Māori but we also committed to growing the numbers of Māori learners in Aotearoa. This is just one part to achieving these commitments, but I am pleased to see these changes through after meeting with the wānanga five years ago to discuss the possibility of them achieving greater autonomy. As I said in my speech yesterday, what we are seeing with this legislation is rangatiratanga and Kāwanatanga coming together, and when they come together, that's when the magic happens. These changes are not the end of the road; rather, they are just the beginning. Question No. 2—Social Development and Employment 2. Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Minister for the Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does she agree with the recent Working for Families review that it presents "the best opportunity in the coming years to achieve substantial reductions in measured child poverty and to make significant 'headway' towards achieving the ten-year targets"? Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Yes. This Government has consistently increased Working for Families to make everyday life more affordable for Kiwi families. Our Families Package increased the family tax credit and introduced the Best Start payment, dedicated to supporting parents with extra costs in a child's first three years. We have expanded access to the in-work tax credit to ensure more families receive this support. Our increases to the Best Start payment and family tax credit in 2022 meant 346,000 families are better off by an average of $20 per week and an estimated 6,000 children have been lifted out of poverty. And, on 1 April, we adjusted Working for Families tax credits in line with inflation, supporting Kiwi families with the cost of living. Is there more to do? There certainly is. Hon Marama Davidson: When will her Government stop discriminating against children of parents on a benefit, who are left in poverty while awarding extra support to working families? Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: It's not discrimination. Fifty percent of children living in poverty are living in households that are working. They are low-income households. They have expenses associated with working, whether it be getting to work, the travel associated; whether it be childcare costs. We want to ensure that those families are looked after. That doesn't mean that we have neglected our responsibility to those that are on benefit. We have significantly increased benefits during our time. When we lifted main benefits, we're estimated to have lifted between 19,000 and 33,000 children out of poverty. By doing things like child support pass-on, we also have lifted children out of poverty—for that particular initiative, between 6,000 to 14,000 children lifted out of poverty. We are focused on families that are on benefit but also low-income families that are working and trying to get ahead. Hon Marama Davidson: And that is good, but is it fair that single parents who are caregivers don't get the in-work tax credit despite caregiving for children being essential unpaid work to households? Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: We absolutely respect the role of parents that are staying home, including those that are on sole parent support. As I said, one of the things that we did do was change the discriminatory policy where sole parent beneficiary recipients were not getting the child support passed on to them. That will make a significant difference to them and their children, and I'm very proud that we as a Government have been able to do that. Hon Marama Davidson: Will tweaking the Working for Families abatement threshold and the in-work tax credit have any impact on child poverty targets when half of children in poverty are in households in receipt of a benefit? Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: We are expecting that the report-back to Cabinet for the Working for Families review will occur at the end of this year, and at that point more consideration can be given to Working for Families and any potential changes. Hon Marama Davidson: Does she agree with advice given to her by her own officials that "there are significant issues with the design of in-work assistance, particularly with the minimum family tax credit but also to a lesser extent the in-work tax credit.", and, if so, will she simplify Working for Families and create one child-centric payment which goes to all struggling households? Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I do believe that there needs to be structural reform with Working for Families, and that report-back will go to Cabinet at the end of this year. Question No. 3—Finance 3. NICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by all of his statements and actions related to Government tax and spending decisions? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Yes, in the context in which they were made and undertaken, acknowledging that contexts can change and sometimes require—to quote the member—"a step forward". Nicola Willis: Does he think it's appropriate for the Government to increase petrol tax in the midst of a cost of living crisis? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Two points in response to that: firstly, the announcement of the Government policy statement on transport today indicates that, from 1 July next year, there will be a 2c increase, six months later followed by another 2c increase, in recognition of the fact that inflation is starting to come down but is not where any of us would be comfortable with it. Secondly, when it comes to transport, it is important to be able to say how one will pay for what one is doing. Every cent of fuel excise duty (FED) and road-user charges (RUC) goes into our transport network. Governments have always increased it, up until the COVID period, in order to pay for transport. It is simply not on to have a $10 billion gap in a transport policy, as the member does. Nicola Willis: Is he aware that, in July next year, the Reserve Bank forecasts that inflation will remain out of control, out of its target band, so New Zealanders will be paying higher prices across the economy, and why, in that context, does he also want to increase the amount of tax on their petrol? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: To reiterate the answer that I have just given: this is how we pay for roads, rail, public transport, walking, and cycling in New Zealand. If political parties don't want to do this, they then have to come up with a way of explaining how they will pay for it, and all we've seen from the Opposition is a $10 billion hole in their transport plan. Nicola Willis: Is the Minister of Finance aware that the New Zealand Superannuation Fund, KiwiSaver fund providers, and iwi want to invest their funds in infrastructure, and why would he prefer to tax New Zealanders more to deliver it? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Because it's not a magic money tree. At some point, the consumers of New Zealand pay. Now, I know that the National Party's record on this means that they think it is a free lunch. That's why they costed Transmission Gully at $850 million and it cost $1.2 billion. We've been upfront about how we'll pay for New Zealand's transport needs. That's not what New Zealanders are getting from National. Nicola Willis: Does he recall the Government committing that the increase in the Auckland regional fuel tax would help deliver Auckland light rail, and how's that going? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The Auckland regional fuel tax has been able to deliver a range of transport projects across Auckland. Mr Brown has been at the opening of some of them. On this side of the House, I reiterate for the member: if we're going to build roads, if we're going to build rail, if we're going to have public transport, it has to be paid for. That's come through FED and RUC. At the moment, all New Zealanders have got from the National Party is a $10 billion gap in their transport plan. Nicola Willis: Does he recall, a few months ago, standing next to the Prime Minister as he reduced the fuel excise tax and saying that that was necessary due to the cost of living crisis, and why has he completely flip-flopped by saying he'll now increase petrol tax despite the cost of living crisis persisting? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The rate of inflation in New Zealand has been coming down. It is now down to 6 percent. It is forecast to keep coming down. We are staging the increase in the fuel excise duty and RUC to take that into account. What we're also doing is being responsible with the Government's finances, and we're saying to New Zealanders: this is how we pay—44c a week for the average motorist, to help pay for this transport. On the other side of the House, we've got a $10 billion gap in their plan. It's a fiction, and New Zealanders will see through it. Nicola Willis: What does he think would have more impact on the typical family budget: having to pay $7 more every time they fill up, as would be the case under his excise tax plan, or the proposals of some political parties that they would give more money to supermarkets for a GST reduction that might reduce the cost of apples by a few cents? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What I think will have a big impact on New Zealand households is a Government that would give unfunded tax cuts and then have to cut health spending, education spending, spending on housing. It would see more kids in poverty. It would see fewer people getting apprenticeships. They're the things that'll impact on a household. It's about a balance, it's about a responsible approach, and all we're seeing from National are unfunded promises. Nicola Willis: Why would New Zealanders trust that more dollars paid by them at the pump, to pad his tax revenues, would actually deliver a single road when his Government has been so deficient in the delivery of any major transport project? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The member needs to be really careful here. Every single cent of fuel excise duty and road-user charges goes directly to public transport, to roads, to rail—that's how we fund the system. It's what Gerry Brownlee did. It's what other Ministers of Transport have done. They increased FED and RUC to make sure the money was there. Instead, what we're going to see here now from National is a $10 billion gap and a repeat of what they did: where they didn't fund road maintenance properly, where they didn't look after the transport network. We put out a funded plan; all we've got from National are unfunded promises. Question No. 4—Finance 4. INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Workers are continuing to benefit from a resilient economy with wages rising faster than inflation. Statistics New Zealand reported that median weekly earnings from wages and salaries jumped by 7.1 percent in the June 2023 year, the second-largest annual increase since records began in 1998, surpassed only by the previous year's annual increase. We know that many Kiwi families are doing it tough in the face of cost of living pressures and a deteriorating global economy, but they are doing so while in paid work and with wages rising above inflation. Ingrid Leary: What did the Statistics New Zealand report say about median weekly earnings for women? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Women's median weekly earnings increased by 8.1 percent for the June year, also the second-highest annual percentage increase on record. This is a positive result and shows the Government's plan for the economy is continuing to keep New Zealand moving in the right direction. Ingrid Leary: What did the report say about median hourly earnings? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Median hourly earnings from wages and salaries rose 6.6 percent in the year to June 2023. This was the second-largest annual percentage increase in median hourly earnings. Strong hourly earnings growth is also seen in average ordinary time hourly earnings, as measured by the quarterly employment survey, which rose 6.9 percent in the year to the June 2023 quarter and ahead of inflation. Ingrid Leary: What does this report reflect about the resilience of the New Zealand economy? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We do know that New Zealanders are doing it tough right now, and that's why we've taken action to ease pressure on their budgets with cheaper childcare, free prescriptions, and half-price public transport for young Kiwis. It's also why we've significantly lifted the incomes of seniors, families, workers, and students, with the winter energy payment also providing cost of living relief for those eligible for it. We need to do this because Kiwis are doing it tough. We also know that we have to do our bit, and real Government consumption is forecast to fall by 5 percent by the beginning of 2025. New Zealand is in good shape to weather difficult global conditions. We've got record numbers of people in work, wages are rising faster than inflation, tourists are returning in greater numbers, and overseas workers are filling vacancies. Our public debt levels remain among the lowest in the world. Our job is keeping the economy moving in the right direction and creating conditions to support people in work and drive higher wages. Question No. 5—Justice 5. NICOLE McKEE (ACT) to the Minister of Justice: Does she stand by her statement, "My focus is a justice system where victims feel safe, heard, and empowered"? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Minister of Justice): Yes, I am proud of our track record on supporting victims. Since National left office, our Government has tripled the amount of funding to the Victim Assistance Scheme and doubled the funding for Victim Support. We've passed the Sexual Violence Legislation Act, established Te Aorerekura for family violence, and have introduced a bill to give greater protections to the rights of those who've been through family violence and sexual violence. We are also establishing three new pilots in the courts to improve victim safety and to ensure they're heard in bail decisions, and strengthen the support for child victims of sexual violence. Nicole McKee: Will her Government adopt ACT's policy to ensure judges during sentencing consider the risk to the victim, the historical impacts of the offending on the victim, and whether there is a disproportionate risk to the community, and, if not, how is this consistent with her focus on a justice system where victims feel "safe, heard, and empowered"? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: I have read the member's policy, and I found it confusing. Currently, under section 7 of the Sentencing Act, purposes for sentencing, specifically provide for the interests of the victim of the offence, and also to protect the community from the offender. Nicole McKee: Does she believe that victims feel "safe, heard, and empowered" when violent offenders like Matu Reid are given home detention and are allowed to reoffend, and, if not, why does she continue to prioritise policies such as reducing the prison population over policies that prioritises the safety of victims, such as ACT's sentencing policy? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: It is not appropriate for me as Minister of Justice to comment on the sentencing decisions made by the courts. The penalties available to judges for serious offending can be severe. There has been no reductions in individual penalties under this Government. Judges are required to impose the maximum penalty for any offence if the offending is at the most-serious end of the spectrum, unless this would be inappropriate. Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does she think the victims of serious sexual crimes feel empowered when the people convicted of their crimes routinely receive home detention sentences, and, if not, will she support National's policy to restrict the ability of judges to massively reduce sentences? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: Again, that is a confused policy as I'm not clear on where that would be impacted. As I've already stated, is not appropriate for me to comment on the sentencing decisions made by the courts. That is because in order to maintain the integrity of our justice system, the courts need to be able to undertake their work without political interference or influence. Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does she not understand that Parliament sets the sentencing framework in this country through the Sentencing Act, and, if Parliament does not think home detention is generally a suitable sentence for serious sexual and violent offences, then it can adjust the Sentencing Act accordingly, and why doesn't she? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: I remain focused on making sure the rights of victims are protected, and that is the best way to help those in our justice system. I am committed to looking at how we can better support victims of sexual violence, and I do want to acknowledge those young women who have come forward, and anyone who comes forward to share their story of sexual violence. Question No. 6—Transport 6. SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga) to the Minister of Transport: Does he agree with the former Minister of Transport Hon Phil Twyford's statement that New Zealand has "over-invested in roads"; if not, why not? Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Associate Minister of Transport) on behalf of the Minister of Transport: If the former Minister was implying that insufficient resource had been invested in public transport and alternative modes of transport, I would agree with him. But this Government has shown clearly that the roading system also needs more investment, because the previous National government froze road maintenance. This Government does not skimp on both road maintenance and improvement, unlike that member's party. Simeon Brown: Did the Government cancel the Cambridge to Piarere motorway upgrade and the Woodend bypass projects because New Zealand had "over-invested in roads", and what exactly has changed since then for the Government to suddenly re-announce these two cancelled roads? Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I have to say that I'm very proud that today we announced the Government policy statement that clearly shows this Government's commitment to increase funding by 25 percent. The catch-up necessary—not just through the projects that are necessary across this country—is 25 percent in this Government policy statement announcement and the previous increases in investment, because under the previous National government's programme of "sweat the assets", they did two things. Firstly, they increased the weight of the trucks on our roads, and at the same time froze the maintenance funding and road improvement funding across this country. That's why we are having to put huge amounts of additional funding in. Simeon Brown: Why did the Government cancel the Cambridge-Piarere motorway upgrade, and what has changed for the Government to re-announce it today? Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: One thing that this Labour Government will do is commit to projects that are fully funded. What we had in the past—and I can speak to two projects: one, the Arahura Bridge in my patch. Great fanfare on the West Coast about it when we announced it, but when we got into Government we found that there was not a cent; not one cent had been allocated to that project. There were a whole range of projects promised by National that had no funding, just as this National Party—in Opposition—is promising a lot and has yet to show how it will fund their programme. I ask the member over there to explain: the foreign money that his leader indicated would be coming into the roading system—where would that foreign money come from? Simeon Brown: Can the Minister name one single major new roading infrastructure project started and completed under this Government? Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: If you just give me a moment here, I'll go to the 17, in fact—17, if you like! Mr Speaker, this may take a little longer than a normal reply. State Highway 12; Matakohe bridges in Northland, Glen Innes to Tāmaki Drive Shared Path, Pakowhai/Links Road roundabout, State Highway 10, Taipā Bridge, Edendale Realignment, Hawke's Bay Expressway, Waimakariri Bridge safety and reliability improvements, Arahura Bridge—oh, yeah: a number of these projects were not fully funded. They were started, as the member asked, when this Government came in, and they have been completed. Simeon Brown: How does he expect New Zealanders to trust a single word from this Government on transport when all it has achieved to do is cancel a pipeline of infrastructure projects that has caused congestion and the state of our roads to worsen, and all they've done is build a couple of roundabouts? Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: The Government policy statement announced today is fully budgeted. As the Minister of Finance explained, it will include a small increase in excise; it will cost the average person 44 cents a week; but we will have fully funded and budgeted roading projects, unlike the previous government. Can I say to the member and to the wider public: if you—or if anyone, not you, Mr Speaker—if anyone is to promise you more for less, they're usually a con artist. Question No. 7—Defence 7. DAN ROSEWARNE (Labour) to the Minister of Defence: What recent announcements has he made about strengthening New Zealand's defence? Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Defence): A year ago, we commissioned the Defence Policy Review to provide a road map for the future of defence as part of the national security of New Zealand and to do so in the context of the rapidly changing conditions we see around us. On 4 August, I was privileged to release the first of two documents as part of that review. The Defence Policy and Strategy Statement—the first of the documents—sets out New Zealand's defence goals and how we seek to achieve them, now and into the future. The Future Force Design Principles—the second of the documents—is a bridge between the new defence strategy and the options for the investment required to deliver it. Alongside these documents, I also released the first National Security Strategy, Secure Together—Tō Tātou Korowai Manaaki, this Government's direction to the wider national security community on how to navigate the changed environment. Dan Rosewarne: What is the Defence Policy and Strategy Statement? Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The strategy statement assesses the world as it is now from a defence perspective and identifies the principal challenges: climate change, and strategic competition. Because we have a proudly independent foreign policy, we will pursue our interests in our own Kiwi way. The strategy statement is underpinned by four principles that represent some of the core of what it means to be a New Zealander: mana and pono, which is to be true or sincere and to act with integrity; kotahitanga, or unity or solidarity; kaitiakitanga, or guardianship for our whenua, our taonga, our region, our allies, partners, and friends, and for the climate and the natural environment; and then, fourthly, angitu, striving or success, meaning having a combat-capable and -ready force that protects New Zealand and our interests. Dan Rosewarne: What are the Future Force Design Principles? Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The Future Force Design Principles are a guide for investment planning over the next 15 years. It lays out 11 guiding principles that need to be considered when deciding what defence capability is needed when making investment decisions and that are to be applied with varying degrees of priority. These principles include the extent of our combat capability, our resilience in the face of changing circumstances, our ability to expand or reduce our capacity, the strength and nature of our partnerships, and our embrace of leading technology. Dan Rosewarne: What are the next steps in the review following the release of these documents? Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The Defence Policy and Strategy Statement will be used alongside the Future Force Design Principles to commence work on a new Defence Capability Plan—the last plan was completed in 2019. The new plan will align with the other strategic documents and will outline what resources, people, and capability are required to meet the challenges ahead. Dan Rosewarne: How were the strategy and design principles put together? Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The development of the Defence Policy Review has included engagement across a broad array of stakeholder groups. This includes the public, defence industry, academia, Government agencies, and international partners including Fiji, Tonga, and Australia. I should add there were over 8,500 public survey responses that were received and fed into the documents. Question No. 8—Police 8. Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa) to the Minister of Police: Does she stand by her statement, "It is my view that New Zealanders feel safer"; if so, why? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Minister of Police): Again, I stand by my full statement at that time it was given. It is my view that New Zealanders feel safer with a Government on track to deliver 1,800 extra police. We have now delivered on that commitment. I further stand by my commitments today that gang members and associates committing burglary, theft, fraud, breaches of bail, reckless driving, driving while disqualified, careless driving, drink driving, or offences under the Search and Surveillance Act, criminal investigations Act, child protection Act, and the sentencing and parole Act are not minor infringements. It's a shame that that member thinks that they are. Hon Mark Mitchell: Should Mongrel Mob gang members be able to wear their patches in public spaces? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: If that member is referring to the law that was passed in Whanganui and then later on not implemented, it was proven to be unsuccessful and the former member, now passed away, from that team, the Hon Chester Borrows, also openly spoke that that was not an effective way of controlling gangs. Hon Mark Mitchell: Does the Minister think that Mongrel Mob members should be able to wear their patches in public? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: I believe I answered that question. Hon Mark Mitchell: Is the Minister aware of legislation that I took through this House in 2013 that banned gang patches in schools and hospitals and public buildings has been a very effective tool for the police to apply pressure on gangs and stop gang patches from appearing in our schools and our hospitals? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: Yes, I am aware of that legislation. I'm also aware of an even more successful operation called Cobalt, which has brought 47,000 charges against gang members. I consider that to be a far more effective way of controlling gangs and it's a shame that that member undermines our front line by saying those offences are minor. Hon Mark Mitchell: So if the Police Minister is aware of that legislation and she's aware that it's been very successful for the police as a tool and it's made the public feel safer, then why does she continue to defend the Mongrel Mob and other gangs rights to wear their patches in public? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: I did not defend that. All I stated was, a far more effective tool than the one the member had spoken about is law enforcement, with operations such as Cobalt, which, effectively, cripple organised criminal networks. I believe that taking guns off gangs and charging them with offences is a far more effective tool than giving them a ticket to hang out together and taking their jacket off them. Question No. 9—Police 9. Dr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei) to the Minister of Police: What progress has been made on delivering the firearms registry? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Minister of Police): This Government is delivering on its commitment to implement the firearms register in response to the recommendation made by the royal commission of inquiry following the terrorist attacks on 15 March. Since launching 55 days ago, 5,862 licence holders have registered 25,653 firearms and 1,044 firearms parts to the new register. Firearms dealers are also showing excellent engagement in the system and have so far submitted 6,396 sales and transactions. Given most firearms holders will have five years to register their firearms, this progress just over 55 days demonstrates an excellent start to the new register. I'm really happy with how police and licensed firearm holders are demonstrating the seriousness with which they take their responsibilities. Dr Emily Henderson: What support are police providing firearms licence holders to register their firearms? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: Nearly 60 percent of the registrations so far have come through the online portal MyFirearms, which is a safe, secure, and effective way for licensed firearms holders to register their firearms. The other 40 percent have registered their firearms through the call centre, which is currently averaging only 12 seconds for a call to be answered. I understand from Te Tari Pūreke and the Firearms Safety Authority that those firearms licence holders have a positive experience when they call and deal with the registry team directly. Te Tari Pūreke are also available to talk to firearm licence holders and discuss their obligations and support them through these changes. Dr Emily Henderson: How does the registry help keep police and the community safer? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: The registry is about making our community safer by stemming the flow of firearms to criminals, gangs, and terrorists. The new registry will make it easier for us to identify those who would seek to be in the possession of or diverting firearms for unlawful or criminal purposes. While many of the benefits of the registry will take some time, the registry has already stopped at least two suspended or revoked licence holders from purchasing firearms, where previously they would have done so unlawfully. In one example, the person suspended from their licence tried to purchase a firearm later in the day but failed due to the registry alerting the dealer. Dr Emily Henderson: What further reports has she seen on police targeting organised crime? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: A recent survey commissioned by Gun Control NZ, as undertaken by Horizon Research, demonstrated overwhelming support for the gun register in New Zealand. The survey found that support from 71 percent of New Zealand adults, including a majority of ACT Party voters. Licensed firearm holders are also on board too with only 22 percent of gun owners opposing the registry. Given the gun register has overwhelming support from the public, from the licensed firearm holders community, from the Police Association, and even some majority of ACT Party voters I remain surprised why the Opposition won't make retaining it a bottom line in their policy. It's very clear that the firearms register is only safe with a Labour-led Government. Question No. 10—Cyclone Recovery 10. CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi) to the Minister for Cyclone Recovery: Does he stand by all of his actions in relation to the Government's response to Cyclone Gabrielle? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister for Cyclone Recovery): Yes, I do stand by my actions in relation to the response to Cyclone Gabrielle, in the context of a complex and challenging environment. We've allocated close to $2 billion in support to cyclone-affected areas for everything ranging from roads and rail to sediment and debris removal, small business grants, housing assistance, mental health support, and support for our schools. I do acknowledge that this is a very challenging and difficult time for those who have been impacted, and we are moving as quickly as we possibly can to provide them with support, and we will continue to do so. Chris Penk: What response did the Minister give to local delivery partners tasked with distributing cyclone recovery funding when allegations of fraud were raised by them with the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) several months ago? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: MBIE stayed in contact with the local delivery partners throughout the small business grant process. Many local delivery partners had their own systems in place, which, in fact, saw many people's applications denied because they weren't appropriate. It's the nature of a locally led response in order to get the money out the door quickly. We provided that money to those local delivery partners and then MBIE continued to support them. Chris Penk: In the light of those allegations of fraud now having translated into Serious Fraud Office prosecutions, does the Minister stand by the hands-off approach taken in relation to the so-called locally led response? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, the Serious Fraud Office, of course, undertakes a range of investigations that neither the member nor I actually are fully aware of or whether they even exist. What I would say is that the Serious Fraud Office, working alongside local delivery partners, is actually a useful thing in order to make sure that if any fraud is found, they can stamp down on it. Without prejudging any investigations that may or may not be taking place, the reality is that in these kinds of systems there will be people—only a few—who will attempt to defraud a system. We expect that to be cracked down on. Chris Penk: How does the Minister think that businesses under-compensated by the scheme now feel? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I don't agree with the assertion in that question. Chris Penk: Point of order. I seek the leave of the House to table Official Information Act responses in relation to possible fraud allegations that were made and advised to MBIE which are not, to the best of my knowledge, publicly available. SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? Appears to be none. Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House. Chris Penk: Why is it that more than six months since Cyclone Gabrielle hit, zero buy-out offers have been made, no time line given for these, there are still properties yet to be categorised, and homeowners are yet to be advised how much they will be compensated to leave their unlivable properties? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I indicated in my primary answer, this is a complex and difficult environment and it's one where this Government has taken a very clear decision that this should be a locally led recovery, on the basis of the feedback we've had from local regions, supported centrally. We do, of course, have an agreement in Hawke's Bay, and they expect to be making their buy-outs within about a month or so from now. We're in negotiations with Tairāwhiti and the Auckland areas, and those are progressing well. As I noted, again, in my primary answer, this is a really difficult and challenging time for people involved. We've been supporting them in the meantime while we get to that final buy-out place. We are getting very close to that in all regions. Question No. 11—Justice No. 11RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori) to the Minister of Justice: Does she stand by all her Government's actions and policies? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Minister of Justice): Yes, in their full context. Rawiri Waititi: What evidence has the Minister seen that heavy sentences or the removal of evidence that allows a judge to waive sentence options, such as cultural assessment reports, will act as a deterrent to crime? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: I have already spoken in this House regarding the section 27 cultural reports. These have been around since 2002, when the Sentencing Act was first enacted. I have undertaken to take a look at these, as it seems to be, currently, a cottage industry around those who are generating them. I stand by the view that my goal as a Minister of Justice is to make sure that there are good plans in place to make sure that there is equitable access to Māori. Rawiri Waititi: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. I specifically talked about cultural assessment reports. I just want clarification, just for my own understanding, what the difference is between a cultural assessment report and a cottage industry. SPEAKER: Yeah, the member's got further supplementaries, I understand. The question that he asked was addressed. So you have to think really carefully about what question you're going to put and the answer that you're likely to get. Rawiri Waititi: Is the Minister aware that tax evasion costs this country up to $7 billion a year; and, if so, will she set up a task force, like Operation Tauwhiro and Operation Cobalt, to target white collar crime, or is she too preoccupied with crimes of poverty, such as theft and drug use? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: Tax evasion is a serious case indeed—however, that is the responsibility for the Minister of Revenue. Rawiri Waititi: Is the Minister aware that Aotearoa—sorry, not Aotearoa; New Zealand—has the highest rate of incarceration for indigenous women in the world, and, if so, what is she doing to reduce that number? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: I am aware of that statistic, and there are a number of initiatives in place and practical examples of where the justice system attempts to address that inequity in our systems. Te Huringa o Te Tai, led by New Zealand Police, focuses on the root causes of repeat offending, and police's reframed strategy aims to improve front-line practices, to keep our people out of court and prison, and to address the underlying causes of offending, through co-design and joint delivery with initiatives with Māori. Hōkai Rangi is a five-year programme of concrete actions to help eliminate overrepresentation of Māori in the criminal justice system, led by Ara Poutama Aotearoa, the Department of Corrections. And the District Court's Te Ao Mārama kaupapa, which is supported by the Ministry of Justice, incorporates best-practice approaches from existing specialist courts, including involving iwi in decision making at a local level. Rawiri Waititi: Will the Minister support Te Paati Māori policy to establish an independent Māori justice authority to deal with the systemic racism of the justice system against Māori, and if not, why not? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: The Government has no current plans to progress a Māori justice authority. The three wide initiatives I've already spoken to are good examples of where our justice system is addressing the current inequities with Māori within our criminal justice system. Question No. 12—Māori Development Dr ELIZABETH KEREKERE: Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. Ko tēnei te rā whakamutunga ka kōrero i tēnei Whare, ko te rā whānau hoki o tōku matua kua whetūrangitia. [Thank you, Mr Speaker. This is the last day that I will speak in this House, it is also the birthday of my late father.] So, on this last day speaking in this House, I acknowledge the birthday of my late father, Karauria Tarao "Bison" Kerekere. 12. Dr ELIZABETH KEREKERE to the Minister for Māori Development: Does he support the principles contained within the preamble of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993; if so, does he believe Māori should have control over Māori land? Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister for Māori Development): Tuatahi, me mihi ki a koe, e te whanaunga, mō tō kōrero ataahua inanahi, tēnei te mihi ki a koe. With respect to your pātai, yes, absolutely, tautoko. [Firstly, I acknowledge you, my relative, for your beautiful speech yesterday, I acknowledge you. With respect to your question, yes, absolutely, I support.] Dr Elizabeth Kerekere: Does he agree that ending perpetual leases on Māori land, like that of Tina Olsen-Ratana and her whānau in Tokomaru Bay, would reaffirm the protection of rangatiratanga embodied in Te Tiriti o Waitangi? Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Yes, I think I agree with that too. Perpetual leases are a complex issue that has been ongoing for many years. Many of the Māori members have been—and I think some of the Opposition, too—involved in this. Perpetual leases, which make up Māori reserve lands, have been the subject of much scrutiny and debate over their more-than-120-year existence. Hon Gerry Brownlee: Labour and the Greens blocked reforms. Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Shush up, Gerry. Māori reserve lands were created by legislation from the late 19th century. Under legislation, these lands have been subject to conditions that were imposed without the agreement of the Māori owners. In '97 and '98, significant reforms were made which saw the owners of Māori reserve land leases receive compensation for their past losses and also changed the arrangements on leases to move them to a more commercial arrangement. I acknowledge this kaupapa. It's a very heavy kaupapa and something that I think we do have to deal with, but, unfortunately, there are so many other kaupapa that this Government has dealt with over the last six years, like increasing the funding for Māori. We had a National Party who gave Māori crumbs, we've made record investment in terms of Whānau Ora, setting up a Māori Health Authority, and doing so much for the Māori nation. But I mihi to my whanaunga over there for this pātai. It's certainly a challenge we need to take up. Dr Elizabeth Kerekere: Does he agree that supporting the collective vision of Te Waimana Kaaku o Tūhoe to put houses on their whenua would represent protecting rangatiratanga of hapū as identified in Te Ture Whenua Maori? Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Well, again, I have to agree with the member there. Minister Peeni Henare, I think, has managed that situation very well over the last year or two, after the member herself had brought the kaupapa in front of the House. We mihi to her for her challenge to us, because that's what it's all about, and the member has done it in a very good way. We are aware that some of the parties in Waimana Valley are seeking to develop their land. I understand that there are matters that are being worked through relating to representation between the respective governance entities and representative bodies present in that area. I would expect those matters would be best resolved amongst themselves, because you have whanaunga, I suppose, working and competing against each other. But I know Minister Henare, as I said, handled this and managed this well with Matt Te Pou at the time. Dr Elizabeth Kerekere: What does he say to Māori landowners who want to put houses or build businesses on their whenua but are prevented from doing so when Te Ture Whenua Maori does not require ahu whenua trustees to abide by the will of Māori landowners? Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Ahu whenua trusts are established to govern land, and they're usually established to operate for the benefit of their beneficiaries, which would comprise the broader Māori owner group. I understand that ahu whenua trustees are required to abide by the terms of the trusts, which are set by the Māori Land Court on behalf of beneficiaries. Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 provides processes to change the terms of the trust and the trustees through the Māori Land Court at the beneficiaries' request. Dr Elizabeth Kerekere: Will the Minister agree to—and I quote—"provide urgent resourcing to the Māori Land Court to enable the court to deliver their full purpose to provide service to owners of Māori land as set out in Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993, as recommended in Outrage to optimism: Report of the Ministerial Inquiry into land uses associated with the mobilisation of woody debris (including forestry slash) and sediment in Tairawhiti/Gisborne District and Wairoa District", and, if so, when? Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Again, I understand the pātai—a very appropriate one. I'm aware of some anecdotal indications that the Māori Land Court may require more resourcing, and I understand that the matter has been considered recently. However, with respect to the member, I'm not the Minister responsible for that—that responsibility actually comes under the Minister for Courts. But, again, I thank the member for that pātai. Kia ora. WHAKATŌHEA CLAIMS SETTLEMENT BILL First Reading SPEAKER: Before I call the Hon Andrew Little, can I ask members leaving the Chamber to do so quickly and quietly, thank you. Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I present a legislative statement on the Whakatōhea Claims Settlement Bill. SPEAKER: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website. Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I move, That the Whakatōhea Claims Settlement Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Māori Affairs Committee to consider the bill. [Authorised te reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] It's my honour and privilege to be here today to support the Whakatōhea Claims Settlement Bill for its first reading. Again, in te reo Pākehā, I welcome Whakatōhea. I enjoyed some kai with them at Pipitea Marae at lunchtime today, enjoyed some kōrero, and, as you often do, even after engaging with an iwi over some years, I still learn new things. One of those things is that with this long journey, this lengthy journey that goes back 30 or more years—the agreement in principle that underpins the redress contained in this bill was signed exactly six years ago today. Of course, the Crown representative signing it was my predecessor, the Hon Chris Finlayson. It just tells you how difficult and challenging and lengthy sometimes these journeys can be. But I know that for Whakatōhea this journey has been a long one, and as we mark this milestone, because that's what it is at this point, we pay tribute to Whakatōhea leaders and the many whānau members who have passed on before they could witness this milestone. All who have passed are in our thoughts and their spirits are felt with us today. I particularly want to acknowledge Ruka Hudson, a Vietnam veteran and beloved member of Whakatōhea, who passed away in June: moe mai rā. To those members who've travelled down to Wellington to join us here in Parliament and be in the gallery, and to those who haven't been able to be here in person but are listening remotely, I welcome you to this House, to your House. As I said to you at lunchtime, right now, for this bill, this is Whakatōhea's house, this is Whakatōhea's day. To Whakatōhea: you have shown strength and determination in reaching this point. Whakatōhea have been served over the years by courageous and committed negotiators and advisers. To Robert Edwards, Graeme Riesterer, and the Whakatōhea Pre Settlement Claims Trust, I thank you all for your hard work as you represented Whakatōhea throughout these negotiations. Robert—again learning new things, even this far into the process—I want to acknowledge the marking of your 90th birthday just a short while ago, not long after indeed we signed the deed of settlement. So congratulations and happy birthday. I want to acknowledge also Vaughan Payne, Chair of Te Tāwharau o Whakatōhea, the Whakatōhea Post Settlement Governance Entity. I wish you and the initial trustees well as you guide Whakatōhea to the trustee elections later this year. I acknowledge the negotiators Maui Hudson and Jason Pou and their support team led by Arihia Tuoro and Gina Smith for their significant contributions to this settlement. On the Crown side, I acknowledge the work of my predecessor, the Hon Chris Finlayson, who, as I said, reached agreement of principle. I thank also the Chief Crown Negotiator Glen Webber, my ministerial colleagues, Crown agencies, and local authorities for their support to achieve the settlement. Whakatōhea have been seeking justice from the Crown for generations. They first petitioned this House in 1914 for the Crown to inquire into and provide compensation for the confiscation of Whakatōhea lands. That petition was unsuccessful. However, Whakatōhea continued to petition the Crown, with many members contributing to those efforts. In 1946, Whakatōhea received a small amount of compensation for those confiscations. However, much harm had already been done and the real effects of the Crown's actions were never addressed. In the 1990s, Whakatōhea were among the first iwi to enter settlement negotiations with the Crown, and in 1996 they initialled a deed of settlement. That deed of settlement was never put to ratification because of concerns about the scope and sufficiency of the settlement, and I'm pleased that many of those who took part in the 1990s process, no matter their view at the time, are here in support today. The current settlement negotiations began in 2016, more than 100 years on from that initial petition and 30 years on from initial negotiations. It's right that the Crown acknowledges and apologises for its wrongs and honours its commitments. This settlement is grounded in the Crown's acknowledgment and apology for its many breaches of Te Tiriti. I formally delivered the Crown apology to Whakatōhea at the deed signing in May this year, during a ceremony where the enduring hurt of Whakatōhea was felt by all present. That day emphasised the real importance of the Crown recognising and acknowledging its wrongdoing. During that ceremony, I also recounted the Crown breach acknowledgments recorded in the deed of settlement. These breaches were some of the worst committed by the Crown. In 1865, the Crown invaded Ōpōtiki and waged war on Whakatōhea. Crown troops killed many members of Whakatōhea, including non-combatants, and adopted a scorched earth policy destroying homes, crops, livestock, and taonga. The Crown failed to return the body of Tio Te Kāhikahika after he had been killed and desecrated by Crown troops. The Crown did not act in good faith in its treatment and execution of Mokomoko, causing the stigmatisation of Te Whānau a Mokomoko. I acknowledge the kōrero and mamae that Te Whānau a Mokomoko expressed during the deed signing ceremony, and I confirm again that I remain committed to a tangible tribute in honour of Mokomoko. The Crown confiscated most of Whakatōhea's productive lands and forced hapū into insufficient reserves. The Crown's actions caused Whakatōhea to live with economic, cultural, and spiritual loss and created divisions between whānau and hapū. The Crown alone was responsible for these Treaty breaches and it is only right for the Crown to apologise to Te Whakatōhea. In recognising the harm caused by the Crown, we have worked with Whakatōhea to build a redress package that addresses these grievances and recognises the strong spiritual and ancestral connection that Te Whakatōhea has to their whenua and moana. The settlement redress package includes the transfer of 33 sites of cultural significance and 18 commercial properties; the reservation of 5,000 hectares of sea space to be reserved in the coastal marine area in which only Whakatōhea may apply for permits for aquaculture activities. This redress is a first in Treaty settlement and it will complement the Whakatōhea aquaculture strategy, which is already bringing benefits to Whakatōhea and Ōpōtiki. The package also includes financial, commercial, and cultural redress funds of $100 million; bespoke arrangements for conservation and natural resource management; and relationship agreements with core Crown agencies. Today is about looking forward to the future while acknowledging the past and the long and difficult journey it has taken to get here. No settlement can fully compensate for the wrongdoing of the Crown or compensate Whakatōhea for the hurt they have endured. But it is my hope that the redress contained in this bill will mark the beginning of a strengthened relationship between Whakatōhea and the Crown and support Whakatōhea's aspirations for a prosperous future for their people. I propose that the bill should proceed without delay to the Māori Affairs Committee. I commend this bill to the House. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to. JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. Huri noa i te Whare nei, e mihi atu ki a koutou katoa. Tēnei te mihi. Nau mai, haere mai e te iwi o Whakatōhea. [Authorised te reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] E mihi atu ki a koutou katoa. Thank you, Mr Speaker, and salutations to all throughout this House. I greet you, and I bid you welcome, whether here in person or watching remotely. Welcome, to the people of Whakatōhea, and we welcome you bringing forth the teachings on the matter that brings people together, and we acknowledge you all here today. To the elders, leaders, and members of Whakatōhea who are witnessing this auspicious moment, I extend a very warm welcome and echo the words of the Minister in recognising the very, very long process that it has taken to get here, to this reading here today. This settlement, this bill, and this process is ultimately about you, your tūpuna, and your uri. This settlement is testament to the hard work and negotiations between you and between Crown negotiators, the work that has been done—and I acknowledge the Hon Chris Finlayson, who was the Minister before, and the Hon Andrew Little, who has brought the process through to today, and to everyone who has been involved. This signifies the beginning of a new relationship between both parties, based on trust, cooperation, and respect for Te Tiriti o Waitangi - the Treaty of Waitangi. The Crown failed to uphold its obligations under Te Tiriti o Waitangi - the Treaty of Waitangi and caused physical and spiritual hardship that is deeply felt by Whakatōhea today. No settlement can ever compensate for the mamae that has endured for many generations, and no redress can fully compensate for the past injustices against Whakatōhea. The redress in this settlement does provide a foundation for the economic future of Whakatōhea to build upon and ensures the cultural relationship between Whakatōhea and sites of cultural significance we recognise for generations to come. I'll just touch a little on the history of Whakatōhea, comprising Ngāi Tamahaua, Ngāti Ira, Ngāti Ngahere, Ngāti Patumoana, Ngāti Ruatākena and Ūpokorehe, and an area of interest covering around 200,000 hectares in the eastern Bay of Plenty: "In May 1840 seven Whakatōhea rangatira signed Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Whakatōhea had, by 1864, developed a thriving agricultural economy; constructing a shipping fleet and trading extensively with the growing Auckland settlement. Whakatōhea embraced technology, built infrastructure, and developed political organisations to deal with economic and social change. After Crown forces landed at Tauranga in early 1864, Whakatōhea joined other iwi in an expedition to support the Kīngitanga. The iwi expedition was defeated and Whakatōhea rangatira Te Āporotanga, Apanui, Tūtakahiao and Mikaere Pihipihi were killed, creating a considerable leadership vacuum for Whakatōhea [at that time] Carl Völkner, of the Church Missionary Society, was hanged at Ōpōtiki in March 1865, after a meeting called by visiting Pai Mārire emissaries had demanded his death. Whakatōhea rangatira unsuccessfully argued [that he] should be spared [but] The Crown held Whakatōhea responsible for [his] death. Crown forces invaded the Whakatōhea rohe in September 1865, following a declaration of martial law. The military killed many Whakatōhea, including non-combatants such as Tio Te Kāhika. After the battle at Te Tarata, Crown troops buried the Whakatōhea dead in an unmarked mass grave. Whakatōhea casualties amounted to approximately ten percent of the iwi population." As the Minister, the Hon Andrew Little, said before me, it was one of the worst actions in our history. "Crown troops adopted a scorched earth approach; looting, plundering and destroying crops, animals, houses, equipment and taonga. The Whakatōhea economy and its infrastructure were destroyed. … The Crown confiscated most of the Whakatōhea productive lands in 1866. [and] established the Ōpape Native Reserve on land confiscated from Ngāti Rua, forcing members of other Whakatōhea hapū to relocate there. Most Whakatōhea were forcibly removed from their whenua, awa, maunga, and wāhi tapu, resulting in the loss of traditional knowledge." "In 1866 Mokomoko, a Whakatōhea rangatira, was convicted and executed for Völkner's murder. Mokomoko maintained his innocence to the end and questions were raised over the prosecution evidence. [His] body was buried within prison grounds and only returned to his family in 1989. In 1992 the Governor-General granted Mokomoko a free pardon, but the Crown's failure to consult the Mokomoko descendants on the wording of the pardon caused the whānau further pain. … The Compensation Court, sitting in Ōpōtiki in 1867, granted successful claimants individual titles to Whakatōhea land. A Special Commissioner made out-of-court settlements with some Whakatōhea individuals and groups. These processes eroded Whakatōhea traditional land ownership, social structures, mana and rangatiratanga. … The Native Land Court individualised the titles to the remaining Whakatōhea lands, while imposing survey and court costs. The Crown purchased most of this land, while Whakatōhea owners sold land to cover expenses and provide for their families. The Crown then acquired more of the remaining land through public works takings. Whakatōhea were left virtually landless, with most of their economic base removed, along with traditional sites that were sources of mātauranga and wellbeing. … With insufficient arable land and limited work opportunities, Whakatōhea struggled to survive economically. [and] endured the impacts of poverty, including sub-standard housing and poor health … [suffering] disease outbreaks [and] having little access to adequate healthcare. … The lack of employment in Ōpōtiki forced Whakatōhea into urban migration in the mid-twentieth century. Ninety percent of Whakatōhea lived outside their traditional rohe by 2020, with many disconnected from their whanaunga, reo, tikanga and whenua." It's clear that the people of Whakatōhea have suffered enormous losses, and what we're seeking to do here today is to restore as best we can with this process. I acknowledge everyone who has helped make that happen. This bill has redress addressing the losses suffered by Whakatōhea, including financial redress of $85 million plus interest in recognition of historical claims. Whakatōhea will also receive $5 million for the purpose of a reserve land development fund, $2 million for the purpose of marine and harbour development, $5 million for a cultural revitalisation fund, $1 million for a te reo revitalisation fund, and $2 million for an education endowment fund. The settlement will also provide for natural resource arrangements over rivers and catchments in the Whakatōhea area of interest, with the establishment of a non-regulatory Whakatōhea Kaitiaki Forum, which will operate as a permanent joint committee of the Bay of Plenty Regional Council, and the ability to enter into one or more joint management agreements with the Ōpōtiki District Council or Bay of Plenty District Regional Council. There's also conservation redress in there, and there's an aquaculture and fisheries redress, with the legislation reserving 5,000 hectares of space in the coastal marine area in which only Whakatōhea may apply for permits for aquaculture activities. Whakatōhea will receive a right of first refusal over fisheries quota under the Fisheries Act 1996. The settlement provides for the Whakatōhea post-settlement governance entity's appointment as an advisory committee to the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries. The committee will provide input on fisheries management matters in relation to areas of special significance to Whakatōhea. The National Party is supporting this bill, through the first reading, to select committee. We do want to hear just a little bit more about this new aquaculture arrangement, as this is a new process and a new redress in a Treaty settlement bill. So we do want to hear a little bit more about how that's going to operate and how it will be managed, etc. We consider it important to fully explore just how that arrangement will work in practice. But I'd like to close just by once again acknowledging the people who are present here today, acknowledging the significant mamae and the pain and suffering that has been experienced for many years and has reverberated down through generations. This is, ultimately, about seeking to reset that, recognising that this is ultimately about those who come after us and the children of tomorrow and the opportunities that will be available to them. So I'll thank everyone who's worked hard to get to this point to provide us opportunities for those who come after us. Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister for Māori Development): Mr Speaker. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon Willie Jackson. [Interruption] Sorry, can I just remind those in the gallery to observe the tikanga of the House, which is that those in the galleries do not participate in the debate. I'd appreciate that, thank you. Hon WILLIE JACKSON: [Authorised te reo text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] Can I say, first of all, it's wonderful to see so many Labour Party members in the House today. It really is good to have you along to tautoko the Labour Party. Thank you very much for your attendance here today. I want to acknowledge some of our representatives, in particular Jason Pou and Maui Hudson for their mahi. No doubt about it, we all know that the mahi that has been put into kōkiri this kaupapa. E mihi ana ki a koutou. And our koroua there, Robert Edwards. No doubt about it, without your mahi, your support, this wouldn't have got there. We've heard all the figures and the history, and, no doubt, there'll be some more good kōrero coming, but I was thinking about this and I was looking up there and I saw our mate Dudu Te Kahautu Maxwell. I wanted to say to him, [Authorised te reo text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] I wanted to acknowledge Te Kahautu because he's a very supportive man of the Crown and Government, as we all know. I was looking at one of his statements and he said this: "We all know the Crown is the thief, and the Crown is the judge, and the Crown is the juror, so it works in the Crown's favour." But we're very, very grateful for the hundred million. So I want to thank you there, whanaunga, for all your support. I think that's what it's about for us; in Te Ao Māori, we understand the process, and the process is not fair, as he quite rightly said. But we do these deals because we have to move ahead. And I talk about this all the time, and we all know. You know, we can go back to the start of this kaupapa when Tama Iti was talking about not settling because, you know, it was just crumbs. I think that was about 1997, 1998—oh no, sorry. That was about 1995, 1996, when him and Annette Sykes, eh, were going around and having a hui. I remember those times vividly. But our leaders made decisions, and I mihi to those leaders, because they were not silly. The Mahutas and the O'Regans were not silly. They knew their $170 million settlements were just crumbs, but from those crumbs they built goldmines and they've got empires. So that's where our leaders are at. We have brilliant leaders. So I always defend that leadership, even against some of my own whanaunga who said, "Oh, they blinkin went and sold out. They went and got crumbs." They had foresight, those types of leaders, and I mihi to them. And I mihi to your whanaunga Ranginui Walker today. I mihi to him because of his bravery, because of his courage. In my former life, as some of you know, I was an interviewer, and I did a lot of mahi in Māori media. I interviewed someone some day and talked about Whakatohea. I said, "Did Ranginui make a mistake, in terms of not settling?" It was a big debate on ngā reo irirangi. Some said he did and some said he didn't, but the reality was, the unfairness of the Treaty settlement process put your tribe back many, many years. It wasn't Ranginui who put the settlement back; it was the process. And I think it's one of the saddest stories to go up in 1986, 1987 and put forward the principles and say that this settlement is unfair, and then to go to the back of the queue—terrible. That's the unfairness of the process. So here we are settling 25, 28 years later. It haunted Ranginui. He rang me and we had a hui. He was riri with me for bringing this kōrero up. I felt it was my obligation as the interviewer to bring it up, but I took it from the koroua, because he was close to my father and it was only right that I just took it from him. But I'll never forget how upset he was because he wanted that settlement. And I said, "Kei te pai, matua. I take your criticism. I'm just asking the question." But the point that I was trying to make was that the process was unfair. At the end of it we were fine. But he said he thought about Whakatohea in that process. Every week—it was always on his mind. This is what our people have to go through. So I mihi to that koroua. He was a great koroua, not just for Whakatohea but for Te Ao Māori. And that is the reality that the House needs to hear about this settlement process. This is what our people go through. It's not just about the unfairness of the pūtea; it's about balancing what you have to do with your iwi, thinking about the future, thinking if you're a sell-out—all that sort of stuff. It's tough, in terms of Māori leadership. So that's really my kōrero today. I just wanted to put that out there, because we're only going to have one reading on this. Although I do expect to come back after the election for a second and third reading—don't we, Labour? Rawiri Waititi: When you start being nice to us. Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I'll try and be nice to you. We've got these Māori Party characters in the House, you know—no respect for the House, but I'm sure we'll get some whakangahau a little bit later on from my whanaunga over there. I wanted to make that point to whānau who came here today because you'll hear all the intricacies of this, but I'm sure we're going to hear some good kōrero. But it's taumaha for our people. So I mihi to our rangatira who are here. Thank you for your service to your people. You're a great example. No one gets rich being a Treaty—well, you get two or three who get rich. We won't mention their names, but—yeah, yeah, there might be more than two or three, I bet. But I know—I've been watching the process. My wife was a negotiator for the Te Arawa Lakes. I watched what she went through for years, and I've seen whānau and friend—you know, it's a sacrifice. So I salute the sacrifice. I salute Ranginui. I salute you too, Dudu Te Kahautu, for your mahi ataahua. [Authorised te reo text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] HARETE HIPANGO (National): [Authorised te reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] As a list MP for the National Party, but also as uri of Whanganui Ngāti Apa, Ngā Rauru, I greet and I welcome Whakatōhea to this Whare this afternoon on this very important and significant occasion. These Māori members of Parliament seated here in this Whare, we know what it's like to be seated up where you are today. We have been with our own people when legislation has been passed through this House for the settlement of the long journey, the grievance, the mamae, the hope, and the aspiration that, with the progression of legislation through this House, we move from and we move forward into the future. So I welcome you all here today. I seize the opportunity also to address New Zealanders, who are listening in from afar. I acknowledge Whakatōhea gathered here in this Whare, but also those further afield not able to be here today, but also to New Zealanders to listen to the story. Whakatōhea has journeyed generations of the mamae towards fulfilling the hope and aspirations within this claims settlement bill. The process that it takes in order to arrive into the future is by way of addressing, within this bill to be made into law at the third reading, what is outlined in clause 8, the history, which my colleague Joseph Mooney has addressed in part, and Minister Little also, and others will. In clause 9, there's the Crown's acknowledgment to Whakatōhea of its abysmal breaches and conduct through generations which has carried from generations past, present, to the future, but should be addressed within, hopefully, this claims settlement. In clause 10 is the apology, which, should I have the opportunity and privilege again to rise at the third reading, I will speak to. It's important that New Zealanders do know the history of Whakatōhea. I invite New Zealanders to read the bill. It is detailed there at clause 8. Just to canvas that briefly, on 27 May 1840, seven Whakatōhea rangatira signed the Treaty of Waitangi. On that same day 183 years later, the deed of settlement was signed. Clause 8 details much of the mamae and the his- and the herstories of these grievances. A significant part of the mamae has been the killings, the murders of our tūpuna, and they are named within this bill. They are etched within the hearts and the memories that are carried through the generations. Crown forces invaded Whakatōhea rohe in September 1865. Crown troops adopted a scorched earth approach. We've heard this on occasions when Parihaka was in the Whare with their bill, and here we are, yet again, today, hearing the story that many New Zealanders turn a deaf ear to and a blind eye away from. We need to be reminded of the facts of the history and the herstory and the mamae that is carried, to be able to address and move forward. I remember as a law student at Auckland University—and I had the privilege of being a student of Professor Ranginui Walker—and hearing the story and the mamae of Mokomoko, who in 1866, a Whakatōhea rangatira, was convicted and executed for Völkner's murder. I remember, as a law student, going past Mount Eden on my bike to netball practice, at the netball courts, knowing the story of Mokomoko and the wairua and the kēhua at that place, and for the Crown finally to acknowledge the return of the tupuna to the whānau in 1989, with a free pardon in 1992. New Zealanders need to know the history to realise and appreciate what it is we come from and we carry, and what needs to be addressed and redressed within these settlement bills. The detail is there and is to be inscribed and captured in law, and it will be there not only in Hansard but in legislation. Clause 9 details the acknowledgment. As I've said, the apology will be addressed in detail at clause 10, which Minister Little did when he went to your lands for that formal apology. I acknowledge my parliamentary colleague Rawiri Waititi, member of Parliament for Waiariki. I make that acknowledgment because as part of the process after this first reading, this bill will come to we who have the privilege of sitting on the Māori Affairs Committee, to listen further to the evidence of the submitters, to listen to the evidence of uri of Whakatōhea, and for us to work collaboratively and collectively as members across this House from all political parties, recognising the importance of ensuring that if this bill needs to be improved for the benefit of Whakatōhea and the uri that that is done. My colleague Joseph Mooney made mention that, as part of the settlement, there is the innovation of aquaculture and fisheries. That is something that we will listen to with interest, in terms of the future opportunity and potentials to be seized and to maximise and to gain moving forward. In closing, I turn to the bill to note that the purpose of this Act, when it is passed into law—and it will—to record the acknowledgments and apology given by the Crown to Whakatōhea in the deed of settlement and to give effect to certain provisions of the deed of settlement that settles the historical claims of Whakatōhea. Those of us who sit on the Māori Affairs Committee are cognisant of the duty, the responsibility, and the care that we will give to the examination of this legislation, but importantly, that we will listen further to the stories and the evidence of those many of you seated in the gallery who may well share with us in enhancing what we have to address in this legislation. Before I close, I turn to some notes that have been made in terms of commentaries that have been recorded about the process, where it can be divisive and where there are differences of views and opinions, but, importantly, it is how we focus forward into the future, moving from the grievance and the mamae, and maximising the potential that is there. Minister Jackson noted a comment from Te Kahautu Maxwell: "We all know the Crown is the thief, and the Crown is the Judge, and the Crown is the juror, so it works in the Crown's favour. But we are very, very grateful because $100 million dollars will allow us to forge new frontiers and heal our people". So, as I look up into the gallery, I see the future generation with our young ones. It is with hope and it is with aspiration that this bill is commended to the House. Hon PEENI HENARE (Minister for ACC): [Authorised te reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] NICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I'd like to stand on behalf of the ACT Party to speak to the Whakatōhea Claims Settlement Bill and begin my address by welcoming everybody to this whare. To the Whakatōhea whānau, iwi, hapū, the negotiators, and the supporters—welcome to this place, which is your place. The journalists, when we first started here, told us, "Welcome to Hogwarts." I wouldn't want to say that to you, I'd rather say, "Welcome to this place, which is the start of your final journey—your final journey—to be able to get some redress." And what a journey you have had to get just to this point. A settlement was on the horizon almost 30 years ago. While the deed was initialled, iwi didn't agree with the settlement offer made back in 1996, instead, negotiating in a determined way for the last 30 years. I acknowledge those who have passed on from this world to join our tīpuna during those long decades of negotiation. To put into context, Whakatōhea is an iwi with, currently, over 16,000 members, and they have suffered multiple breaches of the Treaty by the Crown. Egregiously, in the 1860s, Government confiscated 144,000 acres of Whakatōhea land. Much was returned through a commission, but in private title, which was then alienated. In the 1880s, most of the rest of their land was acquired by the Government through aggressive purchasing. Because of the relative lack of lands, Whakatōhea were unable to benefit from schemes that were established in the early 20th century, such as the scheme that was designed to try and bring Māori into farming. In 1946, a settlement was made between the Government and Whakatōhea for £20,000, and this helped preserve at least some of Whakatōhea's land and an entity. Most tāngata of Whakatōhea left the rohe in the great urban migration of the 1950s and 1960s, which has led to many losing their strong connections to their iwi. Since the 1990s, it's been a long slog. Initial settlement offers from Government in 1996 were considered inadequate, so negotiations continued even though Whakatōhea's settlement claims were pushed to the back of the queue. In August 2017, the Crown and Whakatōhea signed an agreement in principle. In December 2021, a deed of settlement was initialled. It was ratified in 2022, and then signed in May 2023. The redress package includes, first and foremost, an apology from the Crown—an apology for some of the heinous acts that had occurred back then—an agreed acknowledgement of the historical accounts of those grievances, and the restoration of 33 important cultural sites and 18 commercial properties. Whakatōhea's role in environmental management is also recognised—land in Ōpōtiki and marine rights to enable a commercial base in their rohe have been allocated, and $100 million of financial and commercial redress to enable economic and social development for the future. Today, with this bill passing its first reading and heading to the Māori Affairs Committee, the new relationship between the Crown and Whakatōhea, founded on trust, cooperation, and partnership, as agreed to in the deed of settlement, begins its next leg of the redress journey. ACT consistently supports Treaty settlement Acts. They are practical ways to make restitution. ACT supports the property rights and self-determination, and ACT looks forward to Whakatōhea having the self-determination to develop socially and economically. We wish Whakatōhea hapū and iwi well. ACT supports this bill. JAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It's a real privilege to get to stand on behalf of the Green Party as our Te Tiriti spokesperson to acknowledge Whakatōhea whānau in the House today and to support this first reading and the step towards at least some kind of a chance to move forward. We managed to attend the pōhiri at Pipitea Marae and noted the kōrero from the paepae reflecting on how close Whakatōhea were to getting to this point with Chris Finlayson, and yet here we are six years later. I really do want to acknowledge the patience of the iwi and to acknowledge their sheer survival and resilience despite the deeply vicious practices of the Crown and colonisation. The culmination of Crown actions, including confiscations, land acquisition—that's what they called it in those days—and discriminatory policies left Whakatōhea with profound challenges. These included landlessness, economic hardship, disrupted social structures, the erosion of cultural identity. The Crown's disregard for the Treaty promises has resulted in extensive harm and suffering for Whakatōhea and were clearly serious breaches of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and it is important that this bill addresses those generational harms. The Greens don't believe that we can ever compensate for those harms, and we also acknowledge—and I think it was in Minister Henare's kōrero as well, in acknowledging that there is more to the history than what is on these pages; that, actually, with the importance of acknowledging what happened, we also have to acknowledge that this is not the full truth. The language is not the language you would use to describe what happened. It is a language that is able to be agreed with by the Crown, and the breaches of Te Tiriti continue even in this process. We acknowledge you for standing and persevering for your children and the future. For the Green Party, Te Tiriti is not about property rights; it's about an enduring relationship between iwi, hapū, and the Crown. For us, it's essential to recognise that we do not believe Te Tiriti can be settled as if it were a mere transaction. It is more than that. For us, Te Tiriti o Waitangi is the founding document of this country and recognises Māori as tangata whenua in Aotearoa New Zealand. These settlements are the culmination of considerable sacrifices made by numerous kaumātua who dedicated themselves to the cause and painstakingly collected ancestral narratives. This endeavour is especially poignant for those who championed the settlements but passed away prior to the witnessing of their fulfilment, and I want to acknowledge them in this House today. Within the fabric of settlements, we uncover those poignant narratives that weave together our shared history. These narratives stand as powerful chronicles of our past, forming a historical repository that resonates deeply with those involved, be they kuia, kaumātua, or rangatahi. The journey of unearthing these stories, I know, can become a path to personal liberation, and I hope that has been so for many of your young ones and more to come. Moreover, the settlement process also gives us the opportunity to provide an avenue for the Government to foster open dialogues within communities, engaging in a collective exploration of our national history. This dialogue holds immense significance, acting as a bedrock for achieving harmony and justice within Aotearoa, if we would only take up that opportunity. It's noteworthy that these settlements offer insights into local history that often remain absent from our education system. The inherently divisive nature of settlements I do need to acknowledge. I've yet to stand here in this process and experience unanimous agreement. There is always tension, and that is not as it should be. That is a result of the processes continuing to be forced by the Crown. But the process that goes through this House, I hope, at least offers an opportunity for that to be heard, and I hope that that mamae rests with the people here to enable there to be resolution in the homelands. I do just want to briefly—and we've heard the history repeated, some of the key points from the settlement, in this House already; I will do it again. I feel a little bit bad for doing that, because repeatedly hearing this trauma, I can't even imagine how that is when it is personal to you, I want to acknowledge that, but I want to speak to particularly Pākehā in this country to understand the depth of the wrong and the harm that has been done to Whakatōhea. So, acknowledging that in 1840, seven Whakatōhea rangatira signed Te Tiriti, and there was a brief period of glory, building on, you know, the community that was already there, where Whakatōhea embraced technology and built infrastructure, developed political organisations to deal with economic and social change, and were thriving, is how I understand it. Then, the Crown—dun dun!—landed at Tauranga in 1864, and Whakatōhea joined other iwi in an expedition to support the Kīngitanga. At that point, several key leaders were killed in that confrontation defending the land, and that created a leadership vacuum. Then, if I skip through—inappropriately, I will acknowledge, but through to 1865, where Crown forces invaded the Whakatōhea rohe following a declaration of martial law, the military killed many Whakatōhea, including non-combatants: 10 percent of the population. If I think about that for in the context of modern-day New Zealand, that's as if the entire population of Christchurch and Wellington were all killed, and the impact that that would have on us as a country would be profound and huge. And that is what happened. That is what the Crown did to Whakatōhea and they are still living with today. Then, we saw Crown troops adopting a scorched earth approach of looting, plundering, destroying crops, animals, houses, equipment, and taonga, destroying the possibility of rebuilding; absolute devastation and cruelty, and then—and then—confiscating most of the land, most of the productive land, after that. And then, only three years later, Crown forces pursuing Te Kooti and followers through the Whakatōhea rohe, looting crops, burning houses, and executing Whakatōhea prisoners. Again and again and again with the murder and the theft and the brutality. I just want Pākehā to hear that, to get it, and that when anybody is talking about Treaty settlements as if it's some gift to Māori, I want them to get that there can never be a compensation for that degree of harm done in the name and decisions of this place, and that the $100 million which has been mentioned today—you know, that's equivalent to money that was given post-COVID to the redeployment of forestry workers. It's equivalent to one mental health facility. It's equivalent to international support given to the Cook Islands and Fiji to help with their COVID response. It's equivalent to one amount to the Green investment Fund. When I'm saying this, I am not undermining the efforts to get that money; I'm putting it in the context, and the shame on the Crown, that it is not enough—it will never be enough. TĀMATI COFFEY (Labour): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o tēnei Whare. [Authorised te reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] I had a colleague say to me on the way into the House today, "Where's Te Whakatōhea from?" I said, "Ōpotiki"! And do you know what, it just made me realise that your story is still needing to be told. Amongst those that know Ōpotiki, amongst those that know the injustices of the past, amongst those from the Eastern Bay—the Wairariki rohe—we know those injustices. Today, we've got a document which is going to pass into legislation which is going to tell your stories. And your stories will be shared in the kura all around Aotearoa so that they know exactly what happened to your iwi. They will know the impact that the Crown had in stifling; putting a spanner in the works of the development of Te Whakatōhea, and that's a great thing, because it's only through information—as my colleague from the Green Party, Jan Logie said previously, it's only through talking about it out loud that we will get a bit of better understanding, around Aotearoa, for the plight of Ngāi Māori katoa puta noa i Aotearoa. So I encourage you to get out there and start telling your story, because it's a doozy, and it's sad—and as you sit here today and you think about 20, 30 years ago, your koroua, your kuia that started this journey who are no longer here because they've passed on: we need to honour them and the decisions that they made. Willie was right when he talked about it before: they made some big bold decisions to step out, at the time to challenge the deed that was on the table that the Crown had put up, and rightly so. Look at the offer that's there now; they have been vindicated in that decision. Some of them aren't here to tell that story, but the right thing was done and for better or worse, you're here today, telling that story. And we're all sharing the story, too, because we will all go out into our communities—and some colleagues will be better off, because they'll know where Ōpotiki is—but we will all be there to share in this journey. While the work will be done by the Māori Affairs Committee in the new Parliament, actually the fine-tooth combing of this legislation will occur—and some whānau who are out there, who maybe don't support this settlement, they will come forward and they will have their voices heard, too, because we owe it to the process to be able to try and make this the best piece of legislation that it can be. I heard today at Pipitea Marae, Te Kahautu jumped up and talked about hei rā rongoā, and I really like that, and that's stuck in my head, because this is a day of healing for you as the tribe, as the iwi, as the mana whenua in Ōpotiki, it is a day of healing for you, and I think that's really, really appropriate. I love seeing some of our babies up there in the gallery and some of our young ones, our tamariki—and you, Nan and you, and you. I love seeing some of our young ones here because I see some of our older ones here, and I think, what will this journey look like in another 20 or 30 years' time? And some that are sitting here in this gallery might not be around then, and the baton will be passed on to some of these younger ones that are sitting here. And you think that you've just got a free ride to Wellington? No, there's a little hook in that invite for you, rangatahi mā, that actually, you are on this journey officially—your ticket into here today hooks you into that process. So may you look and learn and listen and understand this place, because it's really important that you do. The sooner you wrap your head around how this place operates and how it ticks and how it works, the sooner you can start outsmarting the system. I'd like to think that at the start of this treaty settlement process, for all of our iwi, there was a lot of good faith and a lot of aspiration in their heart for this process, and you will carry those aspirations as well as you travel into the future. And aspiration is what it's all about, because it was your rangatira that signed Te Tiriti o Waitangi. It was your rangatira that signed up to the hope and the aspiration that was contained in that document. And yeah, it's the Crown's bad for what happened then. The Crown did a disservice to Maori all around Aotearoa by not fulfilling the promises in Te Tiriti. I truly believe that our rangatira that signed that treaty went into it in good faith and thought that good things would come. Well, it's taken a while, but good things are coming, and you're here today and we just need to never forget what happened there—but we need to start charting a pathway into the future. And our young ones that are here: you are the key to that. Our old ones that are here today—older—ones that are here today, it's your job to pass on some of that; some of those stories, the stories of hurt; the stories of pain, but lift our young ones up so that they can carry on the journey, over and above today. This is just the start, though. Even after the third reading in the House, when you're all released and the legislation becomes Government law, it will just be the start. So to you, Vaughn, the new chair of Te Tāwharau o Te Whakatōhea, good luck. Your people are there. You've been on the journey; you've been put into that position, so kia kaha, e hoa. I think about the good things since I came in to Parliament in 2017, the amount of times as a member of Parliament around our rohe that I've been up to Ōpotiki to hustle for the mussel factory, to hustle for the harbour development, to cut the ribbon on the mussel factory, to watch the progress of the harbour development, the houses that have been built up there—just the goodwill that's been shown by our Government, I feel as though I can stand here proudly. Whether it was with New Zealand First as that coalition Government or whether it's now as part of our Labour Government, I feel as though I can stand here proudly and I can go to the Caltex to fill up my car in Ōpotiki, and go to the bakehouse and get my scone, and feel as though I can look whānau in the eye and actually say that we've done as well as we could have done in the short time that we've been in Government, for the good people of Ōpotiki, for Te Whakatōhea. And the settlement is another part of that process, and another one of the wins, because we should also not allow ourselves to get dragged down into the negative stuff, because there's a lot of negative stuff and you can go down into that negative whirlpool if you choose to—but you owe it to your tūpuna, you owe it to the rangatira who signed Te Tiriti on your behalf. You owe it to our kuia/ kaumātua who aren't here and our kuia/kaumātua who are here, to be able to move forward with positivity in your heart and do the best job with the tools that you've got. This is a big day for you, and I want to acknowledge you. I love the quote that was given earlier at Pipitea as well: "May this be the start of an honest relationship". [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): The next call is a split call. I call on the Hon Gerry Brownlee for five minutes. Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Can I begin by acknowledging those who have come from Whakatōhea today to be here for this first reading. Your presence here shows great honour for this House. Might I also say that I don't have sufficient command of te reo Māori to say anything in that beautiful language that might be in any way coherent, so I apologise for that; it's something that I need to work a little bit more on. I might, as a third point, just let you know that while I've been in this House for a long time, and I think there is only one Treaty settlement that I haven't been in the Parliament for, there has never been a time when my party has seen the monetary side of the settlements or the cultural side of the settlements as being in any way a gift to those who have generously chosen to accept the settlement; they are simply expressions of a desire to recognize the wrongs of the past and to set forward on a better journey in the future. I want to acknowledge the generosity of Whakatōhea in getting to this point today. I know that there are perhaps some who don't agree with it, but that's going to be the way life tends to be. I think having known some of the early leaders working on this claim, their intentions will, ultimately, come through, and I'm sure there will be a very bright future as a result of this acceptance, and the rest of the country can be, I think, very much delighted to see that progress. Might I also say that the only reason I got to speak today is because it's my duty session in the House and someone else didn't turn up. So I don't have a prepared speech as such and only have a short call, but I do want to echo some of the thoughts that have been expressed by speakers who have gone before me. It's not often—or it certainly hasn't been the case very much in the past, if ever, and probably won't be in the future—that I would show any degree of generosity to anything that Willie Jackson has to say. However, I do very much appreciate the commentary that he offered in his speech today, as with Peeni as well. I think those who have called for more of this country to understand its own history and those who perhaps even rail against that need to read what's in this short commentary prepared as a sort of a highlight or a bit of a helping hand towards the bill, to understand just what it was for people to go through, essentially, the Crown turning on them back in that 1865-odd period. It's interesting for me to note that on both sides of my family, my predecessors were arriving in New Zealand or had arrived not long before that. It makes you think for a minute—more than a minute, actually—about the extraordinary willingness of tangata whenua to accept those who were coming in from somewhere different, trying to build something better. These failings, essentially, are pretty hard to look at, to read, and even harder to begin to understand how the intergenerational hurt has been so much kept alive by the people who are here today, who are listening today, and who are going to benefit from this settlement in the many years to come. So can I just conclude my very short time this afternoon by reiterating my thanks on behalf of the people that I represent to those who have generously accepted this settlement, and express the desire that this is the start of new things, of great things for Whakatōhea and the rest of this country. RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori): Point of order, Madam Speaker. I take into consideration that my people have travelled nine hours to get here today, and I ask this House for an extra five minutes because I think it's taken a long time for them to travel here to only hear me speak for five minutes. I take leave from the House to ask for an extra five minutes. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): I seek leave for that motion. Is there any disagreement? No objections. Rawiri Waititi will have an extra five minutes. RAWIRI WAITITI: [Authorised te reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] $100 million and five minutes. [Authorised te reo text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): [Authorised te reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker, and ngā mihi ki a koutou katoa, ngā uri of Whakatōhea. I began with that waiata because it recognises the place of the tender child in our histories and it is a history itself told as a lullaby to young children who grew up in the tender embrace of those stories which make us special. It is a song that was taught to me by my father, Haare Mahanga Te Wehinga Williams, who grew up on the shores of the Ōhiwa Harbour and learnt it from his grandmother Patutoro Wairemana. She was the daughter of Whiuwhiu, who was the daughter of Tūtakangahau of Tūhoe. And that connection between the Ōhiwa Harbour, the people of Te Whakatōhea, and Te Ūpokorehe and Tūhoe lives on in him and in the generations to follow. As the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee, it's an honour and a privilege to stand here today and be a part of this very significant day for Te Whakatōhea and to acknowledge my colleagues around the House would only be right and those negotiators who have taken part in what has been a very long and difficult process of finding common ground. You know, many of my colleagues around the House and members of the Māori Affairs Committee have spoken today about how these processes divide us, and you can see it that way. There is that, in this, but there is also a process of finding common ground, of doing the work that it takes in a democracy to find those things that we can all agree on. The Treaty settlement process in Aotearoa is something that we do agree on and I'm proud to be a part of a Government that is continuing a legacy of successive Governments of many colours, honouring and upholding the Treaty in that way, to give our history the important place in our history books, and to recognise the hara of the Crown and the mamae that it has caused. So in light of that bipartisanship, I had the work of the Hon Chris Finlayson in my House box, because I like to read it in question time. The Te Whakatōhea settlement is something that he speaks about a lot in this book. I honour his work in advancing that settlement. And though he did not get to sign it, as the Treaty settlement Minister, may I acknowledge the heavy place in his heart, which I think it had. He writes in the book "Mandate problems will be inevitable when dealing with longstanding grievances. Neither the Crown nor iwi will always get things right. Some decisions will not prove to be the right ones. The alternative is to sit back and not try anything. Some groups have made that choice. At times, so has the Crown." And he wished for Te Whakatōhea to be here this day where we are moving forward and acknowledging those things which have been negotiated by the Crown in Te Whakatōhea. I also want to acknowledge the Minister, Andrew Little. He said in his opening remarks today that today is Te Whakatōhea's day, and it truly is—a day for that tender child pōpō, a day for the children and the young people in the gallery, and a day for my children of Te Whakatōhea, my three-year-old Waioeka, who bears the name of our river and the spirit; not only the serene, the calm, the life giving but the force, the haruru, the extreme power of that river which connects so much of our rohe and informs so many of our tūpuna stories. As the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee, it would be my duty, if we continued indefinitely in this Parliament, to consider the details of this legislation and to hear the submissions on it. I'm under no illusion that that committee will hear forceful submissions from not only the people in the gallery today but also people who oppose it, people who find reason and flaws—whether it's the process or the words here in the deed. And I want to speak to some of those things which I think the select committee should consider in its work on this bill before we come again to the second and third readings. If you'll allow me, Madam Speaker, this, for me, comes back to a day in 2015 when I attended the 150th commemorations of the siege of Te Tarata with Te Whakatōhea and my father. Minister Willie Jackson spoke of that day too. He talked about Dr Ranginui Walker's speech where he chastised the Minister for the lack of progress on Te Whakatōhea's claims. I remember that really well because I was working at the time with Dr Ranginui Walker as an expert providing evidence on Ngāti Whatua o Ōrākei's claims in Auckland. He remains one of our foremost historians in Te Ao Māori and he spoke with such passion that day about how he wished for a settlement, because of the opportunity for Te Whakatōhea, which he saw as languishing, and the need for New Zealanders to appreciate the deep and dark history that is being told in this deed of settlement and in the many other histories which this brings to light. It's a real honour to be here to celebrate his legacy and his contribution to history in New Zealand, but also to remember that day when I have no doubt that he and the other rangatira who spoke spurred the Crown forward and made sure that we got here today. I want to talk about Mokomoko and the further education and research needed here. For me, the story of Mokomoko does feel personal. It reminds me of the trial of Hetariki te Oikau, who is my tūpuna, alongside Rewi Tamanui Totitoti and Martene te Karo, in 1869. They were also tried for crimes against the Crown, which resulted in one of New Zealand's hangings. Mokomoko is a figure in our history who should be examined by legal historians and New Zealand historians. His story is a clear way to understand how the Crown used our judicial system to not only take land but to take our mana. In the Crown apology, my colleague Jan Logie, in her speech, acknowledged that these words are negotiated words. They are words that we can come to a common understanding about. But let me say, for the words of the Crown apology to do with Mokomoko, that where it says "Whakatōhea know the Crown used Volkner's death as an excuse to invade Te Whakatōhea rohe.", I know that. I know that Whakatōhea was used by the Crown and used Mokomoko's conviction to justify confiscating Whakatōhea land. This caused blame to be placed on Mokomoko whānau rather than the Crown for the suffering of Te Whakatōhea, and such a misunderstanding led over time to acts of retribution from some members of Whakatōhea towards the Mokomoko whānau. This is a history that we know, that we share amongst ourselves, that we teach to our children, and it's right that we continue to do so and that all New Zealanders know that. I also want to talk about the Ōhiwa Harbour, which is important to me, and I'm proud that this deed of settlement outlines the way that the Whakatōhea Kaitiaki Forum will work with the local council to continue to protect it. It's right that there is so much in the deed of settlement and such a focus on the environmental protections, which are the true role of iwi in this. We must act as kaitiaki and we must have that kaitiaki-ship enshrined in our law at the highest level. This is such an important piece of work because it looks after a fishery which, for me, sustained my father. He was given to his grandparents as a child who had been breastfed. If he had not been able to eat the cockles, eat the penupenu that they fed to him on those shores, then he would not have survived. Those fisheries have been degraded over time. They were cleared out in the 1970s. It is our job to protect them and it's right that the iwi would lead that. The last thing I want to talk about is the name Waioeka. My father, Haare, sits between two great Waioekas: my little girl Waioeka and his grandmother Waioeka Brown, the matriarch of Te Aitangi-a-Māhaki. It is an important name. It is a name that we share in the rohe and it is a name that I look forward to hearing about more in the select committee and the histories, because I would say it Wai-o-weka—ha, ha! Madam Speaker, it's been a privilege and an honour to speak here today. Thank you for the opportunity and thank you, ngā uri o Te Whakatōhea. TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It's a privilege to rise as the second to last speaker in this debate. The debate has been, I think, a very fulsome one. Can I start by acknowledging all those who have travelled here today from the Whakatōhea iwi to be a part of this momentous next step in the journey. It has been a long one, and I think it's important to acknowledge—and we've heard from a number of speakers in this debate already—some of the challenges that have led to us being here today to be able to take this next step. It has been a difficult period, and I think, when we reflect back to the issue, the brutal killing of Carl Völkner, the brutal and devastating response from the Crown, that had a crippling impact on Whakatōhea. These things have been a significant part of some of the most challenging periods in this country's history, and it is appropriate that we address it. Whilst we can never fully compensate for that, and there will always be difficulties and frustrations and upset and pain, this can be seen as an opportunity to take the next step. That doesn't mean forgetting what has happened, of course, but indeed using that as a platform to help build the success for Whakatōhea into the future. I think that's what excites me the most about seeing the journey of these settlement bills, as they come through the House; it's the opportunity that can provide, to restore in part, to help rebuild, to help develop and create a better future for those iwi. Indeed, in this situation, in a beautiful part of the country, I look forward to seeing that play out over the coming years. Of course, we're going through this stage now, the first reading here; we still have some way to go through the legislative process, but we will be engaging in that in a collegial fashion. We will be looking to work together to get the best outcome possible. Now, there are some aspects—one aspect in particular—that we will be examining more closely, which is around the aquaculture aspect of the settlement, which is a unique piece that we haven't seen before. It will be precedent setting, so it will be important to make sure that we consider that and what the impacts of that will be and how that will play out in this situation. But we will do that in good faith and see how that aligns for the benefit of Whakatōhea and for everyone in that area. This is an important stage and we need to make sure we get it as best we can, acknowledging, of course, as I myself and other speakers have said, that it will never be perfect, but there is an opportunity inherent in this, and that, I think, puts the onus on us, through all the challenge that has come before, to now take up that opportunity and make it the best it possibly can be. So, look, we are looking forward to celebrating the passing of this at its first reading—that acknowledgment, I suppose; a significant milestone of coming before this House, as we take the next step on the journey to passing this legislation. We are very much engaged in that process. So, Madam Speaker, on that basis, I commend this bill to the House. Thank you. SORAYA PEKE-MASON (Labour): [Authorised te reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] It is a privilege indeed to be able to stand here and take this call on the first reading of the Whakatōhea Claims Settlement Bill. I stand with humility as a list MP based in Te Tai Hauāuru, who entered Parliament in October last year. I acknowledge the passing of time before this bill and those that have gone before. It is said that there is no such thing as time; it takes the time it needs. The people of Whakatōhea, [Authorised te reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] this is your time. In reading about your history, I feel the mamae, the trials, the tribulations, the sacrifices, the loss, taking your people on this journey—a journey that dates back to the first petition in this House in 1914, which, sadly, was unsuccessful. Your people never gave up and continued to petition the Crown. There are great sacrifices. There is great mamae that I feel in between all that to get you here today, never giving up. We have heard the detail of your deed of settlement from previous speakers, and I reflect on the settlement of my own tribe, Ngāti Rangi. I'm reminded that these settlements are less than 2 percent of what has been taken. What is important to me today is to see that the Crown upholds their responsibilities in these settlements, their words of each and every settlement that passes through this House, and, in saying that, we as settled tribes do our bit to ensure the Crown honours those Treaty settlements and that I know, Whakatōhea, you will do that and make sure. When asked to speak on our settlements, words do not give justice to how I feel inside my puku, speaking in the lion's den, a place that I was reminded of through the history of my tribe and my hāhi, Te Rātana. Whilst it is a privilege, it is a mamae that we must learn from and never forget the story and the history of Whakatōhea. Whilst you can tick this milestone, we must never forget the mamae, the history, but now it's important to celebrate the beginning of a new journey for you today and the generations to come. Whakatōhea, I am not on the Māori Affairs Committee where it takes its next step in its journey, but what I do want to do is I want to acknowledge the hapū, and I apologise now if I err in terms of the ingoa, and if I may have left someone out, you will tell me—Ngāi Tamahaua, Ngāti Ira, Ngāti Ngāhere, Ngāti Patumoana, Ngāti Ruatākena, and Ūpokorehe. Whakatōhea, I am reminded of the kupu ō T W Rātana in 1918 when he tirelessly worked to unite the Māori people and to restore Te Tiriti o Waitangi to its rightful place as the founding document of this nation, Aotearoa: [Authorised te reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora. Bill read a first time. Bill referred to the Māori Affairs Committee. Waiata Karakia ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou katoa. RESALE RIGHT FOR VISUAL ARTISTS BILL Second Reading Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage): I move, That the Resale Right for Visual Artists Bill be now read a second time. This bill will establish an Artist Resale Royalty scheme in New Zealand, providing eligible visual artists with a resale right to benefit from their work. The arts are integral to the fabric of our country, they contribute to our unique culture and identity, and help to foster community wellbeing. However, our visual artists have some of the lowest medium incomes in New Zealand and have limited opportunities to benefit from their work on an ongoing basis. Unlike some of our other creative sectors, our visual artist's primary income is often limited to the one-off initial sale of their work. When the price of a visual artwork increases on the secondary market, often due to the hard work the artist has put in during their career, the artist will not share in this monetary success, likely receiving nothing. Under this bill, this will change. The bill will establish an Artist Resale Royalty scheme in New Zealand, providing eligible visual artists with a resale right to benefit from their work. In contrast to copyright, the resale right is unable to be wavered or transferred away from the artist while they are living, and so the right remains with the artist for their whole life. The resale right means a 5 percent royalty payment will be collected each time an artist's eligible work is resold. For a sale to be eligible for a royalty, it must meet the bill's definition of visual art, be created by or under the authority of a New Zealand citizen or resident, involve an art market professional, or be a resale to or from a publicly funded gallery, museum, archive, or library. The bill also provides the option for those involved in private resales to pay a royalty voluntarily if they want to. The threshold at which artworks will become eligible will be set between $500 and $5,000, with the exact figure to be set in the supporting regulations to the bill. As well as receiving royalties when their artwork is sold in New Zealand, visual artists will also be able to receive royalties when their eligible artworks are sold in countries which have reciprocating Artist Resale Royalty schemes. The scheme will benefit others as well as the artists themselves. Artist's successors or beneficiaries can receive royalty payments for up to 50 years after the artist's death. As is common overseas, the Artist Resale Royalty scheme will be managed by a non-government collection agency, which can deduct a percentage of the royalty in return for the service provided. The Social Services and Community Committee has finished its consideration of the bill and reported back to the House on 31 July. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Social Services and Community Committee for their hard work while considering this bill, and to thank the Parliamentary Counsel Office for their work to draft the bill. I would also like to acknowledge everyone who made a submission on the bill during the select committee phase; the input has been invaluable. The committee has recommended amendments that make the scheme more inclusive, strengthen accountability mechanisms, and improve the clarity of the drafting. Of the recommendations made by the committee, I would like to briefly speak to three of these changes. Firstly, three key definitions within the bill have been amended. In response to feedback on the bill, the definition of "visual artwork" has been expanded to include multimedia artworks and video artworks, which will enable the scheme to better capture the full spectrum of visual art. The definition of "professional resale" has also been amended to include public archives and libraries. Like public museums and galleries, archives and libraries often purchase work for their collections as part of their function and purpose. This amendment ensures these organisations will be included in the scheme. The definition of "art market professional" has been amended to explicitly include commercial galleries. Although these galleries were always covered by the definition, this amendment makes it clear that the resale scheme is applicable to these types of businesses and the artists who sell these works through them. These amendments broaden the range of visual artists that will benefit from the scheme, and provide greater clarity around the types of sales that qualify for the resale royalty. Secondly, the select committee recommended that the collection agency be subject to the Official Information Act, the Ombudsman Act and the Public Records Act in respect of its public functions under the bill. This is necessary, because, although the collection agency will be an NGO, it will be enforcing a public right and performing public functions. It will also be receiving Crown funding during the initial years of the scheme's operation. There is an emerging precedent for NGOs delivering Government functions in New Zealand to be subject to this type of legislation. This amendment will add an important additional layer of accountability to the scheme. Manatū Taonga will work with the appointed collection agency to ensure it is able to meet its obligations under these Acts. Finally, the select committee has recommended the eligibility requirements put on an artist successor should be consistent with the requirements on the artist. Without this amendment, the collection agency would have to track down successors with no connection to Aotearoa New Zealand, creating a significant administrative burden for the agency. The Resale Right for Visual Artists Bill is an important piece of legislation that will build on this Government's strong record of making careers in the creative sector more sustainable and more equitable. Over the past three years, we have invested into our creative sector to make the arts in New Zealand more resilient and sustainable. This bill recognises the contribution that artists make to our society, but also strikes an important balance that will allow our valuable secondary art market to flourish. The select committee process has led to a better bill. I thank the select committee for that, and I commend this bill to the House. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the motion be agreed to. CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. So I rise on behalf of the National Party to speak at this, the second reading of the Resale Right for Visual Artists Bill. I acknowledge the comments made by the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage, and, as she has done, the work of the Social Services and Community Committee. I was not a member of the select committee at the time, but I've read its report—obviously, in conjunction with the bill itself. It seems to me, from the discussion at the first reading and the work of the select committee, that some significant thought has gone into ensuring that a regime will exist that is as robust and as clear and accessible as possible. So I confirm to the House that National will continue to support the bill, and I'll explain some of the reasons for that in the remainder of my contribution. You might be wondering what I'm going to say for another nine minutes about this bill, Madam Speaker. I'm wondering the same thing, so let's enjoy discovering that together as best we can. I might not speak for a full nine minutes—I won't exceed my knowledge on this one, so it could be quite a short speech, in fact. But, actually, I thought the first interesting thing was that it is a new Act—or is a bill to create a new Act; it's not an amendment. That's significant in the sense that this is a new kind of mechanism that we have in New Zealand. I'm not aware of any equivalent regime within this country to treat any other objects— Melissa Lee: Collectables. CHRIS PENK: —or goods or collectables, as my colleague and friend Melissa Lee has said. But the point's been well made, I think, throughout the legislative process so far, that equivalent regimes do exist overseas. The legislative statement at the first reading pointed out that some 80—eight, zero—other countries have such a scheme in place. I think we shouldn't be so persuaded by the existence of other schemes in other countries that we would do it automatically, therefore—not least of all because there must be, logically speaking, 120 or so other nation States that don't have a regime. However, I think it's indicative that this is something that has been at least somewhat tested overseas—there is precedent in that sense. That's actually helpful when we think about aspects such as the impact of the scheme on the secondary art market and in considering what that impact might be. In the absence of information in a domestic New Zealand context, we can look overseas to the UK and Australia where reports published in 2014 and 2019 respectively outlined the way that those regimes have been operating in those different countries. Seeing as I'm on the subject, it seems that there's been relatively low administrative costs to art market professionals in those countries. And so, with some degree of confidence based on that overseas experience, we say in this country that—or at least in this Parliament; certainly from the National Party side of things, supporting the comments of the Minister, that we think that the regime will not be overly onerous or burdensome and out of proportion with the intended aims of the bill. So what are the aims of the bill? Well, basically, the whole thrust of it, of course, is to provide value to artists who create visual artwork—and we can talk in a moment what that that might actually mean—such that would encourage them in their work and provide a degree of fairness when on-sale takes place, such that they would be able to capture some of that increased value, as one would hope that it would be over time, if for no other reason than the outrageous level of inflation that we have in this country at the moment. But also there's sort of another layer of purpose to the bill, which is so that we can meet our international obligations. It's a bit of a quirk of our constitution, I suppose, that the Government of the day can enter into international treaties and express a commitment in that the country—you know, our own country, New Zealand—will legislate in support of that. So Parliament, sort of, has a moral obligation to follow through what the executive Government has done. Of course, it would be unusual for an international treaty to be entered into by one side of politics or the other, such that it wouldn't be supported on the other side of the House. Certainly, we don't find any difficulty here in saying that with the UK FTA and the EU FTA—being the Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and, of course, European free-trade agreement. We support those themselves and we also support the mechanism within those, whereby those free-trade agreements indicated that New Zealand would enter into such a scheme or look to enter into such a scheme within two years—that we do so now. So it's a reciprocal scheme. It applies equally, I understand, on those foreign jurisdictions, as it does to New Zealand. The other element, I think, that's worth commenting on is just how it will work in practical terms. The Minister's given a bit of a flavour of that already, so I don't intend to repeat her comments—there'd be no value in doing that holus-bolus. But, in terms of the threshold, the Minister has mentioned that there will be regulations made to support, in terms of the detail. I actually think it's quite sensible to have regulations that set out some of the detail of the scheme. I'm receiving some support for that idea. In my mind, it's a good idea because, if we're talking about particular monetary value and, you know, through inflation, effectively—whether a significant degree of inflation or just throughout the passage of time—the dollar amounts become less meaningful or, frankly, inappropriate, then regulations can be made from time to time by the relevant Minister or Government agency that align it more realistically with the economy at that time. Of course, if we were to have these dollar figures in primary legislation—the bill that we are engaged in passing now—then it would be necessary to come back to Parliament on each occasion to change those dollar numbers and thresholds, and that probably would not be a good use of the House's time. So we see, further in the detail, and, again, as discussed at the select committee, the resale right will be inalienable, which is to say it can't be alienated from the person who it belongs to, it can't be separated, and it can't be sold or transferred except on the death of the artist. So the estate of the artist will be able to receive the benefit of this resale right. So it's quite a special kind of property right in that sense—possibly not unique but certainly slightly unusual. It can be held jointly or individually—that is to say, you know, by one natural person or, perhaps, more than one together. One interesting feature—and, again, I think, it's quite an astute mechanism—is to say that the duration of the resale right will be the same as the copyright period. It makes sense to align those. They are both, in a way, intellectual property rights associated with the artwork. Actually it's smarter even than saying the current copyright duration is the death of the artist plus 50 years—we say it's going to be the same as the copyright period. So if the copyright increases, as is currently mooted, to 70 years—seven zero years—then this would likewise extend. So they'll always be matched. So I think that's a good bit of drafting. A good bit of thought has gone into that from those proposing the bill in the first instance and, as I say, with the approval, the green light, from the select committee on that point. As for what is included in the definition of a "visual artwork", it's famously said that art is very subjective. It's a point that might be confirmed if one spills one's coffee in the cafe at an art gallery and finds that one has accidentally won a modern-art prize, for example. But, anyway, there's no accounting for taste—taste of the coffee either, I suppose. But if one spills it, one can't taste it in that way. So I'll move on and only to note that, obviously, we're not interested in the subjective value of this so-called art, as it probably is in many cases, but, really, what the nature of it is. That's defined as well as can be hoped in the Act—the bill, rather, and in quite a broad and inclusive way. We don't want to be too restrictive in that way. That would defeat the purpose, and the Minister's given some discussion on that. So my final comments are really just to note that there's a certain amount of enforcement that will be allowable, mostly through civil proceedings as opposed to criminal. A person would have the right to go to court to enforce their rights under the regime, in accordance with the Act, but also in a more general kind of way—it might be something contractual or it might be, you know, a general right to go to a court of law and to say that one has been done wrong. So interesting stuff, sort of, in an economic kind of way, in a legal way, and it's a very fascinating idea, relatively unique—or unique, in fact, I should say. National does continue to support it for the reasons that I've said. ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It's a real pleasure to speak on this bill, the Retail Right for Visual Artists Bill. It came to the Social Services and Community Committee, and we had a lot of interest from the community. We had 54 submissions and six oral submissions. That doesn't sound like a lot, but actually they were fascinating submissions, and I just want to start my contribution with a quote from Huia Hamon, the daughter of the late Rei Hamon, "It is absolutely criminal that everyone else, except the artist and their families, make money from their artworks forever. With no mention, no record keeping and the artist brunts all the taxes! I love this and it gives a lot of mana back to people that create and spread good vibes around the world through their artwork." I think that sums up a lot of the submissions we had, although they were incredibly thoughtful as well and there was a lot legal definitions. This bill does three things very simply, and we have traversed this, but I will very quickly say it establishes a scheme to ensure artists receive a royalty payment of 5 percent on resale of visual artwork. It authorises a ministerially appointed non-Government, not-for-profit collection agency to manage and enforce the scheme, and they can take a small admin fee for that service. The third thing it does is create a new source of income for visual artists. It's another way that this Government is supporting people with the cost of living. Artists in New Zealand have some of the lowest median incomes, and we heard the Minister speak about that. In 2008 we had the opportunity for this piece of legislation or a similar piece to be passed. The Hon Judith Tizard introduced a bill. It was voted down or it didn't proceed in the next Parliament when the National Party chose not to support it and continue it on. So this bill today at its second reading—and we have made some significant and sensible changes—brings us back in line with the 80-something countries out there and the rest of the world doing this work. My time is quite short. I'm mindful that we have a valedictory today, but I would just like to acknowledge the support of the select committee—all members were incredibly engaged in this process—the submissions, and our officials who helped us with some very curly questions. We got into all sorts of questions, particularly about where people might live and how long these rights would last for, and who might get the benefit of them etc. So with that, I commend this bill to the House. MELISSA LEE (National): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I won't be labouring lots on this one, because I think it's actually a really good idea. Artists who work in this sector to provide visual arts often do it for very little money when they first sell. Having said that, this is, as my colleague Chris Penk has said, a bit of a precedent in the sense that in this country, where other collectables, things like even company shares that people buy to resell or even vehicles that they do up to resell to make a profit—they don't actually have resale rights, where they get a cut from the resale. But for the artists, I believe that we're doing the right thing here in this instance, particularly because it is to meet the terms of both the New Zealand - UK free-trade agreement (FTA) and the New Zealand - EU FTA. The National Party supports our free-trade agreements, and we respect that. The only concern that I have in regards to this bill is that because the FTA was signed in February last year and we need to implement this scheme within two years—which means by February 2024—I just wonder whether it will actually be implemented. I hope the officials and everyone involved in this—because this is only a second reading. I'm guessing we're going to go into the committee stage and third reading next week, but who knows? We shall see what happens. But, as the Minister has laid out and has other colleagues have said, this is to provide an additional 5 percent on the resale price before any additional costs such as GST and buyer's premium is added so that that can be passed on to the artist. The one aspect which I'm slightly concerned about is the recommendation that came back from the select committee, which was the additional amendment that they are asking for in relation to "The artist's successor who holds the resale right should meet residency requirements", it says. I understand that the Minister was mentioning that if they were living outside of New Zealand, it would be very difficult to actually track them down. I'm left wondering whether, if I am the artist and I happen not to have any children and I bequeath all of my assets, including the resale rights on the arts that I have created to a nephew who is in the United States—I have a couple of nephews in the United States. OK, maybe that's the wrong one, because they have New Zealand citizenship. But if I happen to bequeath it to a cousin in Korea, for example, because they don't actually have residency in New Zealand, they don't actually benefit from my leaving them my assets—my resale rights for the art that I have created—which they could actually benefit from. In this day and age, where internet and email addresses are available, I would have thought that when you have a register, it would be easier to track down those successors of the resale rights, and I'm wondering whether that could be looked at, potentially, in the committee stage, because I would hate for those people who may not have children to not be able to bequeath their assets to their family members, who potentially could benefit as a result of that. I collect art, not very expensive art—I can't afford it, obviously. Stuart Smith: Picasso? MELISSA LEE: No. I collect student art, and I make it a point that every time Mount Albert Grammar School (MAGS) holds their art auction, I turn up and I buy student art. Although the value of the student art doesn't quite meet the threshold for this bill, I'm guessing that to make it— Hon Dr Duncan Webb: One day. MELISSA LEE: To put it on record, I don't buy those artworks to resell. They are our pride and joy because I love seeing young people's art and how creative they are. But, eventually, their art could be worth quite a lot, and it will fall under this. If I choose to sell it, I believe that the student that I have supported at MAGS would collect the 5 percent resale value as a benefit for their hard work that they did in high school. I hope that actually happens—and I won't sell it, by the way. The duration of the resale right will be the same as the duration of copyright, which is, currently, the life of the artist plus 50 years after death. But it actually excludes private resale between two individuals, and the resale has to happen with a proper art dealer, I'm guessing. I think that that is only right, and if Stuart Smith and I decide to agree that I was going to sell him my student art when it's valued a lot higher and he pays me a price, it doesn't actually incur this. I'm not so sure if that's fair. Stuart Smith: Well, I'm quite discerning. MELISSA LEE: Ha, ha! Anyway, I won't actually labour the point any further. I think it is a great thing that we're supporting the element of a free-trade agreement that has needed this Parliament's attention. Having said that, I just am slightly concerned about the way that the free-trade agreement provision, effectively, actually forces Parliament to pass specific items in the legislation beyond the simple ratification of the deal—the FTA itself—and often in this situation, if people comment about a particular aspect of that bill, people who listen to this debate could potentially judge or think that we are opposed to the FTA. That is not the case, and I do worry somewhat—you know, I do have some concern about some of that aspect of the FTA requiring us to actually pass these elements within the context of the agreement of the FTA, where we have to pass this bill when it's not just the usual ratification of the FTA. I commend the bill to the House. ANAHILA KANONGATA'A (Labour): Kia ora e te Mana Whakawā. Always an honour and a privilege to make a contribution—a short one today, on the Resale Right for Visual Artists Bill. This is a fair bill—this is a fair bill. The bill is really fair in terms of artists' royalty rights, entitles visual artists to benefit from the resale of their artwork, and, if they do pass on from this life, their descendants actually get that 5 percent. So, what it does, as we heard from everybody: it establishes a scheme to collect the 5 percent royalty. It also meets our free-trade agreement with the EU, with the UK, and, of course, Australia. There is an example where Australia had these resale rights for artists in 2010, and since, 2010 to 2022, it's actually earned $11 million, so that's a lot of money that artists and their descendants actually miss out on. I want to acknowledge the concerns that the last speaker had spoken about in terms of the descendants—if the artist dies and passes away, what happens to the resale with their descendants. The committee had talked about that in clause 14 of the bill, and where we came down to was that the same citizens' or residents' rights to artists must also apply to the resale of their descendant if they pass away. But the difference is that the resale right will be available to New Zealand citizens and individuals domiciled in New Zealand—because we asked about the Pacific. We all know that the countries of the Realm, they're eligible as New Zealand citizens. And, of course, it also applies the resale right to hold jointly all countries that we have agreement with—like the EU, like the UK, and like Australia. So if their descendants live in those countries, they are also entitled to receive the royalty. This is a fair bill and it's about time that we get to this stage. I commend this bill to the House. Mālō 'aupito. Dr JAMES McDOWALL (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT to continue to support the Resale Right for Visual Artists Bill, but I will note a few comments and highlight some concerns along the way. As Melissa Lee has pointed out, Parliament's hands are somewhat tied with legislation like this and, as a party that supports free trade, hence we are continuing to support this. But it does put us in a bit of a tricky situation, and I do think, with a bill like this, if it was coming into this House in isolation and not having to support a free-trade agreement, the outcome might be slightly different. One comment on, or reflection on, something the Minister, the Hon Carmel Sepuloni, said in her first speech—that this will do great things and it will benefit artists on an ongoing basis—I would question that, as to how much of an impact this will have, because a lot of art is not sold very often, and a lot of artists don't produce a wide range of work. So, on an individual basis, I do question whether this will have a significant monetary benefit for those artists. I don't think it's going to be as great as it's perhaps touted to be. We feel this law is going to be complex, more complex than people are possibly saying, because, even though there are models overseas, with any new bureaucracy—an agency like this, with all its costs—does come complexity. A few comments on the bill as it has come through and been amended by the Social Services and Community Committee: it refers to a New Zealand citizen having the same meaning as in the Immigration Act—again, this is something that possibly would have been better with the Citizenship Act. I'm not entirely sure why that was used. With regards to who is eligible, the eligible artist is "a person domiciled or resident in New Zealand"—so we're referring to citizens and New Zealand residents, as was the commentary in the select committee—and the Minister said this deals with the issue where an artist, or perhaps their descendants, might have no connection to New Zealand. There are many artists here in New Zealand who make, for instance, Māori artwork who are on temporary visas, who are migrants. You know, we purchased a piece of artwork from one recently and took it on a trip to Taiwan to gift to an official over there. Now, they eventually may leave New Zealand, and suddenly this piece of New Zealand heritage no longer comes under this framework. Looking at the definition of visual work, I think this just highlights the complexity—the various definitions; the vast array. This is going to be a minefield and perhaps open up a bit of a cottage industry for lawyers having to work through the definitions. We're glad that it covers galleries and museums, for instance, publicly funded or otherwise, though I do wonder how all galleries will feel about this, because, again, there is another slight distortion in the market. There is a disincentive, for instance, for someone to sell. They may just go and become a private seller. They may say, "I'm not going to go through a professional gallery, because that's going to be an extra cost." So I think there are some unintended consequences there that may unfold. In terms of the rights held by the artist, I think there's perhaps a question of the fact that these rights continue no matter what. While it may be a small percentage, there are situations where someone may have criminal activity; they may be charged—and people can lose their knighthoods over this stuff. So the question is: if someone commits serious criminal offending and they go to prison, there's nothing that actually excludes them from benefiting from this; they still get the 5 percent while they're in there and when they get out. You do have to wonder, perhaps, if that's something that does need to have a little bit of attention to and reflection. The successor—again, this could be a bit of a minefield with regards to the rights of successors, who they are, and where they are in the world. Again, I think, if you're a lawyer, this would be a wonderful piece of legislation. The last comment I'll make is regarding the collection agency if they cannot find a person or they cannot find an artist. They have to take that money, and they can decide themselves what they would like to do with it. They could transfer it to this new cultural fund that's been created, and I'd question the transparency of that fund and what it's used for, but, most importantly, the decision of the collection agency, whether or not they decide to put it into that fund themselves or return it to the person who paid the royalty. Does the person who paid the royalty have a say in this? Looking at the legislation, it appears that they don't. So, like I said, we're in an awkward situation where, because of a free-trade agreement, Parliament has to pass this piece of legislation. Again, if it was in isolation—[Interruption] ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! Dr JAMES McDOWALL: The final comment I'll make, Madam Speaker—thank you very much—is that in isolation, I think, personally, I would not support this bill proceeding any further. I think it is a lot of bureaucracy but, unfortunately, sometimes we have to do these things. So, with that, I commend it to the House. Thank you. RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Greens to speak to the Resale Right for Visual Artists Bill reading, and the Green Party will be supporting this bill. This bill will support visual artists. Through the passage of the Social Services and Community, we managed to iron out some issues that arose. While we did align issues around the residency status requirements for the successors of the artists, I think there are some ongoing questions about fairness—particularly when collaboration would have happened between an artist who was a resident and an artist who was on a temporary visa. We did note, through the passage of the select committee, that that's an issue. There were also some questions raised around the structure of the body that will be in charge of collecting these fees. There are questions about whether this should be funded via the administrative fees that are collected or whether Government should just centrally fund it and then be able to adequately resource it. But on the whole, this is a good bill. While the Green Party may have not supported the fair-trade agreement that brought this bill into place, we do think that having a regime as such will provide much-needed revenue for artists—visual artists, in this case—who often may be struggling to make ends meet due to the lack of support that we provide for artists when it comes to income support. So the Green Party has to commend this bill. Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It's a real pleasure to stand and take a call on this bill. As you walk around Parliament you see some amazing artworks and what they do is they really reflect the strength of our visual art community. The issue, though, is that some of our artists have some of the lowest median incomes in the country, and so what they do is basically they benefit from the sale of their artwork on the first time that that sale occurs, but the problem is that at the point where the artwork is sold on the secondary market, they can no longer benefit. So what this bill does is it ensures that we've got a 5 percent royalty that's going back to the artists, but it's only on a specific set of criteria. It has to be sold by an art market professional or alternatively sold to or from a publicly funded gallery—so there's very specific criteria. If you're buying and trading, or selling on a private art market then, basically, that doesn't apply, although you can opt-in to make sure that the artist benefits. So this is an important bill and we heard some very useful submissions. My colleague Angie Warren-Clark read out one in her speech that just reflects the importance that this royalty will have to the artists that will benefit from this work. So this is a really important bill, and I'm happy to commend it to the House. VALEDICTORY STATEMENTS SPEAKER: In accordance with a decision of the Business Committee, we'll come to valedictory statements. But, members, can I say—so that I don't have to interrupt at the end, during inevitable celebrations, at the conclusion of the valedictory statements—that the House will adjourn at the conclusion of Dr Clark's valedictory statement until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 22 August 2023. I'd now like to call the Hon Stuart Nash to make his valedictory statement. Hon STUART NASH (Labour—Napier): Nau mai, haere mai, tēnā koutou, ka nui te mihi kia koutou tēnā koutou katoa. On 16 December 2008, I was called to give my maiden statement. Now exactly 650 speeches later and 15 years on, I rise to give my valedictory. During this time, I have met and worked with the most amazing people, had the pleasure and privilege of representing my home town of Napier as their member of Parliament, been part of two extremely capable Cabinets, added two more Nash children, and married wonderful Sarah. The highs have been lofty and the lows—well, forgotten already. By me, anyway. It wasn't always this way. On the day after the 2011 election—just three years after delivering that maiden speech—I found myself out of Parliament and unemployed, with a pregnant wife, a large mortgage, a big red-branded fire engine, and an empty electorate office I owned, in the middle of a global financial crisis. As an aside, one of the major local issues during the 2011 campaign was the possible closure of the Taradale Police Station. The sitting National MP at the time had publicly said that if the Taradale Police Station closed, he would resign. A week after the election, I bumped into the police District Commander and he said, "Mate, is there anything I can do to help?" I said, "Yeah, there actually there is. You can close down that Taradale Police Station." For the record, this is the only time I have ever advocated for the closure of any police station and Taradale remains open to this day. Just to prove that my ability to influence police operational decisions—no matter what my seniority or where I sit in the hierarchy—has been pretty much zero. Back to 2011. Just four months after the election, I sat down at Ujazi Cafe in Napier with great mate and political partner Rob Johnson and we reflected. One term as an Opposition list MP wasn't how it was supposed to end. It was over 2½ years to the 2014 election, but we decided to go hard once more—and hard we did. We bought another fire engine, went hell for leather for 30 months: street corner meetings, door knocking, hoardings, and a highly effective anti-amalgamation campaign—and we raised the money required to fund all this. The truth is, you can't run—let alone win—a political campaign without money. I have been extremely fortunate to have a group of exceptional mates who have simply supported their mate. Notably, Ned Kelly and Troy Bowker were very generous over this time. Without their help, the team wouldn't have achieved what we did during that campaign. But also great mates and lifelong friends like Phil McCaw, Marty Verry, Greg Loveridge, and Bob Jones have funded me campaign after campaign, and I thank you for supporting me and am forever grateful. As mentioned, just mates backing a mate in a very Kiwi way. In 2014, we were the only Labour team to win an electorate off the Nats. In fact, until 2020, great mate of mine Damien O'Connor and I were the only two Labour MPs to win and hold a seat off the Nats this century. A term of Opposition followed until 2017, when an amazing leader captured the imagination of the nation and—with the support of another person who I consider a very good friend, Winston Peters—we found ourselves in Government. To Jacinda Ardern: thank you for providing me the opportunity to be the best I possibly could. I think most New Zealanders know Jacinda as a master communicator and respect her genuine empathy, but very few saw the depth and breadth of her leadership and political skills. As chair of our Cabinet, she held Ministers to account in a way that only a person with a fierce intellect, a command of the detail, a grasp of the big picture, and a crystal-clear vision could. But to give credit where credit is due, though, in Grant Robertson, Jacinda had the support of one of this nation's best ever finance Ministers. Grant's work ethic is legendary, and his command of policy and finance—always with an informed but pragmatic overlay and sometimes a "Road to Damascus"—is outstanding. I have an immense amount of admiration and respect for you, Grant, and the way you have worked so hard to transform our country to align with the Labour vision. Being in Cabinet means you get the opportunity to change the world. I like to think that I was a person who had a reputation for working incredibly hard across my portfolios and who got stuff done. To name just a few: firearms reform; legislating pill testing; rebuilding the police service; cameras on fishing boats; starting Digital Boost, First Steps mental health programme for SME owners; e-invoicing; restarting the NZ Forest Service and driving forward the massive reforms required within the sector; the Regional Strategic Partnership Fund; changing the way—with Grant, of course—that the Government partners with companies through debt and equity, rather than simply grants; Industry Transformation Plans, the space strategy and policy; Government procurement; economic strategy; freedom camping; all of the work done during 15 March and White Island as the Minister of Police; and, of course, COVID, variously as Minister of Police, Revenue, Small Business, fisheries, Tourism, Forestry, and Regional and Economic Development. Even though it was a relentless and immense workload, I loved being in Cabinet. And I would like to think that apart from the occasional slip-up—and mainly because I was speaking on behalf of hard-working Kiwis who were simply just trying to expedite process—I would love to think I was pretty good at my job. Thank you. Sometimes though, it's the little things that stand out. In my early days as revenue Minister, I received two letters from women who were forced to pay child support for children conceived as a result of rape. This was unjust and I asked the Inland Revenue Department to change this practice but was told it would take a law change, so we changed the law. My message to the public is never underestimate the impact you can have by writing to your local MP or Minister advocating for change. Niccolo Machiavelli is attributed as saying, re politics, that you must keep your friends close but your enemies closer. This 500-year-old piece of advice belongs back in the dark ages from whence it came. Of course you need to know what your enemies are doing, no matter what side of the House they are on, but you also need a couple of best friends to be the closest in this place if you are going to survive, let alone thrive. I'd like to think that I have and have had many friends right across the political spectrum, but three people deserve a special mention as friends who kept me safe and sane. Peeni Henare, elected at the same time as my return in 2014—and what a first caucus meeting that was, mate. We clicked immediately and have been great mates ever since. Thank you, my friend. Barbara Edmonds, my amazing ministerial adviser who became an MP and now a Minister in her first term—love and respect you dearly. In fact, in one trip away together, Barb was no doubt bossing me around to the point where someone asked if we were married. Barb shot back, "No, wrong flavour." Finally, Kelvin Davis. I can't look at Kelvin when I say this. Kelvin and I were elected in 2008, out in 2011, and won seats in 2014. Thank you. A better mate and confidant than a man could ask for. Thank you. All my successes and victories during my parliamentary career are because I have been part of a number of fantastic teams, at home in Napier, in Parliament, and in Government. To name everyone who played a role large and small would carry me way past time, but I know who you are and I will be thanking you personally over the coming months. However, Cherry Taylor in my electoral office deserved a special mention. We've spent nearly nine years together and Cherry is a woman of immense integrity who always had my back. We worked incredibly well together in a way that I believe added value to the people of the Napier electorate. Cherry, what we did to keep those two surgeons in the bay when they were so frustrated with the system that they were literally packing up to leave, we would do again every single day to ensure our electorate was well served. The only reason I leveraged my networks to sort the situation was because the health and wellbeing of my constituents was always the major priority for Cherry and I, and I'm proud of the work we did. People in my parliamentary and ministerial offices over the years—and there have been many—have all been exceptional. I have been blessed. But a special call-out to Barb, my press secretaries Kathryn Street and Travis Mills, who worked seven days a week for two months after the 15 March terrorist attack to get the firearms legislation sorted. It was a highly functional team with a clear vision of what we needed to achieve and how to achieve it, and we did. Friends outside this place are also vital. In this game you lose a few but also learn who your true friends really are. Three amazing friends from years ago do deserve special recognition: Rob Lee, Phil McCaw and Ned Kelly—or Andrew Kelly, but everyone with the last name Kelly's called Ned, right? Best friends before, best friends during, and best friends after. We've always celebrated each other's successes and triumphs and been there for each other during the inevitable missteps and mischief. And to my Napier team—a number whom have travelled to be here today—thank you so much; what a team. The best campaigners in the country—the results bear that out. I've read commentary about the State sector recently that I don't think is grounded in the reality. Let me say, I have been extremely well served by exceptional State sector leaders who have built efficient and competent teams that do deliver. Carolyn Tremain, who heads the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment; Ray Smith, the Director General of Ministry for Primary Industries; Andy Coster and Mike Bush, both Commissioners of Police during my time; Naomi Ferguson, commissioner of Inland Revenue—all exceptional leaders who would shine in any large, complex organisation, public sector or private. Though not my direct portfolio, but within my sphere of work, Debbie Power from the Ministry of Social Development, James Palmer from the Ministry for the Environment and Penny Nelson from the Department of Conservation are also exceptional leaders. All the State sector leaders I have had contact with and/or have worked with do, in my opinion, deliver innovative solutions and undertake comprehensive change programmes under the most trying of circumstances. My experience after five and a half years at the coalface is that by and large, New Zealand is extremely well served by a highly confident, capable, and engaged State sector. A couple of observations: I love this country and I believe in its potential, but the growing acceptance of mediocrity has become a disease that has crept into society in a way that is highly counter-productive. We need to banish the belief that it's not about winning, but rather it's about participation: that's just bullshit. Play fair, but always play to win. Fight for it. Be there to be the best. We must instil a passion and a pride in all New Zealanders—starting in the classroom with teachers and students, based on principles and objectives of excellence and success. Secondly, in this country, we tend to put our judges on a pedestal. Of course, they play a very important part in maintaining the social fabric of society, but if a Minister whose name is on a piece of legislation can't comment on a decision that is so far outside the expectations of the community that both the Minister and the Judge serve; then who can? Well, apart from Mike Hosking. Judges need to be as accountable for their performance as MPs are. Of course, as a legislator, I understand the principle of judicial independence—but as a legislator, when I occasionally see members of the judiciary seemingly ignoring the very clear guidance Parliament's legislation has sent to both them and our communities, then I think as an elected representative, I have earnt the right to call that out. What's next? A welcome return to corporate life in a challenging role I am very much looking forward to for an organisation whose culture embraces excellence and whose values are totally aligned with mine—I can't wait. And of course, more time with my wonderful family. Thank you, Sarah, Sophia, Charlie, Will, and Isabella. This has been my passion and not yours; you've all paid a high price for my service. You know, I showed a copy of my speech to Sarah, my wife, because, not surprisingly, she has built a better filter than I do re risk. But I deliberately left these words out because I wanted her to hear them for this first time today: You can't do this job without a loving, supportive partner. They manage the house because we're never around, and they protect our kids when cruel words are written, and pick up the pieces when it turns to shit. No partner knows what they are getting themselves into when their man or woman becomes an MP, and you can times that by ten when they become a Minister. It can be brutal, and sometimes more so for our families than for us. And Sarah, you've had my back in a way that's allowed me—I love you. If it seems I've taken this for granted, believe me, I never have. Thank you. Two final points. [Holds up printout] The best headline of my career: "I can't believe Stuart Nash was right". Could be referring to anything I suppose, but it's about a bit I had with Mike Hosking and Mark Mitchell. We bet a case of fine Craggy Range wine on the fact we get to 90 percent fully vaxxed and we did, now that's delivery for you; an amazing Government. Mike Hosking, however, still hasn't paid up. Come on, Mike, I know you're watching—tomorrow, I dare you to announce, on air, that there's a case of Craggy Range on my way, and I'll collect from you too, Mitch. Mr Speaker, when I'm asked what my legacy will be, I reply that I have no public legacy. I will be forgotten 10 minutes after I leave this place, and that's the way it should be. But the Government I've been part of has left a strong legacy as a result of collective action and a drive and determination to do the right thing by a group of highly engaged people. And on that note, I want to say it really has been a privilege and a pleasure to have served. Finally, as an MP who has been here a while, I am very aware there is actually one more time when a future speaker will formally call my name. May there been many, many good years between this day and that one. Kia ora. [Applause, hongi, and harirū] SPEAKER: Members, I think we'll just wait till the whānau of the next speaker comes into the Chamber. Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin): E ngā mana, e ngā reo, e ngā kārangarangatanga maha o te wā. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa. In the late 1990s, Nándor Tánczos, then a fresh political candidate for a party outside Parliament, approached me at Metiria Turei's wedding, at which I was officiating. Nandor wanted to attend an event I was running on restorative justice. Judge Fred McElrea, Dame Naida Glavish, and Rev Douglas Mansill were speaking at St Luke's Church. But it was David Lange who packed the church to the rafters. He transfixed the audience, speaking with much humour and without notes. To this day, I still hear his booming voice when I consulted the audience about extending the session: "David, just make a decision." It was useful advice then, and it proved useful advice when I made it into Cabinet many years later. I was chuffed when the Green Party wrote their first justice policy off the back of that event. I had long known, though, that my sympathies lay with Labour, "fighting for the many and not the few", but it wasn't until I was at Treasury that I joined the Labour Party. Needless to say, this was uncommon. However, in common with many Treasury officials through the ages, I did begin to wonder increasingly why the Minister of Finance was not taking all of my excellent advice. My friend Grant Robertson soon had me out under the cover of darkness installing Marian Hobbs' campaign billboards in 2005. I came out of the political closet later that year when I attended the press gallery drinks in the company of Prime Minister's Office staffers. One of Grant's colleagues, Jacinda Ardern, had a spare ticket. I eventually found myself working in the Hon David Parker's office. Over a beer at the Occidental, Grant had told me that my complete lack of political experience, and my background as a Treasury official would not count against me. Two days later, I met David at another bar, disagreed with him about just about everything, and he offered me the job. I had the very real privilege of working alongside David as he designed the world's first emissions trading scheme. In that process, he won the political argument for a price on carbon that had earlier been lost, with a carbon tax. David, you are in this job, first and foremost, to make a change that matters in people's lives, and I hugely respect that. A year out from the 2008 election, I returned to Dunedin to run Selwyn College, a student hall of residence. I took with me the lesson that change is possible in New Zealand politics. My initial selection as a candidate for Labour came a few years later through the efforts of a team of stalwarts. I want to thank Ruth Chapman, Islay Little, Ali Jameson, Carol Bond, Jacques Van der Meer, and, of course, my friend the wonderful Barb Long, who brought her incredible energy and focus to chairing my first two campaigns. Dunedin, of course, is a paradise. Chris Finlayson once told me before he left this place that he loved our city, its arts, its culture, its heritage, and, in fact, he "would consider moving there if it wasn't such a socialist hellhole." Numerous people have reached out to thank me for my service since I announced my retirement, but they have things the wrong way around. It is me that wants to thank you, the people of Dunedin and its northern satellites, for trusting me to represent you for four terms. It has been a privilege. Three local campaigns highlight for me the possibility of positive change in politics. A huge thankyou to Jarred Griffiths, without whom the first two would not have been such a success. By 2017, Dunedin was sick of a hospital with asbestos and leaking operating theatres, and, as a candidate who had run a consistent campaign over more than three years focused on that rebuild of that hospital, they supported me to one of the biggest swings to Labour in the country. Very few Ministers then get to run a project in the local community—or not run it, but you know—worth a billion dollars. It was deeply satisfying and a deeply satisfying victory by the community, for the community. To Pete Hodgson, thank you for ensuring that both local opportunities and healthcare outcomes have been maximised in that rebuild. Ours will be the most modern and appropriate hospital, the biggest, and, actually, the most expensive—sorry, finance Minister—ever built in New Zealand's history. It will be world class. The second local campaign is saving Invermay. Together with the Dave Cull, the late Mayor of Dunedin, the chamber of commerce, former AgResearch luminary Jock Allison, and others, we made videos and broke stories. The Otago Daily Times supported the campaign. The sheep industry got on board; locals liked high-value jobs. The 12,000 strong petition was ultimately declared a success with Labour in Government scrapping the plan for AgResearch to disband Invermay. The third local success is the Centre of Digital Excellence—CODE for short. Ahead of the 2017 election, Opposition frontbenchers brought ideas to the table to choose a signature policy. I had earnestly been working through the application of bottom-up cluster theory. But it will surprise no one here, that I was sent away after this experience, and given that economic theory—complete with hypotheticals and ill-defined future rewards—proved no match at all for the competing policy summed up in three words by my more politically astute colleague: "free tertiary education". Chris Hipkins for the win! Both the examples, though, that I did work up through that theory in Tairāwhiti, The wood cluster and CODE in Dunedin were further developed, funded, and implemented in Government, and I want to congratulate those others who have made that a success. Alongside the glamour of campaigns sits the Labour Electorate Committee (LEC), who ensure the day-to-day work of the party is kept in order. LEC chairs Anthony Robins, Steve O'Connor, Karen Heine, Marian Hobbs, Suzanne Robins, Kevin O'Sullivan—thank you. To those who served in my electorate office: Karen Dehn, Sally Knox, Jo O'Brien, Jarred Griffiths, Amy Dowdle, Darryl Baser, Michelle Walsh, Frances Griffiths, Anna Hoek-Sims, and all of those wonderful part-timers. And, of course, the team who recently won the "superb eco award" for the best electorate office in the country—thank you. Karen Frost, Bronson Blackbourn, and John McKenzie, I am going to miss you guys, but with Rachel Brooking on the way, I'm confident you are getting an upgrade. Back in Wellington, I want to thank Jo Crilly for putting up with my ceaseless demands from opposition and determination to make a difference, even from opposition on those cold, hard benches. Kasper, thanks for ushering me out the door with dignity. In 2017 we formed Government. Melissa Turner, you are the longest-serving SPS in this place. Having worked with some real characters over three Governments, anything after Clayton Cosgrove was going to be a doddle! For your tireless service, professionalism, loyalty, and sense of humour throughout my time in Cabinet—thank you. I started my time as Minister of Health and Associate Minister of Finance with a position that entrenched inequity in health won't be fixed by doing the same things we've always done. I commissioned the Simpson review, later taking initial decisions, shifting the health system towards greater accountability and a stronger focus on population health. Out of the blocks, we set up a programme of work with a focus on primary care, mental health, and the public delivery of health services, and early on, I discovered speeches that I delivered with a simple mihi at the start triggered a conversation about equity. Those where I skipped it, did not, so I quickly adopted a mihi for every occasion. Clinicians get equity, and they want to do more of it. Around 50 percent of the opportunity in health is policy; the other 50 percent is the appointment of good people. Unfortunately, the public service is 99 percent geared up to support policy, and that needs to change. I want to thank from the bottom of my heart those leaders who answered my call to become DHB board members and chairs. As promised, it is a job where "the pay is terrible, but the rewards are in heaven." Thanks to my health associates: Peeni Henare, Jenny Salesa, and Julie-Anne Genter for sharing the load—you are amazing. Thanks to Stephen Mckernan and Ashley Bloomfield for wise and frequent council. You each pre-read a good chunk of the Ministry of Health reports that I'm told can be stacked two and a half Sky Towers high each year. Big decisions must be taken in health quickly, there are many every day. We invested heavily in infrastructure. The He Ara Oranga report led to $1.9 billion in Budget 2019 for mental health and addictions. We funded free access to support for those with mild to moderate mental health needs. We established a suicide prevention office, and an action plan. We wrote and passed the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission Bill, establishing a permanent independent commission. The Mana Ake primary and intermediate school programme was established in Canterbury and Kaikōura. With Stuart Nash and police we did a little drug law reform, shifting to a health-first response to addiction. We began the Government response to the Havelock North water report. We kicked off medicinal cannabis. We founded a cancer control agency and put a cancer action plan in place. More funding for Pharmac saw several new cancer treatments purchased. We extended the national bowel-screening programme. I kicked off New Zealand's very first national health asset management plan, insisting that the state of our health assets should be made transparent, and thereby destroying any chance of receiving Christmas cards from future health Ministers. We funded more primary healthcare visits, and extended zero fees to 14-year-olds. We made Paramedics a regulated workforce, recognising their professionalism. Pay equity was provided to mental health support workers, and the health workforce grew dramatically. These are some of the highlights of the first two years in Government. They flashed past—we got so much done. To the political team in the health office: Julian Robins, Adam Bennett, Julia Hayden-Carr, Jarred Griffith, Bill Frewen, Rob Beaglehole, Michelle Walsh, Morehu Rei, and all of the extraordinary private secretaries we work with—thank you. And this was all before COVID-19. During COVID, official advice changed every day to reflect emerging science. I remain extremely grateful for the Prime Minister's support of the health measures I proposed early on. In other countries, leaders found a balance that turned out to be worse for both health and the economy. In less than six months we established a successful network of community-based assessment centres. The Ministry of Health developed a world-class testing regime with over 400,000 tests completed. We established a new national close contact service with its own dedicated IT platform for contact tracing. We moved to a national distribution service for personal protective equipment. We established successful managed isolation in quarantine facilities. We ramped up telehealth services and increased resourcing for public health units; and developed a COVID-19 vaccine strategy. I won't dwell too much on the ups and downs of health Minister No. 40 during the COVID period. Much of this has had more or less well-documented coverage in the media. But I do want to place on record my thanks for the Australian federal counterpart, Greg Hunt, and state counterparts, Steven Miles and Brad Hazzard, for the frequent and frank exchanges of views and information. Trans-Tasman collaboration was an important ingredient in New Zealand's early success. By June 2020, thanks to the team of 5 million, the doctors, the nurses, the allied health workforce, and managed isolation and quarantine workers, we had eliminated COVID-19 from New Zealand. And then I resigned. I did not much enjoy returning to the backbenchers. I loved health as a portfolio and I had greatly enjoyed working with one of the smartest and most decent people I know, Grant Robertson, as his associate in the finance portfolio. But I was chuffed to be back in Cabinet after the 2020 election. It turned out that commerce and consumer affairs was a good fit for an activist menace—Minister, as a cost of living— Hon Grant Robertson: Menace is right! Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: —or menace, depending on your point of view—crisis emerged. Jacinda brought the digital economy and communications portfolios together as a challenge. I was given statistics. I asked for State-owned enterprises (SOEs) too. Shortly thereafter, it was suggested I might also take on the Earthquake Commission (EQC). Grant and Jacinda separately assured me that five portfolios would be quite manageable, and my staff might have agreed with this assessment if I wasn't inclined to meddle more broadly—speaking of menace. I pushed for a review of SOE recruitment at Treasury, which has started a process of change. To support this change, my view is that Governments of both stripes need to have courage to pay those appointed to sizeable State-owned enterprises closer to market value in order to ensure talent is made available for appointment from the pool of younger and more diverse candidates who might be supporting a mortgage or a family. Generational legislation and statistics enabling ethical oversight of emerging data collection processes and for Toka Tū Ake EQC to codify current best practice will over time improve the lives of countless New Zealanders. Thanks to Joanna Carr for marshalling the diligent officials who carefully worked through EQC law changes with me. And thanks to the insurance industry for their engagement on the role of Government in a changing insurance market response to floods. Thanks to Mark Sowden and his team at Stats New Zealand for their fine work on census—increased participation rates have not happened by accident. After collaboration with colleagues across portfolios, I was just thrilled to launch a digital strategy and action plan together with the digital industry transformation plan. This plan provides a road map to prosperity for New Zealand in a scalable, low carbon industry. Cybersecurity is an example of a valuable digital export that leverages New Zealand's trusted brand. More on that shortly. And with no small amount of support from Willie Jackson and Kelvin Davis, an enduring agreement was made with Māori regarding interests in the radio spectrum and its opportunities for involvement in the digital economy. That had been an open question since the 1980s. But by far the most high profile piece of work I've been involved with in this last term of Parliament has been the world first Grocery Industry Competition Bill. The muscle in the bill is found in the regulatory backstop measures. A huge thankyou to Andy Hume and the team at the Ministry of Business, Innovation, and Employment. I know you were all super sceptical of my regulatory backstop until interested parties candidly admitted change would never have happened without it, and I would have to say this legislation is the very definition of a Government focused on bread and butter issues. I'm also super proud of another world first, the climate disclosures law I shepherded through Parliament—work first kicked off by James Shaw and Kris Faafoi. It will ensure our big companies publicly report on their climate liabilities into the future. Climate disclosure takes our responsibilities seriously. It also positions New Zealand companies well for investment. I want to say a special thanks to the political team for the past three years: Jonathan Gee, who helped transition a very reluctant Minister for the digital economy to electronic weekend bags, and Sam Farrell, for whom everything was "not a problem". What an exciting time across a wide range of portfolios, together with Melissa Turner and Greta Eason—a small but perfectly formed team. Our democracy is thin. We have one legislative Chamber and no written constitution. Rob Muldoon used to joke that he could have an idea while shaving in the morning and it would be law by midnight. Geoffrey Palmer called us the fastest lawmakers in the West. The Government's gun law reform was hailed internationally as an example of responsive politics. And despite our vulnerability to the kind of pendulous swing that we saw in the 1980s, New Zealand also boasts one of the longest streaks of unbroken democracy in the world. I believe our secret source is to be found in the accessibility of our politicians and the fact that in our form of democracy, real change is possible. And when change is possible, good people of all political persuasions put themselves forward to be in this political arena. In this sense, the thinness of our democracy becomes a strength. But there are many threats to our democracy. Fringe parties have outspent the Labour Party at several elections, although failing to achieve a seat. The public have proven sceptical of the influence of money in our political system to date. We must continue to design donations laws to promote civic engagement but guard against foreign influence. We need a strong, well-funded fourth estate as well, and I congratulate Willie Jackson—again—on his work on the bill that was introduced to the House today to get internet giants Google and Meta supporting the generators of news content that appears on their platforms. This is one path Scott Morrison laid down that we need to follow. In order for our MPs to remain accessible in a way that grows faith in democracy, we need to grow the number of politicians in our Parliament in line with population growth. Sound, responsive institutions build faith in liberal democracy; crumbling or threatened institutions do not. And that is why malicious State actors increasingly target our democratic institutions through attacks on the vulnerable machinery that supports them, which brings me to the last topic: cyber-attacks. As the Minister for the Digital Economy and Communications, cyber kept me awake more than I had expected. We need to find a way, in my view, to declassify more restricted reports so that more Kiwis have a real sense of the real threats to our country and democracy. Like many other countries, New Zealand is woefully underprepared for the world we find ourselves in. Overseas, health systems have been targeted and whole countries have been taken offline. It doesn't require much to imagine the terrifying consequences of disruption to power and telecommunications systems across New Zealand. We've recently seen that at a regional level. In Singapore, they have 3,500 people working on digital in their Prime Minister's office, including approximately 1,800 software engineers; in our Prime Minister's department, last time I checked, we had 12. Of course, the private sector also experiences significant disruption from cyber-attacks. Our biggest high-profile international companies are alert to the risks, but many just below the top tier do not have the defensive posture required, and supply chains generate risk for even the largest businesses. Parties across this House might consider whether it's time for Government to play a greater role in subsidising cyber-security for private enterprise, given that every weak link in the supply chain represents a threat to our country's export earnings, and/or our democracy. But, in my view, an immediate logical step to improve private sector resilience is to place positive obligations on board directors. Cyber-security responsibilities akin to those introduced in the area of health and safety would drive upskilling of boards, ensuring better preparedness, all the while generating opportunities for workforce development in a high-skill, high-wage area of our economy. Finally, a few thankyous. To the class of 2011—Megan, Andrew, and Rino—12 years on, I'm the first to leave, but I leave knowing we've achieved the enviable status of 100 percent honourable. To my Opposition bench mates, Damien, Andrew, and Jacinda; in Government, Carmel and Ayesha—thanks for your company. Sorry for the hearing loss! Thanks to my Mum and Dad, here in the gallery today, and my brother and his family in the UK. To my oldest and closest friend, Paul: we have time for a whisky now. To my dear friend Daniel, who supported me through much of my time in Wellington and whose life was cut short by cancer just before COVID reached New Zealand—I still miss you, fella. To my wife: when I first ran for Parliament in 2011, we agreed nine years; it has been 12. I've stretched that agreement far enough. You have sacrificed much in your career as I have pursued this life of service. You have stood by me in good times and in hard times. I love you, and I'm coming home. My children have known no different. Amos, you were one year old when I was elected to Parliament. I am so looking forward to being home with you—the increased time we have spent hanging out this year has been so precious. Clara, I'm really enjoying your musicality and the time we spend at church together. Frances, I am looking forward to squashing you more often, and, yes, girls, we will have more time for bike riding soon! And—to close—kids, I'm looking forward to finally taking that advice you gave me at so many school fairs and other community events: "Dadda, no talking, just walking." Kia ora koutou. [Applause] Waiata—Te Aroha The House adjourned at 6.14 p.m.